Discussion paper March 2020

Detoxifying palm oilHow European Union policy could remove deforestation and human rights violations from the palm oil trade with Indonesia

This publication was produced with the assistance of the UK Department for International Development, the Life Programme of the European Union and the Ford Foundation. The views expressed can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the donors.

Discussion paper

Detoxifying palm oil: How European Union policy could remove deforestation and human rights violations from the palm oil trade with Indonesia

March 2020

Authors: Saskia Ozinga and Hugh Speechly

Cover photo: Ulet Ifansasti, Greenpeace

3

Table of Contents

Introduction 4

Abbreviations and acronyms 5

Background: Palm oil, Indonesia and the EU 6

Trade 6

Forest loss 7

Indonesian policies 8

EU policies 8

Private sector initiatives 10

Options to improve coherence 11

Context 11

Option 1: Create a deliberative bilateral process leading to a roadmap 12

Option 2: Effective implementation of the VGGT 14

Option 3: Improve coordination of EU and Member State development aid 15

Option 4: Strengthen CEPA text 15

Option 5: Include, where possible, other consuming countries 16

Annex: Detailed recommendations for addressing EU trade and consumption of Indonesian palm oil products 17

4

Introduction

Palm oil is omnipresent in our lives due to its wide range of uses. It is also the focus of many campaigns because of the detrimental impacts its production has on forests and forest-dependent communities. These campaigns have convinced many governments and businesses that coherent action in needed. As one of the world’s biggest importers of palm oil, the European Union (EU) is a large part of the problem, but it could also be an important part of the solution. For example, around 60 per cent of all palm oil is produced in Indonesia, and much of it is imported to the EU. The EU and Indonesia should therefore deliver trade and development policies which ensure palm oil production respects indigenous peoples’ and community rights and doesn’t harm forests.

What should these policies look like to be effective?

The Amazon fires have led many NGOs to call on the EU to suspend ratification of the EU Mercosur Free Trade Agreement (FTA); a call publicly supported by the President of France, Ireland’s Taoiseach, the Austrian Government and the Greens in the European Parliament. They argue that the Mercosur FTA should not be ratified until it contains strong and binding safeguards that will ensure that forests are protected and Indigenous and traditional communities’ rights to land are respected.

This is relevant for the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) negotiations between the EU and Indonesia. CEPA’s ratification could raise significant public concern and be challenged by the European Parliament and Member States unless it includes strong provisions concerning forests and human rights.

While CEPA negotiations continue, the EU has, unilaterally, ‘banned’ the use of palm oil for biofuel by 2030 - as part of its Renewable Energy Directive (RED II) - although the details are still being worked out. As the majority of EU imported palm oil is for biofuel, this will have a big impact and it is therefore no surprise that Indonesia and Malaysia are challenging it. Indonesia has formally requested that the World Trade Organisation (WTO) organises consultations with the EU to solve the issue.

At the same time, the EU has an extensive development aid programme with Indonesia and many EU Member States have policies focusing on only using sustainable palm oil. There is clearly a lack of consistency between EU trade, climate, development and consumption policies.

This discussion paper aims to provide a constructive way forward; to consider how the palm oil trade between the EU and Indonesia can benefit both parties, while mitigating deforestation and respecting rights. It is based on a research paper, Indonesia-EU palm oil trade and consumption and which documents all Indonesian palm oil initiatives we found, and outlines more information about the various options. The research paper also includes the references and sources used.

5

Abbreviations and acronyms

ADP Amsterdam Declarations Partnership

ASEAN Association of South–East Asian Nations

B20, B30, B100 diesel containing 20%, 30% and 100% biofuel

BAU business as usual

BCM–FLEG Bilateral Cooperation Mechanism on Forest Law Enforcement and Governance between China and the EU

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CEPA Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement

CFS Committee on World Food Security

CPO crude palm oil

CSPO Certified Sustainable Palm Oil

CSR corporate social responsibility

DFI Development Finance Institution

EFTA European Free Trade Area

EIDHR European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights

EU European Union

EUTR EU Timber Regulation

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations

FLEGT Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade

FTA Free Trade Agreement

GAPKI Gabungan Pengusaha Kelapa Sawit Indonesia (Indonesian Palm Oil Association)

GDP gross domestic product

GHG greenhouse gas

GPP Green Public Procurement

GSP General System of Preferences

ha Hectares

HCS high carbon stocks

HCV high conservation value

HS Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System

ILO International Labour Organisation

ILUC indirect land use change

ISCC International Sustainability and Carbon Certification

ISPO Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil

MEA Multilateral Environmental Agreement

MS Member States

NDCs Nationally Determined Contributions (to addressing climate change)

NGO non-governmental organisation

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

PKO palm kernel oil

RED Renewable Energy Directive

RSPO Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil

SDG Sustainable Development Goal

SIA Sustainability Impact Assessment

SFM Sustainable Forest management

TFA2020 Tropical Forest Alliance 2020

TSD Trade and Sustainable Development

UKCCU UK Climate Change Unit

UNDRIP UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

VGGT Voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of national food security

VPA Voluntary Partnership Agreement

WRI World Resources Institute

6

Background: Palm oil, Indonesia and the EU

Trade

In 2018, Indonesia produced 62 per cent of world palm oil, exporting 27.9 million tonnes (54.6 per cent of world trade).1 It is vital for their economy. Crude palm oil (CPO) and palm kernel oil (PKO) are Indonesia’s second biggest export earner, after coal, contributing US$16.53 billion in 2018; 9.2 per cent of its total exports and 1.6 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). The sector employs an estimated 3.78 million people. Nearly one third of all the palm oil it produces is used domestically and this percentage is likely to increase.

Figure 1. Domestic consumption of Indonesian palm oil 2009–18

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

0

5

10

15

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Mill

ion

met

ric

tons

Domestic consumption Domestic consumption % of production

0,0%

0,5%

1,0%

1,5%

2,0%

2,5%

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

GD

P co

ntri

buti

on (%

)

Val

ue (m

illio

n U

S$)

Palm oil export value (US$m) Contribution to GDP (%)

Source: United States Department of Agriculture data shown on www.indexmundi.com

Figure 2. Contribution of Indonesia’s palm oil exports to GDP

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

0

5

10

15

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Mill

ion

met

ric

tons

Domestic consumption Domestic consumption % of production

0,0%

0,5%

1,0%

1,5%

2,0%

2,5%

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

GD

P co

ntri

buti

on (%

)

Val

ue (m

illio

n U

S$)

Palm oil export value (US$m) Contribution to GDP (%)

1 By contrast, in 208 the second largest exporter was Malaysia, with exports of US$8.7 billion (28.7 per cent of world trade).

7

The EU, together with India and China, is the largest importer of Indonesia’s palm oil. Within the EU, Spain, the Netherlands and Italy are the biggest EU importers. The Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) of the EU Indonesia CEPA estimates an increase in EU exports linked with a decrease in production compared to the business as usual scenario (called the baseline scenario) which envisages continuous growth. Increased exports to the EU will therefore come from diverting exports from other countries. The Indonesian Association of Palm Oil Producers (GAPKI) estimates a fifty per cent increase in palm oil output by 2025 from 2014 levels.

Figure 3. Selected EU Member State destinations for Indonesian palm oil exports 2009-18 ($‘000)

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

20092010

20112012

20132014

20152016

20172018D

ecla

red

valu

e of

exp

orts

($ m

illio

n)

Spain Netherlands Italy Germany UK France

Source: Data derived from www.trademap.org by the International Trade Centre based on UN COMTRADE statistics.

Forest loss

Indonesia has lost 27.5 million hectares (ha) of forest over the last 35 years; 7.5 million ha of this was for agriculture, of which 2.9 million ha was due to palm oil expansion. Other environmental impacts of deforestation include loss of biodiversity and water quality and smoke and haze from peat and forest fires. Continuous growth in the sector is likely to accelerate these negative impacts. Other threats to forests come from the forestry (including pulp and paper) and mining sectors and further trade liberalisation risks further forest loss.

Human rights violations linked to palm oil production include institutionalised violations caused by the 1967 Forestry Policy and agricultural policies, laws and programmes not recognising ‘adat’ (customary) forests. This has led to land conflicts when land rights are not handled properly. Then there are plantation sector violations including forced and child labour. Between 2014 and 2018, 36 per cent of 1771 documented land conflicts were related to palm oil plantations, with 41 people killed. Trade liberalisation has adversely affected labour rights as production relies to a large extent on poor working conditions. There is a risk, spelled out in the SIA, that further liberalisation will negatively impact both Indigenous Peoples’ tenure rights and labour conditions.

8

Indonesian policies

Indonesia’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) towards the Paris Climate Agreement includes reducing emissions from forestry and land-use change by up to 91 per cent from projected 2030 levels. To contribute to this target Indonesia imposed a 2011 moratorium on converting primary forest and peatland to other uses. This was made permanent in 2019, providing protection for 166,000 km2 of forests. In addition, in 2018, the government declared a three-year moratorium on new palm oil plantations on forest land.

In 2012, the Indonesian Constitutional Court ruled that customary forest is not state forest, thus opening the way for recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ ownerships rights over forests in Indigenous territories. An Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Law has been under discussion since 2010. An estimated 54 million ha in Indonesia is held by customary right holders, of which roughly ten million has been demarcated, but only 30,000 has been formally recognised.

In 2014 President Widodo promised to register all land in the country by 2023 and presented a social forestry programme aiming to put 12.7 million ha under community management, of which 4.7 million ha would be under Indigenous Peoples’ ownership. Progress is, however, painfully slow and hampered by issues such as the Ministry for the Economy assuring the palm oil industry that it would not make data on permits for oil palm concessions publicly available and the Ministry of Land’s refusal to share detailed maps and related documents on plantation companies, despite a supreme court ruling to do so.

As noted in the SIA “a lack of a comprehensive mapping of land use and concession boundaries, along with administrative malpractices and unclear – or conflicting – legal frameworks, has resulted in the authorities depriving local communities of their land and has allowed companies to ‘land grab’ in violation of customary rights, the agrarian law and international human rights law”.

Indonesia has a mandatory palm oil certification scheme – the Indonesia Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) system and has committed to achieving 100 per cent sustainable palm oil, to “improve the competitiveness of Indonesian palm oil in the global market and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and draw attention to environmental issues”. Based primarily on Indonesia’s relevant legislation, it rates poorly compared to other schemes to certify sustainable palm oil and has minimal market recognition. An initiative to improve ISPO is under way, but it has been criticised by national civil society organisations as non-transparent and omitting key requirements, including protection of customary land rights, and coverage of smallholders.

EU policies

The EU’s RED II seeks to support EU climate change goals by requiring Member States to set targets to replace fossil fuel energy by 2030, and it allows them to offer incentives for including biofuels in their energy mix. However, it recognises that converting high carbon stock land (including forests and peatland) to produce biofuels – or displacement of existing crops to such land, risks negating gains made from changing to renewable energy.

RED II therefore stipulates that, by 2030, biofuels that have a high risk of indirect land use change (ILUC) may not count towards Member States’ obligatory targets. Palm oil has been singled out as the only agricultural crop that carries such a risk. It may only be included in targets if certified as not contributing to ILUC or if produced by smallholders occupying less than two ha.

9

In 2018 about 65 per cent of the EU’s palm oil imports were used for energy. Implementation of RED II could therefore significantly reduce palm oil imports, and Indonesia, along with other palm oil producers, sees the Directive as a barrier to trade that favours vegetable oil crops produced in the EU. In December 2019, Indonesia initiated a dispute with the EU by formally requesting that the WTO organises a consultation to solve the issue. After 60 days, if consultations have failed to resolve the dispute, Indonesia can request adjudication by a panel.

Indonesia and the EU are negotiating an FTA, known as the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA). EU tariffs on palm oil are already low (0 for most CPO) and the SIA estimates that the CEPA will not increase palm oil production in Indonesia (compared to the baseline scenario). Indonesia has proposed a separate article on vegetable oils in the Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) chapter of the CEPA, where issues of environment, human rights and sustainable trade should be addressed. This aims to ensure that palm oil is treated equitably to EU products. Recently concluded trade agreements between the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) and Indonesia – set some interesting precedents for how forests, vegetable oils and human rights could be addressed in the CEPA.2

The CEPA SIA notes that the FTA could have negative impacts on human rights and specifically Indigenous Peoples’ rights and labour conditions. It notes Indonesia’s weak implementation of Indigenous Peoples’ land rights laws and warns that increasing trade in sectors where there are concerns about land rights, it could have negative impacts. It also notes there is a risk of increased human rights violations, as raising profits could potentially disincentivise efforts to improve mechanisms to enforce private and public sector respect for Indigenous Peoples’ land rights.

The 2003 EU Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan, which aims to tackle illegal logging and the trade in illegally produced timber, has created a coherent set of instruments for change that may offer useful lessons for addressing the trade in palm oil and its impacts on forests and forest-dependent peoples. It includes formal trade agreements between the EU and timber-producing countries which define what can legally be placed on EU markets, and backs this up with development assistance to help implement legality assurance systems and promote voluntary private sector action. Indonesia was one of the first countries to enter into such an agreement and the first to implement it. The FLEGT Programme does not (yet) sufficiently address the export of timber from the (illegal) conversion of forests to palm oil plantations, a major source of timber.

The EU Indonesia development framework focuses strongly on human rights and sustainable development. The 2019 (Blue Book) development agreement focuses on economic cooperation to increase bilateral trade (including the EU’s first trade related bilateral assistance programme (worth 10 million Euro). Other priorities include supporting Indonesia with implementing its NDC and supporting civil society organisations promoting human rights and economic development. There does not appear to be a coherent set of EU actions to address palm oil production. EU Member States’ aid programmes mostly focus on projects with no overarching coordinated vision.

In July 2019 the European Commission published an Action Plan ‘Protecting and Restoring the World’s Forests’. This recognises that production of agricultural commodities is a primary cause of forest loss, and it identifies five priorities, each with a set of actions. These include measures – which could include new legislation – to reduce EU consumption of products that cause deforestation; working with commodity-producing countries to reduce pressures on their forests; strengthening international cooperation to halt deforestation and forest degradation and encourage forest restoration; respecting Indigenous Peoples’ rights; provisions in trade agreements that promote

2 See priority 3b in annex 1.

10

trade in agricultural and forest-based products that avoid deforestation or forest degradation; redirecting finance to support sustainable land-use practices; and better availability and quality of information on forest change and commodity trade flows. All of these are relevant to the discussion on the palm oil trade with Indonesia. Since the adoption of the EU Action Plan, the EU has indicated it is interested in developing a due diligence (DD) regulation for forest-risk commodities, including palm oil, aiming at avoiding placing products on the EU market produced by converting High Carbon Stock (HCS) or High Conservation Value (HCV) forests, or peatlands, or that don’t respect international human rights standards, including customary rights.

Private sector initiatives

Much private sector action focuses on certification. With nearly three quarters of EU palm oil imports for the food industry certified to the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) standard and a target of 100 per cent by 2020, EU market preferences seem clear. It is therefore not surprising that many of the private sector initiatives are based on certification of compliance with the RSPO. In response to criticisms, the RSPO amended its standard in 2018. The new standard prohibits conversion of forests and draining of peatlands and requires greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions and compliance with regulations governing land tenure and land-use rights, including respect for customary rights. Implementation remains, however, weak. Indonesia prefers to use the ISPO standard, a mandatory government standard, and has certified nearly 30 per cent of the estimated 14 million ha of its palm oil estates. Most smallholders are not yet able to comply with it. ISPO has limited market recognition and limited to no support from local or European NGOs.

Photo: Muhammad Adimaja, Greenpeace

11

Options to improve coherence

Context

Indonesia and the EU have a wide range of misunderstandings and/or different visions for how to address palm oil. In its EU Action Plan, the EU mentions its intention to go for ‘deforestation-free’ supply chains, while Indonesia talks in terms of ‘planned deforestation’ or ‘limited growth strategies’ concerning palm oil. Equally the EU points out the need to tackle ‘illegalities’ in the concession allocation or conversion process, while Indonesia prefers to talk about the ‘license review’ process. Last, Indonesia is adamant that ISPO should be treated as evidence of sustainable palm oil, while most EU stakeholders and most Indonesian civil society organisations believe that ISPO is deficient and prefer (if they prefer any certification scheme) the RSPO.

How to bridge these gaps?

The EU Action Plan to Protect and Restore the World’s Forests proposes several actions. Most attention has focussed on the commitment to examine further regulatory measures intended to create a level playing field for companies. But the Commission was at pains to iterate that this must be undertaken through a ‘partnership’ approach with producer countries, with the aim of tackling the governance issues related to the conversion of forests to agricultural land. Taken together, these actions have the potential to catalyse European Commission and Member State action. They should also encourage European civil society and private sector stakeholders, together with their Indonesian counterparts, to address seemingly intractable problems linked to palm oil production and trade, but only if a few conditions are met.

First, it is critical that all EU actions respect Indonesia’s sovereignty and support Indonesia in implementing its own laws and regulations, including all international human rights and environmental conventions it has ratified or is party to.

Second, EU action should not increase forest conversion, as that would violate both the EU’s own commitments to halt deforestation, and Indonesia’s commitment to reduce its GHG emissions as expressed in its NDC and its moratoriums on forest conversion and oil palm plantation expansion.

Third, any EU action must strengthen and support Indonesia’s commitment to respect human rights, specifically Indigenous Peoples’ customary rights to land as confirmed by Indonesia adopting the Voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of national food security (VGGT), its 2012 Constitutional Court decision, and its labour rights commitments, among others.

Last, EU action must be based on an inclusive, transparent and deliberative process in both the EU and Indonesia. This will ensure that actions are widely supported and understood by all stakeholders including private sector, NGOs, community and Indigenous Peoples’ representatives and smallholders.

Although far from perfect, the EU-Indonesia joint action on timber through the FLEGT VPA process, provides a model to learn from.

12

Annex 1 spells out what the actions defined in the EU Action Plan to Protect and Restore the World’s Forests could mean for EU Indonesia palm oil trade. Below we discuss four, non-mutually exclusive options, summarising the key actions.

The EU Action Plan to Protect and Restore the World’s Forests - through a palm oil lens

Priority 1 – “Reduce the EU consumption footprint on land and encourage the consumption of production from deforestation-free supply chains in the EU”. This is key so any EU action on palm oil and Indonesia must be framed to achieve this aim. This means ensuring that EU consumption of palm oil no longer contributes to deforestation or increased GHG emissions.

Priority 2 – “Work in partnership with producing countries to reduce pressures on forests and to ‘deforest–proof’ EU development cooperation”. This must be seen in conjunction with Priority 1. It should describe the joint EU-Indonesia working relationship and indicate what the EU and Member States can do to support Indonesia to meet its no-deforestation commitments and respect community tenure rights. As part of it, Member States must consider their own development cooperation policies and practices.

Priority 3 – “Strengthen international cooperation to halt deforestation and forest degradation and encourage forest restoration”. This should focus on developing an agreement that incentivises Indonesia to meet its no-deforestation commitment and respect community and labour rights. It should also describe ways the EU and Indonesia can bring other major consuming countries like China and India to the table, such as through trade and financing.

Priorities 4 and 5 – “Finance for sustainable land-use practices” and “Information on forests and commodity supply chains”. These are not objectives in their own right but should be seen as ‘supportive’ actions to provide the finance and information needed to achieve Priority 1 and support Priorities 2 and 3.

Below is a summary of key options for action, which are not mutually exclusive. To improve coherence, all would have to be implemented to some extent.

Option 1: Create a deliberative bilateral process leading to a roadmap

Any EU process that impacts palm oil trade, including the development of a Due Diligence Regulation for forest risk commodities, RED II or CEPA should go hand in hand with development of a shared vision within Indonesia and between the EU and Indonesia. Such a vision should be agreed through a multi-stakeholder platform with equal representation of government, private sector, local NGOs and communities (including Indonesian smallholders). Creation of a multi-stakeholder group could set a precedent for similar processes in other countries.

Both parties should commit to discussing how the CEPA can halt deforestation and increase respect for human rights and come up with a roadmap or action plan to protect forests, mitigate climate change and respect community tenure rights.

13

As part of roadmap negotiations, the EU should support Indonesia’s efforts to address forest governance issues, halt deforestation, and respect community land rights. A strong roadmap would include caveats to say, for example, that the agreement’s effectiveness was conditional on the reform of weak legislation. Requiring institutional or legislative changes before an agreement can come into force is referred to as pre-ratification conditionality.3 This approach may be the most effective way to mitigate negative impacts on forests and peoples. Several academics have proposed rules that could be agreed during negotiations and then applied to TSD-related roadmaps.4

The CEPA SIA states that the Agreement has the potential to improve governance, transparency and the rule of law in partner countries and could enable both parties to uphold their commitments to multilateral environmental and human rights agreements. But there needs to be a concrete plan.

Issues to resolve during such deliberative process include:

Ū Respecting Indigenous Peoples’ tenure rights. See also Option 2. Human rights violations and conflicts are often linked to lack of clarity of and respect for customary tenure. Support should therefore focus on effective implementation of tenure rights commitments already made by the Indonesian Government, such as: the adoption of an Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Law5 (in process since 2010); the implementation of the 2012 Constitutional Court decision addressing customary forests in Indigenous territories and the demarcation and registration of all customarily owned land. Progress is currently hampered by inadequate maps and unwillingness to share details of existing agricultural concessions – despite high-level promises to expedite the process.

Ū Creating transparent and traceable supply chains. Private sector players, local and EU based NGOs seem to have reached consensus that traceability to the plantation or smallholder is essential. In the case of Indonesia, disclosure of all Ministry of Agriculture and Planning concession agreements and maps is therefore critical.

Ū Clarifying what is meant by sustainable palm oil. There needs to be consensus on what constitutes acceptable palm oil. The recently revised RSPO standard, which now excludes forest and peatland conversion and includes recognition of community tenure rights is the most widely accepted standard in the EU. On the other hand, while ISPO is strongly favoured by the Indonesian Government and some private sector actors, it is not seen as credible or acceptable by others including other private sector actors, local and EU based NGOs, and DG Trade. However, if the Indonesian Government were to turn the ISPO process into a truly multi-stakeholder deliberative process and improves its standards in line with RSPO, this view could change. The gap between ISPO and RSPO is big, but it may not be impossible for Indonesia to develop a standard that can contribute to defining and ensuring sustainability, acceptable to both parties. In fact, the current EU funded project Terpercaya is working in Indonesia at the jurisdictional level to identify, trace and market palm oil as sustainable, based on a commonly agreed definition of 21 indicators.

3 Stakeholders acknowledge that legal reforms takes years or even decades, nonetheless, FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) often spell out the need for legal reform.4 Stoll P, Gött H, Abel P, Model Labour Chapter for EU Trade Agreements, 2017. http://www.fes-asia.org/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/2017-06-Model_Labour_Chap-

ter_DRAFT.pdf5 This law deals with all Indigenous Rights and not just tenure rights. Adoption would help clarify who owns the land and hence reduce conflicts. It would also increase transparen-

cy and make it easier for Indigenous Peoples to register their land.

14

Ū Clarifying what is illegal. Significant areas of Indonesia oil palm plantations have been established illegally6. Illegalities include allocating land in non-permitted areas, illegal permitting, use of fire for land clearing and illegal labour practices. Forest land used to be at a premium due to high commodity prices, but a subsequent decrease in demand has made development of some areas (such as a six million ha concession in West Papua) less economically viable. Encouraging Indonesia to cancel illegal or non-performing permits is a critical step in strengthening their moratoriums and implementing their palm oil permit evaluation.

Ū Assessing how best to reduce deforestation. EU and Member State policies and development aid programmes should encourage Indonesia to reduce the exceptions to its moratorium on clearing primary forests, especially those that currently allow expansion of palm oil plantations in Papua.

Option 2: Effective implementation of the VGGT

Improving forest and land governance and recognising and protecting local people(s) rights to forest lands, are two of the most important things that can be done to reduce deforestation and minimise land conflicts and associated human rights abuses.

As the SIA states: “Notably considering Indonesia’s weak implementation of laws on indigenous peoples’ land rights, increasing trade in sectors where concerns on land rights are relevant, such as forestry and agriculture, could run the risk of increased human rights violations, as raising profits could potentially disincentivise the improvement of enforcement mechanisms for indigenous peoples’ land rights by both public and private sector”.

The SIA notes that the CEPA or the wider bilateral partnership could increase respect for the rights of Indigenous communities, which are the groups most vulnerable to land grabbing and eviction. Indonesia has already adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the VGGT. It is also in the process of adopting an Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Law and implementing a Constitutional Court Decision that recognises Indigenous Peoples’ ownership of forests in customary areas. Furthermore, it has made various commitments (described above) to demarcate and register Indigenous Peoples’ lands. Support should be given to stronger enforcement measures, which the SIA notes are greatly needed in Indonesia.

The VGGT, as an international “soft law” instrument, outlines how tenure rights to land, fisheries, and forests should be handled and how its principles could represent the first global consensus on fundamental principles that underpin land tenure and land governance. The VGGT can provide comprehensive and detailed guidance on tenure governance in Indonesia and beyond – a subject which is both politically sensitive and technically complicated.

Adopting a third-country carding system to promote implementation of the VGGT, modelled on the system being implemented under the EU Regulation to End Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing (‘IUU Regulation’), could be a concrete way forward. A carding system to promote implementation of the VGGT would need to begin with the development of a baseline assessment, showing existing measures for securing and protecting tenure. It would need to be followed by a roadmap which could, in turn, be monitored to ensure good progress. This idea is further developed in Fern’s report ‘Hardening Soft Law’.

6 See for example: (i) Pramudya et. al. (2017) The disciplining of illegal palm oil plantations in Sumatra (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01436597.2017.1401462); (ii) EIA (2017) Time to get tough on environmental crime (https://eia-international.org/news/time-get-tough-environmental-crime-legality-palm-oil-essential/); (iii) Sonhaji (2017) Estimating Illegal Palm Oil Plantation Expansions in Kalimantan, Indonesia Using Land Survey and Remote Sensing Data (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320818018_estimating_illegal_palm_oil_plantation_expansions_in_kalimantan_indonesia_using_land_survey_and_remote_sensing_data)

15

Option 3: Improve coordination of EU and Member State development aid

EU and Member States’ development cooperation with Indonesia is not well coordinated. Member States and the European Commission are not sufficiently aware of what each other is doing; they focus on projects rather than on long-term change and seldom link development aid explicitly to required policy change or implementation. The EU Delegation could play a strong role in convening regular meetings with Member States’ development partners to agree a framework for cooperation and ensure that different donor programmes are well-coordinated and working towards a series of commonly agreed goals including halting deforestation and strengthening community tenure rights.

All Member States’ programmes could first address the lack of clarity and respect for customary tenure. EU and Member States’ development cooperation efforts could contribute to implementing the 2012 Constitutional Court Decision and the various commitments made to demarcate and register Indigenous territories as well as Indonesia’s “OneMap” Initiative.7 More funds for Indigenous Peoples’ land demarcation could be provided through the Tenure Facility.

Option 4: Strengthen CEPA text

CEPA negotiations provide an opportunity for EU policy coherence and for the EU to offer support to Indonesia for implementation of its NDC and its commitments to end deforestation and protect human rights. This would also help the EU meet its own no deforestation commitments.

To make that happen, the EU should strengthen the CEPA text – specifically including enforceable measures to respect human rights, including community tenure rights. It should also include language about strengthening the implementation and enforcement of existing environmental and social provisions, including those which flow from Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), notably the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Paris Agreement, which the parties have ratified. There should be specific provisions to ensure companies adhere to existing standards of corporate social responsibility. Requiring Indonesia to publish and implement its National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights.8

Finally, it is important to have effective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms in place, which will require strengthening local civil society organisations’ and communities’ capacity to monitor impacts on forests and peoples. This could be similar to the role Indonesia’s Independent Forest Monitoring network Jaringan Pemantau Independen Kehutanan (or JPIK) plays in the FLEGT VPA process. The possibility for citizens and civil society organisations to lodge formal complaints of non-compliance is also key.

A time-bound roadmap or action plan with indicators that can be monitored should be developed in a deliberative process as described under Option One. The Fern paper, “Forests and Forest People in EU Free Trade Agreements” gives detailed suggestions.

7 For more information about One Map Initiative visit: https://www.wri.org/tags/understanding-indonesias-onemap-initiative or https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/indonesia-to-kick-start-extensie-peat-land-mapping/id2506371/ which looks more closely at the issues associated with peat

8 Developed by Komnas HAM

16

Option 5: Include, where possible, other consuming countries

Although the EU is an important destination for Indonesia’s palm oil products, it currently accounts for only around 14 per cent by value of exports and its share is declining. It is therefore important to encourage other major importers to act. The two key destinations are India and China. Any EU Action should be discussed with these major players with the aim of developing mutually supportive policy frameworks. The EU’s Bilateral Cooperation Mechanism for Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (BCM-FLEG) has provided a platform for the EU and China to discuss approaches to tackling the trade in illegal timber products and may provide a model for a similar mechanism in respect of palm oil.

Photo: CIFOR

17

Ann

ex:

Det

aile

d re

com

men

dati

ons

for a

ddre

ssin

g EU

trad

e an

d co

nsum

ptio

n of

Indo

nesi

an p

alm

oil

prod

ucts

This

Ann

ex c

onsi

ders

all

aspe

cts

iden

tified

und

er e

ach

of th

e fiv

e pr

iorit

ies

set o

ut in

the

2019

EU

Act

ion

Plan

to P

rote

ct a

nd R

esto

re th

e W

orld

’s Fo

rest

s an

d id

entifi

es th

eir r

elev

ance

and

prio

rity

for a

ddre

ssin

g pr

oduc

tion

of p

alm

oil

in In

done

sia

and

EU tr

ade

in a

nd c

onsu

mpt

ion

of In

done

sian

pal

m o

il.

Prio

rity 1

: Red

uce E

U co

nsum

ptio

n fo

otpr

int o

n la

nd an

d en

cour

age c

onsu

mpt

ion

of p

rodu

cts f

rom

def

ores

tatio

n-fre

e sup

ply c

hain

s in

the E

U.

With

in P

riorit

y 1 A

ctio

n c)

is th

e mos

t im

port

ant.

Activ

ities

a) an

d b)

, if w

ell e

xecu

ted,

coul

d co

mpl

emen

t and

supp

ort a

ctio

n c).

Prop

osed

EU Ac

tion i

n Acti

on Pl

anRe

com

men

ded a

ction

conc

erning

a co

heren

t app

roac

h re E

U –

Indon

esia

and p

alm oi

lCo

mm

ents,

Prior

ity an

d obs

tacle

s

a)

Esta

blish

a m

ulti-s

take

holde

r an

d Mem

ber S

tate

(MS)

pla

tform

for d

ialog

ue.

The A

mste

rdam

Dec

larat

ions P

artn

ersh

ip (A

DP) i

s a Eu

rope

an m

ulti-n

ation

al pla

tform

in w

hich t

here

is a

stron

g foc

us on

palm

oil,

back

ed by

the g

over

nmen

ts of

mos

t majo

r palm

oil c

onsu

ming

coun

tries

. Mor

e Mem

ber S

tate

s – es

pecia

lly th

ose w

ith si

gnifi

cant

im

ports

– sh

ould

be en

cour

aged

to jo

in th

e ADP

. Its m

embe

rs sh

ould

com

mit

to se

tting

and a

chiev

ing sp

ecifi

c tar

gets

in re

lation

to

100%

Certi

fied S

usta

inable

Palm

Oil (

CSPO

) im

ports

using

at le

ast t

he cu

rrent

crite

ria (R

SPO

or In

tern

ation

al Su

staina

bility

an

d Car

bon C

ertifi

catio

n (ISC

C)).

In or

der t

o ens

ure a

leve

l play

ing fie

ld fo

r the

best

oper

ator

s, EU

mar

ket r

egula

tion (

see b

elow)

sh

ould

be on

the a

gend

a. W

ithou

t a cl

ear a

ction

plan

, ADP

risks

rem

aining

a ta

lking

shop

.

TFA2

020,

which

is a

mult

i-sta

keho

lder p

latfo

rm, in

cludin

g the

Gove

rnm

ents

of th

e Net

herla

nds a

nd th

e UK a

nd N

orwa

y as w

ell as

th

e gov

ernm

ent o

f Indo

nesia

and t

he m

ain pa

lm oi

l pro

duce

rs an

d NGO

s, co

uld be

anot

her u

sefu

l plat

form

. To d

ate it

risks

being

a ta

lking

shop

, but

this

may

chan

ge, if

its m

embe

rs pu

t the

ir weig

ht be

hind a

call f

or re

gulat

ion by

the s

ecret

ariat

.

Neith

er of

thes

e plat

form

s dea

ls on

ly wi

th pa

lm oi

l and

Indo

nesia

. Cre

ating

a m

ulti-s

take

holde

r plat

form

, eith

er lin

ked w

ith th

e AD

P or T

FA20

20, o

r sep

arat

ely, t

o adv

ise th

e EU

in re

lation

to th

e ong

oing C

EPA n

egot

iation

s – or

mor

e gen

erall

y the

Actio

n Plan

–

may

be a

cons

tructi

ve an

d fru

itful

way f

orwa

rd.

Man

y NGO

s in t

he EU

and s

ome i

n Ind

ones

ia str

ongly

oppo

se in

clusio

n of p

alm oi

l in CE

PA be

caus

e the

y beli

eve t

hat t

his w

ill lea

d to

incre

ased

palm

oil im

ports

with

nega

tive s

ocial

and h

uman

right

s im

pacts

. How

ever,

othe

rs be

lieve

that

inclu

ding p

alm oi

l in th

e CE

PA te

xt w

ill cre

ate op

portu

nities

to pu

t defo

resta

tion a

nd te

nure

right

s on t

he ag

enda

. Crea

ting a

mult

i-sta

keho

lder p

latfor

m to

de

velop

a ro

adm

ap in

an in

clusiv

e, tra

nspa

rent a

nd pa

rticip

atory

way

that

show

s how

CEPA

could

supp

ort In

done

sia ec

onom

ically

wh

ile ha

lting

palm

oil-r

elated

defor

estat

ion co

uld be

an im

porta

nt pr

e-co

nditi

on fo

r con

cludin

g a su

ccessf

ul tra

de ag

reem

ent a

nd

also a

pote

ntial

ly po

werfu

l too

l to a

ddre

ss de

fore

statio

n and

com

mun

ity te

nure

right

s.

The E

U-AS

EAN

(Asso

ciatio

n of S

outh

–Eas

t Asia

n Nat

ions)

Wor

king G

roup

on Pa

lm O

il may

also

prov

ide op

portu

nities

to in

volve

a br

oade

r ran

ge of

stak

ehold

ers.

Howe

ver, s

ince i

ts es

tabli

shm

ent,

little

info

rmat

ion ha

s bee

n pro

vided

on it

s role

and f

uncti

oning

.

Prio

rity a

ctio

n bu

t link

ed to

Actio

ns 1c

and 3

a. No

t a se

lf-sta

nding

actio

n

Crea

ting p

latfo

rms f

or di

alogu

e is i

mpo

rtant

bu

t to p

reve

nt an

y plat

form

from

beco

ming

a “ta

lking

shop

”, con

crete

goals

with

mile

stone

s sh

ould

be fo

rmula

ted a

nd ta

sks a

lloca

ted t

o its

parti

cipan

ts.

Mult

i-sta

keho

lder p

latfo

rms,

wher

e sta

keho

lder

grou

ps fe

el em

powe

red t

o set

the a

gend

a, m

ake

decis

ions t

hrou

gh a

delib

erat

ive pr

oces

s and

co

llecti

vely

mov

e for

ward

, are

likely

to ha

ve

grea

ter im

pact

than

thos

e whic

h inc

lude o

nly

gove

rnm

ents

or on

ly NG

Os or

only

priva

te se

ctor.

18

Prio

rity 1

: Red

uce E

U co

nsum

ptio

n fo

otpr

int o

n la

nd an

d en

cour

age c

onsu

mpt

ion

of p

rodu

cts f

rom

def

ores

tatio

n-fre

e sup

ply c

hain

s in

the E

U.

b)

Stre

ngth

en st

anda

rds a

nd

certi

ficat

ion sc

hem

es.

The i

mpa

cts on

the g

roun

d of c

ertifi

catio

n rem

ain di

sput

ed, le

ading

to cr

iticis

ms o

f all p

alm oi

l cer

tifica

tion s

chem

es. T

he re

vised

RS

PO is

now

cons

idere

d to s

et th

e high

est s

tand

ard a

nd IS

PO th

e low

est. T

o hav

e any

posit

ive im

pacts

, effo

rts un

der t

his he

ading

ne

ed to

be at

leas

t two

-pro

nged

.

First,

ISPO

shou

ld be

stre

ngth

ened

. Cur

rent

ly ISP

O is

wide

ly se

en as

not c

redib

le. If,

howe

ver, t

he In

done

sian G

over

nmen

t wer

e to

open

up th

e ISP

O pr

oces

s and

crea

te a

delib

erat

ive in

clusiv

e and

parti

cipat

ive pr

oces

s to r

evise

and f

urth

er de

velop

the I

SPO

stand

ard s

o tha

t it g

oes b

eyon

d leg

al re

quire

men

ts an

d bec

omes

acce

ptab

le to

loca

l and

EU N

GOs a

nd th

e priv

ate s

ecto

r, this

co

uld ch

ange

. Sec

ond,

the E

U an

d Mem

ber S

tate

s sho

uld en

cour

age o

ther

certi

ficat

ion sc

hem

es, in

cludin

g ISC

C, to

requ

ire

stron

ger r

ecog

nition

of te

nure

right

s of lo

cal c

omm

uniti

es.

Furth

erm

ore,

the s

tand

ard t

hat t

he EU

is de

velop

ing fo

r cer

tifyin

g RED

II co

nfor

mity

relat

ed to

ILUC

shou

ld inc

lude h

uman

right

s as

well

as fo

rest

and e

cosy

stem

crite

ria an

d be d

evelo

ped i

n a de

liber

ative

mult

i-sta

keho

lder p

roce

ss.

Not a

prior

ity ac

tion b

ut co

uld be

supp

ortiv

e to

actio

n 1c.

As w

ith In

done

sia’s “

SVLK

” for

tim

ber,

stren

gthe

ning I

SPO

would

help

deve

lopm

ent

of a

hom

e-gr

own s

tand

ard a

nd ve

rifica

tion

syste

m th

at m

eets

inter

natio

nal b

est p

racti

ces.

Howe

ver, t

his w

ould

need

cons

idera

ble w

ork

with

mar

kets

and N

GOs t

o dem

onstr

ate a

t lea

st its

equiv

alenc

e to R

SPO.

Give

n, ho

weve

r, tha

t onl

y abo

ut 20

per c

ent o

f pa

lm oi

l cur

rent

ly m

eets

the R

SPO

stand

ard,

the c

hoice

of in

creas

ing re

quire

men

ts, ve

rsus

enco

urag

ing w

ider u

se of

curre

nt st

anda

rd,

need

s car

eful c

onsid

erat

ion.

c) As

sess

addit

ional

dem

and-

side

regu

lator

y mea

sure

s to c

reat

e a

level

playin

g field

.

A due

dilig

ence

legis

lation

could

take

two d

iffer

ent f

orm

s. 1)

Focu

s on t

he pr

oduc

ts an

d 2) f

ocus

on th

e com

pany

. If fo

cuse

d on

the p

rodu

ct, th

e aim

wou

ld be

to av

oid pl

acing

palm

oil p

rodu

cts on

the E

U m

arke

t tha

t are

prod

uced

from

plan

tatio

ns

esta

blish

ed by

conv

ertin

g HCS

or H

CV fo

rest,

or pe

atlan

ds, o

r with

out r

espe

cting

hum

an rig

hts. T

his w

ould

follo

w log

ically

fro

m re

gulat

ions c

once

rning

illeg

al tim

ber, fi

sh an

d con

flict

mine

rals.

Such

a re

gulat

ion w

ould

requ

ire im

porte

rs to

be ab

le to

dem

onstr

ate t

hat t

hey c

ould

trace

their

supp

lies a

nd en

sure

their

supp

ly ch

ain is

or be

com

es fr

ee fr

om de

fore

statio

n and

hu

man

right

s abu

ses.

Like t

he EU

Regu

lation

on Co

nflict

Mine

rals,

whic

h was

base

d on O

ECD

Guide

lines

, the

OEC

D Gu

idelin

es fo

r Ag

ricult

ural

Supp

ly Ch

ains c

ould

be a

good

basis

for s

uch a

Due

Dilig

ence

Regu

lation

. Con

cern

ing de

fore

statio

n, su

ch le

gislat

ion

would

possi

bly re

quire

a cu

t-off

date

to co

ver o

nly p

lanta

tions

esta

blish

ed af

ter a

defin

ed da

te an

d may

also

have

to co

ver a

ll ve

geta

ble oi

ls to

com

ply w

ith W

TO ru

les.

Such

a re

gulat

ion w

ould

have

to go

hand

in ha

nd w

ith m

easu

res t

o sup

port

Indo

nesia

in co

ntro

lling p

alm oi

l pro

ducti

on by

im

prov

ing go

vern

ance

in th

e sec

tor a

nd m

itiga

ting r

isks o

f sim

ply re

direc

ting t

he tr

ade t

o oth

er m

arke

ts.

If foc

used

on th

e com

pany

, a du

e dilig

ence

legis

lation

shou

ld re

quire

com

panie

s im

porti

ng or

prod

ucing

palm

oil o

r all f

ores

t risk

co

mm

oditi

es to

have

plan

s in p

lace t

o ens

ure t

hat t

here

is no

defo

resta

tion o

r hum

an rig

hts a

buse

s in t

heir v

alue c

hain.

Such

a re

gulat

ion co

uld bu

ild e.

g. on

the F

renc

h Loi

de Vi

gilan

ce.

Prio

rity a

ctio

n.

Imple

men

tatio

n of t

he EU

Tim

ber R

egula

tion

(EUT

R) ha

s sho

wn th

at re

quiri

ng EU

oper

ator

s to

dem

onstr

ate t

hat t

hey h

ave c

ontro

l ove

r the

ir su

pply

chain

s to m

inim

ise th

e risk

of pl

acing

no

n-co

mpli

ant p

rodu

cts on

the m

arke

t is a

n eff

ectiv

e way

to ch

ange

beha

viour.

Such

a re

gulat

ion w

ould

also c

omple

men

t leg

islat

ion ad

opte

d by s

ome M

embe

r Sta

tes

to ta

ckle

hum

an rig

hts a

nd en

viron

men

tal

violat

ions;

e.g., t

he D

utch

law

on ch

ild la

bour

in

supp

ly ch

ains a

nd th

e Fre

nch L

oi de

Vigil

ance

and

the E

U No

n-Fin

ancia

l Rep

ortin

g Dire

ctive

.

19

Prio

rity 1

: Red

uce E

U co

nsum

ptio

n fo

otpr

int o

n la

nd an

d en

cour

age c

onsu

mpt

ion

of p

rodu

cts f

rom

def

ores

tatio

n-fre

e sup

ply c

hain

s in

the E

U.

And

enha

nced

impl

emen

tatio

n of

:

Prop

osed

EU Ac

tion i

n Acti

on Pl

anRe

com

men

ded a

ction

conc

erning

a co

heren

t app

roac

h re E

U –

Indon

esia

and p

alm oi

lPr

iority

and o

bsta

cles

• As

sessi

ng th

e nee

d to r

equir

e co

rpor

ate b

oard

s to d

evelo

p an

d disc

lose a

susta

inable

str

ateg

y and

prom

oting

th

e int

egra

tion o

f for

est

relat

ed co

nside

ratio

ns in

to

corp

orat

e soc

ial re

spon

sibilit

y/re

spon

sible

busin

ess c

ondu

ct pr

actic

es.

The c

ompa

ny du

e dilig

ence

regu

lation

men

tione

d und

er c)

shou

ld inc

lude r

equir

emen

ts fo

r com

panie

s to d

evelo

p a su

staina

bility

str

ateg

y and

their

boar

ds to

sign

off on

this.

The E

U No

n-Fin

ancia

l Rep

ortin

g Dire

ctive

lays d

own r

ules o

n disc

losur

e of n

on-fi

nanc

ial an

d dive

rsity

info

rmat

ion by

requ

iring

lar

ge co

mpa

nies t

o rep

ort o

n the

polic

ies th

ey im

plem

ent i

n rela

tion t

o env

ironm

enta

l pro

tecti

on, s

ocial

resp

onsib

ility a

nd

treat

men

t of e

mplo

yees

, resp

ect f

or hu

man

right

s, an

ti-co

rrupt

ion an

d brib

ery e

tc.

The n

on-le

gally

bind

ing gu

idelin

es fo

r rep

ortin

g clim

ate c

hang

e im

pacts

inclu

de ag

ricult

ure,

food

and f

ores

t pro

ducts

. Add

ition

s to

thes

e guid

eline

s cou

ld be

mad

e mor

e spe

cific t

o palm

oil, l

inking

RED

II, re

levan

t tra

de ag

reem

ents

and p

rivat

e sec

tor

initia

tives

such

as th

e ADP

. As m

entio

ned a

bove

, laws

in so

me M

embe

r Sta

tes a

lread

y req

uire b

oard

s or d

irecto

rs to

repo

rt on

hu

man

right

s abu

ses l

ike ch

ild la

bour

etc.

Linke

d to A

ction

1c.

• Fu

rther

inte

grat

ing

defo

resta

tion c

onsid

erat

ions

with

in EU

Ecola

bel a

nd

supp

ortin

g and

deve

loping

inf

orm

ation

and e

duca

tion

mat

erial

s

The e

ffecti

vene

ss of

the E

U Ec

olabe

l is do

ubtfu

l. The

follo

wing

actio

n wou

ld, ho

weve

r, im

prov

e con

siste

ncy.

User

Man

uals

for t

he ap

plica

tion o

f the

EU Ec

olabe

l to d

eter

gent

s and

clea

ning p

rodu

cts an

d for

rinse

-off

cosm

etic

prod

ucts

includ

e crit

eria

for s

usta

inable

sour

cing o

f palm

oil a

nd th

eir de

rivat

ives. T

his st

ates

that

, ingo

ing su

bsta

nces

used

in th

e pro

ducts

wh

ich ar

e der

ived f

rom

palm

oil o

r palm

kern

el oil

shall

be so

urce

d fro

m pl

anta

tions

that

mee

t the

requ

irem

ents

of a

certi

ficat

ion

schem

e for

susta

inable

prod

uctio

n. Th

e cer

tifica

tion s

chem

e mus

t be b

ased

on m

ulti-s

take

holde

r gov

erna

nce a

nd ha

ve a

broa

d m

embe

rship,

inclu

ding N

GOs,

indus

try an

d gov

ernm

ent.

It m

ust a

ddre

ss en

viron

men

tal im

pacts

inclu

ding o

n soil

, biod

iversi

ty,

orga

nic ca

rbon

stoc

ks an

d con

serv

ation

of na

tura

l reso

urce

s. Ev

idenc

e may

inclu

de RS

PO ce

rtific

ates

. For

chem

ical d

eriva

tives

of

palm

oil a

nd fo

r palm

kern

el oil

, it is

acce

ptab

le to

dem

onstr

ate s

usta

inabil

ity th

roug

h boo

k and

claim

syste

ms s

uch a

s Gre

enPa

lm

certi

ficat

es or

equiv

alent

by pr

ovidi

ng th

e Ann

ual C

omm

unica

tions

of Pr

ogre

ss de

clare

d am

ount

s of p

rocu

red a

nd re

deem

ed

Gree

nPalm

certi

ficat

es du

ring t

he m

ost r

ecen

t ann

ual t

radin

g per

iod.

Not a

prior

ity ac

tion.

• Re

viewi

ng re

levan

t asp

ects

of

Com

miss

ion D

elega

ted A

ct an

d ac

com

pany

ing re

port

The r

epor

t acco

mpa

nying

the D

elega

ted A

ct tre

ats a

ll biof

uel d

erive

d fro

m pa

lm oi

l as i

nelig

ible t

o be c

ount

ed in

Mem

ber

Stat

es’ 2

030 t

arge

t, un

less c

ertifi

ed as

low-

ILUC r

isk. T

his ha

s bee

n crit

icise

d in t

hat i

t lim

its th

e acce

ptan

ce of

plan

tatio

ns w

hich

are n

ot ex

pand

ing, o

r whic

h are

not e

xpan

ding i

nto H

CV or

HCS

fore

st or

peat

land.

The c

riter

ia fo

r cer

tifyin

g low

-ILUC

risk a

nd

the q

ualifi

catio

ns of

certi

ficat

ion bo

dies h

ave n

ot ye

t bee

n pub

lishe

d. In

orde

r to i

ncen

tivise

prod

ucer

s to m

ove t

o con

siste

nt

stand

ards

with

rega

rd to

fore

sts an

d hum

an rig

hts,

the r

eview

shou

ld co

nside

r crit

eria

which

allow

for in

clusio

n of s

tand

ards

that

ar

e equ

ivalen

t to o

r exc

eed t

he re

vised

RSPO

stan

dard

.

Prio

rity a

ctio

n to

brin

g co

here

nce

20

Prio

rity 1

: Red

uce E

U co

nsum

ptio

n fo

otpr

int o

n la

nd an

d en

cour

age c

onsu

mpt

ion

of p

rodu

cts f

rom

def

ores

tatio

n-fre

e sup

ply c

hain

s in

the E

U.

• Im

plem

entin

g the

FLEG

T wo

rkpla

nTh

ere i

s a bo

dy of

evide

nce s

howi

ng th

at si

gnifi

cant

area

s of o

il palm

plan

tatio

ns in

Indo

nesia

have

been

esta

blish

ed ill

egall

y,9 inc

luding

a ne

w re

port

from

the g

over

nmen

t’s Au

dit Bo

ard.

This

may

be du

e to a

lloca

ting l

and i

n non

-per

mitt

ed ar

eas;

illega

l pe

rmitt

ing, u

se of

fire i

n esta

blish

men

t and

illeg

al lab

our p

racti

ces.

Timbe

r pro

ducts

com

ing fr

om th

is ty

pe of

fore

st lan

d con

versi

on th

at ar

e exp

orte

d to t

he EU

, wou

ld ne

ed to

be co

vere

d by

FLEG

T lice

nces

, whic

h aut

omat

ically

mee

t EUT

R due

dilig

ence

requ

irem

ents.

Ther

efore,

use o

f FLE

GT in

strum

ents

in re

lation

to

Indo

nesia

n palm

oil p

rodu

ction

wou

ld ne

ed to

focu

s on t

he ro

bustn

ess o

f the

licen

sing o

f palm

oil c

once

ssion

s by I

ndon

esian

au

thor

ities

and p

rodu

ction

of ti

mbe

r fro

m th

em in

the c

onve

rsion

proc

ess.

Wor

king t

hrou

gh th

e VPA

Joint

Imple

men

tatio

n Com

mitt

ee, E

U eff

orts

shou

ld inc

lude r

eque

sting

Indo

nesia

n aut

horit

ies to

inc

reas

e the

tran

spar

ency

of in

form

ation

, inclu

ding t

hat r

esult

ing fr

om th

e mor

ator

ium re

view,

conc

ernin

g the

boun

darie

s and

ot

her d

etail

s of o

il palm

plan

tatio

ns an

d the

ir leg

ality

(or o

ther

wise

) in o

rder

to st

reng

then

inde

pend

ent m

onito

ring.

Prio

rity a

ctio

n, d

ue to

the l

arge

area

of

fore

sts a

llege

d to

hav

e bee

n ill

egal

ly

allo

cate

d or

clea

red

for p

alm

oil

conc

essio

ns.

Past

incre

ases

in co

mm

odity

price

s hav

e led

to

alloc

ation

of fo

rest

land f

or co

nces

sions

in

man

y cas

es ill

egall

y, an

d ofte

n in v

iolat

ion of

co

mm

unity

tenu

re rig

hts.

Subs

eque

nt de

creas

ed

dem

and h

as m

ade d

evelo

ping s

ignifi

cant

area

s of

such

land

econ

omica

lly un

viable

and f

ores

t co

ver is

still

intac

t. The

re is

a ris

k tha

t this

land

wi

ll be d

evelo

ped i

n fut

ure a

nd th

e for

ests

lost.

Whe

re th

ere i

s evid

ence

of ill

egali

ty or

othe

rwise

no

n-pe

rform

ing co

nces

sion l

icenc

es, t

he la

nd

shou

ld be

retu

rned

to th

e for

est e

state

.

9 Se

e for

exam

ple: (

i) Pr

amud

ya et

. al. (

2017

) The

disc

iplini

ng of

illeg

al pa

lm oi

l plan

tation

s in S

umatr

a (ht

tps:/

/www

.tand

fonlin

e.com

/doi/

full/

10.10

80/0

1436

597.2

017.1

4014

62);

(ii) E

IA (2

017)

Tim

e to g

et to

ugh o

n env

ironm

ental

crim

e (ht

tps:/

/eia-

intern

ation

al.org

/new

s/tim

e-ge

t-tou

gh-e

n-vir

onm

ental

-crim

e-leg

ality-

palm

-oil-

esse

ntial

/); (i

ii) So

nhaji

(201

7) Es

timati

ng Ill

egal

Palm

Oil P

lantat

ion Ex

pans

ions i

n Kali

man

tan, In

done

sia U

sing L

and S

urve

y and

Rem

ote S

ensin

g Data

(http

s://w

ww.re

searc

hgate

.net/p

ublic

ation

/320

8180

18_e

stim

ating

_ille

gal_

palm

_oil_

plant

ation

_ex-

pans

ions_

in_ka

liman

tan_i

ndon

esia_

using

_lan

d_su

rvey_

and_

remot

e_se

nsing

_data

)

21

Prio

rity 2

: Wor

k in

part

ners

hip

with

pro

ducin

g co

untr

ies t

o red

uce p

ress

ures

on fo

rest

s and

to ‘d

efor

est p

roof

’ EU

deve

lopm

ent c

oope

ratio

n.

Finan

cial a

nd te

chni

cal s

uppo

rt sh

ould

be fo

cuse

d on

supp

ortin

g the

Indo

nesia

n Go

vern

men

t and

fore

st pe

ople

s in

impl

emen

ting i

ts co

mm

itmen

ts on

hal

ting d

efor

esta

tion

and r

espe

ctin

g rig

hts.

Prop

osed

EU Ac

tion i

n Acti

on Pl

anRe

com

men

ded a

ction

conc

erning

a co

heren

t app

roac

h re E

U-Ind

ones

ia an

d palm

oil

Prior

ity an

d obs

tacle

s

a)

Defo

resta

tion i

s inc

luded

in

polit

ical d

ialog

ues a

nd na

tiona

l fra

mew

orks

on fo

rests

Give

n the

sign

ifica

nce o

f palm

oil in

EU In

done

sia tr

ade a

nd th

e like

ly im

pacts

of RE

D II,

ther

e is a

clea

r nee

d for

the E

U an

d M

embe

r Sta

tes’ d

evelo

pmen

t coo

pera

tion p

rogr

amm

es in

Indo

nesia

to fo

cus o

n Ind

ones

ian pa

lm oi

l pro

ducti

on. E

U an

d Mem

ber

Stat

es’ cu

rrent

coop

erat

ion pr

ogra

mm

es ap

pear

to be

unfo

cuse

d an u

ncoo

rdina

ted.

The E

U De

legat

ion sh

ould

play a

stro

ng ro

le in

conv

ening

regu

lar m

eetin

gs w

ith M

embe

r Sta

te de

velop

men

t par

tner

s to a

gree

a f

ram

ewor

k for

coop

erat

ion an

d ens

ure t

hat d

iffer

ent d

onor

prog

ram

mes

are w

ell-c

oord

inate

d and

wor

king t

owar

ds a

serie

s of

com

mon

goals

inclu

ding h

alting

defo

resta

tion a

nd st

reng

then

ing co

mm

unity

tenu

re rig

hts.

An ex

ample

can b

e the

FLEG

T Acti

on Pl

an, w

here

coor

dinat

ion in

partn

er co

untri

es w

orkin

g tow

ards

imple

men

ting V

PAs,

was

well p

lanne

d with

regu

lar m

eetin

gs of

a FL

EGT w

orkin

g gro

up an

d acce

ptan

ce of

lead

roles

by M

embe

r Sta

tes w

ith te

chnic

al su

ppor

t pro

vided

by th

e EU

FLEG

T Fac

ility.

A sim

ilar a

ppro

ach t

o wor

king w

ith In

done

sian p

alm oi

l cou

ld be

cons

idere

d. Ke

y ele

men

ts co

uld in

clude

:

• pla

nning

and a

chiev

emen

t of N

DC ta

rget

s aim

ed at

the h

igher

-leve

l am

bition

thro

ugh c

onse

rvat

ion an

d res

tora

tion.

• str

engt

henin

g lan

d allo

catio

n and

man

agem

ent r

egula

tions

, inclu

ding b

ette

r map

ping a

nd gr

eate

r tra

nspa

renc

y of

conc

essio

ns. P

riorit

y sho

uld be

give

n to e

nsur

ing th

at in

form

ation

is av

ailab

le on

the o

wner

ship,

exte

nt an

d exa

ct loc

ation

s of

oil p

alm pl

anta

tions

to de

term

ine th

eir le

galit

y reg

ardin

g bot

h for

est a

nd pe

atlan

d, an

d also

Indig

enou

s Peo

ples’ c

laim

s re

lated

to th

e 201

2 Con

stitu

tiona

l Cou

rt de

cision

.

• su

ppor

ting i

mple

men

tatio

n of t

he Co

nstit

ution

al Co

urt d

ecisi

on an

d Ind

ones

ia’s “

OneM

ap” In

itiat

ive10

and d

emar

catio

n of

Indig

enou

s lan

ds.

• su

ppor

t for

stre

ngth

ening

ISPO

and m

aking

the s

yste

m m

ore a

ccoun

table

– if

the G

over

nmen

t is o

pen t

o cre

ating

a tru

ly de

liber

ative

proc

ess,

includ

ing co

mm

unity

repr

esen

tativ

es an

d sm

allho

lders.

Prio

rity a

ctio

n

10

For m

ore in

form

ation

abou

t One

Map

Initia

tive v

isit: h

ttps:/

/www

.wri.o

rg/ta

gs/u

nders

tandin

g-ind

ones

ias-o

nem

ap-in

itiativ

e or h

ttps:/

/www

.regje

ringe

n.no/

en/a

ktuelt

/indo

nesia

-to-k

ick-st

art-e

xtens

ie-pe

at-lan

d-m

appin

g/id2

5063

71/ w

hich l

ooks

more

clos

ely at

the i

ssues

asso

ciated

with

peat

22

Prio

rity 2

: Wor

k in

part

ners

hip

with

pro

ducin

g co

untr

ies t

o red

uce p

ress

ures

on fo

rest

s and

to ‘d

efor

est p

roof

’ EU

deve

lopm

ent c

oope

ratio

n.

b)

EU su

ppor

t for

agric

ultur

e, inf

rastr

uctu

re, m

ining

etc.

does

no

t con

tribu

te to

defo

resta

tion

and d

egra

datio

n

This

actio

n are

a is l

ikely

to be

dire

ctly r

eleva

nt on

ly wh

ere E

U an

d Mem

ber S

tate

supp

ort i

s for

inve

stmen

t in p

alm oi

l pro

ducti

on,

for e

xam

ple, w

here

Dev

elopm

ent F

inanc

e Ins

titut

ions (

DFIs)

are i

nves

ting i

n oil p

alm es

tate

s or p

alm oi

l pro

cessi

ng; o

r whe

re

deve

lopm

ent c

oope

ratio

n aim

s to h

elp sm

allho

lders

incre

ase p

rodu

ction

. In th

ese c

ases

, safe

guar

ds to

prot

ect f

ores

ts an

d ens

ure

hum

an rig

hts a

re re

spec

ted s

hould

be bu

ilt in

to pr

oject

desig

n.

Howe

ver, i

t cou

ld als

o inc

lude s

uppo

rt fo

r plan

ned s

witch

es fr

om fo

ssil fu

els to

biof

uel in

relat

ion to

Indo

nesia

’s tra

nspo

rt an

d en

ergy

polic

ies. In

thes

e cas

es, im

pacts

on fo

rests

and h

uman

right

s of a

ny EU

or M

embe

r Sta

te su

ppor

t for

imple

men

tatio

n of

Indo

nesia

’s “B3

0”11

or m

ore a

mbit

ious b

iofue

l poli

cies w

ould

need

care

ful s

crutin

y.

DFIs’

finan

cing a

lread

y exc

ludes

destr

uctio

n of

HCV a

reas

and s

uppo

rt to

busin

esse

s inv

olved

in

child

labo

ur or

force

d lab

our. T

hey a

lso ai

m

to “E

nsur

e a pr

even

tive a

nd pr

ecau

tiona

ry

appr

oach

with

resp

ect t

o the

envir

onm

enta

l an

d soc

ial im

pacts

of ou

r inve

stee c

ompa

nies,

giving

high

atte

ntion

to th

e int

eres

ts of

aff

ecte

d peo

ple. If

nega

tive e

nviro

nmen

tal o

r so

cial im

pacts

are u

navo

idable

, the

y mus

t be

appr

opria

tely

miti

gate

d or c

ompe

nsat

ed fo

r”12

Desp

ite th

is, th

ere a

re se

vera

l cas

e stu

dies o

f DF

Is be

ing in

volve

d in p

rojec

ts inv

olving

fore

st de

struc

tion a

nd fo

rced l

abou

r.

c) He

lp pa

rtner

coun

tries

im

plem

ent s

usta

inable

fo

rest-

base

d valu

e cha

ins

and p

rom

ote s

usta

inable

bio-

econ

omies

This

shou

ld go

hand

in ha

nd w

ith ac

tions

1c an

d 2a.

d)

Deve

lop an

d im

plem

ent

incen

tive m

echa

nism

s for

sm

allho

lders

to m

ainta

in an

d en

hanc

e eco

syste

m se

rvice

s

This

shou

ld go

hand

in ha

nd w

ith ac

tions

1c an

d 2a.

A pre

requ

isite

is re

giste

ring a

nd or

ganis

ing

small

holde

rs as

small

busin

ess e

ntiti

es. T

his w

ill leg

alise

them

and h

elp th

em pl

ay m

ore p

ositi

ve

roles

in th

e sup

ply ch

ain.

11

Refer

ring t

o fue

l con

tainin

g 30 p

er ce

nt bi

ofuel

12

Europ

ean D

evelo

pmen

t Fina

nce I

nstit

ution

s’ Prin

ciples

for R

espo

nsibl

e Fina

ncing

(http

s://w

ww.fin

nfun

d.fi/e

n/im

pact/

corp

orate

-resp

onsib

ility/

edfi-

princ

iples

-for-r

espo

nsibl

e-fin

ancin

g/)

23

Prio

rity 2

: Wor

k in

part

ners

hip

with

pro

ducin

g co

untr

ies t

o red

uce p

ress

ures

on fo

rest

s and

to ‘d

efor

est p

roof

’ EU

deve

lopm

ent c

oope

ratio

n.

And

enha

nced

impl

emen

tatio

n of

:

Prop

osed

EU Ac

tion i

n Acti

on Pl

anRe

com

men

ded a

ction

conc

erning

a co

heren

t app

roac

h re E

U –

Indon

esia

and p

alm oi

lPr

iority

and o

bsta

cles

• Su

ppor

ting r

ights

of fo

rest

peop

les an

d env

ironm

enta

l de

fende

rs

Prog

ress

mad

e with

imple

men

ting t

he 20

12 Co

nstit

ution

al Co

urt d

ecisi

on in

retu

rning

tenu

re to

Indig

enou

s com

mun

ities

has

been

slow

, ham

pere

d by i

nade

quat

e map

s and

unwi

llingn

ess t

o sha

re de

tails

of ex

isting

agric

ultur

al co

nces

sions

– de

spite

hig

h-lev

el pr

omise

s to e

xped

ite th

e pro

cess.

EU an

d Mem

ber S

tate

deve

lopm

ent c

oope

ratio

n effo

rts w

ith In

done

sia, in

cludin

g co

ntrib

uting

supp

ort f

or im

plem

entin

g Ind

ones

ia’s “

OneM

ap” In

itiat

ive is

ther

efore

impo

rtant

. Pro

viding

fund

s thr

ough

the L

and

Tenu

re Fa

cility

to In

digen

ous c

omm

uniti

es fo

r lan

d dem

arca

tion i

s ano

ther

oppo

rtunit

y to s

uppo

rt th

is.

Prio

rity a

ctio

n. W

ithou

t clar

ifica

tion o

f ten

ure

right

s bot

h defo

resta

tion a

nd an

incre

ase i

n (v

iolen

t) co

nflict

s ove

r lan

d are

mor

e like

ly.

• St

reng

then

ing po

licy a

nd

regu

lator

y fra

mew

ork

for S

usta

inable

Fore

st m

anag

emen

t (SF

M) a

nd la

nd

use p

lannin

g

See b

ullet

point

abov

e: EU

and M

embe

r Sta

tes’ t

rade

and d

evelo

pmen

t coo

pera

tion s

hould

enco

urag

e Ind

ones

ia to

tigh

ten t

he

exce

ption

s to i

ts m

orat

orium

on cl

earin

g prim

ary f

ores

ts, es

pecia

lly th

ose t

hat c

urre

ntly

allow

expa

nsion

of pa

lm oi

l plan

tatio

ns in

Pa

pua.

Enco

urag

emen

t sho

uld al

so be

give

n to t

aking

firm

actio

n link

ed to

the 3

-yea

r palm

mor

ator

ium, p

artic

ularly

the d

esign

an

d im

plem

enta

tion o

f the

revie

w of

conc

essio

ns an

d the

resu

lting

step

s tha

t aris

e fro

m it

s find

ings.

Prio

rity a

ctio

n fo

r Ind

ones

ia. T

he EU

can

only

look a

t way

s to e

ncou

rage

Indo

nesia

to

act.

Howe

ver, t

he cu

rrent

polit

ical c

limat

e in

Indo

nesia

, em

phas

ising

grow

th ov

er

envir

onm

enta

l regu

lation

13,14

may

be a

signifi

cant

obsta

cle to

this.

• Pr

omot

ing fo

rest

resto

ratio

nSe

e acti

on 2a

. De

fore

statio

n and

resto

ratio

n are

part

and p

arce

l of

land

use p

lannin

g whic

h in t

urn i

s link

ed to

fo

rest

peop

les’ ri

ghts

to la

nd.

• Su

ppor

ting f

ores

t con

serv

ation

th

roug

h pro

tecte

d are

asSe

e acti

on 2a

. Co

nser

vatio

n is a

prob

lemat

ic co

ncep

t, es

pecia

lly

in co

untri

es w

here

right

s to l

and a

re in

disp

ute

and e

stabli

shm

ent o

f pro

tecte

d are

as di

splac

es

local

com

mun

ities

.15 Jo

int m

anag

emen

t by a

nd

for l

ocal

peop

le is

critic

al.

• Sc

aling

up ac

tions

for u

se of

wo

od fu

elsSe

e poin

t 2b a

bove

. No

t a po

sitive

actio

n. W

ood f

uels

incre

ase

emiss

ions i

n the

shor

t ter

m.

13

Increa

sed e

xploi

tation

of In

done

sia’s f

orests

feare

d afte

r pres

ident

’s dem

and f

or un

restri

cted i

nves

tmen

t (ht

tps:/

/www

.eco-

busin

ess.c

om/n

ews/i

ncrea

sed-

explo

itatio

n-of-

indon

esias

-fores

ts-fea

red-a

fter-p

reside

nts-

dem

and-

for-u

nres

tricte

d-inv

estm

ent/)

14

Ind

ones

ia ca

lls on

palm

oil in

dustr

y, ob

scur

ed by

secre

cy, to

rem

ain op

aque

(http

s://n

ews.m

onga

bay.c

om/2

019/

05/in

done

sia-c

alls-

on-p

alm-o

il-ind

ustry

-obs

cured

-by-

secre

cy-to

-rem

ain-o

paqu

e/)

15

See f

or ex

ample

, The

Trut

h Abo

ut “S

ustai

nable

” Palm

Oil (

http

s://w

ww.sa

piens

.org/

cultu

re/pa

lm-o

il-su

staina

ble/)

24

Prio

rity 3

: Stre

ngth

en in

tern

atio

nal c

oope

ratio

n to

hal

t def

ores

tatio

n, fo

rest

deg

rada

tion

and

enco

urag

e for

est r

esto

ratio

n

Ther

e are

two k

ey el

emen

ts to

this

prior

ity:

1. En

surin

g CEP

A doe

s not

cont

ribut

e to d

efore

statio

n and

resp

ects

hum

an rig

hts,

includ

ing co

mm

unity

tenu

re rig

hts.

2. W

orkin

g to g

et Ch

ina an

d Ind

ia on

boar

d or in

tere

sted t

o wor

k with

Indo

nesia

and t

he EU

.

Propo

sed E

U Ac

tion i

n Acti

on Pl

anRe

comm

ende

d acti

on co

ncern

ing a

cohe

rent a

pproa

ch re

EU –

Indo

nesia

and p

alm oi

lPr

iority

and o

bsta

cles

a)

Stre

ngth

en co

oper

ation

in

inter

natio

nal fo

raAl

thou

gh th

e EU

is an

impo

rtant

desti

natio

n for

Indo

nesia

’s palm

oil p

rodu

cts, it

curre

ntly

only

acco

unts

for a

roun

d 14 p

er ce

nt

by va

lue of

expo

rts an

d its

shar

e is d

eclin

ing. It

is th

erefo

re im

porta

nt to

enco

urag

e oth

er m

ajor im

porte

rs to

take

actio

n. Th

e two

ke

y des

tinat

ions a

re In

dia a

nd Ch

ina.

(It i

s equ

ally i

mpo

rtant

to en

sure

that

Indo

nesia

’s gro

wing

cons

umpt

ion of

palm

oil is

in

line w

ith it

s no d

efore

statio

n com

mitm

ents)

The E

U’s BC

M-F

LEG

and U

K-Ch

ina co

oper

ation

on In

tern

ation

al Fo

rest

Inve

stmen

t and

Trad

e (In

FIT) m

ay pr

ovide

oppo

rtunit

ies fo

r op

ening

coop

erat

ion on

palm

oil, b

ut th

ere i

s a ne

ed to

link a

ny in

itiat

ive w

ith hi

gh-le

vel p

olitic

al dia

logue

, suc

h as t

he Le

ader

s’ St

atem

ent o

n Clim

ate C

hang

e and

Clea

n Ene

rgy a

t the

20th

EU-C

hina S

umm

it.

Coop

erat

ion w

ith In

dia in

tack

ling t

rade

in ti

mbe

r has

prov

ed m

ore e

lusive

, par

tly be

caus

e, un

like C

hina,

India

has l

ess e

xpos

ure

to in

tern

ation

al ex

port

mar

kets

and a

ssocia

ted s

tand

ards

. This

is ex

pecte

d to b

e sim

ilar in

the c

ase o

f palm

oil. O

ne po

ssible

av

enue

whe

re th

e EU

and M

embe

r Sta

tes c

ould

cons

ider s

uppo

rt is

the S

usta

inable

Palm

Oil C

oalit

ion fo

r Ind

ia, la

unch

ed by

W

WF-

India

, RSP

O an

d the

Rainf

ores

t Allia

nce i

n 201

8 and

linkin

g effo

rts to

the I

ndia-

EU Pa

rtner

ships

for S

usta

inabil

ity, C

lean

Ener

gy an

d Clim

ate A

ction

.

The E

U an

d Mem

ber S

tate

s sho

uld al

so en

sure

that

stre

ngth

ening

palm

oil s

tand

ards

is on

the a

gend

as of

vario

us in

tern

ation

al fo

ra co

ncer

ned w

ith st

oppin

g defo

resta

tion.

Apar

t fro

m th

e ADP

thes

e inc

lude T

FA20

20 an

d the

Glob

al Pla

tform

of th

e New

York

De

clara

tion o

n For

ests

(NYD

F).16

See A

ction

s 1a a

nd 1b

.

Prio

rity a

ctio

n.

Cons

umpt

ion in

China

and I

ndia

are e

xpec

ted

to ha

ve a

large

and g

rowi

ng im

pact

and s

trong

de

man

d is e

xpec

ted i

n Ban

glade

sh, P

akist

an an

d ot

her c

ount

ries.

Howe

ver, l

ack o

f pro

gres

s by

thes

e cou

ntrie

s sho

uld no

t be a

reas

on to

limit

EU ac

tion.

16

The N

YDF G

lobal

Platfo

rm se

eks t

o inc

rease

ambit

ion, fo

rge n

ew pa

rtners

hips a

nd ac

celer

ate pr

ogres

s on t

he N

YDF g

oals

by re

spon

ding t

o NYD

F end

orse

rs’ req

uests

for a

dedic

ated,

mult

i-stak

ehold

er pla

tform

to re

-invig

orate

politi

cal e

ndor

sem

ent o

f the

NYD

F, to f

acilit

ate co

ordina

tion a

nd

com

mun

icatio

n, to

share

best

prac

tices

, reso

urce

s and

lesso

ns, a

nd to

supp

ort o

ngoin

g mon

itorin

g of p

rogres

s. En

dorse

rs inc

lude p

alm oi

l prod

ucers

and u

sers

(http

s://n

ydfg

lobalp

latfor

m.or

g/).

25

Prio

rity 3

: Stre

ngth

en in

tern

atio

nal c

oope

ratio

n to

hal

t def

ores

tatio

n, fo

rest

deg

rada

tion

and

enco

urag

e for

est r

esto

ratio

n

b)

Prom

ote t

rade

agre

emen

ts th

at

includ

e con

serv

ation

and S

FM

and e

ncou

rage

defo

resta

tion

free t

rade

of ag

ricult

ural

and

fore

st-ba

sed p

rodu

cts.

Signifi

cant

chan

ges a

re re

quire

d in t

he w

ay CE

PA is

being

nego

tiate

d, bo

th in

term

s of p

roce

ss an

d prio

rities

to ad

dres

s the

risks

as

socia

ted w

ith de

fore

statio

n and

hum

an rig

hts a

buse

s, sp

ecifi

cally

conc

ernin

g Ind

igeno

us Pe

oples

’ land

right

s, ide

ntifi

ed in

the

SIA an

d oth

er re

ports

. The

EU an

d Ind

ones

ia’s c

urre

nt te

xt pr

opos

als do

not a

dequ

ately

addr

ess e

nviro

nmen

tal a

nd la

nd rig

hts

issue

s, inc

luding

the c

once

rns r

aised

in th

e SIA

. Neit

her a

re th

ey co

here

nt w

ith EU

polic

ies an

d defo

resta

tion c

omm

itmen

ts inc

luding

the E

U Ac

tion P

lan.

As m

entio

ned u

nder

1c, d

evelo

ping a

mult

i-sta

keho

lder d

ialog

ue to

delib

erat

e the

relev

ant C

EPA p

rovis

ions,

and d

evelo

p a

road

map

on ho

w to

addr

ess p

alm oi

l in th

e agr

eem

ent,

seem

s the

mos

t con

struc

tive w

ay fo

rwar

d. Su

ch a

grou

p wou

ld no

t onl

y ha

ve to

addr

ess t

he TS

D te

xt bu

t also

look

at re

levan

t pro

vision

s in o

ther

chap

ters.

Issu

es to

disc

uss c

ould

includ

e:

• In

cludin

g a sp

ecifi

c arti

cle on

palm

oil (o

r veg

etab

le oil

s in g

ener

al) in

CEPA

’s TSD

chap

ter t

o ens

ure p

alm oi

l impo

rts do

not

have

nega

tive i

mpa

cts on

fore

sts an

d peo

ple.

• In

cludin

g a sp

ecifi

c arti

cle on

fore

sts in

the T

SD ch

apte

r. Clie

ntEa

rth’s r

ecom

men

datio

ns17

for t

he TS

D ch

apte

r rela

ted t

o pr

otec

tion o

f for

ests

and t

he rig

hts o

f for

est-d

epen

dent

peop

le sh

ould

be co

nside

red i

n this

rega

rd.

• In

cludin

g stru

ctura

l pro

vision

s suc

h as c

ore e

nviro

nmen

tal p

rovis

ions a

s guid

ing pr

incipl

es to

the o

vera

ll agr

eem

ent a

nd

a com

mitm

ent t

o rat

ify an

d effe

ctive

ly im

plem

ent I

ndon

esia’

s NDC

and a

core

list o

f env

ironm

enta

l and

hum

an rig

hts

agre

emen

ts be

fore

the C

EPA e

nter

s int

o for

ce.

• Po

ssibly

the s

uspe

nsion

or te

rmina

tion o

f the

agre

emen

t if e

x-po

st im

pact

asse

ssmen

ts of

its i

mple

men

tatio

n are

nega

tive.

• Al

thou

gh a

dispu

te re

solut

ion m

echa

nism

has n

ot ye

t bee

n pro

pose

d for

CEPA

, if th

e Mer

cosu

r FTA

is a

prec

eden

t, th

ere i

s lik

ely to

also

be a

need

for a

stre

ngth

ened

mec

hanis

m –

espe

cially

if m

ore a

ttent

ion is

to be

give

n to v

eget

able

oils i

n the

ch

apte

r. Clie

ntEa

rth’s r

ecom

men

datio

ns fo

r a fo

rmal

com

plaint

mec

hanis

m sh

ould

be co

nside

red i

n this

rega

rd.

• Th

e use

of qu

otas

, incre

asing

or de

creas

ing w

ith m

eetin

g com

mitm

ents

mad

e by b

oth p

artie

s, e.g

. NDC

com

mitm

ents

of

both

parti

es co

uld be

a cre

ative

way

forw

ard t

o use

trad

e as a

n inc

entiv

e to i

mple

men

ting c

omm

itmen

ts.

• Th

e FTA

shou

ld be

in lin

e with

the r

ecom

men

datio

ns in

the S

IA, im

prov

e goo

d gov

erna

nce,

trans

pare

ncy a

nd th

e rule

of

law. S

pecifi

cally

, it sh

ould

cont

ribut

e an e

nabli

ng en

viron

men

t for

both

parti

es to

upho

ld th

eir co

mm

itmen

ts un

der t

he

mult

ilate

ral h

uman

right

s and

envir

onm

enta

l agr

eem

ents

they

are c

omm

itted

to.

Prio

rity a

ctio

n.

The E

FTA-

Indo

nesia

CEPA

and I

ndon

esia’

s dra

ft te

xt fo

r the

EU-In

done

sia CE

PA’s T

SD ch

apte

r bo

th in

clude

lang

uage

spec

ific t

o veg

etab

le oil

, clea

rly ai

med

at sp

ecify

ing co

nditi

ons f

or

trade

in pa

lm oi

l pro

ducts

. Palm

oil w

as a

majo

r sti

cking

point

in EF

TA ne

gotia

tions

and t

he

reas

on it

took

eigh

t yea

rs to

finali

se. S

witze

rland

ha

s inc

luded

a bil

ater

al qu

ota o

f 10,0

00

incre

asing

to 12

,500 t

onne

s per

year

and a

lso

impo

sed t

race

abilit

y req

uirem

ents

on im

ports

.

With

few

exce

ption

s, EU

impo

rt ta

riffs a

re,

howe

ver, a

lread

y low

. The

SIA p

oints

out t

hat

CEPA

wou

ld no

t lea

d to a

n inc

reas

e in p

alm oi

l pr

oduc

tion c

ompa

red t

o the

base

line s

cena

rio

(whic

h is a

n inc

reas

e in p

rodu

ction

). The

SIA

point

s out

that

with

out m

itiga

ting m

easu

res

CEPA

could

wor

sen t

he si

tuat

ion fo

r Ind

igeno

us

Peop

les an

d lab

our c

ondit

ions.

17

http

s://w

ww.cl

ientea

rth.or

g/eu

-indo

nesia

-trad

e-de

al-ris

ks-a

ccele

rating

-defo

restat

ion/

26

Prio

rity 3

: Stre

ngth

en in

tern

atio

nal c

oope

ratio

n to

hal

t def

ores

tatio

n, fo

rest

deg

rada

tion

and

enco

urag

e for

est r

esto

ratio

n

And

enha

nce i

mpl

emen

tatio

n of

:

Prop

osed

EU Ac

tion i

n Acti

on Pl

anRe

com

men

ded a

ction

conc

erning

a co

heren

t app

roac

h re E

U –

Indon

esia

and p

alm oi

lPr

iority

and o

bsta

cles

• As

sessi

ng th

e im

pacts

of tr

ade

agre

emen

ts on

defo

resta

tion i

n SIA

s and

othe

r asse

ssmen

ts

See a

ction

3b. T

he SI

A for

CEPA

proje

cts an

incre

ase i

n EU

impo

rts of

palm

oil p

rodu

cts (d

espit

e RED

II an

d rec

ent d

eclin

ing

trend

s), re

placin

g im

ports

from

othe

r cou

ntrie

s, an

d high

light

s the

need

to m

itiga

te th

e sign

ifica

nt ne

gativ

e soc

ial an

d en

viron

men

tal im

pacts

that

are l

ikely

to re

sult

from

the a

gricu

ltura

l and

othe

r sec

tors.

Thes

e con

clusio

ns ca

ll for

the n

eed t

o rec

onsid

er th

e TSD

chap

ter (

or ot

her c

hapt

ers o

f the

agre

emen

t) an

d also

how

EU an

d M

embe

r Sta

te co

oper

ation

with

Indo

nesia

can b

e mor

e clos

ely co

ordin

ated

to fo

cus o

n im

prov

ing th

e sec

tor’s

perfo

rman

ce in

re

lation

to pr

otec

ting f

ores

ts an

d hum

an rig

hts.

This

is alr

eady

a re

quire

men

t.

• Ad

dres

sing t

he su

staina

bility

of

supp

ly ch

ains,

in co

ntex

t of

relev

ant i

nter

natio

nal

com

mod

ity bo

dies

See p

oint 1

c abo

ve. It

is do

ubtfu

l whe

ther

inte

rnat

ional

com

mod

ity bo

dies h

ave a

role

to pl

ay he

re. Th

e Cou

ncil o

f Palm

Oil

Prod

ucing

Coun

tries

(CPO

PC) i

s an i

nter

gove

rnm

enta

l org

anisa

tion f

or pa

lm oi

l pro

ducin

g cou

ntrie

s, wh

ose c

urre

nt m

embe

rs ar

e on

ly In

done

sia an

d Mala

ysia.

Ther

e is l

ittle

evide

nce,

base

d on i

ts we

b site

that

it ha

s any

ambit

ions t

o pro

mot

e bet

ter s

tand

ards

in

the i

ndus

try an

d the

stat

emen

t tha

t the

coun

tries

face

“…a f

ew si

tuat

ions,

prim

arily

thos

e rela

ting t

o sus

taina

ble pr

actic

es

and t

rade

impe

dimen

ts”, a

nd it

s mot

to, “e

ither

we ha

ng to

geth

er, or

we w

ill be

hang

ed se

para

tely”,

sugg

ests

a defe

nsive

appr

oach

to

envir

onm

enta

l and

socia

l cha

lleng

es. W

orkin

g with

CPOP

C, ra

ther

than

dire

ctly w

ith In

done

sia, is

ther

efore

unlik

ely to

resu

lt in

muc

h pro

gres

s in t

he im

med

iate f

utur

e. Ho

weve

r, with

rega

rd to

coco

a, wh

ere t

he EU

, repr

esen

ted b

y the

Com

miss

ion,

parti

cipat

es in

the I

nter

natio

nal C

ocoa

Org

anisa

tion (

ICCO)

, the

Com

miss

ion ha

s sta

ted t

he EU

could

supp

ort t

he eff

ort o

f the

pr

oduc

er co

untri

es (C

ôte d

’Ivoir

e and

Gha

na) t

o inc

reas

e wor

ld pr

ices,

if an i

ncre

ase (

and t

hus t

he na

tiona

l reso

urce

s gen

erat

ed by

th

e sec

tor),

also

enta

iled a

clea

r com

mitm

ent t

o sto

p defo

resta

tion.

18

Not a

usefu

l acti

on.

• W

ithin

bilat

eral

dialog

ues

shar

ing in

form

ation

and

expe

rienc

e on p

olicy

and l

egal

fram

ewor

ks an

d ide

ntify

ing

joint

activ

ities

to in

form

polic

y de

velop

men

ts co

ncer

ning

defo

resta

tion a

nd de

grad

ation

See a

ction

3a.

18

Com

miss

ion em

ail to

secto

r coll

eagu

es

27

Prio

rity 4

: Red

irect

fina

nce t

o sup

port

mor

e sus

tain

able

land

-use

pra

ctice

s

This

prio

rity s

houl

d be

a lis

t of a

ctio

ns d

irect

ed to

war

ds im

plem

enta

tion

of sp

ecifi

cally

Prio

rity 1

, but

also

the a

ctio

ns u

nder

Prio

ritie

s 2 an

d 3 t

hat s

uppo

rt P

riorit

y 1.

Prop

osed

EU Ac

tion i

n Acti

on Pl

anRe

com

men

ded a

ction

conc

erning

a co

heren

t app

roac

h re E

U –

Indon

esia

and p

alm oi

lPr

iority

and o

bsta

cles

a)

Asse

ss po

ssible

mec

hanis

ms

to ca

talys

e gre

en fin

ance

for

fore

sts

Indo

nesia

has i

ndica

ted t

hat i

t will

acce

pt m

ore a

mbit

ious t

arge

ts fo

r its N

DC re

lated

to fo

rests

and l

and-

use c

hang

e if

inter

natio

nal s

uppo

rt is

prov

ided.

Effor

ts to

help

Indo

nesia

reac

h the

se ta

rget

s sho

uld be

supp

orte

d. In

2010

, Nor

way c

omm

itted

to

prov

iding

up to

US$

1 billi

on to

com

pens

ate I

ndon

esia

for p

rogr

ess m

ade i

n red

ucing

its d

efore

statio

n rat

e. In

Febr

uary

2019

, ba

sed o

n dat

a sho

wing

a re

ducti

on in

2017

, Nor

way a

nnou

nced

a fir

st re

sults

-bas

ed pa

ymen

t, ex

pecte

d to b

e US$

20 m

illion

, ba

sed o

n esti

mat

es of

fore

st em

ission

s and

officia

l Indo

nesia

n gov

ernm

ent d

efore

statio

n dat

a.19

To be

effec

tive i

n the

long

term

, it is

impo

rtant

that

paym

ents

cont

ribut

e to i

mpr

oving

gove

rnan

ce an

d stre

ngth

ening

m

echa

nism

s to e

nsur

e palm

oil p

rodu

ction

mee

ts hig

h sta

ndar

ds w

ith re

gard

to bo

th fo

rest

cons

erva

tion a

nd hu

man

right

s and

do

not n

eces

saril

y go t

hrou

gh th

e Gov

ernm

ent (

as ca

n be s

een w

ith th

e Ten

ure F

acilit

y).

Whil

e Nor

way’s

mon

ey ca

n be s

een t

o be a

us

eful re

ward

for I

ndon

esia’

s rec

ent p

erfo

rman

ce

that

could

cont

ribut

e to i

mple

men

ting i

mpr

oved

sta

ndar

ds in

the p

alm oi

l sec

tor, t

he am

ount

is

dwar

fed by

the v

alue o

f the

palm

oil s

ecto

r. M

oreo

ver, t

he lo

ng-te

rm eff

ectiv

enes

s of s

uch

paym

ents

can b

e que

stion

ed: p

aym

ents

mad

e un

der a

sim

ilar a

rrang

emen

t with

Braz

il wer

e re

ward

s for

redu

ction

s in i

ts de

fore

statio

n ra

te, b

ut re

cent

a ch

ange

in fo

rest

polic

y und

er

its cu

rrent

gove

rnm

ent’s

adm

inistr

ation

risks

un

derm

ining

prev

iously

mad

e gain

s.

b)

Impr

oving

com

pany

repo

rting

on

impa

cts of

com

pany

ac

tiviti

es on

fore

sts

To be

inclu

ded i

n acti

on 1c

.M

ajor c

ompa

nies a

lread

y issu

e sus

taina

bility

re

ports

, som

e with

publi

cly ac

cessi

ble

dash

boar

ds.

And

enha

nced

impl

emen

tatio

n of

:

Prop

osed

EU Ac

tion i

n Acti

on Pl

anRe

com

men

ded a

ction

conc

erning

a co

heren

t app

roac

h re E

U –

Indon

esia

and p

alm oi

lPr

iority

and o

bsta

cles

• In

tegr

ating

fore

st as

sessm

ents

in pr

oject

impa

cts an

d co

nside

ring g

uidan

ce on

m

easu

rem

ent a

ppro

ache

s to

bette

r und

ersta

nd fo

rest

value

s an

d for

est r

isk fin

ancin

g

See a

ction

2a an

d 2b.

Risk

s are

ofte

n link

ed w

ith co

nflict

. See

The

Mun

den i

nitiat

ive an

d hen

ce cl

arifi

catio

n and

str

engt

henin

g of t

enur

e is a

key r

equir

emen

t.

19

Norw

ay st

arts

paym

ents

to In

done

sia fo

r cut

ting f

orest

emiss

ions (

http

s://w

ww.re

uters

.com

/arti

cle/u

s-ind

ones

ia-cli

mate

chan

ge-fo

rests/

norw

ay-s

tarts-

paym

ents-

to-in

done

sia-fo

r-cut

ting-

fores

t-em

ission

s-idU

SKCN

1Q70

ZY)

28

Prio

rity 4

: Red

irect

fina

nce t

o sup

port

mor

e sus

tain

able

land

-use

pra

ctice

s

• Pa

ying c

onsid

erat

ion to

de

fore

statio

n in A

ction

Plan

for

Susta

inable

Fina

nce,

includ

ing

creat

ion of

an EU

taxo

nom

y for

ec

onom

ic ac

tiviti

es

The E

U Tax

onom

y Tec

hnica

l repo

rt (Ju

ne 20

19) p

rese

nts a

fram

ewor

k for

evalu

ating

activ

ities

and t

heir c

ontri

butio

n to c

limat

e ch

ange

miti

gatio

n and

adap

tatio

n. Th

is re

port

prov

ides a

com

mon

lang

uage

on w

hat c

onsti

tute

s sus

taina

ble ac

tiviti

es. In

te

rms o

f palm

oil, t

he Ta

xono

my r

equir

es th

at to

be re

cogn

ised a

s deli

verin

g sub

stant

ial co

ntrib

ution

s (an

d hen

ce be

finan

ced)

ag

ricult

ural

inves

tmen

ts sh

ould:

1. re

sult

in re

duce

d em

ission

s fro

m on

going

land

and a

nimal

man

agem

ent.

2. re

sult

in inc

reas

ed re

mov

als of

carb

on fr

om th

e atm

osph

ere a

nd st

orag

e in a

bove

- and

below

-gro

und b

iomas

s thr

ough

on

going

land

and a

nimal

man

agem

ent,

up to

the l

imit

of sa

tura

tion l

evels

.

3. no

t bein

g car

ried o

ut on

land

that

was

prev

iously

deem

ed to

be ‘o

f high

carb

on st

ock’.

A refe

renc

e to p

alm oi

l und

er th

e hea

ding ‘

Man

ufac

turin

g’ sta

tes t

hat p

rodu

cts an

d pro

cesse

s will

be ex

clude

d fro

m su

staina

ble

finan

cing i

f the

‘pro

ducts

are d

erive

d fro

m ne

w, gr

eenfi

eld oi

l palm

tree

plan

tatio

ns’, w

ith ex

cept

ions f

or sm

all-sc

ale pa

lm oi

l cu

ltiva

tors

oper

ating

in fo

rest

plant

ation

s.

To be

mon

itore

d to e

nsur

e coh

eren

ce.

Prio

rity 5

: Sup

port

the a

vaila

bilit

y of,

qual

ity of

, and

acce

ss to

info

rmat

ion

on fo

rest

s and

com

mod

ity su

pply

chai

ns. S

uppo

rt re

sear

ch an

d in

nova

tion.

This

prio

rity s

houl

d be

a lis

t of a

ctio

ns d

irect

ed to

war

ds im

plem

enta

tion

of sp

ecifi

cally

prio

rity o

ne b

ut al

so th

e act

ions

und

er P

riorit

ies 2

and

3 tha

t wor

k in

tand

em w

ith P

riorit

y 1.

Prop

osed

EU Ac

tion i

n Acti

on Pl

anRe

com

men

ded a

ction

conc

erning

a co

heren

t app

roac

h re E

U –

Indon

esia

and p

alm oi

lPr

iority

and o

bsta

cles

a)

Esta

blish

an EU

obse

rvat

ory

on de

fore

statio

n, de

grad

ation

an

d cha

nges

in fo

rest

cove

r and

as

socia

ted d

river

s

Obse

rving

only

mak

es se

nse i

f it is

clea

r how

and b

y who

m th

e dat

a will

be us

ed an

d it i

s not

clea

r wha

t an E

U ob

serv

ator

y cou

ld ad

d to a

lread

y exis

ting i

nitiat

ives;

e.g., i

f a co

mpa

ny w

ants

to kn

ow if

ther

e is d

efore

statio

n in i

ts co

nces

sions

, the

y cou

ld bu

y St

arlin

g sat

ellite

data

and t

ake a

ction

.

Shou

ld su

ch a

facilit

y be e

stabli

shed

– an

d if m

ore s

tring

ent c

ondit

ions o

n for

ests

and h

uman

right

s wer

e to b

e inc

orpo

rate

d int

o CEP

A – it

could

be us

ed to

mon

itor c

ompli

ance

. Prio

rity s

hould

be gi

ven t

o ens

uring

that

info

rmat

ion is

avail

able

on

the o

wner

ship,

exte

nts a

nd ex

act l

ocat

ions o

f oil p

alm pl

anta

tions

to de

term

ine th

eir le

galit

y with

rega

rd to

both

fore

st an

d pe

atlan

d, an

d also

Indig

enou

s Peo

ples’ c

laim

s rela

ted t

o the

2012

Cons

titut

ional

Cour

t dec

ision

.

Prior

ity no

t clea

r.

Only

usefu

l if lin

ked t

o con

crete

objec

tives

and

build

ing on

expa

nding

exist

ing in

itiat

ives a

s St

arlin

g and

Wor

ld Re

sour

ces I

nstit

ute (

WRI

).

A clea

ring h

ouse

mec

hanis

m fo

r dat

a and

inf

orm

ation

relat

ed to

oil p

alm pl

anta

tions

and

palm

oil t

rade

may

have

pote

ntial

in in

creas

ing

trans

pare

ncy.

The S

ILK sy

stem

deve

loped

for t

he

SVLK

may

have

lesso

ns fo

r the

palm

oil s

ecto

r.

29

Prio

rity 5

: Sup

port

the a

vaila

bilit

y of,

qual

ity of

, and

acce

ss to

info

rmat

ion

on fo

rest

s and

com

mod

ity su

pply

chai

ns. S

uppo

rt re

sear

ch an

d in

nova

tion.

b)

Explo

re fe

asibi

lity o

f Cop

ernic

us

to st

reng

then

exist

ing fo

rest

mon

itorin

g and

esta

blish

ing EU

lea

dersh

ip

See 5

a. Th

e 201

9 “Bl

ue Bo

ok” f

or EU

-Indo

nesia

coop

erat

ion sp

ecific

ally m

entio

ns a

proje

ct to

use C

oper

nicus

Rem

ote S

ensin

g for

im

prov

ed pe

atlan

d map

ping.

There

is, ho

weve

r, no i

ndica

tion o

n the

Cope

rnicu

s web

site

that

this

proje

ct ha

s sta

rted.

Its ap

plica

tion

could

be m

ade b

roade

r to p

rovide

a cro

ss-ref

erenc

e for

Indo

nesia

’s defo

restat

ion da

ta an

d the

degr

ee to

whic

h and

the l

ocati

ons w

here

oil pa

lm cu

ltivati

on is

cont

ribut

ing, b

ut th

is only

mak

es se

nse i

f inco

rpor

ated i

n a co

ncret

e plan

of ac

tion t

hat r

equir

es da

ta m

onito

ring.

Prior

ity no

t clea

r.

c) Im

prov

ing co

ordin

ation

amon

g re

sear

ch in

stitu

tes

This

actio

n cou

ld co

nside

r givi

ng EU

and M

embe

r Sta

te su

ppor

t for

rese

arch

on su

staina

ble oi

l palm

prod

uctio

n by s

mall

holde

rs an

d how

to m

ake c

ertifi

catio

n sys

tem

s mor

e acce

ssible

to th

em.

Prior

ity no

t clea

r

Impr

oving

the s

usta

inabil

ity of

small

holde

r pla

ntat

ions i

s im

porta

nt an

d sho

uld be

a pr

iority

fo

r buil

ding a

robu

st pa

lm oi

l pro

ducti

on sy

stem

–

but t

his sh

ouldn

’t be c

onsid

ered a

rese

arch

subje

ct to

be co

ordin

ated b

y res

earch

insti

tutio

ns.

d)

Share

inno

vativ

e EU

prac

tices

on

circu

lar ec

onom

y, su

staina

ble

bio-e

cono

my,

renew

able

energ

y, sm

art a

gricu

lture

etc.

Possi

bly us

eful, d

epen

ding o

n whe

ther

ther

e are

any r

eleva

nt EU

prac

tices

to sh

are.

Prior

ity no

t clea

r

And

enha

nced

impl

emen

tatio

n of

:

• As

sistin

g pro

duce

r cou

ntrie

s in

track

ing pr

ogres

s in p

olicy

im

plem

enta

tion,

includ

ing

fores

t-rela

ted N

DCs;

no-

defo

resta

tion c

omm

itmen

ts an

d rela

ted t

rade

. Ste

p up

infor

mati

on on

fores

t res

ource

s an

d lan

d use

chan

ge to

infor

m

mult

i-sta

keho

lder p

olicy

mak

ing

If lac

k of t

rack

ing pr

ogre

ss we

re a

reas

on fo

r lac

k of a

ction

to ad

dres

s defo

resta

tion,

this

could

have

som

e use

. In th

at ca

se pr

iority

sh

ould

be gi

ven t

o ens

uring

that

info

rmat

ion is

avail

able

on th

e own

ersh

ip, ex

tent

s and

exac

t loc

ation

s of o

il palm

plan

tatio

ns

to de

term

ine th

eir le

galit

y with

rega

rd to

both

fore

st an

d pea

tland

, and

also

Indig

enou

s Peo

ples’ c

laim

s rela

ted t

o the

2012

Co

nstit

ution

al Co

urt d

ecisi

on. It

is, h

owev

er, m

ore l

ikely

that

ther

e are

othe

r rea

sons

for l

ack o

f pro

gres

s.

Prior

ity no

t clea

r

• Su

ppor

ting d

evelo

pmen

t of

glob

al an

d reg

ional

infor

mat

ion sy

stem

s to m

onito

r eff

ect o

f for

est fi

res

Fore

st fir

es ar

e a gl

obal

issue

but i

t’s no

t clea

r tha

t inc

reas

ed in

form

ation

or m

onito

ring w

ould

do m

uch t

o red

uce t

hem

.

Ther

e are

alre

ady I

ndon

esian

initi

ative

s aim

ed at

iden

tifyin

g whe

re dr

y con

dition

s inc

reas

e fire

risk t

o help

decis

ion-m

aker

s tak

e ac

tion t

o pre

vent

fires

.20 Th

e roo

t cau

ses o

f the

fires

have

been

analy

sed a

nd pr

opos

als fo

r add

ressi

ng th

ese s

ugge

sted.21

Prior

ity no

t clea

r

20

See f

or ex

ample

, (i)

Fire R

isk M

ap on

Glob

al Fo

rest W

atch F

ires :

(http

s://w

ww.w

ri.org

/blog

/201

6/07

/indo

nesia

-s-d

ry-s

easo

n-loo

ms-

new-

tool-

can-

pred

ict-d

aily-

fores

t-fire-

risk)

; (ii)

Indo

nesia

’s Fore

st Fir

e Mon

itorin

g and

Man

agem

ent S

ystem

(http

s://w

ww.ne

c.com

/en/

globa

l/eco

/prod

uct/

case

/201

9hl/0

1.htm

l) 21

Ind

ones

ia’s r

aging

fores

t fires

, exp

laine

d (ht

tps:/

/www

.theja

karta

post.

com

/new

s/201

9/08

/13/

indon

esias

-ragin

g-for

est-fi

res-e

xplai

ned.h

tml?u

tm_c

ampa

ign=

news

letter

&utm

_sou

rce=

mail

chim

p&ut

m_m

edium

=m

ailch

imp-

augu

st&ut

m_t

erm=

fire-

expla

iner)

Arifu

din et

. al. (

2013

) Prog

ram

of co

mm

unity

empo

werm

ent p

reven

ts for

est fi

res in

Indo

nesia

n pea

t land

(http

s://w

ww.sc

ience

direc

t.com

/scien

ce/a

rticle

/pii/

S187

8029

6130

0022

4)

Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) negotiations provide an opportunity for EU policy coherence and for the EU to offer support to Indonesia for implementation of its National Determined Contributions (NDC) and its commitments to end deforestation and protect human rights. This would also help the EU meet its own no deforestation commitments.

Fern UK, 1C Fosseway Business Centre, Stratford Road, Moreton in Marsh, GL56 9NQ, UK Fern Brussels, Rue d’Édimbourg, 26, 1050 Brussels, Belgium www.fern.org