oil palm smallholders and the rspo
TRANSCRIPT
1 | P a g e
Oil Palm Smallholders and the RSPO: towards certification and sustainable production
Status Report of the Task Force on Smallholders
Marcus Colchester1
March 2011
1 Marcus Colchester, Director, Forest Peoples Programme, [email protected], Co-Chair of
Task Force on Smallholders
2 | P a g e
Contents
1. Executive Summary:
2. The RSPO Task Force on Smallholders
3. Definitions of Smallholders
4. Generic Guidance for Scheme Smallholders
5. Generic Guidance for Independent Small Holders under Group Certification
6. Missing Links
7. Funding Smallholder Certification
8. National Interpretations
9. Next steps
10. Concluding remarks
3 | P a g e
1. Executive Summary:
The Task Force on Smallholders was set up by a General Assembly Resolution
at the 3rd
Roundtable of the RSPO (RT3) with a mandate to promote
smallholder participation in the RSPO, carry out diagnostic surveys of
smallholder situations and views, carry out and document trials of the
application of the P&C with smallholders and ascertain the suitability of the
RSPO Principles & Criteria for smallholders and make proposals on how best
these can be adjusted, nationally and/or generically to ensure favourable
smallholder involvement in SPO production. The aim of the Task Force is to
ensure that smallholders are not marginalised from the SPO market and are
able to benefit from improved standards and best practice.
Formally the Task Force is a committee which reports to the RSPO Executive
Board. It has been led by SawitWatch and the Forest Peoples Programme. For
the past four years it has been guided by a Steering Group composed of four
members from each of the active National Interpretation Working Groups and
some other co-opted members with specialist knowledge of smallholders and
willing members of the RSPO Executive Board. The Task Force has functioned
thanks to the voluntary engagement of a large number of actors and members
of the RSPO and with the support of various donors including Oxfam-Novib,
Hivos, CORDAID, Stichting Doen and the Dutch Government.
After intensive consultations Generic Guidance for the Certification of Scheme
Smallholders was adopted by the RSPO Board in July 2009. In line with the
Certification Protocol, which states that the unit of verification is the mill and
its supply base, the Guidance places the main burden for compliance on the
mill to which the scheme smallholders are tied. Mills are given three years
leeway from the certification of the mill and core estate to bring scheme
smallholders into compliance.
After further intensive consultations, in July 2010, the RSPO Board adopted
Generic Guidance for the Certification of Independent Smallholders under
Group Certification. At the same time a Group Certification Protocol was
developed through further consultations by BioCert and ProForest. It was
challenging to find the right balance between practicable requirements and
keeping a level playing field. The standard places a significant burden of
responsibility on the Group Managers to ensure compliance by Group
members.
4 | P a g e
Several pieces of work remain to be completed to allow independent
smallholder groups to get certified and enter the SPO market. The first is the
development of a method for Independent Smallholder Groups to carry out
simplified HCV assessments. The second is to amend or add to the
Certification Protocol to allow for the certification of Sustainable Fresh Fruit
Bunches produced by independent smallholder groups.
The indicators in the Generic Guidance for both Scheme and Independent
Smallholders are currently the same as those used for mills and large estates,
the Task Force is aware that this is not ideal and proposes that these be
reviewed in a couple of years in the light of early certification experiences.
It now falls to the National Interpretation Working Groups to decide how best
to adjust these Generic standards to their national realities within one year (ie
during 2011). Two countries have already achieved this and consultations are
already underway in others to achieve this. The Task Force has urged and the
Board agreed that given the diversity of national situations the Board needs to
show flexibility.
Smallholders constitute a growing proportion of the palm oil supply base but
for them to enter the SPO market successfully there is need for technical,
financial and organisational assistance. The RSPO Board has committed the
RSPO to set up a fund from which smallholder groups can draw funds to defray
the costs of audits. The next phase of work of the Task Force is to develop an
assistance package to help smallholders. This second Phase of the Task Force
is now being led by Oxfam-Novib and SawitWatch with start up funds from
RSPO and other donors.
5 | P a g e
2. The RSPO Task Force on Smallholders
The Task Force on Smallholders was set up by a General Assembly Resolution at
RT3 with a mandate to promote smallholder participation in the RSPO, carry out
diagnostic surveys of smallholder situations and views, carry out and document trials
of the application of the P&C with smallholders and ascertain the suitability of the
RSPO Principles & Criteria for smallholders and make proposals on how best these
can be adjusted, nationally and/or generically to ensure favourable smallholder
involvement in SPO production. The aim of the Task Force is to ensure that
smallholders are not marginalised from the SPO market and are able to benefit from
improved standards and best practice.
Formally the Task Force is a committee which reports to the Board and since its
inception it has been led by SawitWatch and the Forest Peoples Programme. The Task
Force has been an open process that seeks to include all members of the RSPO and all
those concerned about oil palm smallholders, especially smallholders themselves, in
open dialogue to highlight the challenges they face and suggest solutions to these
problems. At least annually it has met in the margins of larger RSPO meetings,
usually the annual Roundtables, to pool insights and report on progress made. Anyone
who turns up is considered a ‘member’ of the Task Force. Early activities of the Task
Force included presentations by researchers who pooled basic knowledge about
smallholder situations based on literature reviews and field surveys as well as inputs
by smallholders themselves. Training workshops on the goals and draft standards of
the RSPO helped to trigger the creation of independent smallholder organisations in
West Kalimantan and East Kalimantan and later in other provinces in Indonesia.
The Task Force has functioned thanks to the voluntary engagement of a large number
of actors and members of the RSPO and with the support of various donors including
Oxfam-Novib, CORDAID, Stichting Doen and the Dutch Government. For the past
three years, the Task Force has been guided by a Steering Group composed of four
members from each of the active National Interpretation Working Groups and some
other co-opted members with specialist knowledge of smallholders and willing
members of the RSPO Executive Board. Thanks are due to all these actors. The
current composition of the Steering Group of the Task Force on Smallholders is set
out in Table 1 (see following page).
Decisions at the Task Force Steering Group are made by consensus. As a Committee
of the Executive Board, the Task Force Steering Group refers all its decisions to the
Executive Board for endorsement (or rejection) before they become effective. If
consensus is not reached in the Steering Group then decisions are referred to the
Executive Board.
6 | P a g e
Table 1: Composition of the Task Force on Smallholders Steering Group
Names Organisation Sector Role and Country
Marcus Colchester Forest Peoples Programme NGO TFS Leader, UK
Norman Jiwan Sawit Watch NGO TFS Leader, EB, Indonesia
Johan Verburg Oxfam-Novib NGO EB, Netherlands
Chong Weikwang HSBC Company EB, Malaysia
Malaysia
K Ilangovan FELDA Govt Member, Malaysia
Wahid Omar MPOB Govt Member, Malaysia
Pak Mamat MPOA Company Member, Malaysia
- NGO vacancy -
Indonesia
Rafmen Asian Agri Company Member, Indonesia
Cion Aleksander Serikat Petani Kelapa Sawit Smallholder Member, Indonesia
Rosediana Suharto IPOC Govt Member, Indonesia
Amalia Pramaswari WWF-Indonesia NGO Member, Indonesia
Papua New Guinea
Ian Orrell OPRA Research org Member, PNG
Martin Hoare New Britain Palm Oil Company Member, PNG
- Smallholder vacancy - -
- NGO vacancy - -
Thailand
Chuladit Chulekamrai Thai OP & PO Association Company Member Thailand
Sutonya Thongrak Prince of Songkla University Academic Member, Thailand
Jonas Dallinger Office of Agricultural Econ. Govt Member, Thailand
Vitoon Panyakul Earth Net Foundation NGO Member, Thailand
Coopted Members
Ernest Bethe Int’l Finance Corporation IGO USA
Perpetua George ProForest Consultant Malaysia
Jan Maarten Dros Solidaridad NGO Netherlands
7 | P a g e
3. Definitions of Smallholders
The RSPO currently defines smallholders as:
Farmers growing oil palm, sometimes along with subsistence production of other
crops, where the family provides the majority of labour and the farm provides the
principal source of income and where the planted area of oil palm is usually below
50 hectares in size.2
Following the recommendations of the RSPO’s Task Force on Smallholders and the
RSPO Certification Working Group, RSPO documents make a distinction between
what have been variously called ‘tied’, ‘associated’ or ‘scheme’ smallholders, on the
one hand, and ‘independent’ smallholders, on the other. After careful deliberations
and comparison of national situations, the Task Force on Smallholders Steering Group
agreed that the most appropriate terms are ‘scheme’ and ‘independent’ smallholders.
In the context of RSPO systems, independent smallholders while very varied in their
situations are characterised by their: freedom to choose how to use their lands, which
crops to plant and how to manage them; being self-organised, self-managed and self-
financed; and by not being contractually bound to any particular mill or any particular
association. They may, however, receive support or extension services from
government agencies.
Scheme smallholders, while also very diverse, are characterised as smallholders who
are structurally bound by contract, by a credit agreement or by planning to a particular
mill. Scheme smallholders are often not free to choose which crop they develop, are
supervised in their planting and crop management techniques, and are often
organised, supervised or directly managed by the managers of the mill, estate or
scheme to which they are structurally linked.
In accordance with the RSPO Certification Protocol, whereas scheme smallholders
should be certified along with the mill with which they are associated, independent
smallholders, who may sell their fresh fruit bunches either directly or through
intermediaries to a number of mills, are to be certified independently of mills.
The distinction between ‘scheme smallholders’ and ‘independent smallholders’ is not
always easy to make. The Task Force on Smallholders recognises that national
interpretation working groups will need to look in detail at how this distinction
applies in their country and provide comprehensive lists of which types of
smallholders best fit which category.
At its meeting on 21st-23
rd February 2010, the Steering Group of the RSPO Task
Force on Smallholders reaffirmed its recommendation to the RSPO Executive Board
that the Board needs to allow for flexibility in the way this distinction is applied in
national interpretations to ensure that the typology does not exclude or disadvantage
smallholders in some countries. Particular attention was drawn to the situations in
Papua New Guinea and Thailand, which differ markedly from Indonesia and
2
RSPO, 2007, RSPO Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Palm Oil Production, including Indicators and
Guidance, October 2007: 47.
8 | P a g e
Malaysia, and thought was given to the need for the same flexibility in the application
of smallholder definitions to other countries as they join the RSPO process.
Subsequently, the Papua New Guinea National Interpretation Working Group adopted
an intermediate category of smallholders referred to as ‘Associated Smallholders’,
who share some of the characteristics of independent smallholders, notably in terms
of land use and management decisions, and yet are closely linked to particular mills
for marketing and extension. The Executive Board of the RSPO has accepted both this
intermediate definition and the modified PNG national interpretation of the Principles
and Criteria, Indicators and Guidance which suit their intermediate situation.
Medium growers:
The Task Force has also identified an intermediate category of grower who have
holdings larger than 50 hectares but who do not own a mill and who thus produce
Fresh Fruit Bunches and not crude palm oil. The Task Force has referred to such
growers as ‘medium growers’.
To date there are no generic provisions in the RSPO system to allow for the
certification of such growers unless they choose to be certified along with the mills
that they sell to. It is not yet clear if there is a demand from such growers for RSPO
certification but in Malaysia independent growers with holdings of between 40 ha.
and 500 ha. are referred to as ‘small growers’ and provisions for their certification are
included in the November 2010 National Interpretation for Malaysia.
4. Generic Guidance for Scheme Smallholders
After intensive consultations by the Task Force on Smallholders, ‘Generic Guidance
for the Certification of Scheme Smallholders’ was adopted by the RSPO Board in
July 2009. In line with the Certification Protocol, which states that the unit of
verification is the mill and its supply base, the Guidance places the main burden for
compliance on the mill to which the scheme smallholders are tied. Mills are given
three years leeway from the certification of the mill and core estate to bring scheme
smallholders into compliance.
The logic of the Generic Guidance for Scheme Smallholders is that, as it is the mills
which are seeking certification for the production from their supply base and as the
mills and associated estates have direct structural relations with the smallholders on
the schemes that supply them, the main responsibility for ensuring compliance with
the RSPO standard falls on ‘scheme managers’. Such scheme managers will range
from mill owners, through nucleus estate managers to government agencies or even
traders. This does not obviate the fact that the smallholders who are members of the
schemes also have responsibilities to comply.
The Generic Guidance for the Certification of Scheme Smallholders can be
downloaded from the RSPO website at:
http://www.rspo.org/files/project/smallholders/Final%20RSPO%20Guidance%20on%
20Scheme%20Smallholders%20as%20approved.pdf
9 | P a g e
5. Generic Guidance for Independent Small Holders under Group Certification
Independent smallholders by definition operate independently of specific mills. Most
or many in fact sell their fruits, either direct to mills or via middle men, on an ad hoc
basis waiting for buyers to offer them an advantageous price. Such situations pose a
challenge to the RSPO system in terms of chain of custody certification as, over the
years and even within a single month, fruit from any one grower may be processed
into crude palm oil by a number of different mills. Moreover if such growers’ produce
is to be certified it is as Fresh Fruit Bunches (FFB) and not as Crude Palm Oil (CPO).
The overall aim of the Task Force of Smallholders has been to develop a workable
and equitable means by which independent smallholders can get their produce
certified so they are not unfairly excluded from the emerging market in RSPO-
certified palm oil. This is particularly challenging for independent smallholders for
whom compliance, and providing proof of compliance, with the RSPO standard, as
set out in the Principles and Criteria, as well as the sheer costs of audits by
certification bodies, taken together present a major obstacle to them gaining access to
the market for responsibly produced palm oil. Accordingly, both the RSPO’s Task
Force on Smallholders and the RSPO Certification Working Group recommended that
a Group Certification Protocol should be developed to allow independent
smallholders to share these costs and get certified as a group.
After further intensive consultations, in July 2010, the RSPO Board adopted Generic
Guidance for the Certification of Independent Smallholders under Group
Certification. At the same time a Group Certification Protocol was developed through
further consultations by BioCert and ProForest. It was challenging for the Task Force
on Smallholders to find the right balance between practicable requirements and
keeping a level playing field. The standard places a significant burden of
responsibility on the Group Managers to ensure compliance by Group members.
The outcome is three complementary documents which together provide a system by
which independent smallholders can be certified. The first, the Generic Guidance for
Independent Smallholders under Group Certification, clarifies how the RSPO
Principles and Criteria should be applied to such groups. This text is complemented
by two further documents which together set out a Protocol for Group Certification.
The latter two documents respectively set out:
the standards to which group managers must comply in order for group
members to qualify for certification as a group,
the requirements to be observed by certification bodies to be accredited and to
carry out group certifications.
These documents can be downloaded at: http://www.rspo.org/?q=page/529
10 | P a g e
6. Missing Links
There are some elements missing in the RSPO system for the certification of
independent smallholders which still need to be completed.
Amendments need to be made to the Certification Systems document and the
Supply Chains Certification Systems document which explain what
documentation and additional checks are required by group managers and
auditors respectively to ensure the traceability of fresh fruit bunches;
Amendments need to be made to the Certification Systems document to
explain who and how calculations are made to allow certificates of Sustainable
Fresh Fruit Bunches to be converted into trades of SPO. Such a conversion
mechanism is required regardless of whether trades are made using ‘book and
claim’, ‘segregated’ supply or ‘percentage based claims’;
In addition, guidance is still required for the 'simplified HCV assessments' and
'simplified' social and environment impact assessments required of groups
prior to their groups developing new plantings exceeding 500 ha. nett for any
group in any one year. In July 2010 the Executive Board suggested using a
check list from the Indonesian National Interpretation as the basis for such
simplified assessments but this document has yet to be commissioned or
completed.
As there have yet to be trial audits of smallholders using the Generic Guidance under
group certification, the Task Force on Smallholders was not able to develop suitably
adjusted indicators deriving from practical experience. The Generic Guidance
documents for both scheme and independent smallholders thus instead include the
indicators set out in the main RSPO P&C even though these are better suited to large
plantations and mills. The expectation is that revised indicators will be introduced at a
later stage, informed by indicators developed in the national guidance for small-
holders and after there have been field trials or actual audit experiences during the
first two years of smallholder certifications.
7. Funding Smallholder Certification
One of the reasons for setting up the Task Force on Smallholders was to explore ways
of ensuring that smallholders were not excluded from the market in Sustainable Palm
Oil (SPO) by the costs of audits. Indeed the prohibitive costs of auditing small
holdings one by one is the main reason why RSPO encourages smallholder oil palm
growers to seek certification as groups. Even so, the RSPO has recognised that the
costs of both initial audits and periodic assessments are likely to be beyond the means
of many smallholder groups.
In 2007, in considering the situation of smallholders the Certification Working Group
made the following recommendations to the RSPO Executive Board:
11 | P a g e
Recommendation: RSPO should encourage independent smallholders to seek
certification through smallholder group certifications. Detailed modalities of group certification should be elaborated.(Footnote: Develop modalities, revised guidance
for smallholders, financial package/ fund, and trials needed).
Recommendation: RSPO sets up a working group to establish an ESCROW fund
for independent payment and selection of certification body including mechanisms to share the costs of certification through the supply chain.
Recommendation: RSPO establishes a capital fund that will encourage
independent smallholders to comply with and be certified against the RSPO Criteria, including through group certification. Monies will be raised from a levy
on tradable certificates and other approaches, such as contributions from RSPO
members that are reported in annual reports of progress.3
In November 2009, the RSPO General Assembly passed a resolution by 140 votes to
1 with 11 abstentions to set up a Smallholder Finance Working Group to seek means
of financing smallholder certification. The RSPO Executive Board, at its meeting of
24th-25
th February 2010, agreed to establish this Smallholder Finance Working Group.
The Working Group will, inter alia, explore the option of establishing an ESCROW
or Trust Fund to help cover the costs of smallholder certification. The Smallholder
Finance Working Group has since met twice but has yet to propose modalities for
financing smallholder certification.
8. National Interpretations
National Interpretations are developed by national interpretation working groups
through an inclusive and consultative multi-stakeholder process as set out in the
RSPO Certification Systems document. The expectation is that national
interpretations for smallholders should be developed after generic standards had been
developed. However, because the generic standards for smallholders were delayed,
several national interpretations of the principles and criteria were adopted some of
which made provisions for smallholders, prior to the generic standards being
finalised.
It has been the strong and repeated recommendation of the Task Force on
Smallholders that the RSPO Executive Board should allow for flexibility in the way
the generic guidance on smallholders be adopted by national interpretations. This is to
ensure that RSPO certification systems can be adjusted to suit national situations
especially given the great variety of smallholder tenures, forms of financing, receiving
technical assistance and marketing. The recommendation to show flexibility has been
accepted by the Executive Board.
The current status of the National Interpretations is set out in Table 2.
3 RSPO, 2007, RSPO Certification Systems. Final Document prepared for the RSPO Executive Board,
25 May 2007.
12 | P a g e
Table 2: Status of National Interpretations for Smallholders4
Country Scheme Independent Comments
Malaysia NI adopted 2007 with
provisions for scheme
smallholders. Revised
NI including provisions
for ‘organised’
smallholders adopted
November 2010.
Revised NI including
provisions for
independent
smallholders adopted
November 2010.
The 2010 NI refers to
‘organised’ and
‘independent’
smallholders and
makes provision for
‘small growers’ (50-
400 ha. holdings)
Indonesia NI specifically for scheme smallholders
adopted November
2009
NI specifically for independent
smallholders adopted in
principle July 2010.
Not yet effective.
The RSPO Secretariat has yet to check the
final revision of the NI
for independent
smallholders.5
Papua New Guinea NI adopted 2005
Revised NI with
provision for
‘Associated
Smallholders’ adopted
2010
Revised NI with
provision for
‘Associated
Smallholders’ adopted
2010
PNG NIWG’s
proposed inter-mediate
category of ‘Associated
Smallholders’ accepted
by RSPO Executive
Board
Colombia - - NI for large growers
but not smallholders
adopted 2010
Thailand Draft referring to smallholders in
progress
Draft referring to smallholders in
progress
Ghana Draft referring to
smallholders in
progress
Draft referring to
smallholders in
progress
Solomon Islands Draft in progress Draft in progress
9. Next steps
During the next weeks and months the main tasks of the Task Force are to take the
actions necessary to put in place the ‘missing links’ in the certification process to
allow smallholders to get certified and to establish a more adequate system for
ensuring that national interpretations are updated to align with the finalised guidance
for both scheme and independent smallholders. This will require the collaboration of a
number of parties including the RSPO Secretariat, the Executive Board, the Steering
Group of the Task Force on Smallholders and the National Interpretation Working
Groups.
Task Force Second Phase (TFS2):
The Task Force has long recognised that setting up the system by which smallholders
can get certified under the RSPO system addresses only one (small) part of the
challenges facing smallholders in the palm oil market. Scheme smallholders
sometimes suffer highly disadvantageous relations with mills and core estates in terms
of land security, technical support, credit arrangements, transport, pricing and
4 Based on a review of the minutes of the RSPO Executive Board 5 The latest versions of the INA NI on the RSPO website are the 2008 drafts
13 | P a g e
participation. Relative to large companies, smallholders often lack training,
knowledge, capacity, organisation, information, market access and capital.
Productivity of smallholdings is often well below potential due to a variety of factors
including: being provided marginal lands; poor infrastructure; substandard land
preparation; poor growing stock; a lack of or inappropriate agrochemical treatments;
labour shortages during harvest; lack of transport; delays in processing and; delayed
replanting.
Led by Oxfam-Novib and SawitWatch the Task Force has thus planned a second
phase conceived as a four year project, referred to as ‘TFS 2’ which is designed to
deliver a package of assistance, first, to promote certification processes with
smallholders, draw the lessons learned and make them available to other smallholders
and, secondly, to move from a strategy of preventing smallholder exclusion to one
that promotes practical implementation at scale. This will require creating meaningful
opportunities, and exploring modified, fair business models in which smallholders are
more beneficially positioned. A third task will be to build smallholder interests more
structurally into the RSPO organization and incentive systems of the RSPO.
The project is to be led by staff in Oxfam-Novib and SawitWatch, with funding from
external donors and from the RSPO. Two new staff positions will be recruited to
implement the project. A Smallholder Manager will be located in the RSPO
Secretariat in Kuala Lumpur supported by a Smallholder Coordinator in the Regional
Indonesian Liaison Office in Jakarta. The Steering Group of the Task Force on
Smallholders will continue to provide oversight and act as a sounding board for the
project, which however will be administered as a project run by the RSPO Secretariat.
The target indicators for the project are:
40% of RSPO grower members with scheme smallholders in the supply base
have achieved certification by 2012;
The RSPO has effectively included at least five groups of independent
smallholders in RSPO certification;
At least three established incentive mechanisms (notably access to RSPO
premium markets, supported certification costs, supported productivity
increases) are effectively and equitably reaching smallholders;
RSPO members appreciate the capacity that the RSPO Secretariat has
established in support of smallholders.6
The planned results are that:
Smallholder certification needs, expectations and incentives are better
understood by other palm oil stakeholders in the RSPO Taskforce and the
findings are disseminated to them;
Capacity-building needs are identified and generic guidance is developed for
scheme managers, group managers, certification bodies and intermediaries
(NGOs, governments, trainers) who enable smallholders to become certified;
A Linking and Learning platform on smallholder issues is in place;
Best practices in inclusive business models have been analyzed and promoted;
6 Level of appreciation will be gauged through a client satisfaction survey, achieving a minimum
average score of 7 on a 1-10 scale.
14 | P a g e
Smallholder structures in the RSPO organization are operational, including
operational financial mechanisms to support smallholder certification costs.
10. Concluding remarks
The revised certification process adapted to smallholders, better information sharing,
financial support for certification costs and external assistance to build smallholder
capacity and build partnerships between smallholders and companies may do much to
redress the current imbalance in the palm oil sector between large corporations and
smallholders. These efforts being undertaken by the RSPO and its members are
framed by the voluntary approach which defines the RSPO.
However, there are also clear reasons why the engagement of government agencies
will also be needed if the wider transformation of smallholder livelihoods is to be
effected on the scale required. Most obviously smallholder productivity is
substantially increased where government research and extension services explicitly
target smallholders and provide them with the training and assistance packages they
require to improve their management and production.
Moreover, the studies and discussions undertaken through the Task Force on
Smallholders also reveal that legal and procedural reforms are needed in some
countries to help secure oil palm smallholders’ livelihoods. These required reforms
include: reforms in land titling and administration to secure local communities and
indigenous peoples’ lands; revised legal regulations to ensure that credit is provided to
smallholders in fair, transparent and accountable ways; revised regulations and local
laws relating to scheme smallholders, which ensure that they retain control of their
lands and production systems and; open and responsive mechanisms to set fair prices
for FFB. Improved means for smallholders to represent their views to government and
legislatures are also needed.
Long term research in Indonesia by the Australian National University has led to the
conclusion that under current circumstances:
Oil palm is a rich farmer’s crop that requires extensive inputs if it is to be farmed
successfully… individuals who find themselves incorporated into oil palm under unfavourable conditions will not only remain poor but may even face deeper
poverty… without significant outside support, large swathes of rural landowners
may not be able to access oil palm under the terms where they can hope to
prosper.7
The Task Force thus needs to reach out to the relevant government agencies to ensure
that they also are part of the proposed transformation.
7 John F. McCarthy, 2010, Processes of inclusion and adverse incorporation: oil palm and agrarian
change in Sumatra, Indonesia, Journal of Peasant Studies 37(4): 821-850.