New allegation of traditional and human rights violations raised with the death of an Indigenous Papuan man at a palm oil plantation owned by Korindo. FSC is concerned with the allegations and has suggested Korindo to not only depend on the formal investigations that are happening, but also appoint an independent 3rd party to evaluate the allegations in-depth and provide recommendations for improvement to be implemented as preventative measures. FSC has also strongly recommended Korindo to work with an independent professional conflict mediation entity to support improved dialogue between all stakeholders. The company agrees to this. In addition, the company is to provide access to remedy for affected parties.
The FSC International board of directors will review progress made by Korindo over the past year and will discuss further actions proposed at the August 2020 Board meeting.
Additional expert social and environmental analysis has been concluded.
Submission of the complaints panel investigation report with a recommendation (and quality assessment) to the FSC Board of Directors.
Complaints panel conducts a field visit in Indonesia. The panel interviews key stakeholders in Jakarta and Papua and visits Korindo Group operations and surrounding communities in Papua.
Complaints panel is established and investigation begins.
Independent Investigation Reports
In investigating Policy for Association complaints, FSC International commissions an independent complaints panel to impartially investigate allegations raised in the complaint. In Korindo’s case, additional to the complaints panel report, the FSC International board determined that additional environmental and social analyses were needed.
The investigation reports are commissioned by FSC, but do not necessarily express FSC’s opinion about the case. They were all considered in the FSC International Board decision, which was to maintain association with Korindo due to the realisation that the company is committed to cooperate with FSC and other stakeholders to achieve significant improvement in its performance.
To learn more about the FSC International Board’s decision please read the FSC public statement here. To learn more about Korindo’s commitment to improved performance together with FSC please click here.
Due to a disagreement with Korindo, the original complaints panel report is not available, but a summarized overview of the investigation findings can be found here. Public versions of the two additional reports of social and environmental analyses are available for download below.
The disagreement with Korindo is very much about what happened in Korindo’s concessions. From FSC’s perspective, based on a lot of the information in the investigation reports, it is clear that Korindo’s environmental and social performance did not meet FSC’s requirements. We have noted, as is also stated in the investigation reports, that Korindo have implemented important and comprehensive social programmes in Papua and other parts of Indonesia. At the same time, however, we see evidence of poor performance leading to social and environmental damage.
Based on clear indications from Korindo of commitment to significant improvement of performance, FSC has chosen to collaborate with Korindo in a comprehensive set of efforts towards responsible forest management and provision of remedy for environmental and social damage.
At the same time, we believe it is important that interested stakeholders have access to the conclusions of the investigations that were undertaken as part of the management of the complaint raised by Mighty Earth.
Given that Korindo contest some of the findings of the investigation reports, we have also agreed to give Korindo the opportunity to respond to the criticism. Korindo’s responses can be found here.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About the Case
Why did the FSC Board of Directors not take a decision on the Korindo case at their meeting in August 2018?
After in depth discussions, the FSC Board (BoD) concluded that further clarifications and information were needed - in relation to particular points - prior for the BoD to be able to come to a decision on the case.
For that reason it was decided that an additional expert analysis to clarify these points must be conducted, and that the decision on the case shall be postponed until the results of this additional analysis are available.
Why is an additional analysis required prior for a decision on the case to be taken?
This additional analysis will enable the BoD to take a fair and comprehensive decision on the case based on solid grounds and complete information.
This is in line with the principles of fairness and impartiality which the FSC Dispute Resolution is based on.