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, marcus@forestpeoples.org, 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.