OILPALM PLANTATION MANAGEMENT CERTIFICATION REPORT · MYNI Requirement for Sime Darby Plantations...

MY02024

Annual Surveillance 01 Summary Report against RSPO MYNI Requirement for

Sime Darby Plantations Sdn Bhd, SOU 24 Hadapan

OILPALM PLANTATION MANAGEMENT CERTIFICATION REPORT

Project Nr: MY01827 Certificate Nr: SGS-RSPO/PM-00715

Validity Period: 29/03/2011 – 28/03/2016

Report Ref #: MY02024. SOU 24 Business Unit Annual Surveillance 01 Public Summary Report

Client: Sime Darby Plantation Sdn Bhd

RSPO membership #: SPO 537872

Web Page: http://plantation.simedarby.com

Address:

Head office: Wisma Guthrie 21 Jalan Gelenggang Damansara Height 50490 Kuala Lumpur

Contact: Norazam Abdul Hameed Asst Vice President 1 PS-RSPO Unit – TQEM Tel: +603-2093 2140 Email: [email protected]

Country: Malaysia

Plantation Unit being Evaluated SOU 24, Hadapan Oil Mill and Estates, Layang-layang, Johor.

Total Plantation Area 9,889 Hectare

Company Contact Person:

SOU Chairman

Address: Ladang Kulai, K/B No. 108, 81000 Kulai, Johor

Tel: 07-652 3688

Fax 07-652 3688

Email: [email protected]

Evaluation dates:

Main Evaluation 15 – 18 December 2008

Close out Major CAR 1 April 2009

Surveillance 1 13-17 February 2012

Surveillance 2 April 2013

http://plantation.simedarby.com/

mailto:[email protected]

MY02024



TABLE OF CONTENTS

MY02024



1.0 Scope of the Certification Assessment

An assessment of the Strategic Operating Unit (SOU) 24 was conducted by SGS Malaysia between 15 - 18 December 2008 to evaluate current documentation and field practices in oil palm management of the plantation unit against the RSPO P&C (MYNIWG 2008). A follow up visit was undertaken on 1 April 2009 to verify actions taken to close out corrective action request identified during the first field assessment. The company continued to provide management documents to the audit team thereafter, which was also incorporated into the findings tabulated in this report. In line with the international practice where each of the certified entity has to undergo the annual surveillance audit, the SOU 24 is subjected to an annual surveillance audit that was conducted on 13-17 February 2012. This report, presents the finding captured during the First Annual Surveillance Audit.

1.1 Mill

All crops from SOU 24 are processed by Hadapan Palm Oil Mill which is located within the Layang estate in Hadapan Division. The capacity of the mill, annual volume of FFB processed and the CPO and PK production is tabulated below:

Table 1: Summary of Layang-layang CPO Mill (July 2010 – June 2011)

MILL: HADAPAN OIL MILL

Mill location Capacity FFB input CPO output PK out put

Layang-layang 60 mt/hr 215,002 mt 45,580 mt 10,700 mt

1.2 Location and hectarage statement of each estate

Strategic Operating Unit (SOU) 24 consists of four estates namely Kulai, Seri Pulai, Layang and CEP Rengam with details of area planted and average FFB production as below:

Table 2: Summary of Supply Base Estates (2006/07 – 2010/11)

NAME OF HOLDING LOCATION

(Name of nearest town)

PLANTATION AREA AVERAGE ANNUAL

PRODUCTION OF FFB

(MT)

Planted

(ha)

Unplanted

(ha)

Layang Estate Layang-layang 2,753.67 345.03 43,257

Seri Pulai Estate Kulai 1,915.26 185.75 46,796

Kulai / Kelan Estate Kulai 2,119.54 307.88 41,889

CEP Rengam Renggam 2,733.01 82.37 52,303

These estates and mill are located within the State of Johor and are spread within Kulai Jaya, Kulai, Rengam and Kluang districts. The land use and regional satellite images of SOU 24 is presented in Map 1 and Map 2.

MY02024



The hectarage statement for all estates is presented in Table 3 below. The total planted area for SOU 24 is 9,521.48 ha of which 8,821.79 ha are mature palms and the remaining 699.69 ha are immature palms.

Table 3: Hectarage statement of estates in SOU 24

Area (ha)

Kulai / Kelan

Seri Pulai Layang CEP Rengam

Immature - - 289.6 410.09

Mature palm 2119.54 1915.26 2,464.07 2322.92

Nursery 4.02 2.00 - 6.85

Green book plan (Fruits and vegetables planting)

0.78 0.49 0.50 -

Abandoned area 45.59 86.02 - -

POME-oxidation ponds 6.54 - 8.52 -

Ex-quarry 4.80 - - -

Pylons (TNB rentis) 64.46 - 87.3 42.57

Roads & trenches 139.01 10.97 192.90 22.86

Buildings 19.55 5.84 49.79 23.14

Bamboo planting 0.20 - - -

Water catchment - - 6.02 3.66

EBOR seed garden - - - 6.76

Main Drain - 29.42 - -

Collection Drain - 27.38 - -

B Road - 18.04 - -

Riparian Buffer Zone 22.93 5.60 - -

Total 2427.42 2101.02 3098.7 2838.85

MY02024



Map 1: Location map of SOU 24

MY02024



Map 2: Regional satellite image of SOU 24

MY02024



1.3 Description of supply base

The Hadapan Palm Oil Mill receives fresh fruit bunches (FFB) from estates within the unit (SOU 24) namely Layang, CEP Rengam, Kulai and Seri Pulai Estate. Table 4 below describing the FFB production for all estates within the SOU 24 for 5 years. The highest production recorded for the 5 year said period is in year 2007/2008 2010/2011 with a mean of 21.592 mt/ha. Total FFB processed from July 2007 to June 2008 was 215,002 mt and the monthly record is shown in Table 5. The monthly oil extraction rate is presented in Figure 1 and the mean oil extraction rate (OER) recorded for the same period (July 2007 – June 2008) was 20.1%.

Table 4: FFB production

Estate FFB production (mt per ha) (July to June)

2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011

1 Seri Pulai 20.3 21.6 21.5 23.9 24.4

2 Kulai / Kelan 22.0 22.1 18.8 19.7 20.18

3 Layang 18.8 18.6 17.3 17.87 18.52

4 CEP Rengam 16.7 20.8 19.71 22.90 23.27

Mean 19.45 20.78 19.33 21.09 21.59

Table 5: FFB processed in mill July 2010 – June 2011

Month FFB processed mt

Jul-07 18,818

Aug-07 23,601

Sep-07 21,678

Oct-07 21,284

Nov-07 21,050

Dec-07 17,963

Jan-08 18,720

Feb-08 16,132

Mar-08 10,644

Apr-08 12,150

May-08 16,443

Jun-08 16,519

Total 215,002

Note: The Company’s financial year begins in July and ends in June as shown in the data presented in this report.

MY02024



Figure 1: Monthly oil extraction rate

1.4 Date of planting

The planting profile for SOU 24 is shown in Table 6 below. The planting ranges from 1977 to 2011 with the earliest plantings found in CEP Rengam (late 1970s). Approximately 36 % of the palm in SOU 24 are between 4 – 10 years, 28 % of the palms are in their peak production phase (11 – 15 years), 31% are above 16 years and the remaining 5% are immature palms.

Table 6: Planting profile of estates in SOU 24

Year of planting CEP Rengam (ha)

Seri Pulai (ha)

Kulai / Kelan (ha)

Layang (ha)

Total (ha)

1977 13.62 - - - 13.62

1978 - - - - -

1979 - - - - -

1982 - - 7.13 - 7.13

1983 - - - - -

1984 - - 81.32 - 81.32

1985 - - 88.6 - 88.6

1986 - - - - -

1987 - - 146.14 - 146.14

MY02024



Year of planting CEP Rengam (ha)

Seri Pulai (ha)

Kulai / Kelan (ha)

Layang (ha)

Total (ha)

1988 - - 260.88 - 260.88

1989 36.23 95.62 441.3 18.1 591.25

1990 230.98 180.86 - - 411.84

1991 206.44 193.83 70.21 138.3 608.78

1992 78.58 223.49 - 113.8 415.87

1995 175.17 210.51 - - 385.68

1996 369.28 - - - 369.28

1997 310.11 - - - 310.11

1998 - 97.40 284.54 287.4 669.34

2000 190.05 151.53 - - 341.58

2001 207.99 224.87 1.8 191.9 626.56

2002 171.14 177.41 132.77 571.37 1052.69

2003 215.62 201.12 - - 416.74

2004 - - - 216.96 216.96

2005 117.71 158.62 164.35 295.68 736.36

2006 - - 317.64 254.69 572.33

2007 - - - 198.47 198.47

2008 - - 122.86 177.40 300.26

2009 93.82 - - - 93.82

2010 167.44 - - 138.45 305.89

2011 148.83 - - 151.15 299.98

Total 2733.01 1915.26 2119.54 2753.67 9521.48

MY02024



1.5 Other certifications held

The estates in SOU 24 have been certified on the implementation of Occupational Health and Safety Management System complying with OHSAS 18001:1999 and the scope of certification being operation of a plantation which include oil palm field upkeep, cultivation and harvesting activities. The certification was done by SIRIM QAS International. The Hadapan Palm Oil Mill is yet to be certified under the scheme.

Address: Ladang Kulai, K/B No. 108, 81000 Kulai, Johor

Tel: 07-652 3688

Fax 07-652 3688

Email: [email protected]

1.6 Organisational information/contact person

Name Norazam Abdul Hameed

Designation Asst Vice President 1 SOU 24 Hadapan

Ladang Kulai K/B No. 108 81000 Kulai Johor

Contacts Tel: 07-652 3688

Fax: 07-652 3688

Email [email protected]

The organization chart for SOU 24 is as presented in Figure 2.

mailto:[email protected]

MY02024



Figure 2: Management chart of SOU 24

MY02024



1.7 CPO production

The summary of CPO production in presented in Table 7 below. The total CPO output for last financial year was 45,580 mt.

Table 7: Summary of CPO production

Mill: Hadapan Oil Mill (July 2010 – June 2011)

Mill location Capacity FFB input CPO output

Layang Estate 60 mt/hr 215,002 mt 45,580 mt

2.0 Other oil plam plantations owned by the company and plan for certification under RSPO P&C

The current verification exercise is undertaken only for SOU 24, Hadapan, Layang-layang, Johor. Sime Darby owns and operates 65 palm oil mills for processing FFB from its 208 oil palm estates located in Malaysia and Indonesia. The company has divided the estates and mills into Strategic Operation Units (SOU) as part of its approach towards meeting the requirements for certification under RSPO. In total, the company manages 65 SOUs. Up to date, at least 5 SOUs have been certified under RSPO and several SOUs are at various stages of certification processes. The company’s time-bound plan for certification is summarised as follows:

Time line Name of SOU Certification status

2008 Jan – June)

SOU 28, 29, 30, 30b SOU 26

Certified Certified

2008 July – December

8 SOUs in Malaysia 4 SOUs in Indonesia

Undergoing assessment processes

2009 January – December


A number of SOUs are undergoing assessment

2010 January – December


2011 January – June

5 SOUs in Indonesia

The plan developed by Sime Darby is very challenging but the company has made good progress where a number of SOUs have been certified and several more are at various stages of certification process. The company has good infrastructure and resources as well as commitment from the top management to make the plan a reality. SGS is in the opinion that the plan made is reasonable and achievable. The company has identified potential hurdles for certification of their SOUs in Indonesia where RSPO secretariat has been duly advised. The issue since has been resolved.

MY02024



3.0 Assessment Process

3.1 Assessment methodology

During the 4 days field evaluation, the audit team covered all four estates and the CPO mill within the scope of this assessment. Management documents both at the group as well as the estate levels were reviewed. Standard operation procedures documented for the estate and the mill operations were also reviewed. Records of production, report, training etc were inspected.

The audit team visited various operation sites such as replanting, manuring, pesticide application, harvesting, environmental sampling, fragile soil areas, etc. See Table 8.

Discussions were held with the top estate managers as well as ground staff. Interviews were also held with workers and local communities living in and around the area.

Table 8: Assessment schedule

Date Area visited Notes

14 February 2012

Opening meeting

Briefing on Hadapan oil mill was given by the manager.

Document review Documents for review were made available.

Supply Chain Audit - Mill

Visit to the mill Receipt of FFB, Mill operation, Mill design, OSH aspects, POME, EFB, CPO production Environmental monitoring records, Licensing

15 February 2012

Visit to Layang Visit to CEP Rengam

Areas covered include manuring, pesticide spraying, nursery area etc. Areas covered include clinic, local communities, educational forest areas, riparian etc.

16 February 2012

Visit to Seri Pulai Visit to Kulai

Areas covered include harvesting area, chemical storage, waste management system, fragile soil areas etc. Areas covered include clinic, local communities, educational forest areas, riparian etc.

17 February 2012

Closing meeting Preliminary results of the assessment exercise were presented to the management.

3.2 Date of next surveillance visit

According to RSPO procedures, surveillance visit should be carried out at least once in twelve month. As such the first surveillance audit for SOU 24 should take place in February 2013.

MY02024



3.3 Assessment team

The details of assessment team are presented in Table 9 below.

Table 9: Summary of team member’s experience

Surv 01 Evaluation Team

Notes

Team Leader Abdul Haye is a forestry graduate with more that 15 years experience in forest management and wood industry operation. Has been involved in certification for the last 5 years with experience in forest management and chain of custody certification. He is also familiar with CPO mill operation having audited the facilities against the energy based sector EU requirement. He has participated in RSPO auditor training and has carried out / involved in a number mill and plantation audits.

Auditor- Plantation James Ong, a B.Agric Sc. holder and agronomist in SGS (M) Sdn Bhd. He has many years experience in agriculture sector in Malaysia having worked in estates as well in the agrochemical and fertiliser industry. He is well versed with agrochemical and fertiliser applications. Has undergone ISO and RSPO Lead Auditor training and involved in a number audits on oil palm plantations.

Auditor – Environment and Social

Mohd Faisal Jaafar, is a degree holder in forestry from Universiti Putra Malaysia. Faisal has a 7 years experience in operating Malaysian Timber Certification Scheme with specialization in forest management certification and forest plantation management certification. Has undergone the necessary ISO 9000 Lead Auditor course and has gathered substantial auditing experience pertaining to forest certification.

3.4 Outline of how stakeholder consultation was managed

A wide range of stakeholders were contacted 4 weeks before the planned evaluation to inform them of the evaluation and ask for their views on relevant forest management issues. These included environmental interest groups, local government agencies and forestry authorities, forest user groups, and workers’ unions. 4.0 Assessment Findings

4.1 Summary of findings under each criteria is as follows:

Principle 1: COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY

Criterion 1.1

Oil palm growers and millers provide adequate information to other stakeholders on environmental, social and legal issues relevant to RSPO Criteria, in appropriate language & forms to allow for effective participation in decision making.

1.1.1 Records of requests and responses must be maintained. Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Records of requests and responses is maintained

Objective evidence:

A mechanism which support constructive and prompt response to request for information from stakeholders. This mechanism is guided by their Standard Operation Manual (SOM) for both mill and estate.

The standard approach is remains the same as the one that has been established

MY02024



in November 2008 to handle request for information from stakeholders.

The company is in compliance to this requirement: Y

Criterion 1.2

Management documents are publicly available, except where this is prevented by commercial confidentiality or where disclosure of information would result in negative environmental or social outcomes.

1.2.1/ 1.2.2/ 1.2.3/ 1.2.4/ 1.2.5/ 1.2.6/ 1.2.7

Land titles / user rights (C 2.2) Safety and health plan (C 4.7) Plans and impact assessments relating to environmental and social impacts (C 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 7.3) Pollution prevention plan (C 5.6) Details of complaints and grievances (C 6.3) Negotiation procedures (C 6.4) Continuous improvement plan (C 8.1)

S01 Objective evidence:

There is a mechanism in place to ensure that documents are publicly available, as stipulated in the individual management plans covering the following documents:

o Land titles / user rights o Safety and health plan o Plans and impact assessments relating to environmental and

social impacts o Details of complaints and grievances o Negotiation procedures o Continuous improvement plan


Principle 2: COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATION

Criterion 2.1

There is compliance with all applicable local, national and ratified international laws and regulations.

2.1.1 Evidence of compliance with legal requirements.

Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Sufficient evidence of compliance with legal requirements.

Objective evidence:

All necessary renewable permits pertaining to crop production and milling are in place and displayed in the form of certificates in the estates and mill. Legal requirements for machinery maintenance and power generation have also been complied with. Workers health requirements and pesticide regulations have also been fulfilled.


2.1.2 A documented system, which includes written information on legal requirements.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Evidence of documented system, which includes written information on legal requirements.

Objective evidence:

Sime Darby subscribes to free service for amendments updates from publishers. All relevant laws and regulations are compiled in the register of legal document -

MY02024



QSHE/04/5.2.4 and is made available to the auditor during the audit.


2.1.3 A mechanism for ensuring that they are implemented. Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Mechanism for ensuring that they are implemented is available.

Objective evidence:

A mechanism to ensure compliance of law is documented in Agricultural Reference Manual (ARM) which has been distributed to the SOU and is implemented throughout the Mill as well as the four estates.


2.1.4 A system for tracking any changes in the law. Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

A system for tracking any changes in the law is available.

Objective evidence:

Sime Darby has developed procedures for tracking any changes in laws. Document SOM 5.2(5.2.4a) assigns responsibility for observing legal compliance. .The company also subscribes to service for updated law books from publishers, and receives information on relevant legal amendments from Malaysian Agricultural Plantation Association.


Criterion 2.2

The right to use the land can be demonstrated, and is not legitimately contested by local communities with demonstrable rights.

2.2.1 Evidence of legal ownership of the land including history of land tenure. Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

There is evidence of legal ownership of the land including history of land tenure.

Objective evidence:

The estates within SOU24 comprise of many separate land titles. Copies of the relevant cadastral documents are available at each estate. As evidence of compliance with the terms of the land title, records of annual payment of the tax etc. are kept by each estate. Copies of land titles and payment of quit rent are available.


2.2.2 Growers must show that they comply with the terms of the land title. [This indicator is to be read with Guidance 2].

Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

The term of condition provided evidence that the company does comply with the terms of the land title.

Objective evidence:

The estates comply with the terms of the land title.


2.2.3 Evidence that boundary stones along the perimeter adjacent to state land and other reserves are being located and visibly maintained.

Compliance

Minor

MY02024



S01 Findings:

Boundary stones along the perimeter adjacent to state land and other reserves can be located and visibly maintained.

Objective evidence:

All estates have their boundary marked with boundary markers. Field Visit in Kulai Estate where the estate is neighbouring the Bukit Meritam Forest Reserve evidenced that there is clear marking observed along the boundary. In addition, the estate also maintained the bufferzone along the boundary.


2.2.4 Where there are, or have been, disputes, proof of resolution or progress towards resolution by conflict resolution processes acceptable to all parties are implemented. CF 2.3.3, 6.4.1 and 6.4.2.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

There is no dispute reported at the time of audit. Interviews with the villagers indicate the same.

Objective evidence:

No dispute evidenced.


Criterion 2.3

Use of the land for oil palm does not diminish the legal rights, or customary rights, of other users, without their free, prior and informed consent.

2.3.1 Where lands are encumbered by customary rights, participatory mapping should be conducted to construct maps that show the extent of these rights.

Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

The SOU 24 estates are not located on any land with customary right s thus this section is not applicable.

Objective evidence:

Not applicable.

The company is in compliance to this requirement: NA

2.3.2 Map of appropriate scale showing extent of claims under dispute. Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:


Objective evidence:

Not applicable.


2.3.3 Copies of negotiated agreements detailing process of consent. (C2.2, 7.5 and 7.6).

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:


Objective evidence:

Not applicable.


Principle 3: COMMITMENT TO LONG-TERM ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL VIABILITY

MY02024



Criterion 3.1

There is an implemented management plan that aims to achieve long-term economic and financial viability.

3.1.1 Annual budget with a minimum 2 years of projection.

Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Annual budget with a minimum 2 years of projection is available.

Objective evidence:

Annual budget involving 5 years cost comparison available. These budgets indicate 3 years advance budgeting of direct cost. The budgets also include work to support sustainability.


3.1.2 Annual replanting programme projected for a minimum of 5 years with yearly review.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Annual replanting programme projected for a minimum of 5 years with yearly review is available.

Objective evidence:

Replanting programmes are available for all individual estates. A minimum 5 year replanting programme is available for all estates.


Principle 4: USE OF APPROPRIATE BEST PRACTICES BY GROWERS AND MILLERS:

Criterion 4.1

Operating procedures are appropriately documented and consistently implemented and monitored.

4.1.1 Documented Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for estates and mills. Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Evidence of documented Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for estates and mills.

Objective evidence:

Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) covering the operations of the SOU is made available to the auditor during the visit.


4.1.2 Records of monitoring and the actions taken are maintained and kept for a minimum of 12 months.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Records of monitoring and the actions taken are maintained and kept for a minimum of 12 months.

Objective evidence:

Record of monitoring for estate and the action are kept for a 12 month period and made available to the auditing team. Observed during the audit the following records of monitoring for period July 2011 to June 2012:

Fertilizer application and recommendation;

Record of monitoring for Rainfall data; and

Water Sampling Analysis


Criterion Practices maintain soil fertility at, or where possible improve soil fertility to a level

MY02024



4.2 that ensures optimal and sustained yield.

4.2.1 Monitoring of fertilizer inputs through annual fertilizer recommendations. Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Evidence of monitoring of fertilizer inputs through annual fertilizer recommendations.

Objective evidence:

In general, agronomic and fertilizer report is prepared by Sime Darby Research Sdn. Bhd. Fertilizer recommendations made are based on palm nutritional status resulting from foliar analysis. Observed during the audit, the record of agronomic and fertilizer application and recommendation for 2011/2012 that is available for each individual estate. Currently the estates are using the following fertilizer list:

Ammonium Sulphate (21% N)

Murate of Potash (60% K2O)

CIRP (28% P2O5)

Borate (48% B2O5)

Kieserite (26%MgO)


4.2.2 Evidence of periodic tissue and soil sampling to monitor changes in nutrient status.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Evidence of periodic tissue and soil sampling being carried out to monitor changes in nutrient status.

Objective evidence:

In practice, the soil sampling is conducted by the RnD Division of the Sime Darby Plantation on estate by estate basis. The procedure in conducting the soil sampling analysis is stipulated in the Section 4 of the Sustainable Plantation Management System. Based on the procedure, the interval of the soil sampling analysis is conducted every 25 years. Soil/Foliar Analysis for 2010/2011 is available. In addition, Soil/Foliar Analysis for 2011/2012 is budgeted in the estate budget (Minor CAR 03 closed).


4.2.3 Monitor the area on which EFB, POME and zero-burn replanting is applied.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Evidence of monitoring of the area which EFB, POME and zero-burn replanting is applied.

Objective evidence:

Visit to Estates indicates no evidence of POME application and zero-burning replanting and hence no monitoring is required. However, the estate does apply the EFB mulching in oil palm plantation that is recorded on monthly basis. Observed during the audit the record of EFB application on the oil palm field/block (monthly basis) for 2008-2012 (February).


Criterion 4.3

Practices minimise and control erosion and degradation of soils.

4.3.1 Documented evidence of practices minimizing soil erosion and degradation (including maps).

Compliance

Minor

MY02024



S01 Findings:

Documented evidence of practices minimizing soil erosion and degradation (including maps) is available.

Objective evidence:

The issue of minimising and controlling soil erosion is described in the Environmental Management Plan (EMP). To guide the workers in practicing soil erosion and degradation, there is a Policy Slope and River Protection, signed by top management of Sime Darby Plantation dated April 2011. the policy describes as follows: In addition, Staff appear to have knowledge of the location of steep areas in their estates. Currently, blocks scheduled for new planting are surveyed prior to work, slope inclination measured, areas requiring terraces mapped and areas considered too steep for planting identified. There are areas with 25o slope that is set aside for protection. These areas are mapped and no planting is allowed on such area.


4.3.2 Avoid or minimize bare or exposed soil within estates. Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Bare or exposed soil within estates is avoided except in one area.

Objective evidence:

In general, there is no evidence bare or exposed soils observed throughout the estates visited during the surveillance visit. There is also no evidence of spraying along the road side as well as along the buffer zone. However, there is one isolated case occur in one area in Seri Pulai Estate whereby auditor observed over spraying of vegetation along the road side. In addition, erosion and siltation along the waterways is evident.

The company is in compliance to this requirement: Observation 01 raised

4.3.3 Presence of road maintenance programme. Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Presence of road maintenance programme.

Objective evidence:

There is evidence of road maintenance activity conducted in each of the estates. Observed that the road maintenance activity is recorded on a monthly basis. During the audit, the road maintenance activity record for 2011is made available to the auditing team.

With regard to the future road maintenance activity, the estates have established the road maintenance program to be conducted on a monthly basis. Observed during the audit evidence of road maintenance program for 2012 covering the following activities:

New and desilting silt pit

Road side pruning

Road grading

Patching pot hole

Road upkeep and resurfacing

Bridges upkeep and repair

Fixing new and repair culverts

MY02024



Marking and numbering

Repair and fixing new road signages


4.3.4 Subsidence of peat soils should be minimised through an effective and documented water management programme.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Documented water management programme is available to minimise peat soils subsidence

Objective evidence:

Approximately 10% of the area in Seri Pulai estate (e.g. 2005 planting, block 6) is deep peat. The action plan to manage those areas is available and the management is familiar with the requirements of peat management. Water monitoring is being undertaken. Water level monitoring is being undertaken.


4.3.5 Best management practices should be in place for other fragile and problem soils (e.g. sandy, low organic matter and acid sulphate soils).

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Best management practice is in place for other fragile and problem soils.

Objective evidence:

See findings in 4.3.4


Criterion 4.4

Practices maintain the quality and availability of surface and ground water.

4.4.1 Protection of water courses and wetlands, including maintaining and restoring appropriate riparian buffer zones at or before replanting along all natural waterways within the estate.

Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Adequate demonstration of the protection of water courses and wetlands, including maintaining and restoring appropriate riparian buffer zones at or before replanting along all natural waterways within the estate.

Objective evidence:

There is a Policy Slope and River Protection, signed by top management of Sime Darby Plantation dated April 2011.

In addition, all buffer zones identified within the estates are mapped. Observed evidence of map depicting buffer zone and waterways in the estates visited. (Minor CAR 27 closed)


4.4.2 No construction of bunds/weirs/dams across the main rivers or waterways passing through an estate.

Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

No evidence on construction of bunds/weirs/dams across the main rivers or waterways passing through an estate.

Objective evidence:

Visit during the surveillance visit evident that no construction of bunds, weirs and dams were observed in the estates. All provisions stipulated in the Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID) is fulfilled (Minor CAR 28 closed).

MY02024




4.4.3 Outgoing water into main natural waterways should be monitored at a frequency that reflects the estates and mills current activities which may have negative impacts (Cross reference to 5.1 and 8.1).

Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Outgoing water into main natural waterways is not monitored at a frequency that reflects the estates and mills current activities which may have negative impacts

Objective evidence:

Water sampling analysis for the treated water flow into the river is conducted on a monthly basis. Based on record, the latest analysis (Test Report No. IE 791/2011) was conducted on 29 November 2011 and has been approved on 16 December 2011 by the appointed Senior Chemist.

With regard to the monitoring of waterways in the estates, the water sampling analysis is conducted on a quarterly basis (for any outgoing and ingoing water through natural waterway) and monthly basis (for any natural waterway near to replanting area of upstream, midstream and downstream). Several sample of latest water analysis that has been conducted is as follows:

Test Report No. IE 822/2011 conducted on 9 December 2011 and has been approved on 30 December 2011 by the appointed Senior Chemist; and

Test Report No. IE 774/2011 conducted on 25 November 2011 and has been approved on 13 December 2011 by the appointed Senior Chemist.

Based on test report, the result of the analysis is summarised into the table listing item or content or level of chemical contained in the sampled water that is as follows:

Suspended solid (SS) mg/L

pH value

chemical oxygen demand (COD) mg/L

Biological oxygen demand (BOD)

Ammoniacal (N) Nitrogen

Total phosphorus

Aldrin/Deildrin ug/L

BHC ug/L

Chlordane ug/L

t-DDT ug/L

Endosulfan ug/L

Heptachor/Epoxide ug/L

Lindane ug/L

Paraquat

However, there is no monitoring takes place for every water analysis taken (New Minor CAR 32).

The company is in compliance to this requirement: N

4.4.4 Monitoring rainfall data for proper water management. Compliance

Minor

MY02024



S01 Findings:

Monitoring rainfall data for proper water management is evident.

Objective evidence:

The rainfall data collection is conducted on a daily basis and recorded on a monthly basis. All data collected is recorded in the Rainfall Record Book that is kept at each of the estates. During the audit, the Rainfall Record Book for 2007 to 2011 is made available and inspected.


4.4.5 Monitoring of water usage in mills (tonnage water use/tonne FFB processed).

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Evidence of monitoring of water usage in mills

Objective evidence:

The water usage is monitored on a monthly basis under the water management plan that is classified according to the following usage:

Mill – total to overhead tank, processing, steriliser station, fire house, boiler station.

Linesite – domestic usage

Composite plant – plant usage

Water usage for every tonne FFB processed is also monitored on a monthly basis and captured in the Form A of the Monthly Mill Environment Compliance and Performance Monitoring Document.


4.4.6 Water drainage into protected areas is avoided wherever possible. Appropriate mitigating measures will be implemented following consultation with relevant stakeholders.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Water drainage into protected areas is avoided.

Objective evidence:

All water usage in the estates is monitored and recycled where possible to be reused in other application such in the workshop. Used water channelled out from estates is filtered using water filter and oil trap before been channelled to the nearby pond or water stream.

Any complaints from stakeholders received with regard to the water quality in the main stream is recorded in complaints log book. Each of the complaints received from the stakeholder is addressed using the Appendix 5: Flowchart and Procedure of Handling Social Issues of the Sustainable Plantation Management System Document. A mitigation measures is subsequently scheduled and conducted through the usage of the Appendix 5.4.1a: Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and Determining Controls (HIRADC) Procedure of the Standard Operating Manual (SOM) of the Estates Quality Management System.


4.4.7 Evidence of water management plans. Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Water management plan is available.

Objective evidence:

MY02024



Water management plan is available for financial year 2011/2012. The plan is divided into three sections as follows:

Reduction of water usage for financial year 2011/2012

Contingency Plan During Water Shortage for financial year 2011/2012

Water usage for monthly basis for financial year 2011/2012

Observation made in the estates visited evidenced the availability of Action Plan with regard to the managing of water usage such as:

Action Plan for Reduction of Water Usage; and

Action Plan for Water Sampling from stream and river

In addition, there is also the Water Management in Coastal and Peat Plantings that is described in the Agricultural Reference Manual (ARM) (Minor CAR 10 closed).


Criterion 4.5

Pests, diseases, weeds and invasive introduced species are effectively managed using appropriate Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques.

4.5.1 Documented IPM system. Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Documented IPM system is available.

Objective evidence:

IPM system is integrated into the Agricultural Reference Manual (ARM) which is disseminated to all estates. The latest version of the ARM is available and inspected. Observed that the IPM is incorporated in the ARM in the Section 15: Plant Protection that covers the following items:

Occurrence of Rhino beetle in Young Oil Palm

Chemical Control of Common Oil Palm Pests

Bagworm and Nettle Caterpillar Control

Use of Beneficial Plants for Natural Control of Oil Palm Leaf Pests

Control of Rats in Oil Palm

Barn Owls for biological control of rats in oil palm

Control of basal and upper stem rot

Certification of best practices towards minimising ganoderma inoculum in replants

Use of arbuscular mychorrizal fungi for management of ganoderma basal stem rot

Chemical control on termite infestation

Section 16: Week Control:

General weed control

VOPs eradication and general weed control in first year oil palm

Avoiding herbicide contamination of oil palm


4.5.2 Monitoring extent of IPM implementation for major pests. Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Extent of IPM implementation for major pests is monitored

MY02024



Objective evidence:

The implementation of IPM is monitored on a Monthly basis. Observed the following IPM implementation at the visited estates:

Barn Owl application to control rat population. Monitoring records for 2008 to 2011 is available;

Rat Bait application is monitored and recorded on a monthly basis. Monitoring records for 2006 to 2011 is available;

Ganoderma census to control the occurrence of ganoderma at matured trees. The records are observed to be captured on block by block basis. Monitoring records for 2008 to 2012 (up to January) is available;

Bagworm census record to control the outbreak of bagworm in the planted area. Monitoring records for the year 2010 to 2012 (January) is available; and

Ganoderma census to control the occurrence of ganoderma at the nursery. Records of implementation for year 2010 to 2011 is available.


4.5.3 Recording areas where pesticides have been used. Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Areas where pesticides have been used is recorded.

Objective evidence:

Pesticides usage on each of the oil palm areas/blocks is captured in the work programme document that describes intensity, type and amount of the pesticide applied to the particular oil palm areas/blocks. Records of pesticides usage on the oil palm areas/blocks for year 2010 to 2012 (January) is available.


4.5.4 Monitoring of pesticide usage units per hectare or per ton crop e.g. total quantity of active ingredient (a.i.) used/ tonne of oil.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Evidence of monitoring of pesticide usage units per hectare or per ton crop e.g. total quantity of active ingredient (a.i.) used/ tonne of oil.

Objective evidence:

Monitoring of pesticides usage for units per hectare or per ton crop is recorded in the Table of Monitoring Pesticide Usage per Hectare per Ton FFB Production. Data is recorded based on the type of pesticides used and recorded on a monthly basis. Observed during the audit the records for year 2010/2011 that is available.


Criterion 4.6

Agrochemicals are used in a way that does not endanger health or the environment. There is no prophylactic use of pesticides, except in specific situations identified in national Best Practice guidelines. Where agrochemicals are used that are categorised as World Health Organisation Type 1A or 1B, or are listed by the Stockholm or Rotterdam Conventions, growers are actively seeking to identify alternatives, and this is documented.

4.6.1 Written justification in Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) of all agrochemicals use.

Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Written justification in Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) of all agrochemicals use is available.

MY02024



Objective evidence:

Usage of agrochemical is described in the Section A10: Weeding and Section B3: Weeding/Spraying of the Standard Operating Procedures of the Estates. The procedure describes the function/justification and methods of applying the agrochemical, process monitoring and records that need to be comply with (Minor CAR 13 closed).


4.6.2 Pesticides selected for use are those officially registered under the Pesticides Act 1974 (Act 149) and the relevant provision (Section 53A); and in accordance with USECHH Regulations (2000).

Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Pesticides use are those that officially registered under the Pesticides Act, 1974 (Act 149) and the relevant provision (Section 53A); and in accordance with USECHH Regulations (2000).

Objective evidence:

All pesticides used are registered and approved by the relevant authority. The pesticides use are supplied by authorised supplier and come together with the specific Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) that describes the details of the pesticides used and methods in handling the pesticides.


4.6.3 Pesticides shall be stored in accordance to the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 (Act 514) and Regulations and Orders and Pesticides Act 1974 (Act 149) and Regulations.

Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Pesticides used in estates are stored in accordance to the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 1994 (Act 514) and Regulations and Orders and Pesticides Act 1974 (Act 149) and Regulations.

Objective evidence:

Safe Operating Procedures for the use of Pesticides clearly emphasizing procedure in storing the pesticides used in the estate. Pesticides used in the estates observed to be stored appropriately in a closed room with proper ventilation chamber and adequate label and at the designated area. Observed also the hazardous mark paste on the wall depicting the toxicity of the pesticides to the human health.


4.6.4 All information regarding the chemicals and its usage, hazards, trade and generic names must be available in language understood by workers or explained carefully to them by a plantation management official at operating unit level.

Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Information regarding chemicals and its usage, hazards, trade and generic names is available in language understood by workers or explained carefully to them by a plantation management official at operating unit level.

Objective evidence:

Safe Operating Procedures is available in local language describing the methods in handling the agrochemicals and safety measures that need to be taken should there is an emergency occur. With regard to the foreign workers, all safe operating procedures in handling the pesticides is given through a briefing and a slot of training that to be given to all workers at prescribed interval. Records of training given is kept and maintained (refer to 4.8.1)

MY02024




4.6.5 Annual medical surveillance as per CHRA for plantation pesticide operators.

Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Annual medical surveillance as per CHRA for plantation pesticide operators is available.

Objective evidence:

Medical surveillance for worker practicing spraying is conducted by the appointed Medical Assistance of the estates and each of the medical surveillances conducted are recorded on a monthly basis. Observed that record for 2009 to 2012 (February) is available at the estates visited.


4.6.6 No work with pesticides for confirmed pregnant and breast-feeding women.

Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

No work with pesticides for confirmed pregnant and breast-feeding women.

Objective evidence:

Based on the employment record, the auditing team observed that there are several women employed either for handling the pesticides in the store room or practicing pesticides spraying in the field. Nevertheless, their monthly medical surveillances confirmed that none of them are pregnant or breast-feeding women.


4.6.7 Documentary evidence that use of chemicals categorised as World Health Organisation Type 1A or 1B, or listed by the Stockholm or Rotterdam Conventions and paraquat, is reduced and/or eliminated. Adoption of suitable economic alternative to paraquat as suggested by the EB pending outcome of the RSPO study on IWM.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Documentary evidence that use of chemicals categorised as World Health Organisation Type 1A or 1B, or listed by the Stockholm or Rotterdam Conventions and paraquat, is reduced and/or eliminated is available.

Objective evidence:

All estates visited observed to be no longer using paraquat in their spraying activity. All chemicals that has been used is a registered chemical and approved by the relevant local authority that is not listed under this Indicator.


4.6.8 Documented justification of any aerial application of agrochemicals. No aerial spraying unless approved by relevant authorities.

Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

No evidence of aerial spraying.

Objective evidence:

No areal spraying application observed in the operation area for every estates visited.


4.6.9 Evidence of chemical residues in CPO testing, as requested and Compliance

MY02024



conducted by the buyers. Minor

S01 Findings:

No evidence of chemicals residues in CPO testing, as requested and conducted by the buyers.

Objective evidence:

No buyers have requested for testing hence there is no evidence.


4.6.10 Records of pesticide use (including active ingredients used, area treated, amount applied per ha and number of applications) are maintained for either a minimum of 5 years or starting November 2007.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Records of pesticide use (including active ingredients used, area treated, amount applied per ha and number of applications) are maintained.

Objective evidence:

Data is recorded based on the type of pesticides used and recorded on a monthly basis. Observed during the audit the records for year 2004-2011.


Criterion 4.7

An occupational health and safety plan is documented, effectively communicated and implemented.

4.7.1 Evidence of documented Occupational Safety Health (OSH) plan which is in compliance with OSH Act 1994 and Factory and Machinery Act 1967(Act 139).

Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Evidence of documented Occupational Safety Health (OSH) plan that is not compliance with OSH Act 1994 and Factory and Machinery Act 1967(Act 139).

Objective evidence:

The documented OSH plan is described within the OHSAS document HPOM/OHSAS 18001: OSH Documentation. The plan describes the following items:

OSH Objectives

OSH Organisation Chart

Appointment of Safety and Health Coordinator

Establishment of Safety and Health Committee

Minutes of Safety and Health Committee Meeting

Safety and Health Procedures covering Workers, Contractors and Suppliers

OSH Programme

Visit to the estates observed that workers handling of first aid kit are not properly trained as evident in Layang-layang and Seri Pulai. First aid is also not present in the working field (New Minor CAR 33).


4.7.2 Records should be kept of all accidents and periodically reviewed at quarterly intervals.

Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Records of all accidents are kept and periodically reviewed at quarterly intervals.

Objective evidence:

MY02024



Accident records are recorded in the document Accident, Incident and NCR (OSH/05/4.5.3). All accidents records are reviewed on case by case basis and the findings from the review are discussed in the OSH Meeting. There is also evidence on the usage of Borang JKKP 8 that need to be submitted to the Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) on yearly basis. According to the records, the latest submission of Borang JKKP 8 was submitted in January 2012.

In addition, there is also evidence on the usage of the form PQSM-OSH Monthly Update that is recorded on a monthly basis that is to be submitted and compiled by the central region plantation office before been submitted to the DOSH. Observed the latest record for December 2011 is available and maintained.

Procedure for Identification of Hazard, Risk Assessment and Risk Control dated November 2008 is made available. The procedure describes the method in conducting the assessment that need to be conducted on yearly basis. In addition, the procedure also describes the method in calculating the rate of risk i.e. by multiplying the Probability of Harm Occurring with the Severity of the Harm. Based on the procedure, the calculated risk is subsequently classified according to the following classification:

Low – Tolerable risk – No additional risk control measure required

Medium – Moderate risk – Current risk control measure may need to be improved

High – Intolerable risk – Immediate action required to control the hazards or stop the operation

The records of Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and Risk Control are maintained and available that is classified according to the job list and working environment. Based on records, for 2010, the assessment was conducted on 27 September 2010 and was approved on 2 October 2010. For 2011, the assessment was conducted in June 2011. However, as of the date of the audit, the finding of risk assessment is in the process of finalizing the findings before being tabled for review in the Safety and Health Committee Meeting and subsequently approved by the Mill Manager. The assessment is expected to be reviewed and approved during the forthcoming Safety and Health Committee Meeting scheduled on 23 February 2012.

Accident records are recorded in the document Accident, Incident and NCR (OSH/05/4.5.3). All accidents records are kept and maintained on monthly basis and reviewed and discussed every three months during the OSH Meeting. There is also evidence on the usage of the form PQSM-OSH Monthly Update that is recorded on a monthly basis that is to be submitted and compiled by the central region plantation office before been submitted to the DOSH. Observed the latest record for December 2011 is available and maintained.


4.7.3 Workers should be covered by accident insurance. Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Workers are covered by accident insurance.

Objective evidence:

All workers both in Mill and Estates are covered with insurance. For foreign workers, they are covered under the group foreign workers compensation scheme that is recorded in the documented file HPOM E/IE/08. The latest insurance policy bearing the policy no. FW025546 covering period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 and no. FW025670 covering period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 are made available to the auditors.

MY02024



For local workers, the workers are covered through Public Liability for both estates and mills that covers the following:

Accidental bodily injury to third parties;

Accidental damage to property of third party;


Criterion 4.8

All staff, workers, smallholders and contractors are appropriately trained.

4.8.1 A training programme (appropriate to the scale of the organization) that includes regular assessment of training needs and documentation, including records of training for employees are kept.

Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Inadequate training programme that includes regular assessment of training need and documentation, including records of training for employees.

Objective evidence:

Training programmes is available covering all level of work force in estates and mill. Inception training is given to new workers and this is followed by task specific training which covers harvesting, spraying, field upkeep, fertilizer application, storage and handling of agrochemicals, safety, etc.

Training records are available and maintained. For the mills, based on records, latest training has been conducted on 31 January 2012 with regard to the safety and health of workers in the workshop and attended by 18 workers. Training needs analysis plan at mill level for 2011/2012 dated 1 July 2011 has been conducted and is made available to the auditing team. The training needs analysis plan is covering various level of mill management.

As for the estates, the training record for Kulai Estate is observed. The trainings conducted are recorded in the Document Training Record (Workers) (QSHE/16/6.2.3) and is sorted according to the working areas. The latest training conducted for 2011 covering various working areas is as follows:

Chemical Handling and Spraying –14 July 2011 attended by 35 personnel (training is conducted by external trainer i.e. Syarikat Jun Chong Sdn. Bhd.)

OHSAS Training – 19 October 2011 attended by 4 personnel (training is conducted by Fire Department

There is also training on the use of first aid kit conducted. Based on record, the latest training conducted was on 11 November 2010 and attended by 28 personnel.

However, record showed that there is no chemical handling training conducted to Health Assistance. In addition, the manuring workers are observed to be not adequately trained (New MINOR CAR 34).


Principle 5 : ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND BIODIVERSITY

Criterion 5.1

Aspects of plantation and mill management, including replanting, that have environmental impacts are identified, and plans to mitigate the negative impacts and promote the positive ones are made, implemented and monitored, to demonstrate continuous improvement.

5.1.1 Documented aspects and impacts risk assessment that is periodically reviewed and updated.

Compliance

Major

MY02024



S01 Findings:

Inadequate documented aspects and impacts risk assessment.

Objective evidence:

Documented evidence for the identification of environmental aspects and impacts at the mill and estates level are available. There is a provision to review these aspects and impacts annually. Environmental impact evaluation matrixes with compliance rating have also been undertaken. The matrix represents a register and focuses on control and management of impacts for most production activities. Activities with high environmental impact rating have proposed mitigation measures whereas low impact activities are monitored. Environmental management is also supported by and Environmental Improvement and Pollution Prevention Plan. In general, environmental management activities in SOU 24 are undertaken adequately in both mill and estates.

However, the documented of environmental aspect is incomplete e.g. manuring and replanting (New Minor CAR 35).


5.1.2 Environmental improvement plan to mitigate the negative impacts and promote the positive ones, is developed, implemented and monitored.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Environmental improvement plan to mitigate the negative impacts and promote the positive ones, is developed, implemented and monitored.

Objective evidence:

Environmental improvement plan to mitigate the negative impacts and promote the positive ones, is developed, implemented and monitored.


Criterion 5.2

The status of rare, threatened or endangered species (ERTs) and highly conservation value habitats, if any, that exist in the plantation or that could be affected by plantation or mill management, shall be identified and their conservation taken into account in management plans and operations.

5.2.1 Identification and assessment of HCV habitats and protected areas within land holdings; and attempt assessments of HCV habitats and protected areas surrounding landholdings.

Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Inadequate Identification and assessment of HCV habitats and protected areas within land holdings; and attempt assessments of HCV habitats and protected areas surrounding landholdings.

Objective evidence:

Inspection into the baseline assessment report evidenced several fauna species that is found observed in the estate that is classified as non-ERT. However, verification in the WCA, 2010 evidenced that three fauna species i.e. white egret and kingfisher are listed as protected species thus require stakeholder and expert review on ERT identification. (Minor CAR 29 upgraded to Major CAR 36).

Close out of Major CAR

Sime Darby has submitted the details of stakeholder consultation takes place to identify the population status of the species listed in the biodiversity assessment. The list of the stakeholder consulted is also available (Major CAR 36 closed)


5.2.2 Management plan for HCV habitats (including ERTs) and their conservation.

Compliance

Major

MY02024



S01 Findings:

Evidence of management plan for HCV habitats (including ERTs) and their conservation.

Objective evidence:

Management plan for the HCV habitats identified within the biodiversity assessment is evident.


5.2.3 Evidence of a commitment to discourage any illegal or inappropriate hunting, fishing or collecting activities, and developing responsible measures to resolve human-wildlife conflicts.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Evidence of a commitment to discourage any illegal or inappropriate hunting, fishing or collecting activities, and developing responsible measures to resolve human-wildlife conflicts.

Objective evidence:

The management of the individual estates has taken action to discourage any illegal or inappropriate hunting fishing or collecting activities. This is the form of placing signages in appropriate locations and briefing workers.


Criterion 5.3

Waste is reduced, recycled, re-used and disposed of in an environmentally and socially responsible manner.

5.3.1 Documented identification of all waste products and sources of pollution. Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Evidence of documented identification of all waste products and sources of pollution.

Objective evidence:

Schedule waste produced at mill is captured and recorded in the Section A of the Scheduled Waste Management Plan. On the other hand wastes sourcing and derived from mill is identified and recorded on a monthly basis where all wastes produced is subsequently be applied as fertilizer in the surrounding estates. Generally the waste identified is as follows:

EFB

Compost

Decanter Cake

Boiler Ash

Debris (sand, stone, and rubbish)


5.3.2 Having identified wastes and pollutants, an operational plan should be developed and implemented, to avoid or reduce pollution.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Operational plan to avoid or reduce pollution is not properly implemented.

Objective evidence:

Waste management plan is not properly documented to avoid or to reduce pollution. Evidenced domestic waste is not segregated at the line site i.e. observed glass, aluminium can, plastic bottle, tyre.

MY02024



In Seri Pulai there is evidence of container of black oil found on the field. In addition, there is evidence of oil trap is not functioning properly (New Minor CAR 37).


5.3.3 Evidence that crop residues / biomass are recycled (Cross ref. C4.2). Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Crop residues / biomass are recycled.

Objective evidence:

All wastes derived from POM is categorized as Empty Fruit Bunch (EFB), compost and Decanter Cake. Amount of wastes generated and recycled are recorded on monthly basis.


Criterion 5.4

Efficiency of energy use and use of renewable energy is maximized.

5.4.1 Monitoring of renewable energy use per tonne of CPO or palm product in the mill.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Evidence of monitoring of renewable energy use per tonne of CPO or palm product in the mill.

Objective evidence:

The Mill has monitored the usage of EFB to generate electricity in the POM that is recorded on Monthly basis.


5.4.2 Monitoring of direct fossil fuel use per tonne of CPO or kW per tonne palm product in the mill (or FFB where the grower has no mill).

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

There is no usage of diesel in POM.

Objective evidence:

No usage of diesel in palm product in the POM.


Criterion 5.5

Use of fire for waste disposal and for preparing land for replanting is avoided except in specific situations, as identified in the ASEAN Guidance or other regional best practice.

5.5.1 No evidence of open burning. Where controlled burning occurs, it is as prescribed by the Environmental Quality (Declared Activities) (Open Burning) Order 2003.

Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

No evidence of open burning.

Objective evidence:

Observation during the field visit showed no evidence of open burning on site.


5.5.2 Previous crop should be felled/mowed down, chipped/shredded, windrowed or pulverized/ ploughed and mulched.

Compliance

Minor

MY02024



S01 Findings:

Previous crops are felled/mowed down, chipped/shredded and windrowed.

Objective evidence:

Refer indicator 5.5.1. In general, all felled trunks are chipped and windrowed


5.5.3 No evidence of burning waste (including domestic waste). Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

There is no evidence of burning of domestic waste at the line site

Objective evidence: Visit to estates line site confirmed no evidence of burning of domestic waste.


Criterion 5.6

Plans to reduce pollution and emissions, including greenhouse gases, are developed, implemented and monitored.

5.6.1 Documented plans to mitigate all polluting activities (Cross ref to C5.1). Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Documented plans to mitigate all polluting activities is available.

Objective evidence:

Environment Management Programme (Form MR-03/QSHEP) to mitigate polluting activities for 2011/2012 is in place and implemented highlighting two objectives i.e. (i) Zero Spillage at POME application and (ii) to achieve black smoke density of less than 40% for less than 15 min per day for financial year 2011/2012. According to the plan, the data is collected every 3 months. In addition, records of plan implementation and monitoring of effectiveness is available and observed (Minor CAR 30 closed).


5.6.2 Plans are reviewed annually. Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Plans are reviewed annually.

Objective evidence:

The EMP is conducted according to Section 5.4.2: QSHE Management Programmes/Action Plans of the Standard Operating Manual (SOM) and reviewed on a yearly basis upon achieving the objective highlighted for the particular year (Minor CAR 20 closed).


5.6.3 Monitor and reduce peat subsidence rate through water table management. (Within ranges specified in C 4.3).

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Water table management is available.

Objective evidence:

Water management plan for Seri Pulai Estate is available and observed during the visit. The plan describes specific section detailing the monitoring and managing the peat within the estate.

MY02024




PRINCIPLE 6: RESPONSIBLE CONSIDERATION OF EMPLOYEES AND OF INDIVIDUALS AND COMMUNITIES BY GROWERS AND MILLERS

Criterion 6.1

Aspects of plantation and mill management, including replanting, that have social impacts are identified in a participatory way, and plans to mitigate the negative impacts and promote the positive ones are made, implemented and monitored, to demonstrate continuous improvement.

6.1.1 A documented social impact assessment including records of meetings. Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

A documented social impact assessment including records of meetings is available.

Objective evidence:

The SIA for the mill as well as the four estates are available outlining the methodology approach of the document (Minor CAR 31 closed).


6.1.2 Evidence that the assessment has been done with the participation of affected parties.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

There is evidence that the assessment has been done with the participation of affected parties.

Objective evidence:

All records of meetings, consultation takes place during the SIA is incorporated in the document. List of the stakeholders consulted are also available.


6.1.3 A timetable with responsibilities for mitigation and monitoring is reviewed and updated as necessary.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

A timetable with responsibilities for mitigation and monitoring is reviewed and updated.

Objective evidence:

There is evidence of action plan incorporated in the SIA. The action plan describes the plan for mitigate the impacts identified in the SIA as well as plan to monitor the impact (Minor CAR 23 closed).


Criterion 6.2

There are open and transparent methods for communication and consultation between growers and/or millers, local communities and other affected or interested parties.

6.2.1 Documented consultation and communication procedures. Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Consultation and communication procedures are available and documented.

Objective evidence:

There is a procedure for communication and consultation between growers/millers and stakeholders within and surrounding the landholdings.

MY02024




6.2.2 A nominated plantation management official at the operating unit responsible for these issues.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Evidence of nominated plantation management official at the operating unit responsible for these issues.

Objective evidence:

Evidence of nominated official at each of estates visited as a responsible person on all social related issues. In summary, the nominated official is obliged to conduct the following responsibility:

Investigate any report or claim with regard to social issues and to recommend applicable disciplinary act, where necessary;

Keeping all record of reports and action taken for each of reports received;

Provide advice and counselling to workers that need such service; and

Assist the estate management in organizing any social related events.


6.2.3 Maintenance of a list of stakeholders, records of all communication and records of actions taken in response to input from stakeholders.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

List of stakeholders, records of all communication and records of actions taken in response to input from stakeholders is maintained.

Objective evidence:

List of stakeholders at estate and mill level and records of communication is available. These include local banks, contractors, vendors, local community heads, local authority services, government agencies including the list for NGOs, neighbouring mills and estates etc.


Criterion 6.3

There is a mutually agreed and documented system for dealing with complaints and grievances, which is implemented and accepted by all parties.

6.3.1 Documentation of the process by which a dispute was resolved and the outcome.

Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Documentation of the process by which a dispute was resolved and the outcome is available.

Objective evidence:

Protocols documented and records kept of the issues and their outcomes. The procedures for handling complaints and grievances are outlined in the QSHE/02/4.2.3. Meetings with external stakeholders and the grievance resolution books at individual estates have been initiated.


6.3.2 The system resolves disputes in an effective, timely and appropriate manner.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

The system resolves disputes in an effective, timely and appropriate manner.

MY02024



Objective evidence:

The established grievance procedures specifies the estimated time shall be taken for each of the process to be addressed before proceed to the subsequent process.


6.3.3 The system is open to any affected parties. Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

The system is open to any affected parties.

Objective evidence:

Communication to the affected parties is evidenced. For instance, any social issues is communicated through either Gender Committee (for women issues) or during briefing during daily Muster Call or during the Safety and Health Briefing.


Criterion 6.4

Any negotiations concerning compensation for loss of legal or customary rights are dealt with through a documented system that enables indigenous peoples, local communities and other stakeholders to express their views through their own representative institutions.

6.4.1 Establishment of a procedure for identifying legal and customary rights and a procedure for identifying people entitled to compensation.

Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Not applicable as the neighbouring communities are recent migrants (in the 1960s). There are no indigenous communities within or surrounding SOU 24 that hold legal or customary rights over the land.

Objective evidence:

Not applicable.


6.4.2 A procedure for calculating and distributing fair compensation (monetary or otherwise) is established and implemented. This takes into account gender differences in the power to claim rights, ownership and access to land; and long-established communities; differences in ethnic groups’ proof of legal versus communal ownership of land.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:


Objective evidence:

Not applicable.


6.4.3 The process and outcome of any compensation claims is documented and made publicly available.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:


Objective evidence:

Not applicable.

MY02024




Criterion 6.5

Pay and conditions for employees and for employees of contractors always meet at least legal or industry minimum standards and are sufficient to provide decent living wages.

6.5.1 Documentation of pay and conditions. Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Evidence of documentation of pay and conditions.

Objective evidence:

Each worker received his/her pay slip that contains clear details of the salary paid and deductions made that is as follows:

Number of days worked in a month

Overtime

Sick leave pay

Annual leave pay

Public holiday pay

Off day pay

Worker’s daily attendance incentive

EPF contribution and deduction (except for foreign workers)

SOCSO contribution and deduction (except for foreign workers but replaced by workmen compensation scheme)

Advance collected in the mid month

Gross earnings

Net earnings

Several payslips for harvester and sprayer workers are inspected. In general, harvester workers receive between RM700-1,800 depending on how much tonnage of FFB harvester while sprayers receive between RM600-1300.


6.5.2 Labour laws, union agreements or direct contracts of employment detailing payments and conditions of employment (e.g. working hours, deductions, overtime, sickness, holiday entitlement, maternity leave, reasons for dismissal, period of notice, etc) are available in the language understood by the workers or explained carefully to them by a plantation management official in the operating unit.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Labour laws, union agreements or direct contracts of employment detailing payments and conditions of employment are available in the language understood by the workers.

Objective evidence:

The foreign worker’s work contracts are verified. The contracts are written in English for Nepal and Myanmar national workers and Bahasa Malaysia for Malay and Indonesian workers. In addition, the pay slip and contracts are also available in the respective languages.


6.5.3 Growers and millers provide adequate housing, water supplies, medical, educational and welfare amenities in accordance with Workers’ Minimum Standard of Housing and Amenities Act 1990 (Act 446) or above, where

Compliance

Minor

MY02024



no such public facilities are available or accessible (not applicable to smallholders).

S01 Findings:

Adequate housing, water supplies, medical, educational and welfare amenities provided to workers.

Objective evidence:

Workers have access to clean water, segregated sanitary and bathing facilities and electricity. All employees are given adequate housing, medical, educational and welfare amenities and waste disposal facilities in accordance with Workers’ Minimum Standard of Housing and Amenities Act. Disposal of domestic solid wastes at the linesite is conducted at least twice weekly.


Criterion 6.6

The employer respects the right of all personnel to form and join trade unions of their choice and to bargain collectively. Where the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining are restricted under law, the employer facilitates parallel means of independent and free association and bargaining for all such personnel.

6.6.1 Documented minutes of meetings with main trade unions or workers representatives.

Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Documented minutes of meetings with main trade unions or workers representatives are available.

Objective evidence:

There is proof of documented minutes of meetings with representatives of the National Union of Plantation Workers (NUPW) at the mill and estate levels.


6.6.2 A published statement in local languages recognizing freedom of association.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

A published statement in local languages recognizing freedom of association is available.

Objective evidence:

There is a published statement in English and Bahasa Malaysia under the SOU’s Social Policy recognizing freedom of association.


Criterion 6.7

Children are not employed or exploited. Work by children is acceptable on family farms, under adult supervision, and when not interfering with education programmes. Children are not exposed to hazardous working conditions.

6.7.1 Documented evidence that minimum age requirement is met. Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Documented evidence that minimum age requirement is met is available.

Objective evidence:

There is documented evidence in the form of individual worker’s particulars and contracts demonstrating that the minimum age requirement is met. The company has policy not to use underage worker and there was no evidence of children working in the field.


MY02024



Criterion 6.8

Any form of discrimination based on race, caste, national origin, religion, disability, gender, sexual orientation, union membership, political affiliation, or age, is prohibited.

6.8.1 A publicly available equal opportunities policy. Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

A publicly available equal opportunities policy is available.

Objective evidence:

There is a Social Policy available which states, among others, the SOU’s policy for equal opportunities in terms of “recruitment, progression, terms and conditions of work and representation, irrespective of race, caste, national origin, gender, colour, disability, sexual orientation, union membership, political opinion, religion and/or age.”


6.8.2 Evidence that employees and groups including migrant workers have not been discriminated against.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Evidence that employees and groups including migrant workers have not been discriminated against.

Objective evidence:

There is no evidence, anecdotal or documentary which points to discrimination against foreign workers. Equal opportunities are demonstrated through examples such as similar daily wages for migrant workers and local workers.


Criterion 6.9

A policy to prevent sexual harassment and all other forms of violence against women and to protect their reproductive rights is developed and applied.

6.9.1 A policy on sexual harassment and violence and records of implementation.

Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

A policy on sexual harassment and violence and records of implementation is available.

Objective evidence:

There is a Social Policy available which states, among others, the SOU’s policy for the prevention of sexual harassment and all other forms of violence against women and to protect their reproductive rights.


6.9.2 A specific grievance mechanism is established. Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

A specific grievance mechanism is established.

Objective evidence:

Grievance mechanism is in place that is built in within the procedures for handling complaints and grievances (QSHE/02/4.2.3). The document details the procedures and mechanism applied to resolve all disputes and grievances raised by the relevant stakeholders.

In addition there is a gender committee and a nominated gender representative at all the four estates and mill.

MY02024




Criterion 6.10

Growers and mills deal fairly and transparently with smallholders and other local businesses.

6.10.1 Pricing mechanisms for FFB and inputs/services shall be documented. Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Pricing mechanisms for FFB and inputs/services is documented.

Objective evidence:

The pricing of inputs/services such as road maintenance contracts, supplier’s pricing details are clearly stated in the individual contracts for suppliers/contractors.


6.10.2 Current and past prices paid for FFB shall be publicly available. Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Current and past prices paid for FFB is publicly available.

Objective evidence:

There is a tender process for suppliers/contractors at the estate and mill levels, inviting the quotations from the stakeholders. All prices paid for the FFB is available in the payment chit which is traceable for the present and past prices.


6.10.3 Evidence that all parties understand the contractual agreements they enter into, and that contracts are fair, legal and transparent.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Adequate evidence that all parties understand the contractual agreements they enter into, and that contracts are fair, legal and transparent.

Objective evidence:

SOU 24 does not have a policy to purchase FFB from smallholders. However, there is a tender process for suppliers/contractors at the estate and mill levels, inviting the quotations from the stakeholders.


6.10.4 Agreed payments shall be made in a timely manner. Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

Agreed payments is made in a timely manner.

Objective evidence:

Interviews with suppliers and contractors at the estates reveal that all payments are made in a timely manner.


Criterion 6.11

Growers and millers contribute to local sustainable development wherever appropriate.

6.11.1 Demonstrable contributions to local development that are based on the results of consultation with local communities.

Compliance

Minor

MY02024



S01 Findings:

Objective evidence:

The individual estates and the mill have a very basic form of corporate social responsibility (CSR), which usually involves stakeholders, especially the local communities approaching them for donations on various occasions such as deaths, religious celebrations, for the upkeep and maintenance of schools, family day, sports day etc.

Contribution to local community is an active exercise for SOU 24 and records of contribution eg road upgrading, Transport for water supply during drought, school sport activities, security issues concerning workers etc are available at each estate.

All activities and contribution rendered are recorded in the Corporate Social Responsibility Report for each of the financial year.

Minor CAR 26 closed out.


P7: RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW PLANTINGS

This whole Principle is not applicable to this assessment as there are no new plantings. The company is only involved in re-planting programme after felling of old palms and there is no plan for expansion. P8: COMMITMENT TO CONTINOUS IMPROVEMENT IN KEY AREAS OF ACTIVITY

Criterion 8.1

Growers and millers regularly monitor and review their activities and develop and implement action plans that allow demonstrable continuous improvement in key operations.

8.1.1 Minimise use of certain pesticides (C4.6). Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Evidence of commitment to minimise use of certain pesticides.

Objective evidence:

SOU 24 is taking effort to make continuous improvement in key areas of activity. There is evidence that effort has been made to minimise use of agrochemicals due to the introduction of biological control.


8.1.2 Environmental impacts (C5.1). Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Commitment to mitigate environmental impacts.

Objective evidence:

A mechanism is in place for environmental management however these management actions does not indicate the specific section of documented environmental impacts for manuring and replanting (Refer to Minor CAR 35).


8.1.3 Maximizing recycling and minimizing waste or by-products generation. Compliance

Major

MY02024



S01 Findings:

Commitment to Maximizing recycling and minimizing waste or by-products generation.

Objective evidence:

There is no documented programme in place that promotes maximising recycling and minimising waste or by-products generation in both estates and mill. The identification of waste and by-products generation is adequate


8.1.4 Pollution prevention plans (C5.6). Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Commitment for prevention of the pollution.

Objective evidence:

Environment Management Programme (Form MR-03/QSHEP) to mitigate polluting activities for 2011/2012 is in place and implemented highlighting two objectives i.e. (i) Zero Spillage at POME application and (ii) to achieve black smoke density of less than 40% for less than 15 min per day for financial year 2011/2012. According to the plan, the data is collected every 3 months. In addition, records of plan implementation and monitoring of effectiveness is available and observed The EMP is conducted according to Section 5.4.2: QSHE Management Programmes/Action Plans of the Standard Operating Manual (SOM) and reviewed on a yearly basis upon achieving the objective highlighted for the particular year

Water management plan for Seri Pulai Estate is available and observed during the visit. The plan describes specific section detailing the monitoring and managing the peat within the estate


8.1.5 Social impacts (C6.1). Compliance

Major

S01 Findings:

Commitment towards social impacts.

Objective evidence:

The SIA for the mill as well as the four estates are available outlining the

methodology approach of the document. All records of meetings, consultation takes place during the SIA is incorporated in the document. List of the stakeholders consulted are also available. There is evidence of action plan incorporated in the SIA. The action plan describes the plan for mitigate the impacts identified in the SIA as well as plan to monitor the impact.


8.1.6 A mechanism to capture the performance and expenditure in social and environmental aspects.

Compliance

Minor

S01 Findings:

A mechanism to capture the performance and expenditure in social and environmental aspects are available.

Objective evidence:

General budget for Corporate Social Responsibility Programme (CSR) and

MY02024



Environmental Control Budget are available.


5.0 Assessment Decision

The surveillance 01 assessment has resulted in the issuance of 1 Major CAR (subsequently closed on 14 April 2012), 10 Minor CARs closed and 5 New Minor CARs raised. Details of the CAR and the objective evidence are as listed in Section 7.0.

With no outstanding Major CAR, the RSPO Certification of Sime Darby Plantations Berhad’s management of SOU 24 Hadapan, Layang-Layang, Johor, is now be maintaned. The issues highlighted as Minor CARs must be adequately addressed and the adequacy of the actions taken need to be verified during the first surveillance visit to be conducted within

12 months from the date of assessment.

MY02024



6.0 Acknowledgement of Internal Responsibility and Formal Sign Off of

Assessment Findings

It is acknowledged that the assessments cited in this report have been carried out as stipulated and we confirm the acceptance of the assessment report contents including assessment findings.

MY02024



7.0 RECORD OF CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUESTS (CARs)

Organisation: Sime Darby Plantations Sdn. Bhd. Project Nr: MY02024

Assessment: Annual Surveillance Audit 1 Date: 14-17 February 2012

Lead Assessor: Abdul Haye Semail

CAR #

Indicator CAR Detail

03 4.2.2 Date Recorded>

18/12/08 Due Date> Next surv Date

Closed> 17 February 2012

Non-Conformance:

Inconsistency of periodic tissue and soil sampling being carried out to monitor changes in nutrient status.

Objective Evidence:

Soil sampling not undertaken. i. Soil sampling not undertaken to support best management practices. ii. Soil maps found inadequate and need to be updated.

Close-out evidence:

In practice, the soil sampling is conducted by the RnD Division of the Sime Darby Plantation on estate by estate basis. The procedure in conducting the soil sampling analysis is stipulated in the Section 4 of the Sustainable Plantation Management System. Based on the procedure, the interval of the soil sampling analysis is conducted every 25 years. Soil/Foliar Analysis for 2010/2011 is available. In addition, Soil/Foliar Analysis for 2011/2012 is budgeted in the estate budget




Non-Conformance:

Inadequate water management plan.

Objective Evidence:

Onsite management planning inadequate. i. Onsite Management Planning inadequate. ii. Plans detailing the different aspects of ground and surface water management not

available.

Close-out evidence:

Water management plan is available for financial year 2011/2012. The plan is divided into three sections as follows:

Reduction of water usage for financial year 2011/2012

Contingency Plan During Water Shortage for financial year 2011/2012

Water usage for monthly basis for financial year 2011/2012

Observation made in the estates visited evidenced the availability of Action Plan with regard to the managing of water usage such as:

Action Plan for Reduction of Water Usage; and

Action Plan for Water Sampling from stream and river

In addition, there is also the Water Management in Coastal and Peat Plantings that is described in the Agricultural Reference Manual (ARM)




Non-Conformance:

MY02024



CAR #


Insufficient written justification in Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) of all agrochemicals use.

Objective Evidence:

Written justification for all agrochemicals used not comprehensive. i. Written justification only available for certain agrochemicals thus not comprehensive.

Close-out evidence:

Usage of agrochemical is described in the Section A10: Weeding and Section B3: Weeding/Spraying of the Standard Operating Procedures of the Estates. The procedure describes the function/justification and methods of applying the agrochemical




Non-Conformance:

Lacks of plans are reviewed annually.

Objective Evidence:

No evidence of stated periodicity review of pollution and emission reduction plans.

Close-out evidence:

The EMP is conducted according to Section 5.4.2: QSHE Management Programmes/Action Plans of the Standard Operating Manual (SOM) and reviewed on a yearly basis upon achieving the objective highlighted for the particular year




Non-Conformance:

Inadequate timetable with responsibilities for mitigation and monitoring

Objective Evidence:

The revised SIA does not exhibit a timetable which sufficiently addresses responsibilities for mitigation and monitoring. Only Kulai estate provided a revised social management plan during the close-out visit which includes responsibilities for mitigation. However, it does not address monitoring of impacts identified during the SIA. In conclusion, there is no proof of monitoring and allocation of responsibility for mitigation and monitoring for most of the estates and mill.

Close-out evidence:

There is evidence of action plan incorporated in the SIA. The action plan describes the plan for mitigate the impacts identified in the SIA as well as plan to monitor the impact.




Non-Conformance:

Inadequate timetable with responsibilities for mitigation and monitoring

Objective Evidence:

i) There is no evidence of demonstrable contributions to local development that are based on the results of consultation with local communities, i.e. to identify their own priorities and needs, including the different needs of men and women. ii) There is no clearly defined CSR objective/goals or plan of action. The CSR evidence demonstrates that CSR at the estate level is ad-hoc, i.e. there is no medium/long-term planning for CSR activities. iii) The percentage of the plantation’s profit/turnover for social development projects is unclear.

Close-out evidence:

MY02024



CAR #


The individual estates and the mill have a very basic form of corporate social responsibility (CSR), which usually involves stakeholders, especially the local communities approaching them for donations on various occasions such as deaths, religious celebrations, for the upkeep and maintenance of schools, family day, sports day etc.

Contribution to local community is an active exercise for SOU 24 and records of contribution eg road upgrading, Transport for water supply during drought, school sport activities, security issues concerning workers etc are available at each estate.

All activities and contribution rendered are recorded in the Corporate Social Responsibility Report for each of the financial year.




Non-Conformance:

Inadequate demonstration of the protection of water courses and wetlands, including maintaining and restoring appropriate riparian buffer zones at or before replanting along all natural waterways within the estate.

Objective Evidence:

Buffer zone restoration and demarcation is inconsistently undertaken in the different states. Management guidance is not uniform not formalized.

Close-out evidence:

There is a Policy Slope and River Protection, signed by top management of Sime Darby Plantation dated April 2011.

In addition, all buffer zones identified within the estates are mapped. Observed evidence of map depicting buffer zone and waterways in the estates visited.




Non-Conformance:

Evidence on construction of bunds/weirs/dams across the main rivers or waterways passing through an estate.

Objective Evidence:

The conditions required by the Jabatan Pengairan dan Saliran in a letter dated on the 5th

of January need to be fulfilled.

Close-out evidence:

Visit during the surveillance visit evident that no construction of bunds, weirs and dams were observed in the estates. All provisions stipulated in the Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID) is fulfilled




Non-Conformance:


Objective Evidence:

MY02024



CAR #


Identification and assessment of HCV habitats and protected areas not undertaken. i. Identification and assessment of HCV habitats has not been undertaken with the six

HCV values accepted at international level. ii. Inadequate biodiversity baseline assessment was attempted.


Close-out evidence:




Non-Conformance:

Inadequate documented plans to mitigate all polluting activities.

Objective Evidence:

Records of plan implementation and monitoring of effectiveness inadequate.

Close-out evidence:

Environment Management Programme (Form MR-03/QSHEP) to mitigate polluting activities for 2011/2012 is in place and implemented highlighting two objectives i.e. (i) Zero Spillage at POME application and (ii) to achieve black smoke density of less than 40% for less than 15 min per day for financial year 2011/2012. According to the plan, the data is collected every 3 months. In addition, records of plan implementation and monitoring of effectiveness is available and observed.




Non-Conformance:

Inadequate documented social impact assessment including records of meetings.

Objective Evidence:

The SIA still lacks detail and falls short of its own goals and criteria which were outlined in the methodology/approach

Close-out evidence:

The SIA for the mill as well as the four estates are available outlining the methodology approach of the document



Closed>

Non-Conformance:

Outgoing water into main natural waterways is not monitored at a frequency that reflects the estates and mills current activities which may have negative impacts

Objective Evidence:

No monitoring takes place for every water analysis taken

Close-out evidence:



Closed>

Non-Conformance:

MY02024



CAR #


Evidence of documented Occupational Safety Health (OSH) plan that is not compliance with OSH Act 1994 and Factory and Machinery Act 1967(Act 139).

Objective Evidence:

Visit to the estates observed that workers handling of first aid kit are not properly trained as evident in Layang-layang and Seri Pulai. First aid is also not present in the working field

Close-out evidence:



Closed>

Non-Conformance:

Inadequate training programme that includes regular assessment of training need and documentation, including records of training for employees.

Objective Evidence:

Record showed that there is no chemical handling training conducted to Health Assistance. In addition, the manuring workers are observed to be not adequately trained

Close-out evidence:



Closed>

Non-Conformance:

Inadequate documented aspects and impacts risk assessment.

Objective Evidence:

The documented of environmental aspect is incomplete e.g. manuring and replanting.

Close-out evidence:

M36 5.2.1 Date Recorded>

17/02/12 Due Date> 16/05/12 Date

Closed> 14/04/2012

Non-Conformance:


Objective Evidence:


Close-out evidence:

Sime Darby has submitted the details of stakeholder consultation takes place to identify the population status of the species listed in the biodiversity assessment. The list of the stakeholder consulted is also available.


17/02/12 Due Date> 16/05/12 Date

Closed>

Non-Conformance:

Operational plan to avoid or reduce pollution is not properly implemented.

Objective Evidence:

MY02024



CAR #


Waste management plan is not properly documented to avoid or to reduce pollution. Evidenced domestic waste is not segregated at the line site i.e. observed glass, aluminium can, plastic bottle, tyre.

In Seri Pulai there is evidence of container of black oil found on the field. In addition, there is evidence of oil trap is not functioning properly

Close-out evidence:

OILPALM PLANTATION MANAGEMENT CERTIFICATION REPORT · MYNI Requirement for Sime Darby Plantations...

Documents

Transcript of OILPALM PLANTATION MANAGEMENT CERTIFICATION REPORT · MYNI Requirement for Sime Darby Plantations...