RSPO P&C Review Taskforce ToRs 2012

Terms of Reference for members of the

RSPO P&C Review Taskforce 2012

1. Introduction to the RSPO P&C Review 2012

When the RSPO Principles and Criteria (P&C) were agreed in 2007, it was decided that they would be
reviewed within 5 years. The RSPO Executive Board have confirmed that the review of the generic
(international) P&C document (comprising Preamble, Principles, Criteria, Indicators and Guidance,
together with Definitions and Annexes) will be undertaken in 2012, with completion of the review
process to enable the proposed changes to be voted on at the RSPO General Assembly in late 2012
(GA9). The review will also have to define an appropriate phase-in period for the revised standard.

The Executive Board of the RSPO established a Principles & Criteria Review Steering Group (SG)
made up of:
• Adam Harrison, WWF International – Chair of the Standards & Certification Standing Committee;
• Jan Kees Vis – Chair of the Claims & Communications Standing Committee;
• Hidde van Kersen, IOI-Loders Croklaan – Chair of the Trade & Traceability Standing Committee;
• Edi Suhardi – Indonesian Grower representative on the EB;
• Puvan Selvanathan – Malaysian Grower representative on the EB;
• Darrel Webber, RSPO Secretary General;
• Salahudin Yaacob, RSPO Technical Director.

The Steering Group subsequently appointed the Proforest Initiative to facilitate the review process.

RSPO intend that the process will be consistent with ISEAL best practice (see Annex 1 for summary of
ISEAL requirements). In section 5.11 of its Code for Good Practice for Setting Social and
1
Environmental Standards , ISEAL outlines the following requirements for the review and revision of
standards:
• Standards shall be reviewed for continued relevance and for effectiveness in meeting their
stated objectives and, if necessary, revised in a timely manner. The review process shall consider
whether a need continues to exist for the standard and whether external circumstances have
changed to the point of requiring changes in the standard. Continued relevance of the standard
shall also be assessed through results of monitoring and evaluation activities, as per guidelines in
the ISEAL Impacts Code.

1
ISEAL, Setting Social and Environmental Standards v.5.0 – ISEAL Code of Good Practice

1 of 7
 RSPO P&C Review Taskforce ToRs 2012

2. Overview of Review Process

The Steering Group decided to split the review process into two parts:

Phase 1 – reviewing the continuing relevance of the Generic P&Cs: this comprised two elements:
• an initial 60 day public consultation period,
• together with a desk review by the facilitators of outputs from other RSPO taskforces/working
groups that have to be incorporated into the P&C review, and a brief review of comparable
certification standards to identify any possible gaps in the RSPO P&C.

A report summarising the results of the phase 1 activities has been produced.

Phase 2 – improving the effectiveness of the Generic P&Cs. The SG decided to establish a P&C
Review Taskforce (TF) to undertake the detailed standards review. The phase 1 report and all
consultation comments received will be made available to the TF.

The TF will be made up of representatives of the different stakeholders with an interest in palm oil
and will have 20 members divided between four interest groups:
• Palm oil producers – 9 members including representatives of owners and managers of large
plantations and their associations, smallholder growers and their associations and research
organisations, specialists and industries related to palm oil production. Members will be drawn
from Malaysia (3), Indonesia (3) and Rest of the World (3).
• Supply chain and investors – 4 members including representatives of processors, refiners,
traders, manufacturers using oil palm, retailers, financial institutions, researchers, academics and
related industries.
• Environmental interests – 4 members including representatives of national and international
NGOs, conservation practitioners, researchers and academics.
• Social interests – 4 members including representatives of people affected by the palm oil supply
chain and their elected representatives and communities impacted by the palm oil supply chain
or NGOs representing them, research organisations and academics.

Additionally, topic experts may be invited by RSPO to inform the TF on critical issues, such as HCV,
labour, health and safety, chemicals, chain of custody, etc. RSPO will have to approve these experts to
guarantee their impartiality. Topic experts shall not represent any particular sector and shall not
participate in any decision making within the physical meetings.

3. Role of TF members

3.1. Objectives and main tasks

The overall objective of the P&C review process is to develop a revised P&C document to be finalised
for consideration at GA9, by making amendments that:
• draw on practical experience to improve the effectiveness of the P&C in meeting RSPO’s
objectives, and
• reflect changes in external circumstances and understanding

The main tasks of the TF (in terms of outcomes from the two planned physical meetings) will be to:

2 of 7
 RSPO P&C Review Taskforce ToRs 2012

• TF Meeting 1: Conversion of issues raised in Phase I inputs into agreement on scope of revisions
at level of Principles and/or Criteria (i.e. no expectation of detailed discussion on indicators).
Draft revised Principles & Criteria for second public consultation period.
• TF Meeting 2: Consider input from second public consultation and finalise draft revised P&C
document for submission to EB.

During the second public consultation period, it is envisaged that RSPO will support TF members (if
requested) in organising consultation meetings with stakeholders.

3.2. Individual responsibility

Each individual member of the TF will be responsible for:
• Actively participating in all meetings and electronic discussions of the TF. Members are expected
to play an active role in representing their stakeholders’ interests, including ensuring that
consultation with their stakeholders are carried out and putting forth the concerns, comments or
ideas to the group.
• Consulting with interested parties not directly represented in the TF and ensuring that their views
are expressed within the discussions. Members are there to represent an interest group within
the RSPO, rather than just their own interests. Therefore, it is very important that each member
of the group discusses draft versions of the recommendations of verification arrangements,
particularly any complex or contentious issues, with a range of their peers from within the RSPO.
TF members should not represent only the views or interests of their own organisation.
• Seeking to build consensus within the TF on how to address any issues which arise.

3.3. Representation
Where a TF member is unable to be present at a physical meeting, a named alternate may represent
the substantive member.
• A single alternate member may represent multiple substantive members only where the
substantive members represent the same sector
• Where alternate members are present with substantive members at a physical meeting, alternate
2
members are not allowed to actively participate and shall take on the role of observers .
Switching between substantive and alternate members within a physical meeting can only take
place after a verbal statement made from whomever is acting as the main representative, and
recognition from the facilitators during the meeting
• Where alternate members are representing substantive members, their roles are as described in
section 3.2.

3.4. Timeline
The two TF physical meetings will take place in May 2012 and August/September 2012 in either Kuala
Lumpur or Jakarta.

The overall review process timeline is presented below.

2
Alternate members can also be asked by the facilitators to contribute, when appropriate.

3 of 7
 RSPO P&C Review Taskforce ToRs 2012

3.5. Decision-making
3
The TF will aim to make decisions by consensus , and may also define criteria to determine when
alternative decision-making procedures can come into effect. To achieve consensus in practice
requires all members to be prepared to listen carefully to the views of others and, wherever they are
able to, to actively seek compromises which will allow agreement
agreement. TF members (or their
representatives, see point 3.3 above) need to commit to attendance at physical meetings in order to
achieve consensus.

If consensus is not possible for any specific issues, the TF will clearly identify the available options in
its final recommendations to the RSPO Executive Board (EB).

3.6. General conduct

The P&C revision is likely to include a number of contentious issues. TF members should at all times
be respectful of the opinions of other TF members and of the right of each member to share their
expertise and opinions with the Group. TF members are requested to respect at all times the
authority of the facilitators to assist the P&C review process.

3
"Consensus" is defined by ISO as "general agreement, character
characterized
ized by the absence of sustained opposition to
substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take
into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments". TThe
he definition notes,
"Consensus need not imply unanimity".

4 of 7
 RSPO P&C Review Taskforce ToRs 2012

4. Financial support
TF members are requested by RSPO to cover their own expenses in attending the physical meetings if
possible. RSPO recognises that this will not be possible for all members, and therefore members can
apply to RSPO for reimbursement for reasonable travel, accommodation and subsistence costs
incurred whilst participating in physical meetings. RSPO is unable to pay fees for time spent
participating in the TF or expenses incurred during consultation, e-mail and telephone discussions.

5. Further information
Further information is available from the RSPO Secretariat or the facilitators. The process will be
facilitated by Neil Judd, Perpetua George and Pavithra Ramani from the Proforest Initiative, who can
be contacted by email at info@proforestinitiative.org or by phone on +44 (0) 1865 243439 or +60 (0)
3 62011148.

5 of 7
 RSPO P&C Review Taskforce ToRs 2012

ANNEX 1: Summary – ISEAL Code of Good Practice;

Setting Social and Environmental Standards
The RSPO has chosen to follow ISEAL best practice guidance in reviewing the P&C. Below
is a summary of ISEAL’s requirements for the standard-setting review process, intended to
4
be used as a guide and reminder for Task Force members . Please refer to the Code for full
5
details on criteria, which are referenced in brackets . This is particularly important for the
RSPO, as it is currently applying for ISEAL membership.

Terms of Reference (5.1)

• Any new standard development activity must have updated terms of reference (TORs) – (5.1.1; 5.1.2).

Public Summary (5.2)

• At the start of a revision process, a process summary shall be made publicly available – (5.2.1).

Stakeholder Mapping (5.3)

• The organisation shall carry out or update stakeholder mapping, to identify major interest sectors and
key interest parties, based on the standard’s objectives – (5.3.1).
• Key stakeholders shall be proactively approached to contribute to the consultation (5.3.2).
• Stakeholder participation goals shall be set during the mapping to achieve clear participation targets
and success criteria – (5.3.3).

Work Programme (5.4)

• A work programme shall be made public and be updated at least every six months – (5.4.1).

Balance of Interests (5.5)

• The organisation shall ensure that participation in standards consultation is open to all interested
parties, and reflects a balance of interests – (5.5.1).
• In identifying interested parties, the organisation shall include stakeholders with relevant expertise,
those materially affected by the standard, and those that could influence implementation – (5.5.2).
• Where decision-making is limited to members, membership criteria and application procedures shall
be transparent and non-discriminatory – (5.5.3).

Public Consultation (5.6)

• The revision process shall include at least two rounds of comment submissions – (5.6.1)
• Each round shall include a period of at least 60 days for the submission of comments, however the
period can be shortened where justified – (5.6.2).

Meaningful Opportunities to Contribute (5.7)

• Interested parties shall be provided with opportunities to contribute to the revision of a standard.
Where decisions happen between a balanced group of stakeholders, a procedure shall be in place to
ensure that interested parties have opportunity to be a part of that group – (5.7.1)

4
The full Code can be found at http://www.isealalliance.org/sites/default/files/P005_ISEAL_Std-
Setting_Code_v5.01.pdf
5
Italics added here. Please note the Code contains further criterion, notably regarding Standards’ Structure and
Content (6), which have not been summarised here

6 of 7
 RSPO P&C Review Taskforce ToRs 2012

• The organisation shall identify parties who will be directly affected by the standard and those that are
not adequately represented, and proactively seek their contributions – (5.7.2).
• Constraints on disadvantaged groups to participate effectively in the revision process shall be
addressed. The organisation shall seek to finance participation of these groups who will be directly
affected by the implementation of the standard, and look to enable their participation – (5.7.3).

Taking Comments into Account (5.8)

• All comments and input received during the commenting period shall be taken into account – (5.8.1).
• The organisation shall compile comments received according to the issues raised and prepare a
written synopsis of how each material issue has been addressed in the revision – (5.8.2).
• This synopsis shall be made publicly available and shall be sent to all parties that submitted
comments; the extent to which original comments should be made publicly available shall be
considered – (5.8.3).

Decision-Making (5.9)
• The process shall strive for consensus on the content of the standard among a balance of interested
parties. The organisation shall define criteria to determine when alternative decision-making
procedures should come into effect – (5.9.1).
• The organisation shall establish and document procedures to guide decision-making, including
thresholds for voting, to ensure no interest group can dominate or be dominated – (5.9.2)
• The organisation shall make public any decisions on the content of the standard as well as a summary
of the deliberations in arriving at the decision – (5.9.3).

Availability of Standards (5.10)

• All approved standards shall be published promptly – (5.10.1).
• All draft and final standards shall be placed promptly in the public domain and shall be made
available for free in electronic format – (5.10.2).
• Hard copies of public summaries, standards and other related materials shall be made available upon
request at as low cost as possible – (5.10.3).
• On request the organisation shall provide translations of draft and final standard versions (5.10.4).
• All documents shall include on the cover page the official language of the standard system, and note
that in case of inconsistency, refer to the default version – (5.10.5).

Review and Revision of Standards (5.11)

• A process to receive comments shall be established upon publication of the initial standard – (5.11.1).
• A standard shall be reviewed at least every five years, and the planned date of subsequent review
made public and included in the standard. Proposals for revisions or clarifications can be submitted at
any time, and shall be documented and considered in the subsequent review process – (5.11.2).
• Standards shall be reviewed for continued relevance and for effectiveness in meeting their stated
objectives. The review process shall consider if a need continues to exist for the standard. Continued
relevance shall also be assessed through results of monitoring and evaluation activities, such as per
guidelines in the ISEAL Impacts Code – (5.11.3).
• The date of a revision shall be noted in the standard along with a transition period by which the
revised standard will come into effect. The organisation shall inform its stakeholders of both the
revised standard and transition period – (5.11.4).

7 of 7