OER 22.94 KER 3.78
3.3 Summary of RSPO Partial Certification
Compliance of the uncertified management units of Socfin SA against the rules for partial certification was determined through Self-Assessment in accordance with RSPO Certification System clause 4.2.4. A summary of findings is as stated below.
Socfin SA Time Bound Plan (TBP) is explained in table 1.10. Socfin SA has eight (8) management units with twenty- three (23) mills. Socfin SA has informed the TBP progress, MUTU has considered that Socfin SA is complied with the RSPO requirement for TBP. The Time Bound Plan was revised and declared by Socfin SA on 23 June 2022.
MUTU has verified partial certification for un-certified unit’s subsidiary of Socfin SA based on their Time Bound Plan.
There are three (3) uncertified mills and eleven (11) uncertified estates of Socfin SA. MUTU Auditor verified positive assurance against the company internal audit and supporting evidence as well as any information from others sources.
MUTU Auditor has verified company partial certification and concludes that:
There are two significant land conflicts which have not been declared above
The Final LUCA reports have not been sent to RSPO because waiting for meeting and LUCA training with RSPO.
There are two labour disputes that are not being resolved through an agreed process.
All plantations established since 2005 have been done so in accordance with the applicable laws of the country and that there is no evidence of non-compliance with law in any of the non-certified holdings which has not been declared above.
Un-Certified Units or Holdings
Section Requirement Concerns to Discuss, if any
2.1.1 Did the company conduct an internal audit? If so, has a positive assurance statement been produced?
The Company was been conducted internal assessment for uncertified units on July until October 2021 and has a positive assurance statement to certified.
2.1.2 No replacement of primary forest or any area identified as containing High Conservation Values (HCVs) or required to maintain or enhance HCVs in accordance with RSPO criterion 7.3 (it has changed be Criterion 7.12 in P&C 2018)
Most of uncertified unit still have LUCA in progress, such as:
Okomu Extension 1 & 2 Mill and Estate: LUCA status still reviewed by RSPO.
Socapalm Kienke Mill and Estate: LUCA status still reviewed by RSPO.
Socapalm Eseka Mill and Estate: LUCA PASS and still RaCP process
Brabanta Mill and Estate: LUCA PASS and still RaCP process
PSG Mill and Estate: LUCA status still not complete.
Agripalma mill and Estate: LUCA status still reviewed by RSPO.
Safacam Mill and Estate: LUCA status still reviewed by RSPO.
SOGB Mill and Estate: LUCA status still reviewed by RSPO.
2.1.3 Any new plantings since January 1st 2010 must comply with the RSPO New Plantings Procedure.
Okumu Extension 1 Estate and 2 Estate.
Since NPP was not followed for the land clearance since May 9, 2014, remediation and compensation procedures will need to be followed for those areas with a coefficient higher than 0. This will be done after the final LUCA report has been submitted to the RSPO.
Un-Certified Units or Holdings
Section Requirement Concerns to Discuss, if any
Agripalma.
Since NPP was not followed for the land clearance between Jan 1, 2010, and May 9, 2014, remediation and compensation procedures will need to be followed for those areas with a coefficient higher than 0 (estimated 455 ha). This will be done after the final LUCA report has been submitted to the RSPO.
Brabanta.
Since NPP was not followed for the land clearance between Dec 1, 2007 – May 9, 2014, remediation and compensation procedures will need to be followed for those areas with a coefficient higher than 0 (estimated at 156 ha). This will be done after the final LUCA report has been submitted to the RSPO. LUCA report not yet completed.
PSG.
Since NPP was not followed for the land clearance between Jan 1, 2010 – Current, remediation and compensation procedures will need to be followed for those areas with a coefficient higher than 0 (estimated at 1,140 ha). This will be done after the final LUCA report has been submitted to the RSPO.
SAC.
Since NPP was not followed for the land clearance between Jan 1, 2010 – Current, remediation and compensation procedures will need to be followed for those areas with a coefficient higher than 0 (estimated 100 ha). This will be done after the final LUCA report has been submitted to the RSPO. SAC conducted an HCV assessment in February 2019. The SAC non-ALS HCV report has been approved by RSPO.
Safacam
Since NPP was not followed for the land clearance between Dec 1, 2007 – Dec 31, 2009, remediation and compensation procedures will need to be followed for those areas with a coefficient higher than 0 (estimated at 613 ha). This will be done after the final LUCA report has been submitted to the RSPO.
Socapalm.
Since NPP was not followed for the land clearance between Nov 1, 2005 – Current, remediation and compensation procedures will need to be followed for those areas with a coefficient higher than 0 (estimated at 7,521 ha). LUCA report has been sent to RSPO on August 2020.
SOGB.
Un-Certified Units or Holdings
Section Requirement Concerns to Discuss, if any
Since NPP was not followed for the land clearance between Nov 1, 2005 – Current, remediation and compensation procedures will need to be followed for those areas with a coefficient higher than 0 (estimated 2,003 ha). This will be done after the final LUCA report has been submitted to the RSPO. A HCV scoping assessment was conducted in April 2019. LUCA report has been approved by RSPO.
2.1.4 Land conflicts, if any, are being resolved through a mutually agreed process, such as the RSPO Complaints System or Dispute Settlement Facility, in accordance with RSPO criteria 2.2, 6.4, 7.5 and 7.6 (it has changed be Criterion 4.8, 4.7 and 4.5 in P&C 2018).
SAC Estate There is currently 1 open land dispute which is undergoing resolution processes. The complaint is from the Malen Affected Land Owners Association (MALOA), who are protesting against the expansion of SAC in the Malen Chiefdom. The discussion for this complaint has been going on for a long time, and to aid in the resolution, the Government has appointed a Technical Committee to examine the issues and make proposals to the mediation team. The first of ten visits were carried out on the 23rd of March.
Okumo Extension 1 Estate.
There is an ongoing dispute regarding land conflict on Extension 1, which is meant for rubber cultivation. The land was acquired rightfully from its previous tenants for the remainder of the lease, however, upon acquisition, it was identified that 5 different communities had encroached the land. 4/5 communities accepted a compensation, however, one, Hassan Camp, did not.
Attempts for negotiations were made, however, Hassan Camp wanted to take the case to court. At this moment it is under sub judice.
Once the court has spoken, new attempts can be made to resolve the issue following an acceptable conflict resolution process.
For other plantations, there are no Land conflict.
2.1.5 Labour disputes, if any, are being resolved through a mutually agreed process, in accordance with RSPO criterion 6.3 (it has changed be Criterion 4.2 in P&C 2018).
Okumo Extension 1 and 2 Estate.
OOPC operations at Extension 1 in Okomu and Extension 2 in the Owan Forest Reserves necessitated both physical and economic displacement. Whiles the Extension 2 only affected economic displacement and the farmers are generally content with the crop compensation process undertaken, there has been an ongoing and protracted issue with some communities affected at Extension 1 on area meant for rubber plantings. Compensation was not required under Nigerian law because the communities were considered illegal settlers on the private property of OOPC. There is
Un-Certified Units or Holdings
Section Requirement Concerns to Discuss, if any
evidence (time stamped satellite images) that they settled in the area after the acquisition by Okomu. Whiles four (Fatai, Olowu, Sunday and Olomu Camps) out of the 5 communities that were within the boundaries of the Extension 1 have moved out of the concession after three years of consultations, and after compensations have been paid to the farmers, the people of Hassan Camp which is the largest of the five communities have refused compensations from OOPC because they claim that part of the land belongs to them and therefore will not move out of the land. They have subsequently taken the case to court with the claim that they own the land (Latest court case update: OKOMU_Updates on Court Cases Extension 1). Thus, the whole issue is now sub judice until the court has made its decision.
OOPC has a Community Liaison Team, who is the main line of communication of the company with the local communities. The team visits villages within a radius of 10 km around the concession, to disseminate information and to engage in dialogue in order attend to any issues that may arise between the Company and local communities.
There are currently no labour disputes for other plantations.
2.1.6 Legal non-compliance, if any, is being addressed through measures consistent with the requirements of RSPO P&C criterion 2.1 (it has changed be Criterion 4.2 in P&C 2018).
All plantations are complying to most national laws and regulations and has a system in place to follow all current laws and regulations.
3.4 Identification of Findings, Corrective Action, Observations, Opportunity for Improvement and Noteworthy