Policy, practice, pride and prejudice

The report identifies systemic failures by the Wilmar Group to adhere to its own sustainability policies, Indonesian law, and RSPO criteria. Key findings include evidence of intentional land burning for plantation development, the absence of approved Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), and the violation of community land rights. The study also highlights misleading sustainability claims made by Wilmar and its financiers, including the IFC, and notes similar patterns of misconduct in other regions including Sumatra, Central Kalimantan, and Uganda.

• The Wilmar Group's subsidiaries in Sambas District, specifically PT WSP, PT BCP, and PT ANI, have been accused of intentional and systematic burning to clear land for oil palm plantations, contradicting the company's 'zero-burning policy'.
• PT WSP and PT BCP operated and cleared land without the legally required approval of their Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports, leading the Ministry of Environment to order a halt to their physical activities on April 11, 2007.
• Wilmar subsidiaries in Sambas commenced land clearing on customary rights and village land without prior consultation or a due land acquisition process, leading to significant land rights conflicts.
• The companies are converting tropical forests without independent High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF) assessments or legally required permits, which renders them non-certifiable under RSPO criteria.
• The report identifies a pattern of 'copy-and-paste' EIA reports, where consultants used molds from other companies; for example, the PT WSP report listed elephants as pests despite elephants not being found in West Kalimantan.
• Environmental damage from intentional burning by PT WSP was estimated by the Bogor Agricultural Institute (IPB) to have an economic cost of approximately US$ 28 million, releasing significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane.
• The International Finance Corporation (IFC) provided loan guarantees to Wilmar based on claims that the company met RSPO Principles and Criteria, which the report describes as false and misleading because RSPO had no verification system in place in 2006.
• Wilmar claimed in its 2006 Annual Report that its crude palm oil was sustainably produced and traceable, but the report argues this was a misleading use of a 'Chain of Custody' certificate that does not guarantee the sustainability of the source product.
• In Uganda, the subsidiary Bidco sought to develop 30,000 hectares of land, leading to proposals to lift the protected status of several forest reserves on Bugala Island, which sparked the mass resignation of National Forestry Authority (NFA) officials.
• The PPB Oil Palm Group, which merged with Wilmar, acquired eight companies in Central Kalimantan where approximately 82% of the joint area overlapped with protected Production Forest and Limited Production Forest.

APA

Friends of the Earth International (2007). Policy, practice, pride and prejudice. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Wilmar_Palm_Oil_Environmental_Social_Impact.pdf

Chicago

Friends of the Earth International. Policy, practice, pride and prejudice. 2007. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Wilmar_Palm_Oil_Environmental_Social_Impact.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Friends of the Earth International |title=Policy, practice, pride and prejudice |date=July 2007 |url=https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Wilmar_Palm_Oil_Environmental_Social_Impact.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{friendsoftheearthinternational2007policy, author = {{Friends of the Earth International}}, title = {{Policy, practice, pride and prejudice}}, institution = {Friends of the Earth International}, year = {2007}, month = jul, url = {https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Wilmar_Palm_Oil_Environmental_Social_Impact.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }