Hope and frustration as Indonesia pilots FSC’s logging remedy framework – Mongabay

 

Report on the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Remedy Framework in Indonesia and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Introduction: A Test Case for Corporate Accountability and Sustainable Development

Indonesia is the inaugural testing ground for the Forest Stewardship Council’s (FSC) Remedy Framework, a mechanism designed to allow companies to rectify past social and environmental harms to regain ethical certification. This process is a critical test of corporate accountability and has significant implications for achieving multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The framework’s success or failure will directly impact the credibility of global sustainable sourcing standards and influence progress on key goals, including SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), SDG 15 (Life on Land), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Two of Indonesia’s largest forestry firms, including APRIL (Asia Pacific Resources International Holdings Ltd), have entered this process. The outcome will set a global precedent for how corporate-led remedy mechanisms can address historical deforestation and social conflicts, potentially restoring ecosystems and delivering justice to affected communities.

Analysis of the Remedy Framework’s Implementation and Challenges to SDG Achievement

Procedural Flaws and Setbacks for SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

A report by a coalition of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) has identified severe shortcomings in the initial implementation of the remedy process for APRIL. These flaws fundamentally undermine the framework’s capacity to deliver justice and build strong, accountable institutions as envisioned by SDG 16.

• Lack of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC): The assessment process failed to secure FPIC from affected rightsholders. Many Indigenous communities were not contacted or even made aware of the process, representing a serious breach of international human rights standards and FSC policy.
• Inadequate Baseline Assessments: Assessors reportedly spent an average of only two days per village, an insufficient timeframe to document decades of complex social and environmental harms. This superficial approach compromises the foundation of any potential remedy.
• Exclusion of Customary Communities: The process relied on administrative village structures, overlooking customary communities whose territories and governance do not align with government designations. This systemic exclusion perpetuates the marginalization central to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Violations of Indigenous Rights and Impacts on SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

The procedural flaws have tangible consequences for Indigenous communities, directly impacting their livelihoods and rights, and hindering progress on SDG 1 and SDG 10.

In Dolok Parmonangan, North Sumatra, communities reported that PT Toba Pulp Lestari (TPL), a key APRIL supplier, appropriated 425 hectares of their land without consent. This loss of land, a primary source of livelihood, pushes communities further into poverty. Furthermore, the conflict has led to violence and the criminalization of community leaders, obstructing their access to justice (SDG 16).

Affected communities have stated that an acceptable remedy must include:

• Full recognition of their customary land rights.
• The complete withdrawal of TPL from their lands.
• An immediate end to the criminalization of community members defending their rights.

Corporate Accountability, Transparency, and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production)

Deficiencies in Transparency and Stakeholder Engagement

A significant barrier to a just process has been a lack of transparency. Despite multiple requests, neither affected communities nor NGOs were granted access to the baseline assessment results. The FSC cited the need for third-party verification and the protection of sensitive corporate information. However, this opacity prevents communities from verifying the accuracy of findings concerning their own rights and harms suffered, eroding trust and undermining the accountability required for SDG 12 and SDG 16.

Allegations of Undisclosed Corporate Structures and Deforestation

The remedy process is further complicated by allegations that APRIL’s parent company, Royal Golden Eagle (RGE) Group, is linked to “shadow companies” engaged in ongoing deforestation. A Greenpeace report alleged RGE secretly controls numerous companies responsible for clearing 68,000 hectares of forest between 2021 and 2024. Such activities are in direct opposition to the principles of responsible production (SDG 12) and the protection of terrestrial ecosystems (SDG 15). While RGE has denied the allegations, the FSC has initiated a third-party review. A finding of undisclosed corporate control engaged in deforestation could lead to the termination of the remedy agreement.

Escalating Tensions and Threats to Civil Society

Intimidation of Activists and Obstruction of SDG 16

The conflict has intensified, creating an environment hostile to the safe participation of affected communities. Recent events include:

1. A demonstration by TPL workers demanding the expulsion of Indigenous rights NGOs.
2. The intimidation of Goldman Environmental Prize winner Delima Silalahi, who received a threatening package after being publicly targeted by name during the protest.

This climate of intimidation and violence creates an unsafe space for dialogue and directly obstructs the goals of SDG 16, which promotes peaceful and inclusive societies. The conflict has also drawn condemnation from major religious institutions, highlighting a widespread social and ecological crisis.

The Path Forward: Balancing Remedy with Accountability for the SDGs

Perspectives on Continuing the Remedy Process

Stakeholders are divided on the future of the process. NGOs have called for its suspension until fundamental flaws are addressed and a safe environment is guaranteed. Conversely, the FSC and APRIL, along with some community members, argue that the process must continue, stating that “remedy delayed would be remedy denied.” They advocate for an adaptive approach, improving the framework during implementation rather than halting it.

Community Hopes and the Potential for Restorative Justice

Despite the severe challenges, some community members in conflict with APRIL suppliers express hope that the remedy framework offers a rare opportunity to reclaim their rights. For them, the process represents a potential pathway to restoring ancestral lands and securing their livelihoods, aligning with the restorative justice principles of SDG 16. Their primary demand is the return of their land, not financial compensation, underscoring the deep connection between land, culture, and well-being, which is central to achieving SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Conclusion and Recommendations

The FSC Remedy Framework’s implementation in Indonesia reveals a critical gap between its stated goals and its on-the-ground execution. While it holds the potential to advance corporate accountability and contribute to the SDGs, its current trajectory risks entrenching existing injustices. For the framework to become a credible tool for sustainable development, significant reforms are required.

1. Uphold FPIC: The process must be re-grounded in genuine Free, Prior and Informed Consent, with independent third-party oversight to ensure all affected rightsholders are included.
2. Ensure Methodological Rigor: Baseline assessments must be comprehensive, participatory, and adequately resourced to capture the full extent of historical harms.
3. Guarantee Full Transparency: Affected communities must have timely access to draft and final assessment reports to verify their accuracy and completeness.
4. Create a Safe Environment: The FSC and all associated companies must take concrete action to end intimidation and ensure a safe space for the participation of all stakeholders, particularly community members and activists.
5. Enforce Corporate Accountability: Thorough due diligence must be conducted to verify corporate structures and ensure that companies seeking remedy are not associated with ongoing deforestation or human rights violations, thereby upholding the integrity of SDG 12 and SDG 15.

SDGs Addressed or Connected to the Issues Highlighted in the Article

• SDG 1: No Poverty – The article connects land rights to the livelihoods and survival of Indigenous communities.
• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation – Issues of watershed destruction and water pollution are mentioned as consequences of the logging operations.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities – The article highlights the power imbalance and conflict between large corporations and marginalized Indigenous communities.
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production – The entire premise of the FSC certification and its remedy framework is about ensuring sustainable production and providing credible information to consumers.
• SDG 15: Life on Land – This is a central theme, with extensive discussion on deforestation, forest restoration, and the destruction of terrestrial ecosystems.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions – The article focuses heavily on the lack of justice, transparency, and inclusive participation for Indigenous communities, and questions the accountability of institutions like the FSC and corporations.

Specific Targets Identified Based on the Article’s Content

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  • Target 1.4: By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property.
    
    The article discusses the appropriation of “425 hectares (1,050 acres) of community lands” and the demand from Indigenous peoples to “reclaim land and rights” and have their land returned.

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  • Target 6.6: By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes.
    
    This is relevant as community members protested against a company’s “plan to destroy their watershed area, their primary source of water,” and religious leaders cited “pollution of water, soil, and air” as a reason to oppose the company.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.
    
    The article details the “exclusion of many affected Indigenous communities” from the remedy assessment process and the failure to engage with them through their customary institutions, highlighting their political and social exclusion.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  • Target 12.6: Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle.
    
    The article is a case study of this target, examining whether the FSC’s remedy framework can compel companies like APRIL/RGE to remedy past harms and adopt truly sustainable practices to regain certification.
  • Target 12.8: By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles.
    
    The FSC logo is described as a tool “to assure consumers of sustainable sourcing.” The article questions the credibility of this information due to the flawed remedy process.

• SDG 15: Life on Land

  • Target 15.2: By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally.
    
    The article directly addresses this by citing “large-scale deforestation” by companies, the destruction of customary forests for eucalyptus plantations, and the remedy framework’s goal of “restoring millions of hectares of forests.”

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
    
    This is demonstrated by reports of “criminalization of community members,” such as the jailing of a customary leader, and communities demanding an “end to criminalization,” indicating a lack of equal access to justice.
  • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
    
    A central criticism in the article is the “lack of consent,” “rushed assessments,” and the failure to obtain “free, prior and informed consent (FPIC),” which are all components of inclusive and participatory decision-making.
  • Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.
    
    The article highlights a “lack of transparency” where communities were denied access to assessment results. It also details the intimidation of an Indigenous rights activist, Delima Silalahi, who received a dead bird as a threat, which is a direct attack on fundamental freedoms.

Indicators Mentioned or Implied in the Article

• Hectares of deforested land: The article mentions that companies allegedly controlled by RGE were “responsible for 68,000 hectares (168,000 acres) of deforestation from 2021 to 2024.” This can be used as a direct indicator for measuring progress on halting deforestation (Target 15.2).
• Hectares of community land appropriated: The report notes that in one community, “425 hectares (1,050 acres) of community lands were appropriated by PT Toba Pulp Lestari (TPL).” This serves as an indicator for measuring violations of land rights (Target 1.4).
• Number of communities consulted vs. excluded: The article states that NGOs visited nine affected communities, including five where assessments were supposedly completed, but found that many “had never been contacted by the assessors.” This implies an indicator measuring the inclusivity of the consultation process (Target 16.7).
• Adherence to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC): The article repeatedly cites the “omission of FPIC at multiple stages” as a “serious breach.” Whether or not FPIC is properly obtained is a key qualitative indicator for participatory decision-making (Target 16.7).
• Number of incidents of violence and criminalization: The article reports an “increase in incidents of physical violence and criminalization since 2018” and the sentencing of a community leader to prison. These incidents serve as indicators for access to justice and safety (Target 16.3).
• Number of threats against activists: The specific example of activist Delima Silalahi receiving a “package containing a bloodied dead bird” is a clear indicator of threats against those exercising fundamental freedoms (Target 16.10).
• Public availability of assessment reports: The fact that communities and NGOs were not given access to the baseline assessment results highlights a lack of transparency. Whether these reports are made public can be an indicator for public access to information (Target 16.10).
• Functionality of grievance mechanisms: The article mentions that APRIL has created a “formal grievance mechanism.” The number of grievances filed and resolved could be an indicator, though the article also notes that such mechanisms are “often distrusted” (Target 16.3).

Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

SDGs	Targets	Indicators Identified in the Article
SDG 1: No Poverty	1.4: Equal rights to ownership and control over land.	Hectares of community land appropriated (e.g., 425 ha); Number of communities demanding land rights recognition.
SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation	6.6: Protect and restore water-related ecosystems.	Reports of watershed destruction; Reports of water pollution.
SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities	10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all.	Number of Indigenous communities excluded from assessment processes; Failure to use customary institutions for engagement.
SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production	12.6: Encourage companies to adopt sustainable practices.	Number of companies entering the FSC remedy process; Credibility of corporate accountability mechanisms.
	12.8: Ensure people have relevant information for sustainable development.	Credibility of the FSC logo as an assurance of sustainable sourcing for consumers.
SDG 15: Life on Land	15.2: Halt deforestation and restore degraded forests.	Hectares of deforestation (e.g., 68,000 ha); Hectares of forest to be restored under the remedy framework.
SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.3: Ensure equal access to justice.	Number of community members criminalized or imprisoned; Number of reported incidents of physical violence.
	16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, and participatory decision-making.	Adherence to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC); Number of communities consulted vs. excluded.
	16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms.	Public availability of baseline assessment reports; Number of reported threats and intimidation cases against activists.

Source: news.mongabay.com