Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Oil, gas and coal operations · Indonesia · 2001–2020

Study finds no clear gain from RSPO palm oil certification in Borneo

Short record: the main facts, with sources. A full case file has not been prepared.

Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured.
What the record lacks: 1 none on record · 2 insufficient · 1 not measured See the gaps

A 2018 University of Queensland study found that RSPO-certified oil palm estates in Indonesian Borneo were no better than uncertified ones on orangutan loss or fires. At stake is whether a palm oil certificate protects forest; a study reported in 2017 credited RSPO certification with saving 21 km² of forest in 2001–2015.

What?
Certified and uncertified oil palm plantations in Indonesian Borneo showed no significant difference in orangutan loss or fire, according to a 2018 University of Queensland study. ABC News
Where?
Indonesian Borneo (Kalimantan), study area 2009–2014 ABC News
When?
Study period 2009–2014; study published 2018; RSPO review 2020 ABC News
Who?
Gained
None on record
Lost
  • Bornean orangutans — About 150,000 lost in Borneo 1999–2015, most in forest through hunting (National Geographic, 2018) National Geographic
Harmed
  • Forest in certified estates — Forest loss continued; RSPO was credited with saving 21 km² in 2001–2015 Mongabay
Why?
Not stated in the sources reviewed.
How?
Certified and uncertified plantations were compared on orangutan loss, fire and village welfare measures; the 2020 review examined RSPO's assurance process. ABC News
6 of 6 questions answered from the record

What happened

The record, in order.

A University of Queensland study covering 2009–2014 found no significant difference between certified and uncertified oil palm plantations in Indonesian Borneo on any measure; orangutan loss and fire increases were similar (ABC News, 2018).

An independent review published in 2020 described RSPO's assurance process as poorly managed and recorded 10 of 49 activities as complete (Environmental Investigation Agency, 2020).

A study reported by Mongabay credited RSPO with saving 21 km² of forest in 2001–2015, a relative reduction of about 33%, with no significant effect on peat or fire; certified areas covered less than 1% of remaining plantation forest (Mongabay, 2017).

    In court and with insurers

    Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

    Lawsuits and rulings

    No court case on record. No court has ruled on this case.

    Insurers

    No insurer decision on record.

    What we don't know

    Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.

    Nature

    • Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.

    Record

    • Insufficient Reported but not verified: WWF and Unilever were among the founders of RSPO in 2004.
    • Insufficient Reported but not verified: auditors missed or covered up violations; no source link is given for this claim.
    • None on record The sources do not quantify any commercial gain to growers from certification.

    Did the harm stop?

    Not stated in the sources reviewed.

    Who paid?

    Not stated in the sources reviewed.

    Sources

    Voices on record: — Company or project— Government and regulators— Courts✓ Press and investigations✓ Communities and civil society— Researchers

    Communities and civil society

    Connected cases

    Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.