IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v40y2023i1d10.1007_s10460-022-10360-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unequal access to justice: an evaluation of RSPO’s capacity to resolve palm oil conflicts in Indonesia

Author

Listed:
  • Afrizal Afrizal

    (Universitas Andalas)

  • Otto Hospes

    (Wageningen University)

  • Ward Berenschot

    (Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies (KITLV)
    University of Amsterdam)

  • Ahmad Dhiaulhaq

    (Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies (KITLV)
    Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (RIHN))

  • Rebekha Adriana

    (Independent Researcher)

  • Erysa Poetry

    (Independent Researcher)

Abstract

In 2009 the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) established a conflict resolution mechanism to help rural communities address their grievances against palm oil companies that are RSPO members. This article presents the broadest ever comprehensive assessment of the use and effectiveness of the RSPO conflict resolution mechanism, providing both overviews and in-depth analysis. Our central question is: to what extent does the RSPO conflict resolution mechanism offer an accessible, fair and effective tool for communities in Indonesia to resolve conflicts with companies? Our aim is not only to provide a ‘reality check’ of this mechanism but also to contribute to the wider debate on how communities can seek access to justice when engaged in intractable conflicts with palm oil companies. For data collection, we took three steps. First, we used our own database of 150 conflicts between communities and companies in Indonesia. We identified 64 conflicts that involved RSPO member companies, of which 17 prompted communities to convey their grievances to the RSPO’s conflict resolution mechanism. Second, we used the database of the RSPO, which handled 85 complaints against companies in Indonesia in the period 2009–2020. Third, we conducted fieldwork, in total, about 6 months of fieldwork and extensive interviews on three conflicts involving RSPO companies to identify mechanisms leading to (and reasons for) both failed and successful instances of conflict resolution. For our assessment, we used three criteria to assess the conflict resolution mechanism of the RSPO: accessibility, procedural justice, and the outcomes of the process. We conclude that—on all counts—the conflict resolution mechanism is biased in favor of companies. The result of these biases is that the actual capacity of the RSPO’s mechanism to provide a meaningful remedy for rural communities’ grievances remains very limited. This unequal access to justice sustains conflicts between companies and communities over land.

Suggested Citation

  • Afrizal Afrizal & Otto Hospes & Ward Berenschot & Ahmad Dhiaulhaq & Rebekha Adriana & Erysa Poetry, 2023. "Unequal access to justice: an evaluation of RSPO’s capacity to resolve palm oil conflicts in Indonesia," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(1), pages 291-304, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:40:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s10460-022-10360-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-022-10360-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-022-10360-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10460-022-10360-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Kydd, 2003. "Which Side Are You On? Bias, Credibility, and Mediation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(4), pages 597-611, October.
    2. WIELGA, Mark & HARRISON, James, 2021. "Assessing the Effectiveness of Non-State-Based Grievance Mechanisms in Providing Access to Remedy for Rightsholders: A Case Study of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil," Business and Human Rights Journal, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 67-92, February.
    3. Oya, Carlos & Schaefer, Florian & Skalidou, Dafni, 2018. "The effectiveness of agricultural certification in developing countries: A systematic review," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 282-312.
    4. Dhiaulhaq, Ahmad & McCarthy, John F. & Yasmi, Yurdi, 2018. "Resolving industrial plantation conflicts in Indonesia: Can mediation deliver?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 64-72.
    5. Paavola, Jouni, 2007. "Institutions and environmental governance: A reconceptualization," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 93-103, June.
    6. Dhiaulhaq, Ahmad & Gritten, David & De Bruyn, Toon & Yasmi, Yurdi & Zazali, Ahmad & Silalahi, Mangarah, 2014. "Transforming conflict in plantations through mediation: Lessons and experiences from Sumatera, Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 22-30.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tong Zhang & Chaofan Chen, 2018. "The Effect of Public Participation on Environmental Governance in China–Based on the Analysis of Pollutants Emissions Employing a Provincial Quantification," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-20, July.
    2. Gani, Azmat & Scrimgeour, Frank, 2014. "Modeling governance and water pollution using the institutional ecological economic framework," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 363-372.
    3. Xiaojun Zhang & Weiqiao Wang & Yunan Bai & Yong Ye, 2022. "How Has China Structured Its Ecological Governance Policy System?—A Case from Fujian Province," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-22, July.
    4. Georgy Egorov & Konstantin Sonin, 2011. "Dictators And Their Viziers: Endogenizing The Loyalty–Competence Trade‐Off," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(5), pages 903-930, October.
    5. Na Zhang & Jinqian Deng & Fayyaz Ahmad & Muhammad Umar Draz & Nabila Abid, 2023. "The dynamic association between public environmental demands, government environmental governance, and green technology innovation in China: evidence from panel VAR model," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(9), pages 9851-9875, September.
    6. Magnus Lundgren, 2017. "Which type of international organizations can settle civil wars?," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 613-641, December.
    7. Gayer Gabrielle & Segev Ella, 2012. "Revealing Private Information in Bargaining," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-34, December.
    8. Andrew P. Owsiak, 2015. "Forecasting conflict management in militarized interstate disputes," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 32(1), pages 50-75, February.
    9. Jin Yeub Kim, 2022. "Neutral public good mechanisms," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-16, April.
    10. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    11. Henri Järv & Anton Shkaruba & Olga Likhacheva & Viktar Kireyeu & Raymond Ward & Kalev Sepp, 2021. "A Tale of Two Protected Areas: “Value and Nature Conservation” in Comparable National Parks in Estonia and Russia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-20, March.
    12. Alice Evans, 2019. "Incentivising Pro-Labour Reforms," CID Working Papers 349, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    13. Molly M. Melin & Scott Sigmund Gartner & Jacob Bercovitch, 2013. "Fear of rejection: The puzzle of unaccepted mediation offers in international conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(4), pages 354-368, September.
    14. Skurray, James H., 2015. "The scope for collective action in a large groundwater basin: An institutional analysis of aquifer governance in Western Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 128-140.
    15. Laura Enthoven & Goedele Van den Broeck, 2021. "Promoting Food Safety in Local Value Chains: The Case of Vegetables in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    16. Jing Song & Mengyuan Li & Shaosong Wang & Tao Ye, 2022. "To What Extent Does Environmental Regulation Influence Emission Reduction? Evidence from Local and Neighboring Locations in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-9, August.
    17. Mijailoff, Julián Daniel & Giessen, Lukas & Burns, Sarah Lilian, 2023. "Local to global escalation of land use conflicts: Long-term dynamics on social movements protests against pulp mills and plantation forests in Argentina and Uruguay," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    18. Mária Csutora & Ágnes Zsóka, 2011. "Maximizing the Efficiency of Greenhouse Gas Related Consumer Policy," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 67-90, March.
    19. Ninon Sirdey & Sylvaine Lemeilleur, 2021. "Can fair trade resolve the “hungry farmer paradox”?," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 81-106, March.
    20. Frame, Bob & Brown, Judy, 2008. "Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 225-241, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:40:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s10460-022-10360-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.