Cautious win for Indigenous groups in Malaysia as palm oil firm pauses forest clearing – Mongabay

Report on Land Use Dispute and Sustainable Development Goal Implications in Sarawak, Malaysia

Executive Summary

A land use conflict has emerged in the Long Urun region of Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo, involving Indigenous Penan and Kenyah communities and palm oil company Urun Plantations. The dispute centers on allegations of deforestation within the company’s concession, which communities claim violates lease agreements, Indigenous customary rights, and sustainability certifications. This conflict highlights significant challenges to achieving multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to environmental protection, social equity, and institutional justice.

• Primary Conflict: Indigenous communities allege Urun Plantations is clearing natural secondary forest, impacting livelihoods and biodiversity, in contravention of its Malaysia Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) certification.
• Company Position: Urun Plantations maintains it is replanting previously developed land, not natural forest, and asserts it has majority support from local communities.
• Key Actions: Communities, supported by NGOs, have filed a lawsuit and a formal complaint with the MSPO certification body.
• Outcome: Following supply chain pressure, Urun Plantations agreed to a temporary moratorium on land clearing and planting activities in the disputed area.

Background of the Dispute

Parties Involved

• Indigenous Communities: Penan and Kenyah residents of the Long Urun region.
• Corporate Entity: Urun Plantations, a subsidiary of Sin Heng Chan (Malaya) Sdn. Bhd.
• Certification Body: Malaysia Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO).
• Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs): SAVE Rivers and The Borneo Project.
• Supply Chain Actors: Glenealy/Samling Belaga Mill and international producer SD Guthrie.

Allegations Against Urun Plantations

Indigenous residents and supporting NGOs allege that Urun Plantations has breached legal and sustainability commitments, directly undermining several SDGs. The core allegations include:

1. Violation of Lease Terms: The company is accused of clearing new forest land after its 10-year grace period for development expired in 2007, as stipulated in its provisional lease.
2. Breach of Sustainability Certification: The clearing of secondary forest is alleged to violate MSPO certification standards, particularly Principle 5, which concerns the protection of the environment, biodiversity, and High Conservation Value (HCV) areas.
3. Infringement on Indigenous Rights: The development is proceeding without the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) of all affected community members, and has destroyed customary lands used for cultivating fruit, fishing, and gathering resources.

Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 15: Life on Land

The dispute directly relates to the targets of SDG 15, which calls for the protection, restoration, and sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems.

• Deforestation: Satellite imagery and field evidence indicate substantial forest clearing since 2023, threatening local biodiversity, including species like Bornean ironwood and meranti.
• Ecosystem Degradation: The alleged clearing of secondary forest and watershed areas contradicts the principles of sustainable forest management and the conservation of HCV areas required by sustainability standards.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The communities’ pursuit of legal and institutional remedies underscores the importance of SDG 16, which promotes access to justice and accountable institutions.

• Access to Justice: Residents have filed a lawsuit against Urun Plantations and state officials, questioning the legality of the company’s lease and asserting native customary land rights over a larger area.
• Institutional Accountability: A formal complaint has been lodged with the MSPO’s dispute resolution board, testing the effectiveness and responsiveness of the national sustainability certification body.
• Lack of FPIC: Allegations that an attendance list for Christmas donations was repurposed as a sign of community consent for development highlight a critical failure in governance and a lack of transparent, participatory decision-making.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The conflict exposes deep-seated inequalities between corporate interests and the rights of marginalized Indigenous communities, a key concern of SDG 10.

• Indigenous Land Rights: The core of the lawsuit is the assertion that the company’s lease conflicts with pre-existing native customary land rights, a common source of conflict and inequality in the region.
• Community Division: The company’s claim of majority support from 14 of 15 longhouses, contrasted with the active resistance from other residents, illustrates how development projects can fracture community relations and exacerbate internal inequalities.

SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

The case challenges the credibility of sustainable production patterns and the role of supply chain actors, central to SDG 12.

• Certification Integrity: The alleged violations call into question the robustness of the MSPO certification scheme and its ability to prevent deforestation and protect community rights.
• Supply Chain Pressure: The decision by the Glenealy/Samling Belaga Mill to suspend purchases from Urun Plantations, following an advocacy campaign targeting major buyer SD Guthrie, demonstrates the power of supply chain accountability in enforcing sustainability standards.

Current Status and Conclusion

In late October, Urun Plantations agreed to a moratorium on both clearing and planting activities in the disputed area. While community activists view this as a temporary victory, the resolution remains uncertain.

• The moratorium is not permanent, and residents express concern that development could resume.
• The lawsuit filed at the Sarawak High Court is ongoing, with the community seeking a permanent injunction and recognition of their customary land rights.
• The dispute underscores the critical need for stronger enforcement of sustainability standards, robust legal protections for Indigenous rights, and transparent consent processes to align economic development with the Sustainable Development Goals in Malaysia.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • This goal is central to the article, which focuses on the clearing of “natural forest” in Malaysian Borneo for palm oil plantations. The dispute revolves around protecting remaining forests, preventing land degradation, and halting biodiversity loss, as Indigenous communities rely on the forest for their livelihood and cultural practices. The article explicitly mentions deforestation, the clearing of specific tree species, and the value of the forest ecosystem.
2. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article highlights a conflict between Indigenous communities and a corporation, involving legal and institutional mechanisms. The Penan and Kenyah residents are seeking justice by filing a lawsuit against the company and local officials, and a complaint with Malaysia’s palm oil certification body. This directly relates to promoting the rule of law, ensuring equal access to justice, and addressing violations of Indigenous rights. The issue of “free, prior and informed consent” also points to the need for inclusive and representative decision-making.
3. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • The conflict is deeply tied to the sustainability of production patterns, specifically in the palm oil industry. The company, Urun Plantations, is certified under the Malaysia Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) scheme, yet is accused of violating its terms. The actions of NGOs and the decision by a palm oil mill to suspend purchases from the plantation demonstrate a push for sustainable supply chains and corporate accountability.
4. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • This goal is relevant as the article describes a power imbalance between Indigenous communities and a large corporation supported by local officials. The residents allege their native customary land rights have been violated and that they were deceived. The struggle of the Penan and Kenyah communities to protect their ancestral lands and have their voices heard is a clear example of a marginalized group fighting for inclusion and the protection of their rights against more powerful economic and political interests.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under 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 core of the dispute is the allegation that Urun Plantations is clearing natural forest, directly contradicting the goal of halting deforestation. The community’s demand to “leave it to become a forest” aligns with restoring degraded areas.
   • Target 15.5: “Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity…” The article mentions the clearing of naturally growing species like “Bornean ironwood, Bornean camphor and meranti,” indicating a direct impact on biodiversity and the degradation of the local forest habitat.
2. Under 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.” The Indigenous communities are actively pursuing this target by “filing a lawsuit at Sarawak’s High Court” and submitting a “letter of complaint to the MSPO’s dispute resolution board” to seek legal remedy for their grievances.
   • Target 16.7: “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.” This target is highlighted by its absence. The community alleges a lack of “free, prior and informed consent” and claims an attendance list for Christmas donations was deceptively used as proof of support, indicating that decision-making processes were not inclusive or transparent.
3. Under 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 entire case scrutinizes the sustainable practices of Urun Plantations, which is certified under the MSPO scheme. The complaint alleges the company is violating its certification, challenging the integrity of its sustainability claims.
4. Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… ethnicity, origin… or other status.” The article details the struggle of the Indigenous Penan and Kenyah communities to be included in decisions affecting their ancestral lands and livelihoods. Their activism, blockades, and legal actions are attempts to empower themselves and demand inclusion.
   • Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory… practices…” The lawsuit alleges that the company’s lease conflicts with the community’s “native customary land rights,” suggesting that existing practices and agreements have created an unequal outcome that disadvantages the Indigenous residents.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 15 (Life on Land):
   • Indicator (related to 15.2): The rate of deforestation. The article provides direct evidence that can be used as an indicator, stating that “Satellite imagery from Global Forest Watch shows substantial clearing… which increased in 2023 and 2024.” This imagery serves as a direct measure of forest cover loss. The size of the concession (10,997 hectares) versus the area cleared is another quantifiable measure.
2. For SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Indicator (related to 16.3): Access to justice mechanisms. The article explicitly mentions the number and type of formal disputes filed: “a lawsuit at Sarawak’s High Court” and a “letter of complaint to the MSPO’s dispute resolution board.” The progress and outcome of these legal actions are direct indicators of the community’s access to justice.
   • Indicator (related to 16.7): Community participation in decision-making. The lack of progress is indicated by the community’s claims of not providing “free, prior and informed consent” and the allegation that an “unmarked attendance list had been used as a show of support.” A positive indicator is the company’s agreement to a moratorium and “seeking engagement with the affected communities” after pressure.
3. For SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production):
   • Indicator (related to 12.6): Adherence to sustainability certifications. The MSPO certification is a key indicator. The filing of a complaint against the company for violating the certification rules, and the subsequent investigation (or lack thereof), measures the effectiveness and enforcement of such sustainability schemes. The decision by the “Glenealy/Samling Belaga Mill… [to suspend] sourcing from the plantation” is an indicator of supply chain response to sustainability violations.
4. For SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Indicator (related to 10.3): Recognition of land rights for Indigenous peoples. The lawsuit’s central claim that the company’s lease conflicts with the community’s “native customary land rights that span 54,478 hectares” serves as an indicator. The court’s ruling on this claim will measure whether the legal system reduces inequality by recognizing these rights.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: news.mongabay.com