Finalizing the Group Certification Protocol feedback session 1 (English) RSPO RT7 day 1 1 November 2009

Explanation by Biocert Relates to the mother document of the Group Certification system (done by Proforest) Document structure has changed protocol -> Guidance

1. Traceability and documentation Someone (Traceability working group) will have to work on traceability where it is required. Registration of traders is not compulsory in Indonesia which may cause problems

2. Equitable benefit sharing Certificate trade (green palm) enables full premium to be transferred to smallholder Book and Claim needs a watertight registration system Basis of calculation: need derivative / extraction parameters to be agreed RSPO revenues to be used to fund group certification schemes?

3. Flexibility in Market Access Enables (groups of) independents access to markets regardless of B&C or traceable Gives economy of scale / negotiating position Less dependency on (certified) mills; smallholder control over certified material

4. Intermediaries / boundaries Observations: 1) Does not necessarily require joint marketing 2) Vicinity is not a criterion 3) Requires a management group, but this does not necessaily needs to be an existing group 4) Group manager has to be an RSPO member; there should be clear criteria but the current list in the second draft on who can manage a group is too restrictive 5) Where state agencies are involved as Group Manager, they should be subject to RSPO Code of Conduct and other regulations

5a. Models for Groups Coops Associations Producer companies Self-organised groups Mills Traders / middlemen Obs: Do we really have to make an exhaustive list?

5a. Models for Groups Membership organisation Collective Federation of groups

6. Risk assessment requirement A thorough risk assessment is required but could not be done by the working group

7. Sampling and stratification Should be elaborated