Challenges for the FSC Remedy Framework Social Baseline Assessment Process: Case Studies

• Lack of transparency and limited information sharing particularly around the establishment of social baselines. Information sharing sessions were held mainly in districts or provincial capitals, often with civil society organizations, with minimal direct engagement with affected communities.
• Exclusion of many affected communities. While a capacity-building pilot is underway with fifteen communities in Riau, hundreds of impacted communities with similar claims remain unsupported and uninformed about the Remedy Framework process.
• Absence of Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). Among the nine communities visited, only the two (in Riau) had even heard of FSC, APRIL or the Remedy Framework. In none of the cases had FPIC been sought prior to the implementation of baseline assessments, contrary to FSC requirements.
• No visits by independent assessors. None of the communities visited by FPP researchers had been directly engaged by any independent assessor, including those in North Sumatra, where the formal social baseline assessment was reportedly completed. A focus on administrative ‘desa’ (village) structures appears to have created a ‘blind spot’ in which rightsholder communities have not been considered.

The investigation also reaffirmed the urgent need for effective remedy. Communities recounted harms including violations of land rights, restrictions on traditional livelihoods, damage to cultural and spiritual sites, negative health impacts, and experiences of threats, harassment, intimidation, and criminalization.