Deal #2371 Version #89518

40 villages

The press article states that the agreement followed "a day-long open engagement of all the parties involved"; according to Green Scenery, there was a lack of information given to local farmers. In October 2011, 40 protesters were arrested after clashes. The people criticized the lack of transparency surrounding the transaction and the lack of real consultation and information. Another source states that the communities were not subject to free, prior and informed consent. The government transferred the land to the company with a whole host of unresolved issues. One report states that the communities were not aware of that their land had been leased. Other report mentioned there was serious allegations of corruption, lack of transparency and non-implementation of corporate social responsibility promises by SOCFIN. In Sierra Leona for RSPO certification, Malen Radio broadcasted information about the audit two weeks before the audit in September 2020. One community leader stated he was informed by a company liaison officer who visited the communities 5 days in advance. Some civil society groups said they received notice 3 to 5 days in advance, while others were not notified at all. Civil society organisations from Pujehun district said they did not receive a formal invitation or agenda, which made it difficult to prepare. A second audit took place in early November 2020, according to SCS,2 because they were unable to process all stakeholder comments from the first audit or meet with newly identified stakeholders. SCS did not reach out proactively to international and national civil society organisations to prepare and inform the audits, despite publicly available reports, media statements and other communication about SAC and Socfin as well as news items on Socfin and Bolloré SLAPP suits against those organisations and individuals. Even though their internal communication shows that SCS was well aware of the controversial nature of the company and the high credibility risk. An important stakeholder group called the Malen Affected Land Owners and Land Users Association (MALOA) stated they were not properly consulted.Although several leaders met informally with one of the auditors, their proposal for a proper consultation meeting with MALOA members was not agreed to by the auditors, reportedly because of security concerns. One company representative confirmed to the researcher that SCS had to return for a second field audit because several stakeholders were not consulted, including MALOA. However, even during that second visit, the auditors failed to consult MALOA. MALOA leaders also stated that the list of stakeholders the company provided to the auditors was heavily biased towards its proponents.

according to Green Scenery, corruption and pressure was applied on land-owners and town chiefs to sign agreements.the establishment of the company has met with significant resistance from the local population. People from several communities affected by the SAC lease area have formed the Malen Affected Landowners Association (MALOA) to defend the rights of landowners and land users. Several individual landowners have also sent official complaints about tree-crop and oil palm plantations that SAC destroyed, allegedly without their permission, to the senior district officer and other local authorities.There have been several confrontations in the area between SAC surveyors and heavy equipment operators and local people protesting SAC intrusion on their lands, some of which have led to arrests. In December 2012, more than 100 aggrieved landowners and users met in Pujehun and signed a resolution calling for the Human Rights Commission to intervene on their behalf and saying they would no longer permit Socfin personnel or machines on their land. On 9th December 2013, another protest was held by the elders to allow people to again express their grievances to the Paramount Chief over the lease of land. Hundreds were waiting in the village of Libby Malen for the chiefdom authorities to arrive when they learned that nine of their fellow villagers had been beaten and arrested by the police en route to the meeting.The rest of the villages fled from the protest spot immediately but were confronted with an armed contingent of police who fired tear gas and live bullets into the crowd, leaving many people with serious injuries. After continuous complaints government, the villagers are still not heard. The local communities have protested against Bollore within the wider protests against the company. 5 Landowners have been found guilty by a high court in Southern Sierra Leone after they were allegedly found guilty of damaging the plantation- prison for 5 months or a fine of $5,100 each. The company claims that they obtained consent from the community and followed the procedures laid out in the law. Workers downed tools in May 2017 and demanded the company engage in discussions on grievances. A new agreement has been drafted as a result where most grievances are addressed, but this is still to be signed by the company manager.

In October 2011, 40 protesters were arrested after clashes. The people criticized the lack of transparency surrounding the transaction and the lack of real consultation and information. The violence and protest continue by company workers and landowners in 2019 two civilians were confirmed shot by military personnel. MALOA members and leaders stated they have not been properly consulted. Therefore, it is likely that the auditors did not take into account their evidence on land disputes. Their grievances include: landowners were sidelined during lease agreement negotiations, FPIC was not respected, physical land demarcation disappeared, some families have lost all their land, lands were taken without due compensation, right to food is undermined, the annual lease payments are too low and the payment method is not inclusive, alternative livelihoods are not available and employment is too low, and communities are separated because the company changed roads. MALOA pleads for a return of land to communities.

In 40 villages, Since March 2014 Libby Village has been forced to halt their subsistence farming so that the company could carry out surveys and brush the land. According to a report less than ten villages remain intact throughout the entire chiefdom. Other source stated that up to 2020, the project affects around 32,842 people in 52 villages.

Report showed that affected communities who have lost access to and control over their land have been exposed to serious human rights violations and abuses since 2011. Communities also report that the use of chemicals and fertilizers in SOCFIN’s operations have made swamps in the plantation area unsuitable for cultivation. According to The ex-president Ernest Bai Koroma of the last All People’s Congress (APC) the first protest against the land grabbing by Socfin in 2011 was violently repressed, forty people were arrested by the police and fifteen were pursued in court. In 2012, fourothers were arrested because they opposed the survey team of Socfin. In 2013, another fifteen people were arrested and detained. In 2014, six leaders of MALOA were arbitrarily arrested and pursued in court. Following a partial trial, they were in prison for several months; in 2015 another eleven people were arrested. In 2019, the tensions led to a conflict on the plantation that left two people dead and eighteen MALOA activists arrested,sometimes beaten and arbitrarily detained for several weeks. I was sued for defamation by Socfin for my evidence-based statements or writings.” ES

The General Manager of Socfin, Gerben Haringsma assured the Government of Sierra Leone and the people of Malen Chiefdom that the Company would live up to their corporate social responsibilities including the construction of a resident hospital, network of roads, schools, housing facilities, job opportunities for 10,000 people with special preference given to natives of the chiefdom. Moreover he promised that full payment would be made for existing plantations in the areas of operations to be followed by an annual payment of lease rents to land owners. According to Green Scenery, it is not clear what formula will be used in the distribution of the land lease payment between District Council, administration, national government and land-owners. Socfin originally offered US$220 per hectare as a one-off payment for the land, but this offer was rejected for being very low compared to the real value. Apparently the communities were paid a $40 000 for rent in 2011. The NGO Maloa protests since 2011 against the conditions under which an affiliate of the group settled on his land. Five of its members were jailed for two weeks and will be judged on November 15 2013 for destroying plants palm oil. Socfin now pays $12.50 per hectare per year to community members (2017). The company claims that each farmer received 1 million Leones ($135) in compensation for the loss of their crops and $2.50 a year for lease of each acre.

The company has it looked at how local people who have lost their livelihood can be compensated. Socfin now pays $12.50 per hectare per year to community members (2017). The company claims that each farmer received 1 million Leones ($135) in compensation for the loss of their crops and $2.50 a year for lease of each acre.

The company's promise to give back to the communities includes three roadwork projects and has built eight water wells, one ambulance, a primary school, some footwear and jerseys for a friendly football match, a generator and paint for the police station outside the company's operational area. To date, the company has no intention of investing in agricultural programmes, nor has it looked at how local people who have lost their livelihood can be compensated. "80% of the sixty villages where the company operates have not received 20% of the development projects promised them when their land was leased in 2011."

The company's promise to give back to the communities includes three roadwork projects and has built eight water wells, one ambulance, a primary school, some footwear and jerseys for a friendly football match, a generator and paint for the police station outside the company's operational area. To date, the company has no intention of investing in agricultural programmes. "80% of the sixty villages where the company operates have not received 20% of the development projects promised them when their land was leased in 2011."

People from several communities affected by the SAC lease area have formed the Malen Affected Landowners Association (MALOA) to defend the rights of landowners and land users. Several individual landowners have also sent official complaints about tree-crop and oil palm plantations that SAC destroyed, allegedly without their permission, to the senior district officer and other local authorities.There have been several confrontations in the area between SAC surveyors and heavy equipment operators and local people protesting SAC intrusion on their lands, some of which have led to arrests. In December 2012, more than 100 aggrieved landowners and users met in Pujehun and signed a resolution calling for the Human Rights Commission to intervene on their behalf and saying they would no longer permit Socfin personnel or machines on their land. On 9th December 2013, another protest was held by the elders to allow people to again express their grievances to the Paramount Chief over the lease of land. Hundreds were waiting in the village of Libby Malen for the chiefdom authorities to arrive when they learned that nine of their fellow villagers had been beaten and arrested by the police en route to the meeting.The rest of the villages fled from the protest spot immediately but were confronted with an armed contingent of police who fired tear gas and live bullets into the crowd, leaving many people with serious injuries. After continuous complaints government, the villagers are still not heard. The local communities have protested against Bollore within the wider protests against the company. 5 Landowners have been found guilty by a high court in Southern Sierra Leone after they were allegedly found guilty of damaging the plantation- prison for 5 months or a fine of $5,100 each. The company claims that they obtained consent from the community and followed the procedures laid out in the law. Workers downed tools in May 2017 and demanded the company engage in discussions on grievances. A new agreement has been drafted as a result where most grievances are addressed, but this is still to be signed by the company manager. On 4 February 2016, following a lengthy legal process, all six of the MALOA executive members were convicted and ordered to pay heavy fines or face six months imprisonment. In 2017, MALOA and Green Scenery approached the Government for the resumption of the dialogue process. Affected communities continue to demand an independent investigation, deeming it a prerequisite for the establishment of an impartial and effective resolution mechanism. On 6th November, the Executive Committee and the general membership of Malen Affected Land Owners Association (MALOA), expressed their dissatisfaction with the RSPO process and specifically the refusal of the SCS Global Services Audit Team to hold an open General Meeting at Sahn Malen Court Barray. The President made a solemn promise in 2018 to the hard-pressed aggrieved land owners and the people of the chiefdom, that he will resolve the festering land dispute between them and the palm oil producer. "Green Scenery believes that the conflict resolution process should consider the renegotiation of irregular land lease agreements, and take into account the negative impact of the company’s activities on the rights of Malen citizens, including environmental impact and implementation plans, criminalization, compensation and indemnification." In November 2020, several civil society actors filed a complaint with SCS, alleging violation of RSPO’s standard for Certification Systems. SCS informed complainants5 that confidentiality during the complaints process cannot be guaranteed. This prevented stakeholders from sending in detailed verified evidence of harm to the plantations and violations of the Certification Systems standard. Hence, this information is potentially not included in the assessment