158 / 311
[
] 159
human resources, community engagement and social
development, operational issues, land planning and
mapping. To do this, all departments had to be able to
work and operate in coordination rather than as indi-
vidual units to address specific issues and functions.
These difficulties were overcome by implementing
environmental key performance indicators while redefin-
ing the lines of reporting for the field environment teams.
Environmental funding improved through centralizing
environment department budgets.
To improve coordination between various depart-
ments and functions, additional reporting and
communications procedures were introduced.
Individuals also assisted with improving communica-
tion between departments to enhance understanding
of functions. Environment function reporting was
amended directly to chief executive officer level,
allowing for the same status as operational and other
department chiefs.
Benefits of implementation
The key benefit of implementing the sustainable plan-
tation management plan has been improvements in
the capacity of teams in biodiversity and conservation
management and social engagement. This has resulted
from internal communication and training, but also from
increased exposure to academic institutions and special-
ist organizations.
SMF supports flagship conservation programmes
contributing over 150,000 hectares of natural forests
(designated for industrial plantation development) to
permanent conservation.
Experiences in implementation
As at the time of implementation of the certification programme, SMF
was in compliance with the International Standards Organization
(ISO) 14001:2004 Environmental Management System Standard.
Establishing and mainstreaming the certification approaches
initially required the ISO system to form the basis of the reporting
requirements. The presence of that system also enabled an existing
environmental reporting structure to be utilized in the implemen-
tation of the LEI Sustainable Plantation Management Standard
needs. The presence of the ISO committee also provided a forum
for dissemination and sharing of information across departmental
boundaries.
To support implementation, a core team of support staff was
recruited at the head office level. This team worked with environ-
ment teams at the company level and the operational teams at the
site level in terms of training, coordination of data collection and
improvements in reporting systems.
Mainstreaming of environmental monitoring and improvements
in addition to
the national requirements also required the existing
environment management structures to be reviewed.
Key results of this action were information sharing with the opera-
tional teams and an immediate need to address the management of
environment functions at the field level.
At the initiation of the programme, the management structure
meant environment staff at the field and regional level reported to
operational managers and operational directors respectively. This led
to management issues when empowering local field staff to enforce
additional company environmental standards. There was initially
management confusion, with overlaps in human resource supervi-
sion and issues on sourcing of internal funding for proposed actions.
Achievement of the SPFM 5000-2 standard also required support
from the departments managing land claims, enforcement/security,
Empowering local communities
Enhancing community livelihoods
Image: Sinar Mas Forestry
Image: Sinar Mas Forestry