- The changes include lowering its deforestation cutoff date to the end of 2020, which allows APRIL to source wood from two companies responsible for some of Indonesia’s largest recent forest losses.
- APRIL says the move aligns with global standards and helps address fibre shortages caused by permit revocations affecting 15% of its wood supply.
- But critics say the changes weaken a longstanding no-deforestation safeguard and have questioned why APRIL selected these two suppliers among Indonesia’s many fibre producers.
- APRIL says its new suppliers will undergo satellite monitoring, compartment-level traceability and annual independent audits, but critics say transparency concerns remain.
JAKARTA — Pulp and paper giant APRIL made recent changes that are concerning to environmental groups. These changes include suspending and reviewing its flagship sustainability policy, lowering its deforestation commitments, and sourcing wood from two companies responsible for some of Indonesia’s largest recent forest losses.
The company, part of the Singapore-headquartered Royal Golden Eagle (RGE) group, the world’s largest manufacturer of viscose rayon, said the changes are needed to align its policies with international standards and secure fiber supplies following the loss of several long-term suppliers. Environmental groups, however, said the move weakens a key safeguard that APRIL has long cited as evidence of its no-deforestation commitments.
The controversy centers on APRIL’s decision to add Indonesian concessions PT Industrial Forest Plantation (IFP) and PT Mayawana Persada (Mayawana) as its wood suppliers, integral to manufacturing viscose.
Both companies, based on Kalimantan, have experienced extensive forest loss in recent years and have been repeatedly criticized by environmental groups.
Previously, RGE and its subsidiaries, including APRIL, pledged not to source wood from plantations linked with deforestation since 2015. It is a pledge the company had reportedly broken. Its new corporate promise lowers the cutoff date to 2020, drawing sharp criticism from environmental groups.
APRIL said IFP began delivering wood fiber to the company in May 2026. However, vessel-tracking data reviewed by Mongabay indicated that at least five barges carrying timber from the vicinity of IFP’s operations in Central Kalimantan were tracked traveling to Futong Port in Riau between mid-March and mid-April.
Futong serves as a key receiving point for wood entering APRIL’s Pangkalan Kerinci industrial complex.
The vessel movements indicate that wood from IFP was already moving toward APRIL’s operations weeks before the company publicly announced the supplier relationship. APRIL later told Mongabay that the first shipment arrived at Futong Port in April, underwent final due diligence checks, and was only used in production starting in May.
A coalition of 23 NGOs from Indonesia, Europe, the United States and Canada has condemned the policy changes and the addition of the two suppliers.
In a June 1 letter to APRIL, the coalition called on the company to remove IFP and Mayawana from its supplier list and reinstate its Sustainable Forest Management Policy (SFMP 2.0) with the original 2015 deforestation cutoff date.
Aron White, Southeast Asia lead for U.K.-based NGO Earthsight, described APRIL’s decision as “shortsighted” and “outrageous.”
By sourcing from IFP and Mayawana despite extensive forest clearance in both concessions, APRIL has effectively decided that companies can regain access to its supply chain once they stop actively clearing forest, White said.
“With this approach, it’s essentially granting amnesty to the very worst deforesters in the entire country — thereby undermining the purpose and impact of its deforestation policy,” he told Mongabay.
What’s the company’s reasoning?
APRIL said the revised cutoff date aligns its sourcing policies with international frameworks, including the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), the Accountability Framework initiative (AFi) and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).
The company said the change also expands the pool of eligible fiber suppliers by allowing wood from areas converted before Dec. 31, 2020, to enter its supply chain.
Environmental groups argue that the practical effect has been to open the door to companies that continued clearing natural forest long after APRIL adopted its no-deforestation policy in 2015.
They point to the inclusion of IFP and Mayawana as evidence.
“The point of a deforestation cut-off date in a corporate sustainability policy should be to draw a hard line in the sand: To say to concession holders that if they want to maintain market access they need to stop clearing forest now and shift towards genuinely sustainable models,” White said.
“Instead, APRIL is shifting the goalposts and welcoming the very worst possible suppliers with no requirement to redress the harm they caused, thereby undermining the potential positive impact of their own policy, and hugely damaging their own reputation in the process.”
What to know about the new suppliers
Together, IFP and Mayawana lost nearly 80,000 hectares (197,684 acres) of forest between 2015 and 2024, including more than 54,000 hectares (133,436 acres) after 2020, according to data from the forest-monitoring platform Nusantara Atlas. A total area that exceeds the size of Singapore.
APRIL said IFP began delivering wood fiber in May from plantation compartments that meet the company’s updated requirements. Mayawana is expected to begin supplying fiber in July, after completing a similar due diligence process.
Environmental groups believe the inclusion of the two companies risks undermining confidence in APRIL’s sustainability commitments.
“Sourcing fibre from PT Industrial Forest Plantation or PT Mayawana Persada may mean that the APRIL Group is no longer compliant with many of its customers’ sustainability policies, potentially significantly restricting market access for the Group’s products,” the NGO coalition wrote.
The groups noted that both companies continued clearing forest after 2020, the same cutoff date APRIL now requires suppliers to meet.
Nusantara Atlas data show that more than two-thirds of the forest loss recorded in the two concessions since 2015 occurred after 2020.
In 2023 alone, Mayawana cleared 17,099 hectares (42,252 acres) of forest, more than any other company in Indonesia. IFP ranked second, with 4,626 hectares (11,431 acres) cleared.
“It’s hard to overstate just how damaging the actions of PT Mayawana Persada and PT Industrial Forest Plantation have been in the last few years,” White said.
“They’re responsible for 64.8% of all clearance of primary forest across Indonesia’s entire pulpwood sector in the years 2022-24, according to data from Nusantara Atlas.”
Even under APRIL’s revised 2020 cutoff date, both companies recorded substantial forest loss after that threshold.
Following protests by Indigenous Dayak communities, Indonesia’s Ministry of Forestry issued a directive on March 28, 2024, ordering Mayawana to stop logging in its pulpwood concession and focus on restoring damaged peatlands.
Environmental groups say the company has continued planting acacia on cleared peatlands, including in areas designated for protection.
Some of the forest loss in both concessions occurred on critical orangutan habitat and carbon-rich peatlands.
IFP’s concession lies within a landscape recognized as a stronghold for the critically endangered Bornean orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus), with roughly half of the concession estimated to overlap orangutan habitat.
A 2014 audit document for IFP identified at least 29 bird species, 22 mammal species, six reptile species and 15 protected tree species within the concession.
Mayawana’s concession contains one of the largest remaining blocks of orangutan habitat in the Mendawak landscape. More than half of the forest cleared in the concession after 2020 occurred on peatland forest.
“Given extensive deforestation and harvesting of natural forest timber in their concessions since 2020, PT Industrial Forest Plantation and PT Mayawana Persada should be excluded under SFMP 2.0, even with an amended cut-off date of 2020,” the NGO coalition wrote.
What about due diligence?
APRIL acknowledged that both IFP and Mayawana “have in recent years been subject to external scrutiny related to significant deforestation.”
The company said it will continue to uphold its no-deforestation commitments by sourcing only from plantation compartments established before 2020.
APRIL also said its sourcing systems will comply with the EUDR, which is scheduled to take effect at the end of this year.
The regulation will prohibit timber linked to deforestation after December 2020 from entering the European Union market beginning in December 2026.
APRIL said all fiber supplied by IFP and Mayawana will be verified through EUDR-compliant traceability systems down to the compartment level, which include historical satellite analysis, onsite inspections and ground-truthing of supplier plantation maps.
“APRIL checks and verifies the data on specific wood deliveries end-to-end, from compartment level at the point that the trees are harvested, through to the shipping of that wood all the way to arrival at our operations,” the company told Mongabay.
APRIL also said the suppliers would be subject to annual independent third-party audits, the results of which would be publicly disclosed.
White questioned how easy it would be to demonstrate compliance in concessions where extensive forest loss occurred after 2020.
“It’s really hard to prove that any raw material from both IFP and Mayawana is compliant with EUDR given that most of the clearing in the concessions occurred after [the] EUDR cutoff date of 2020,” he said.
White said APRIL hadn’t disclosed whether compartment maps, harvesting locations, or traceability information will be made public or not, which raises concerns over transparency.
“It seems that independent observers and civil society organisations are expected to take their word that their supply comes from areas deforested pre-2020, and that this is all segregated through the supply chain,” he said.
What impact will the EUDR have?
Environmental groups argued that sourcing from IFP and Mayawana could increase compliance risks for European buyers, because both concessions experienced extensive forest loss after the EUDR’s December 2020 cutoff date.
Under the EUDR, importers must establish that there is a “negligible risk” that products originate from land deforested after December 2020.
White argued that importers may struggle to conclude there is a negligible risk unless they can independently verify harvesting locations and segregation practices throughout the supply chain.
“That is going to be extremely difficult to achieve,” he said.
Because importers remain legally responsible for compliance, White said, some buyers may prefer suppliers whose sourcing policies exclude companies that have deforested after 2020.
Earthsight’s analysis of shipment records indicates that APRIL Group companies export significant volumes of paper products to the EU.
According to the NGO, PT Anugrah Kertas Utama exported more than 168,730 tonnes of paper and paperboard to EU countries between January 2025 and April 2026, representing 32.2% of its total exports. PT Riau Andalan Paperboard International exported more than 43,000 tonnes of paperboard to the EU during the same period.
Timer Manurung, executive director of NGO Auriga Nusantara, said that if APRIL’s access to European markets were affected, the implications could extend beyond the company itself because of APRIL’s dominant position within Indonesia’s pulp and paper sector.
Indonesia’s pulp and paper industry is dominated by two conglomerates: Sinar Mas Group’s Asia Pulp & Paper (APP) and RGE’s APRIL. Industry analyses citing government data estimate that the two groups together account for roughly 95% of Indonesia’s pulp exports.
Timer said European authorities should closely examine the implications of APRIL’s sourcing decisions.
APRIL, meanwhile, said all fiber supplied by IFP and Mayawana will be traced to compartment level and verified through EUDR-compliant systems.
Are the companies connected?
The supplier announcement has also renewed scrutiny of longstanding allegations that IFP and Mayawana are linked to the wider RGE group.
Reports published by the Environmental Paper Network (EPN) in 2023 and 2024 point to overlapping corporate officers, operational-management links and supply-chain relationships that the authors argue connect both companies to RGE. APRIL and RGE have repeatedly denied any ownership or control relationship.
The 2023 EPN report documented deliveries from IFP to PT Balikpapan Chip Lestari (BCL), whose woodchips were exported almost exclusively to RGE-owned Asia Symbol in China.
APRIL confirmed to Mongabay that IFP previously supplied Asia Symbol through BCL, before Asia Symbol suspended sourcing in 2023.
A recent investigation by international news agency Agence France-Presse (AFP) found that wood from IFP plantations was also processed by Phoenix Resources International, a North Kalimantan woodchip mill that supplies Asia Symbol. The findings came despite Asia Symbol’s announcement in 2023 that it would stop sourcing wood from IFP “indefinitely.”
Taken together, the reports suggest that wood originating from IFP had already entered supply chains linked to RGE companies before APRIL formally announced IFP as an open-market supplier in 2026.
“To us, this further demonstrates the closeness between IFP and RGE. APRIL should not present IFP and MP as though they have no connection whatsoever to RGE, even if IFP’s wood was first sent to the Phoenix mill before reaching Asia Symbol,” Greenpeace Indonesia forest campaigner Refki Saputra told Mongabay.
The 2024 EPN report drew similar conclusions regarding Mayawana. According to the report, the company supplied more than 24,000 cubic meters (847,552 cubic feet) of large-diameter rainforest logs during 2022-2023 to PT Asia Forestama Raya, a plywood company that the report says has longstanding links to RGE founder Sukanto Tanoto and the wider RGE group.
The report noted that Tanoto directly owned Asia Forestama Raya until 2008 and reportedly retained an indirect ownership interest through a holding company until July 2023. It also cited offshore corporate structures that it says continue to connect the company to RGE.
In addition, the report found that Mayawana’s Malaysian shareholder, Green Ascend (M) Sdn Bhd, shares corporate officers with Apical, RGE’s palm oil arm. The report also identified operational-management links involving individuals associated with Mayawana and companies that the authors say are connected to RGE-linked individuals and addresses.
Environmental groups argue that these relationships go beyond an ordinary commercial relationship.
“Based on the Accountability Framework Initiative (AFi), we believe both companies are under common control with RGE,” Refki said.
AFi is a coalition of NGOs and sustainability organizations that promotes ethical supply chains in agriculture and forestry. Under its guidance, indicators of common control can include shared management, ownership structures, financial relationships and operational decision making.
APRIL and RGE reject the allegation that either company is part of the group.
Refki said by classifying IFP and Mayawana as open-market suppliers, APRIL creates the impression that the companies are entirely independent.
Timer said environmental groups see parallels with PT Adindo Hutani Lestari (AHL), another company that has long been scrutinized by NGOs.
AHL cleared an area of natural forest equivalent to roughly 15,000 football fields between 2015 and 2020.
APRIL previously described AHL as an independent supplier and listed it as an open-market supplier. Today, AHL appears on APRIL’s sustainability dashboard as a supply partner, a category reserved for long-term suppliers that participate in the company’s conservation commitments.
Critics have said the shift raises questions about how APRIL classifies suppliers, although APRIL has never acknowledged any ownership or control relationship with AHL.
Archived versions of APRIL’s website show AHL appearing in the company’s supply partner category by at least August 2025.
Timer said the evolution of APRIL’s relationship with AHL reinforces his belief that IFP and Mayawana are not independent suppliers.
“It’s effectively an acknowledgement that these are companies they own and control,” he said.
APRIL and RGE dispute that characterization.
Refki said that if the companies are ultimately found to be part of the wider RGE sphere, APRIL should be held accountable for the deforestation associated with them.
“Right now, APRIL presents the situation as though it is simply cleaning up its supply chain going forward and making it deforestation-free,” he said. “As long as APRIL continues to deny these relationships, it becomes easy for APRIL to source wood from IFP and Mayawana by simply categorizing them as open-market suppliers.”
Why is there a supply crunch?
While the December 2020 cutoff date has been adopted by several international standards, banks and corporate buyers, critics questioned why APRIL chose to weaken a commitment that previously applied a stricter 2015 threshold.
APRIL said the review of its sustainability policy and the addition of IFP and Mayawana were necessary to address a sudden disruption in fiber supply.
In January 2026, the Indonesian government revoked the operating permits of 28 companies, including four of APRIL’s long-term fiber suppliers.
The decision affected approximately 250,000 hectares (617,763 acres) of concession land.
The permit revocations followed a government audit that found environmental violations and linked some concession activities to environmental degradation associated with devastating floods and landslides that struck parts of Sumatra in late 2025.
More than 1,200 people were reportedly killed in the disaster.
“The revocation of these operating permits meant a serious disruption to our planned wood supply. Sourcing from additional suppliers was an important and necessary action to secure our supply chain stability,” APRIL said in a statement.
APRIL said permit revocations affected around 15% of its total wood supply in Riau but declined to say how much fiber it expects to source from IFP and Mayawana.
APRIL did not answer Mongabay’s question about why it selected IFP and Mayawana among Indonesia’s many fiber producers, or whether it considered suppliers with less recent deforestation histories.
What about APRIL’s expansion plans?
Earthsight has suggested that APRIL’s search for additional fiber may also be linked to growing demand from its manufacturing operations.
Environmental groups have for several years raised concerns about APRIL’s plans to expand production at its Pangkalan Kerinci industrial complex in Riau.
A 2023 Environmental Paper Network report cited environmental impact assessment documents indicating that APRIL’s flagship pulp mill, PT Riau Andalan Pulp & Paper (RAPP), planned to increase pulp-production capacity by more than 50%, from around 3 million tonnes annually to roughly 4.5 million tonnes.
Separately, APRIL commissioned PT Riau Andalan Paperboard International (RAPI), a 1.2-million-tonne paperboard mill, in 2024.
Both facilities form part of APRIL’s broader industrial complex in Pangkalan Kerinci, although it remains unclear how much of the pulp-capacity expansion envisioned in earlier planning documents has been completed.
APRIL said its operations are currently capable of producing up to 4 million tonnes of pulp annually, suggesting that significant capacity growth has already occurred.
Meanwhile, Asia Symbol, another RGE subsidiary, commissioned a 1-million-tonne premium ivory paperboard project at its Rizhao complex in China’s Shandong province in October 2023.
The company’s latest sustainability report indicated that the facility remained operational in 2024.
Environmental groups argue that growing production capacity may help explain APRIL’s decision to broaden its supplier base.
However, APRIL has not disclosed how much of its fiber demand is attributable to production growth versus the loss of supply caused by permit revocations.
APRIL did not respond to Mongabay’s question about whether recent manufacturing expansion contributed to its additional fiber requirements.
No evidence has emerged showing that the onboarding of IFP and Mayawana was directly caused by APRIL’s expansion projects. Environmental groups, nevertheless, said the timing warrants closer scrutiny.
In light of these developments, the coalition of 23 NGOs called on APRIL to immediately reinstate SFMP 2.0 with its original 2015 deforestation cutoff date and remove IFP and Mayawana from its list of approved suppliers.
The groups also urged APRIL to commit to not purchasing any additional material from IFP and to exclude any supplier that has cleared natural forest since 2015.
Is it reform or amnesty?
Kim Carstensen, former director-general of FSC and now a part-time sustainability adviser to APRIL, said sourcing from IFP and Mayawana carries “clear risks.”
“I agree that there are clear risks involved in accepting supplies from PT IFP and PT MP,” he told Mongabay.
However, Carstensen said companies responsible for past deforestation should be given opportunities to improve. He said APRIL’s decision to source from suppliers that have stopped forest conversion and committed to conservation and external verification could help drive broader change across Indonesia’s plantation forestry sector.
Carstensen described the company’s approach as a “litmus test” of its commitment to sustainability.
Earthsight disputed that assessment.
White said former offenders should be encouraged to improve, but any pathway back to market acceptance should require companies to remedy past harm and provide restitution to affected communities.
“What we’re seeing instead with APRIL accepting these new suppliers is an amnesty — an apparent total forgiveness of the immense, very recent damage the companies have done with no requirement to remedy that harm,” he said.
“We’re not talking about historical deforestation. We’re talking thousands and thousands of hectares cleared just a few years ago, with severe conflict with communities ongoing. These are not past offenders, they are current offenders.”
Timer with Auriga Nusantara said the broader issue is the signal that APRIL’s decisions sent to the industry.
“[The message is] ‘Look, if you engage in deforestation, you can still access the market later without any consequences,’” he told Mongabay.
“There has been no punishment for Mayawana or IFP. So the message is essentially: ‘Go ahead and deforest. We can find a way around it.’”
White said APRIL’s revised policy risks are sending the opposite signal to the industry.
“APRIL is not adopting new sustainability commitments — it is amending and weakening existing commitments,” he said. “If this is going to drive any sector-wide change, it will not be positive.”
Banner image: Young timber plantations surround remaining patches of natural forest in the concession of PT Industrial Forest Plantation, Central Kalimantan, November 2024 © Auriga / Earthsight
FEEDBACK: Use this form to send a message to the author of this post. If you want to post a public comment, you can do that at the bottom of the page.
Credits
