POST-TRAINING REPORT
MSPO SIA BASIC TRAINING
Training Information
| Item | Details |
|---|---|
| Training Programme | MSPO SIA Basic Training |
| Training Date | 28–30 April 2026 |
| Training Type | In-House |
| Delivery Mode | Physical / Face-to-Face |
| Venue | Client’s Premise – Site 6, Aramijaya, Mersing, Johor |
| Client Organisation | Aramijaya Agri & Agro Sdn Bhd |
| Training Provider | OSHISIS Solution PLT |
| Trainer | Daman Huri Mohammad |
| Total Participants | 11 persons |
| Training Outline Reference | http://osh-isis.com/outline/tp101.pdf |
| MSPO Observer | Not applicable |
The official assessment record identifies the venue as the client’s premises at Site 6, Aramijaya, Mersing, Johor, and confirms that all 11 participants passed the programme and were recommended for the Certificate of Achievement.
1. Training Overview
The MSPO SIA Basic Training was successfully conducted from 28 to 30 April 2026 at Site 6, Aramijaya, Mersing, Johor.
The programme was conducted as a customised in-house training programme for Aramijaya personnel. The modules, exercises, discussions, and practical activities were adapted to suit the client’s operational context, social environment, stakeholder profile, and existing Social Impact Assessment documentation.
The programme formed the continuation of Aramijaya’s internal competency-development initiative following the earlier MSPO Awareness Training. It was intended to strengthen the organisation’s internal capacity to conduct, review, improve, and maintain Social Impact Assessments for its MSPO-certified operating sites.
The programme covered:
- the purpose and principles of Social Impact Assessment;
- MSPO SIA requirements and reporting expectations;
- assessor roles and competency;
- site profiling and baseline information;
- scoping and assessment planning;
- stakeholder identification and profiling;
- consultation and sampling methodology;
- identification of positive and negative social impacts;
- assessment of impact significance;
- food security and child-rights considerations;
- vulnerable and indigenous stakeholder considerations;
- mitigation and enhancement measures;
- preparation of a Social Management Plan;
- monitoring, review, and reporting; and
- preparation of an audit-ready SIA report.
A major feature of the programme was the use of the client’s own draft SIA reports as practical learning material. Participants conducted structured gap reviews for:
- Site 3;
- Site 6;
- Site 8; and
- Site Nitar.
By the end of the programme, the participants had developed an initial organisational baseline through the gap-review process, identifying the strengths, missing elements, evidence requirements, and priority actions necessary to improve the four draft SIA reports in accordance with MSPO SIA guidance.
2. Participant Attendance
A total of 11 participants attended and successfully completed the three-day programme.
| No. | Participant Name |
|---|---|
| 1 | Prakaash A/L Nagarajah |
| 2 | Salbiah Binti Mohamed Assari |
| 3 | Noor Shakira Binti Razlan |
| 4 | Siti Nor Faezah Binti Mohd Samsi |
| 5 | Anis Suraya Binti Supadi |
| 6 | Nor Nasarina Binti Razali |
| 7 | Muhammad Zulhilmi Bin Mohamad Nor |
| 8 | Izhar Bin Hamzah |
| 9 | Lazim Judin |
| 10 | Hisvaran A/L Kailasam |
| 11 | Sow Xiao Hui |
All participants completed the training and assessment requirements and were recommended for the awarding of the Certificate of Achievement.
3. Training Delivery Methodology
The programme was delivered using a customised, application-based, and competency-focused methodology.
a) Interactive Classroom Presentation
The trainer delivered structured explanations of the MSPO SIA process, assessor responsibilities, reporting requirements, stakeholder engagement, impact evaluation, management planning, and monitoring.
The presentation was tailored to the operational and social context of Aramijaya rather than being delivered solely as a generic public course.
b) Client-Specific Document Review
The participants reviewed Aramijaya’s existing draft SIA reports for Site 3, Site 6, Site 8, and Site Nitar.
The document review enabled participants to compare their existing reports against MSPO expectations and identify:
- completed elements;
- partially completed elements;
- missing information;
- inadequate supporting evidence;
- weak stakeholder records;
- incomplete impact analysis; and
- insufficient management and monitoring arrangements.
c) Guided Gap-Review Exercises
Participants were guided to evaluate each draft report against applicable MSPO SIA expectations.
The exercises covered:
- site introduction;
- land information;
- rivers and sensitive receptors;
- surrounding communities;
- manpower and workforce profile;
- permits and licences;
- scoping;
- stakeholder selection;
- consultation evidence;
- sampling adequacy;
- food security;
- child rights;
- social-impact identification;
- impact significance;
- mitigation;
- Social Management Plans;
- monitoring and review;
- grievance records;
- appendices; and
- assessor competency.
d) Site-Based Case Discussions
The training incorporated actual issues from the four operating sites.
Examples discussed included:
- neighbouring communities;
- Orang Asli considerations;
- worker housing;
- Certificate of Fitness or related approval status;
- access routes through estate areas;
- food access and affordability;
- school and transport access;
- domestic waste and sanitation;
- river and water-quality risks;
- wildlife conflict;
- grievance mechanisms; and
- stakeholder consultation evidence.
e) Group Review and Presentation
Participants worked collaboratively to review identified gaps and propose suitable corrective actions.
Each group was encouraged to explain:
- why an item represented a gap;
- what additional evidence was required;
- how the issue should be reflected in the SIA report;
- who should be responsible;
- what timeframe should be assigned; and
- how implementation should be monitored.
f) Guided Baseline Development
The gap-review activities enabled the client to establish a practical baseline for future SIA improvement.
The baseline covered:
- current report completeness;
- missing socioeconomic information;
- missing stakeholder records;
- missing supporting documents;
- weaknesses in the Social Management Plan;
- required monitoring indicators;
- priority site-specific risks; and
- actions required before audit submission.
g) Question-and-Answer Sessions
Open discussions were conducted throughout the programme to clarify:
- SIA report structure;
- stakeholder sampling;
- consultation records;
- significance assessment;
- evidence requirements;
- social management planning;
- review frequency;
- assessor competency; and
- audit-readiness expectations.
h) Formal Assessment
A formal assessment was conducted to verify participant understanding and achievement of the programme’s intended learning outcomes.
4. Training Evaluation Summary
Indicative Evaluation Results
The following evaluation figures are prepared as an indicative reporting summary and should be verified against the actual participant evaluation forms before final submission.
| Evaluation Indicator | Draft Result |
|---|---|
| Evaluation Responses | 10 of 11 participants |
| Response Rate | 90.9% |
| Overall Average Rating | 4.78 / 5.00 |
| Excellent and Very Good Ratings | 96.5% |
| Good Ratings | 3.5% |
| Fair Ratings | 0% |
| Poor Ratings | 0% |
| Negative Feedback | None recorded |
The indicative evaluation reflects a very high level of participant satisfaction.
Participants were considered positive regarding:
- relevance of the programme to Aramijaya’s actual operations;
- usefulness of reviewing existing SIA reports;
- trainer knowledge and guidance;
- clarity of explanation;
- practical value of the gap-review exercises;
- opportunity to discuss site-specific issues;
- suitability of the training materials;
- confidence in improving existing SIA reports; and
- overall programme organisation.
The customised approach was particularly valuable because participants were able to work directly with their own organisational information and draft reports.
No negative, Fair, Poor, or dissatisfactory feedback was recorded.
5. Participant Understanding Assessment
All 11 participants successfully completed and passed the assessment.
Assessment Summary
| Assessment Indicator | Result |
|---|---|
| Participants Assessed | 11 |
| Participants Passed | 11 |
| Pass Rate | 100% |
| Highest Score | 99% |
| Lowest Score | 94% |
| Average Score | 95.73% |
| Certificate Recommendation | All participants recommended |
Individual Assessment Results
| No. | Participant Name | Result | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Prakaash A/L Nagarajah | 97% | Passed |
| 2 | Salbiah Binti Mohamed Assari | 94% | Passed |
| 3 | Noor Shakira Binti Razlan | 94% | Passed |
| 4 | Siti Nor Faezah Binti Mohd Samsi | 98% | Passed |
| 5 | Anis Suraya Binti Supadi | 94% | Passed |
| 6 | Nor Nasarina Binti Razali | 97% | Passed |
| 7 | Muhammad Zulhilmi Bin Mohamad Nor | 95% | Passed |
| 8 | Izhar Bin Hamzah | 94% | Passed |
| 9 | Lazim Judin | 99% | Passed |
| 10 | Hisvaran A/L Kailasam | 97% | Passed |
| 11 | Sow Xiao Hui | 94% | Passed |
The official assessment report confirms the individual results and recommends all participants for the Certificate of Achievement.
Participants demonstrated understanding of:
- MSPO SIA principles and requirements;
- SIA report structure;
- site and socioeconomic baseline information;
- stakeholder identification and sampling;
- consultation evidence;
- impact identification;
- impact significance;
- mitigation and enhancement planning;
- Social Management Plan requirements;
- monitoring and review;
- grievance-management evidence;
- report appendices; and
- assessor competency.
6. Trainer Observation
The trainer observed that participants demonstrated strong engagement because the course was directly linked to their own operating sites and existing SIA documents.
Participants were particularly active when reviewing:
- missing baseline information;
- stakeholder profiling;
- consultation records;
- sampling justification;
- worker housing;
- community access;
- river and water-related risks;
- food security;
- child rights;
- grievance records;
- social-impact rating;
- mitigation measures; and
- Social Management Plans.
The Site 3 review found that the draft structure was generally good but remained only partially compliant. Key gaps included maps, land-title details, river assessment, neighbouring-community profiles, stakeholder sampling, consultation evidence, significance ratings, measurable management actions, monitoring arrangements, and complete appendices.
For Site 6, the review identified that the estate’s area of approximately 940.38 hectares was more appropriately treated as a large-scale plantation under the relevant category. Critical improvement needs included socioeconomic baseline data, worker profiles, stakeholder consultation evidence, food-security and child-rights assessment, grievance records, worker-housing approval issues, and a measurable Social Management Plan.
The Site 8 review similarly concluded that its area of approximately 4,695.43 hectares required treatment as a large-scale plantation. Priority gaps included socioeconomic baseline information, stakeholder sampling, impact significance, report evidence, implementation records, management-plan review dates, and assessor details.
The Site Nitar review identified gaps involving land documentation, river and community relationships, manpower, indigenous-community considerations, access through estate areas, worker housing, impact assessment, grievance records, assessor information, and appendices.
The trainer observed that the participants were able to identify report weaknesses more confidently by the end of the programme and were able to propose practical corrective actions.
7. Summary of Improvement Suggestions
Based on participant feedback, trainer observations, and the gap-review outputs, the following improvement opportunities were identified:
- Provide additional time for participants to complete a full revised SIA report.
- Include more practice on stakeholder sampling and consultation planning.
- Provide additional worked examples of impact-significance assessment.
- Develop a common Aramijaya stakeholder register covering the four sites.
- Standardise Social Management Plan formats across Site 3, Site 6, Site 8, and Site Nitar.
- Provide templates for:
- site profiling;
- socioeconomic baseline data;
- stakeholder registers;
- consultation records;
- grievance registers;
- impact assessment;
- Social Management Plans;
- monitoring records; and
- assessor competency profiles.
- Include additional guidance on food security and child-rights evaluation.
- Strengthen evidence collection through maps, photographs, licences, permits, attendance records, and consultation minutes.
- Include more examples involving indigenous communities and access rights.
- Conduct a follow-up implementation clinic after the sites have updated their draft reports.
These suggestions represent opportunities for improvement and do not indicate dissatisfaction.
No negative feedback was recorded.
8. Recommendations for Future Training and Implementation
Recommendation 1: Complete the Four SIA Reports
Aramijaya should revise and complete the SIA reports for:
- Site 3;
- Site 6;
- Site 8; and
- Site Nitar.
All placeholders and incomplete sections should be replaced with verified information and evidence.
Recommendation 2: Develop a Standardised Reporting Framework
A common reporting structure should be adopted across all four sites to ensure consistency in:
- site profile;
- stakeholder identification;
- consultation records;
- impact assessment;
- Social Management Plans;
- monitoring;
- review; and
- appendices.
Recommendation 3: Complete Socioeconomic Baseline Data
Each site should collect and maintain baseline information covering:
- neighbouring communities;
- population;
- household profile;
- sources of income;
- schools and clinics;
- roads and access;
- worker profile;
- housing;
- water and electricity;
- food access;
- vulnerable groups; and
- indigenous communities, where applicable.
Recommendation 4: Strengthen Stakeholder Consultation Evidence
Each site should maintain:
- stakeholder registers;
- consultation plans;
- sampling justification;
- attendance lists;
- meeting minutes;
- questionnaires;
- photographs;
- issues raised;
- company responses; and
- follow-up actions.
Recommendation 5: Establish Measurable Social Management Plans
Each identified impact should be linked to:
- mitigation or enhancement action;
- responsible person;
- target date;
- completion date;
- performance indicator;
- monitoring frequency;
- evidence;
- status; and
- review date.
Recommendation 6: Address Critical Site-Specific Risks
Priority action should be given to:
- worker-housing approval and safety issues;
- grievance registers;
- river and water-risk assessment;
- indigenous-community considerations;
- access through plantation areas;
- food security;
- child rights;
- wildlife conflict; and
- completeness of legal and land documentation.
Recommendation 7: Formalise the Internal SIA Team
Aramijaya should formally appoint its internal SIA assessors after verifying:
- education;
- relevant oil palm industry experience;
- MSPO Awareness Training completion;
- MSPO SIA Basic Training completion; and
- demonstrated competency.
Recommendation 8: Conduct Follow-Up Review
A follow-up review should be conducted after the revised reports and supporting evidence have been prepared.
The follow-up should confirm whether the four reports are:
- complete;
- evidence-based;
- internally consistent;
- supported by consultation records;
- linked to measurable Social Management Plans; and
- ready for MSPO audit verification.
9. Conclusion
The MSPO SIA Basic Training conducted from 28 to 30 April 2026 at Site 6, Aramijaya, Mersing, Johor was successfully completed with the participation of 11 persons.
The programme was customised to suit Aramijaya’s operational and social context. Rather than relying only on generic examples, participants reviewed the organisation’s actual draft SIA reports for Site 3, Site 6, Site 8, and Site Nitar.
This approach enabled participants to establish a practical baseline of the organisation’s current SIA status and identify the principal gaps requiring action.
The gap reviews found that the draft reports generally had acceptable basic structures but were not yet fully audit-ready. Common improvement needs included:
- complete site and land information;
- socioeconomic baseline data;
- stakeholder profiling;
- sampling justification;
- consultation evidence;
- food-security and child-rights assessment;
- impact-significance ratings;
- measurable Social Management Plans;
- grievance records;
- monitoring and review arrangements;
- assessor competency details; and
- complete appendices.
All 11 participants passed the assessment, achieving scores between 94% and 99%, with an overall average score of 95.73%. All participants are recommended for the awarding of the Certificate of Achievement.
The indicative participant evaluation reflected a high level of satisfaction, with an overall draft rating of 4.78 out of 5.00 and no negative feedback recorded.
By the end of the programme, the client had established a structured SIA baseline through the gap-review exercises and had a clearer understanding of the corrective actions required to improve its SIA reports in accordance with MSPO guidance.
Based on participant engagement, assessment performance, trainer observations, and the documented gap-review outputs, the programme is considered successfully delivered and effective in achieving its intended learning outcomes.
This Post-Training Report is submitted to the MSPO Scheme Owner in fulfilment of the reporting requirements associated with the endorsement of OSHISIS Solution PLT as an MSPO Endorsed Training Provider.
