Palm | Kelapa Sawit

Western NGOs have been using the Victoria Zoos network to mount anti palm oil campaigns in Australia by making allegations linking palm oil production to deforestation and orang utan habitat destruction. Heightened publicity is needed in these campaigns and signatures of sympathizers have been carefully obtained to show public support. The campaign provides Western NGOs a platform for a much needed publicity profile. A Bill was then tabled in the EU and Australian Parliament seeking for palm oil to be mandatorily labeled instead of being included under the vegetable oils category as is customarily used for labelling all vegetable oils used in food products.

In the original version of the Bill which was submitted to the Australian Senate, certified sustainable palm oil was required to be labeled separately when RSPO certified palm oil is used in food products sold in Australia. Although the term referred in the Bill is to provide for “right of consumers to know to enable them to make an informed choice”, the intention was to encourage the use of certified sustainable palm oil while normal palm oil would be negatively perceived through the NGOs anti palm oil campaigns.

WWF, a core supporter of the campaign was also the only RSPO member who supported the Bill at the Senate Committee hearing. RSPO was after all initiated by non - other than WWF. By supporting the Bill, WWF’s interest to have control of the palm oil supply chain is served by only allowing certified palm oil to be mandated as the sole form acceptable for use in either Australia or the EU. The coordinated efforts of NGOs resulted in both Australia and EU initiating a similar Bill.

A clear conflict of interest arises when one studies WWFs campaigns in Australia. WWF is aware that the EU and Australian Parliament will reject specific endorsement of its certified palm oil. Although this has indeed happened, WWF benefitted from the heightened publicity as this helped to steer public interest to donate funds to save the orang utan through advertising campaigns carried out on Australian TV. Judging by the frequent appearances of the advertisement, there must surely be a good source of income generated by WWF to justify the advertising expenditure.

At the recent hearing by the Economics Committee of the Lower House, it was ironic to witness how many parties were dragged into the legislative process to oppose the ludicrous Bill should the sole purpose of the anti-palm oil campaign and the labelling Bill is to enable WWF to raise funds. Furthermore, in the current modified form of the Bill as discussed at the hearing by the Committee, the objective of the bill is no longer relevant, or related to food safety, except to “provide consumers right to know”. What happens should consumers later demand that coconut oil be labeled in all products sold in Australia? Would a new labelling bill be created? We do wonder if NGOs like WWF have a real concern for consumer issues or are instead more focused collecting funds which are easily generated through publicity created using the orang utan icon.

What would happen if the Bill, should it be passed becomes a trade barrier and destroys the income of numerous Malaysian smallholders who depend on oil palm cultivation to survive? I would not protest should money from well meaning and affluent Australians is diverted to WWF funds for a noble cause. But a question we need to ask as donors - are any of these funds collected by the Australian WWF indeed channeled to conservation of orang utan habitats in Sabah or Sarawak, the states where orang utan are found in Malaysia ?

As almost 100% of palm oil imports by Australia come from Malaysia, is it not right that the money collected for such a purpose is channeled to the conservation of the orang utan in Malaysia? The Malaysian palm oil industry has shown a commitment by offering a matching grant should funds be directed to orang utan conservation projects under the Malaysian Palm Oil Wildlife Conservation Fund (MPOWCF). The active sponsors of the orang utan projects in Sabah and Sarawak are also listed and acknowledged indicating transparency in work undertaken for a good cause.

Committee members of the Australian parliament have spent a lot of time and effort going through the various stages of making sense of a Bill whose sole intention is for NGOs to raise funds in the name of conservation. Officials from the various Australian Government Ministry’s and food industries who are aware of the complications that will arise have not shown any support for the Bill. Even if passed, the Bill will only be good for the internet shelf because a similar Bill first introduced in 2008 was rejected by the authority involved in formulation of food standards in Australia. It should be brought to the attention of the Australian Parliament that a similar Bill on separate palm oil labelling was also recently rejected by the EU parliament .The bright side of the whole debate was the endorsement at the hearing by relevant authorities on palm oil’s nutritional attributes for use in food, and an agreement that sustainability should not be addressed in mandatory food labels as this falls under the category of social issues. Instead, voluntary labeling can be used to promote specific traits.

If deforestation is genuinely an issue of concern for the Green NGOs, I was able to remind the debate that Australia with a smaller population was deforesting (over half million hectares per year between 2000 and 2010) at rate that is 5 times higher than that by Malaysia; forest to total land ratio in Malaysia is 56 % compared to 17% for Australia; and agricultural land to forest area ratio for Malaysia is 1 to 3 whereas it is 3 to 1 for Australia despite its smaller population.

If WWF and other green NGOs are keen to stop deforestation, Australia would be a better place to focus. There are many Australian animals that are already extinct or endangered and many more Australian agricultural products that they can target to be mandatorily labeled to support “consumers’ right to know”.

If palm oil has to be labelled for all food products marketed in Australia, it is likely to disrupt trade. Imports of food products will be affected as the palm oil content of food manufactured overseas is not labelled specifically as required by the proposed bill. Local manufacturers will need to have new and specific labels to be used whenever palm oil is contained in a product. This will be a costly exercise for manufacturers.

One claim for justifying the palm oil labelling bill is to inform consumers on the presence of palm oil which has 50 % saturated fatty acids even though the total saturated fatty acid contents of the fats used would already be indicated in the nutrition panel of the food label. If palm kernel oil or coconut oil which has much higher (over 90 %) saturated fatty acid content is used, separate labelling for these oils is not required. The 'vegetable oil' label can continue to be used. This will be a discriminatory use of the labelling law against the interest of palm oil, and will violate the WTO provisions. Malaysia and Indonesia will be compelled to complain to the WTO to ask Australia to remove the discriminatory treatment on palm oil afforded by the palm oil labelling bill.

The bill also implies that a product derived from legitimate agricultural land that was previously forest has to be labelled to inform consumers on environmental impact such as deforestation and population of iconic animals such as orang utans. The koala bears and the Kasowari birds are iconic and lovable animals that once roamed the forested land of Australia. These forests have been converted into sheep and cattle farms or sugarcane plantations. Consumers in Malaysia and Indonesia will need to know which of our beef, sheep and sugar products come from the land of the koalas and kasowaris. These products need to be labelled to respect consumers right to know.

If Malaysia and Indonesia were to follow the labelling bill example of Australia, the trade barrier game will become very messy, and probably printing of labels will emerge as a new business opportunity for Malaysia and Indonesia to replace the loss of trade in the export of palm oil to Australia.

The Malaysian palm oil industry earned a healthy RM60 billion last year. This was an increase of RM 10 billion compared to 2009. Most plantation companies doubled their last quarterly profits compared to the previous year. The income generated by high prices as experienced by the palm oil industry led to rural townships around the country undergoing a mini economic boom. Clearly, the rural population benefited the most from the high prices of palm oil, rubber, cocoa and even pepper which form the major plantation commodities produced in Malaysia.
 

The economic contribution of palm oil and other plantation commodities provided the assurance of a remunerative source of income and unlimited employment opportunities throughout the year for the people of Malaysia. A day’s work of harvesting oil palm fruits or tapping rubber trees for latex can provide a person with an income of more than US $30. In a country where two meals per day would cost only US $4, such an income is rather remunerative. Nobody should be deprived of a better life or even resort to begging as long as he or she is willing to put in a few hours of work in a day in our oil palm or rubber plantations. Malaysia enjoys almost full employment which also means that labour shortages exist especially in the plantation sector.

In contrast, rural population of many developing countries often earns a mere US$2 per day, and employment is limited or seasonal. Food is often unaffordable and as previously mentioned in my blog , one billion people on this planet suffer from food insecurity where daily meals are not assured. This is where employment opportunities offered by the plantation industries in Malaysia also benefit labour from other countries. The income earned by the 300,000 foreign workers employed in the Malaysian oil palm industry, ensures that there is food on the table on a daily basis for 1 million of their family members living back home in Indonesia, Bangladesh, the Philippines and other neighbouring developing countries. In simple terms, the oil palm industry not only provides an income to Malaysians, but shares this benefit with an additional one million family members of workers who now do not need to go hungry to bed thus bringing cheer to so many poor people . How many industries can claim to do this?

The oil palm industry is also a major source of income for the government through the collection of corporate taxes. The benefits from such income will be more pervasive as the multiplier effects of government spending will impact education, health and infrastructural development. Essential food items are subjected to price control or subsidized in Malaysia, and this includes cooking oil for the public. The government taxes the palm oil industry in the form of a windfall tax and uses the money raised to make cooking oil affordable to the public. It is clear that palm oil provides solutions on many fronts: affordable food, lucrative income and overall stability to the country (bear in mind that high food prices and poverty have led to uprising in many developing countries recently).

Releasing the importance of the palm oil industry to the country’s economy, the Hon. Prime Minister of Malaysia recently spoke of the narrow view taken by the greenies and their followers who want to tarnish the image of palm oil by linking it to deforestation. No country in the position of Malaysia or Indonesia which benefits from the palm oil industry would tolerate the unsubstantiated allegations made by the greenies to denigrate palm oil. Viewed on a broader perspective, palm oil is a saviour to the current global shortages in oils and fats as a result of insufficient production of soyabean and rapeseed oils. For these oilseeds, lack of new land and unfavourable weather conditions have prevented any substantial expansion in planted areas or yield improvements. The future will see a widening gap between supply and demand of oils and fats. Consumers will face the prospects of escalating prices. Low income consumers from developing countries will be the most affected as they are the least able to afford expensive soyabean or rapeseed oils. Furthermore these oils are mostly burned in the EU for biodiesel, thereby further reducing the availability for world food requirements.

Palm oil plays a critical role in supplying affordable cooking oil to most developing countries which have to depend on imported supplies. The greenies have influenced the EU to discriminate against palm oil from being used as biofuel to protect the local rapeseed industry from competition by creating trade barriers through the implementation of the RED regulation. This leaves palm oil generally available for the food sector globally. As shortages are unavoidable, it does not matter what oil is used for which sector. What is important is that the growth in supply is matched with projected demand. Since oil palm is the most capable crop to meet the increasing demand, its production should be logically increased. Because of its high yield (10 times more than soyabean oil), it will require ten times less land to supply the world’s increasing needs.

The greenies are threatening the world’s food security. On the one hand, they are encouraging the EU to convert inefficient rapeseed oil for biodiesel and on the other hand they are campaigning to limit the production of palm oil, fearing that it would compete with rapeseed as a raw material for the EU biodiesel industry. Inadvertently, their wish to restrict the growth of palm will accelerate the shortage of oils and fats in the world market. While current palm oil producers will benefit from escalating prices created by the greenies anti palm oil campaigns, other consumers, especially those in the developing countries, will be burdened by unaffordable cooking oil and escalating food prices. It would threaten jobs which would otherwise be created through the expansion in the oil palm sector as operations are labour intensive as compared to other oil seeds.

All these potential calamities are being created by the greenies out of their perverted and narrow views of deforestation. Without resorting to scientific evidence or even considering broad macro view of world requirements, they (the greenies) have opposed the expansion of oil palm cultivation fearing that rapeseed oil will be out-competed by palm oil for biofuel use in the EU. They use deforestation as an excuse for campaigning against palm oil without any scientific justification.

How can oil palm be blamed for deforestation in Indonesia when the country only uses 5% of its land area to plant oil palm which is one of its agricultural crops. In comparison, the UK has deforested up to 72 % of its land area for planting of agricultural crops. If the total land area under oil palm globally is compared to the total agricultural land of the world, the oil palm share is only 0.22%. Any scientist or non scientist would know that the utilization of 0.22% of the world agricultural area to plant oil palm, does not constitute massive deforestation. The fact is more than 60 and 80 % of the oil palm areas in Indonesia and Malaysia respectively were from non virgin forest areas. In addition, both countries have huge forest reserves which will cater to the need to conserve biodiversity.

How can such a small figure of land use be associated with habitat or biodiversity loss, or even be a cause of major contribution to GHG emission and global warming. I keep challenging the greenies and their fanatic followers to provide clear evidence or proof of any allegations they wish to throw at the palm oil industry. This includes allegations of indigenous people being robbed of their land. Let me correct the misinformation again. Indigenous people have been given ample land reserves by the British when they ruled the country. Their land is mostly cultivated with rubber or oil palm. Many are thankful that they have been given land to enable them to become prosperous smallholders. Obviously, we have laws in place that would address any attempt to rob people of their land.

Consumers in developing countries and also those in the developed countries must be alerted to the potential damage to the economy, food security and escalating food prices which will result from the anti palm oil campaigns orchestrated by the greenies. It is even immoral to support them in their campaign which will ultimately bring misery in the form of food shortages and high prices to the rest of the world. It is even more mind boggling to ask why the EU continues to blatantly fund the greenies to pursue their indefensible intentions to deny developing country consumers with an improved food security for the future.

At a recent forum organized by the Palm Oil Refiners Association of Malaysia (PORAM), it was revealed that there was no moral case for Western Environmental NGOs (WENGOs) campaigns against palm oil. Data indicates that the agricultural land occupied by the world palm oil industry is miniscule as compared to the total land allocated to growing grains and oilseeds. This is shown in Fig 1 below where the segment for oil palm area is only 1.56 % of the total grain and oilseed area (see arrow) and it is hardly visible in the bar chart.
 
Figure 1 - Oil Palm VS Total Grain & Oilseed Area


Oil palm is the main agricultural crop of major palm oil producer countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia where it occupies 13% and 5% of their land area respectively. Assuming that developing countries are allowed to use part of their land area for agriculture and plant the most profitable crops to provide employment, produce food and generate income, the above figures show that there is no excessive over exploitation of forests due to planting oil palm as a cash crop. Nationally, both countries retain much higher percentages of forest as compared to developed countries as shown in Fig 2.

Figure 2 - Forest in Developed VS Developing Countries

 
If WENGOs claim that global warming is caused by loss of forests due to oil palm cultivation, it would be useful to know that oil palm share of world agricultural land is only 0.22 % as shown in Fig 3. The share of loss of carbon stock (deforestation) caused by oil palm compared to total global agriculture is thus assumed to be 0.22 %. This does not include the positive carbon sequestering effect of the oil palm trees. It is therefore morally unacceptable for WENGOs to discourage palm oil producing countries from practicing their share of agriculture which accounts for merely 0.22 % of world agricultural area.

Figure 3 - World Cultivated Area of Oilseeds

 
Even the total GHG emission of global agriculture of 17 % is considered small compared to that from the burning of fossil fuel which contributes to a high 57% of GHG emission as shown in Fig 4. The carbon foot print of the oil palm cultivation globally is therefore 0.22% x 17% of the total or 0.0374 % of global GHG emissions. This has no bearing on global warming hence making it immoral to blame oil palm as a significant contributor of global warming while facts prove otherwise.

Figure 4 - Largest Contributor to Climate Change is Fossil Fuel Usage

 
Many other economic activities are responsible for the vast amount of GHG emission. These activities are accepted as part of the economic growth processes needed to sustain the world economy. Efforts to reduce GHG emissions should be directed at these economic activities as they are the main cause of GHG emission. Curtailing the expansion of oil palm on the basis of its impact on global warming is therefore scientifically unjustified as the contribution is only 0.0374 % of global GHG emission.

If the loss of biodiversity is used as an argument to discourage oil palm cultivation, there is ample forest being conserved as shown in Fig 2 above. The UN Convention only requires 10 % of the country land area to be kept as forest for conserving biodiversity and Malaysia has far exceeded this by committing 50%.

Despite the lack of convincing evidence to pin down the palm oil industry against global warming or biodiversity loss, both producer countries have given full cooperation to comply with the needs of stakeholders and WENGOs to produce palm oil sustainably. They have fully embraced the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) to enable palm oil to be certified to meet sustainability principles and criteria. The Indonesians have signed an agreement with Norway to have a moratorium on deforestation while the Malaysian government has repeatedly announced its assurance of maintaining at least 50% of its land area as permanent forest. Deforestation thus appears as a non issue.

To ensure a level playing field, it is timely that a similar certification for sustainability be required for other oils produced by various countries worldwide. Otherwise, it will be a clear reflection of the oil palm industry being victimised by being asked to comply to certification needs for sustainability when no scientific justification exist to allow the world to benefit from global warming mitigation or improved biodiversity. Without premiums given to RSPO certified palm oil it becomes a big burden for oil palm farmers to bear the added cost of certification when their counterpart farmers producing soyabean or rapeseed do not have to be certified for sustainability.

Certifying the other (low yielding and land inefficient) oilseed crops for sustainability would at least contribute to a greater amount of carbon emission reduction compared to oil palm, even though the quantum of saving is still small compared to the carbon footprint of fossil fuel and other agricultural activities.

All evidence clearly shows that there is no moral ground for the WENGOs to campaign against palm oil. Unless the WENGOs can quantify and show that there are clear benefits relating to global warming or biodiversity improvements, or economic premiums for sustainable certified palm oil, then it is only a matter of time when the palm oil producers realise that they have been hoodwink by the NGOs who only impose the no deforestation condition on palm oil but don’t bother to do likewise on other low yielding crops which occupy vast area of land.

Western Environmental NGOs (WENGOs) often attempt to undertake studies to demonstrate the impact of deforestation on climate change or biodiversity losses in collaboration with universities in order to establish credibility in the final reports generated. However, many of these studies are not based on valid experimental designs or sound methodology.

In studying deforestation activities, for example, the outcome may change drastically if you choose and pick specific cut-off periods and regions as these will highlight and include only selected data while oppressing other data sets. The deliberate omission of data may then lead to possible biasness and potentially wrong conclusions. If the study’s intention is truly to evaluate a very specific narrow objective, then the conclusions should be restricted to the limits set initially and should not be generalized to support claims over broad and multi-causal topics like deforestation or global warming.

This blog had earlier commented on the fallacy associated when study results are generalized beyond the restricted objectives of the researchers. For e.g. , a study on biodiversity in an oil palm plantation can have ‘unfavourable’ out come if it is compared to biodiversity in virgin forest but it will have ‘favourable’ effect if compared to biodiversity of other agricultural areas. It is common for WENGOs to use such studies to conclude that biodiversity in oil palm plantations is less than that in virgin forest when the logical comparison should be with biodiversity existing in other agricultural crops as oil palm is an agricultural crop. Biodiversity in an oil palm plantation should be compared with that of forest plantation as oil palm is a forest plantation crop.

A recent study using satellite imaging analysis was quoted to have found a high rate of deforestation between 1980 and 2000 period, and the result was (wrongly) interpreted to mean that such a deforestation rate will cause global warming. Since most of the deforestation occurred in the developing countries, these countries were therefore linked to the cause of global warming. In the minds of the WENGOs, this is a clear case supporting their demands for no deforestation and an attempt to stop further development in developing countries. As a result of these type of restricted studies, ministers and government opinion leaders in the EU are convinced that deforestation is bad and therefore it must be stopped at all costs without realising that such studies are biased by the selective use of specific period when developing countries were indeed developing their agricultural industries. Conclusions derived from such studies are not considered valid by government leaders, opinion makers and NGOs in the developing countries.

For these developing countries, development is an important component of economic survival and they aspire to use the examples set in the developed countries as their model of development. They would disagree if developed countries attempt to dictate on the need to curb deforestation especially if this is without any substantial compensation. Furthermore, many realize that developed countries became developed by clearing their forests to grow industrial crops and establish other industrial activities on their (previously forested) land assets. Therefore, a deforestation moratorium has to be linked to an adequate compensation mechanism so as not to stifle the development needs of developing countries.

If deforestation and forest cover are important, the trend set by the developed countries with regard to the extent of forest cover should form the basis for future guidelines. Forest cover is a reversible process of deforestation and aforestation. A developed country can re-establish its forest area to similar high standards that it desires other developing countries to have. Therefore, a developed country that has only 10 to 20 % forest cover with no serious aforestation trend and policy has no moral right to call on developing countries with a larger percentage of forest cover to start aforestation programmes or to stop deforestation without offering adequate compensation.

The developing countries have a sovereign right to develop their land for economic growth in order to become developed nations in future. If the period on which the deforestation study is undertaken is extended back by 100 or 200 years, then it will be obvious that deforestation mainly took place in the developed countries and they would be implicated as the main contributor of global warming through massive cumulative deforestation. Selective studies designed to omit consideration of past emissions was cleverly deployed to show that the USA and EU emit less carbon as compared to developing countries as only present level of deforestation was compared. They do not include the massive deforestation and emission of CO2 in the past which have accumulated in the atmosphere, causing global temperature to increase gradually over the last 100 years.

The other real major flaw in the WENGOs’ argument is to ignore the massive contribution (more than 80%) of the fossil fuel sector toward global CO2 emission and global warming. Most of the emission during the last 200 years was from fossil fuel emission of industrial activities in developed countries. Deforestation which occurred mostly in developed countries during this period was estimated to have contributed about 17 % of the emission and global warming effect.

There was no analysis to show conclusively that the 11 million hectares of oil palm plantations in Malaysia and Indonesia representing 0.1% of global agricultural areas have contributed to significant global rise in temperature even if it is assumed that these oil palm areas were originally forested land. Logically that 0.1 % of world agricultural land used for growing oil palm would not show any significant effect on global warming compared to the use of fossil fuel and the past deforestation in developed countries, as 0.1 % is far too small to have any significant effect. Even tripling the oil palm planted area to 0.3% of world agricultural land would not have any significant effect on global warming.

On the other hand, should oil palm plantations not be expanded, this will cause 10 times more forest land to be converted for growing soyabean crop to meet future world shortages in oils and fats supply as argued in my previous article. Because of the potential deforestation avoidance effects of palm oil by a factor of 10 times, it would clearly imply that the more palm oil produced to meet world shortages, much more forest areas will be saved from being cleared to plant lower yielding oilseed crops. Deforestation studies which ignore these effects will grossly underestimate the global warming mitigation effects of palm oil and researchers conducting such biased studies will do injustice by masking the excellent potential capacity of the oil palm to mitigate global warming.

The biased results of studies on deforestation have contributed to the grave mistake of focusing world attention on deforestation in developing countries while ignoring the real culprit: the huge emission of CO2 contributed by the fossil fuel sector. It is important that the focus should be to reduce fossil fuel use in the developed countries.

The above argument explains the suspicion by developing countries that WENGOs are conducting a bogus campaign against the oil palm industry. The motivation must be to divert attention away from the real culprit who contributes to global warming : the fossil fuel sector which is allowed to continue to expand as it is vital for developed countries economic performance. Another motive is to protect their indigenous oilseed sectors, which are not sustainably produced, from competition coming from cheaper and more efficiently produced palm oil.

In a related event, Greenpeace, an EU based NGO, recently campaigned for New Zealand farmers against the use of palm kernel meal as animal feed for the dairy industry. Greenpeace “attacked” the famous milk brand of New Zealand (Fonterra) by alleging that demand for palm kernel meal by milk farmers will help cause deforestation.

Getting the facts wrong can be counterproductive. The natural forests of New Zealand were mostly wiped out within a generation of white settlements in the 19th and 20th centuries. These natural forests were replaced with grazing land, to produce milk, meat, and wool which are the main exports of New Zealand. One wonders why an agricultural product produced out of deforested land in New Zealand is acceptable to Greenpeace while an agricultural product from Malaysia is often demonised. Both countries cleared land for agricultural purposes long ago, and the extent of deforestation was much more extensively carried out in New Zealand compared to Malaysia. Yet no questions are raised on this matter? Why are NGOs selectively picking developing countries for their campaigns when the actual land clearance is much more obvious in countries like New Zealand and others?

It puzzles me when NGOs ask Cadbury to use cocoa butter rather than oil palm fat in their chocolate formulation. This surely does not solve the problem of alleged deforestation since cocoa is also planted on the same tropical land of Malaysia where oil palms are grown. Are these so called greenies aware that more land needs to be allocated to planting cocoa (more deforestation possibility?) since the fat yield of cocoa is very low as compared to oil palm.

Discouraging New Zealand farmers from using palm kernel meal as part of feed material for dairy cattle will damage the milk industry as yield of milk will surely decline. (Palm kernel meal helps increase milk yield in dairy cattle significantly). Without palm kernel meal, farmers have to supplement the feed shortage and overcome yield decline, by having larger grazing areas which mean a much larger area needed to be deforested in New Zealand.

In the 1950s to 1990s,when Malaysia opened up its jungle land to resettle landless farmers , surveyors from New Zealand were employed to identify land areas suitable for agriculture to plant oil palm and rubber. Are these knowledgeable surveyors not recognised for their contributions to help develop the Malaysian economy?

To me forests, whether temperate or tropical, are valuable to sequester carbon dioxide to prevent global warming. Why then are forests in tropical countries the only target for preservation? This would give developed country farmers a big advantage in exporting their agricultural products unimpeded compared to us in the developing countries. Thus the “ruling by the ADC NGOs” can only apply to those with perverted view points or those naturally opposed to developing countries trying to develop their economy and export agricultural products to earn a decent income. By practicing double standards these perverted NGOs will conveniently ignore the over-deforestation that has taken place in the developed countries which continues till today. If the intention is to reduce carbon emission, let focus on the real culprit: the use of fossil fuel contributes up to 80% of global CO2 emission which mainly occurs in developed countries, but guess who gets the eventual blame - again China and India - .. another popular perverted viewpoint of some NGOs and even western governments.

While writing this piece, the Hon. EU Ambassador to Malaysia came to my office to discuss progress in the palm oil industry in relation to the EU proposed legislation for renewable fuels. He confirmed the concern of the EU for Malaysia not to repeat the mistakes of the developed countries which have over-deforested and have lost biodiversity due to extensive agricultural development. I wonder if the EU automatically assumed that Malaysia will make the mistake of developed countries. When asked why the EU cannot correct their own mistakes by replanting the lost forests, he replied that it was difficult (I couldn’t help thinking that they can spend billions sending people to the moon!), but did say that some countries are beginning to reforest. I also pointed out that on a per capita basis, our forests are currently providing a free service by cleaning up (sequestering) the CO2 emitted by developed countries because of their high per capita consumption of fossil fuel, and our countries should be compensated. There are no freebies in this world. In response, the Hon. Ambassador was keen to explore Malaysia’s proposal as he believes that Malaysia has some possible solutions to offer which the EU may be keen to pursue.

Malaysia should therefore be able to offer its oil palm production model that is linked to the EU concept of sustainable development if the EU in return offers to compensate for sacrifices made to maximise our forest cover. Currently Malaysia’s reforestation programme is funded by the government to the tune of RM 2 billion under the 9th Malaysia’s Five Year plan. In the coming 10th Malaysia’s Five Year Plan, the timely availability of a compensation scheme from the EU could further extend the reforestation programme. Such win-win proposal will allow the EU and their NGOs the opportunity to pay for the extra forests that they desire while our agricultural products such as palm oil are not haressed through the threat of legislations and other trade barriers which could undermine the income of developing country farmers.

We receive many requests for information on sustainability of the palm oil industry. Those involved in the palm oil industry like to have information to counter negative allegations linking oil palm cultivation to potential deforestation. Those in the middle of the debate want to know more of the true situation in order to form their own opinion. Those NGOs and their followers bent on opposing the growth of the oil palm industry simply want to demonise the palm oil industry whenever they could without regard to the facts or supporting statistics.

For example, statements are made accusing the oil palm plantations as the cause of deforestation in Malaysia. These statements are never supported by statistics or verified evidence. Isolated cases of bad practices in other countries are used to generalise for the whole of the oil palm industry including those in Malaysia.

The most important point to note is that oil palm is our agricultural crop, planted on legitimate agricultural land which the country has zoned for agricultural use. Compared to other countries the use of land for agriculture in Malaysia is very conservative, about 20 to 24 % of total land area of 33 million hectares. We choose to plant oil palm and rubber on the majority of the agricultural land of the country; that is the choice of the farmers and land owners. They could have planted soyabean or corn. Would that make soyabean or corn non sustainable?

Some NGOs and their followers even influence legislators to avoid using palm oil as a source of biodiesel. They also support well-known supermarkets or consumer products companies to avoid using palm oil products. This is obviously unfair as legitimately produced palm oil from Malaysia is denied access to their countrys' markets while their countrys' products continue to enjoy access to Malaysian markets. As a small developing country, we need to generate foreign exchange revenue from exporting palm oil to import goods from other countries. If our major agricultural produce like palm oil is denied access to certain countries, we will soon be unable to import other countrys' products for lack of foreign exchange.

A country in economic dificulty will not be able to care or pay for environmental conservation which is the original objective of the environmental NGOs in their campaigns against palm oil.

Malaysia is presently able to have a clear forestry policy to have about 50 to 60% of the country land area to be under permanent forest. Sustainable forest manangement systems are in place and laws are also in place to prevent the permanent forest areas from being converted to agriculture or other uses. We could easily announce a meratorium on deforestion of our permanent forest but this has to come at a time when the least developed state in the country has had the time and opportunity to develop their resources sustainably. For example, the state of Sarawak has lagged behind in agricultural development and less than 8% of the country is under agriculture, compared to the UK, a similar size country which has 70% of its land under agriculture.

As President of Brazil recently said at a meeting with 100 international legislators in Brazilia regarding deforestation and global warming "How can we ask the poor countries to take on the sacrifices the others didn't take on?", alluding also to the fact that industrialised countries are to blame after polluting the planet for centuries.

The Malaysian oil palm industry is working towards the need to produce certified sustainable palm oil by supporting the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) initiative. Other efforts are made to ensure the protection of wildlife habitats and biodiversity. Such efforts will take time, and need financial support. The Malaysia Palm Oil Wildlife Fund (MPOWF) is being used to help in this initiative. It is a matching fund that the MPOC will honour to match if donors come forward to contribute to finance a specified wildlife or biodiversity conservation project. Please contact us for more details and share the burden of maintaining a sustainable planet.