Palm | Kelapa Sawit

The world population of over 6 billion is increasing by 70 to 80 million people annually. Food supply needs to expand to keep up with the additional demand. Land to grow food crops is getting scarce. By 2020, arable land in the world is projected to decrease to less than 1 acre per capita which is hardly sufficient considering the same land is needed for producing enough grains, vegetables, fruits, meat, milk and oils and fats to feed a single person and his animals for a year. In terms of land utilization, priority will of course be given to the production of cereals and grains as these are staples in most countries and this will be followed closely by oils and fats production.

In the oils and fats sector, global demand is increasing at a rate of 5 to 6 million tonnes per year on average against a total consumption of 165 million tonnes annually. To produce an additional 5 million tonnes of vegetable oils and fats, 10 million hectares of land will be required to plant soyabean, as compared to 1 million hectares if oil palm is the choice. Cereals and grains such as rice, wheat and corn are also experiencing shortages due to population pressure and increasing affluence where more demand for meat will mean more intensive production of grains as feed for cattle etc. The world is facing an enormous challenge. It needs to have 10 million hectares of new land created every year to supply the additional 5 million tonnes of soyabean oil, considering additional land is also needed for grain and cereal production. The annual expansion of oilseed area if planted with soyabean is almost equivalent to the combined total oil palm area of Malaysia and Indonesia. Another 10 million hectares will be needed the following year and similarly, in subsequent years to maintain an additional 5 million tonnes of oils and fats supply annually. BUT if oil palm were to supply the annual increase, the land expansion is more modest, a mere 1 million hectares per year.



It is important to note that most countries including the EU are already net importers of oils and fats. For these countries the chronic shortages will worsen in future because of limited land availability locally for growing oil seed crops. As shown in the chart 1 below, only three countries are significant net exporters of oils and fats, i.e. Malaysia, Indonesia and Argentina. Malaysia and Indonesia which export mainly palm oil, account for 80 % of world net export availability for oils and fats. These countries have announced limitations of available land for oil palm cultivation because of the need to conserve forests. Malaysia has long pledged to keep a minimum of 50 % of its land as permanent forest and that remains till today. Indonesia has recently declared a moratorium on deforestation after a US$ 1 billion compensation agreement with Norway.

(Chart 1)


The challenge facing the future availability of oils and fats is in the need to ensure adequate supply to meet at least the requirements of the net importing countries. As a result of their chronic non self-sufficiency, their import demand is growing. As shown in chart 2, the net import of oils and fats has doubled since 9 years ago from 25 million tonnes to an estimated 50 million tonnes in 2009.Yet, the two largest net exporting countries, accounting for 80 % of world net exports of oils and fats are imposing a limit to future production expansion because of the need to conserve forest.

( Chart 2)


Many potential scenarios can be postulated to prevail in the coming years regarding such future shortages as follows:-

Firstly, countries that are not bound by a moratorium on deforestation will continue to deforest to produce the additional oils and fats needed to feed the increasing world population. As these countries will produce annual oil crops such as soyabean rather than palm oil, the new land required will be 10 folds larger due to its low yield as compared to the higher yielding oil palm. If most of these are forest areas, the deforestation rate will be accelerated by a factor of ten. The deforestation moratorium in Indonesia and Malaysia will translate into an accelerated deforestation which will occur ten times faster in other countries. This will be most profound in the net importer countries as they will have no alternative but to put their own forest areas to work to produce the oil needed to feed their population. (African and Latin American tropical countries could not cultivate oil palm on a larger scale because of the threat of indigenous diseases that could devastate their oil palm plantations).

Secondly, shortages will cause prices of oils and fats to rise. While, producers will try to improve yield to produce more oils and fats from existing land area, this potential has been explored in recent years and future additional yield improvement is limited. Consumers will have to reduce consumption because of high prices in order to reduce demand to match smaller volumes of supply. More than 75% of the net export of oils and fats is destined for developing countries. Future supply shortages and high prices of essential commodities such as oils and fats will mostly impact developing countries. Low income earning population in the developing countries will face the prospects of having inadequate access to oils and fats supply leading to major segments of the population being exposed to mal-nutrition.

Future planning to address the impending shortages should be initiated in the agenda of international bodies like the FAO and not dictated by agendas of the Western Environmental NGOs (WENGOs). Their claim of success in their anti-palm oil campaigns could be premature. When the developing countries are confronted with acute shortages of oils and fats in 10 years time, it will be too late to restart the cultivation of oil palm as the trees take 3 years to mature. By curtailing the continuing expansion of the oil palm industry, through the WENGOs bogus anti-palm oil campaigns, it is the developing countries which will face shortages of edible oils and fats supply in the near future. Furthermore, instead of preventing deforestation, much more deforestation will be carried out by other countries planting inefficient annual crops such as soyabean to meet their local demand. Instead of reducing carbon emissions, the large scale planting of soyabean will cause more deforestation and more CO2 emissions as compared to the situation if oil palm cultivation is allowed its natural expansion to supply the needs of net importing countries.

Bogus studies by the WENGOs have also depicted exaggerated emissions of carbon dioxide when peat land is developed for oil palm cultivation. A recent review (See JOPE, 2010, at http://www.jope.com.my) actually showed that degraded peat land naturally emits much more CO2 equivalent than if the peat area is planted with oil palm. In other words, oil palm planted on degraded peat land will reduce carbon emission compared with the natural emission of the degraded peat forest. Bogus WENGO campaigns based on non-scientific studies will deter expansion of legitimate and logical use of peat land for oil palm cultivation which would otherwise ease shortages of supply for net importing countries and would in future save more forests from being converted into producing oil seed crops in those countries.

Similarly, bogus calculation of default carbon emission figures on palm oil in the proposed EU Renewable Energy Directive(RED) will also force the EU to use high carbon foot print raw materials such as rape seed and soya oil for their biofuel programme therefore increasing carbon emission as compared to a situation if palm oil were allowed to be freely used for biofuel in Europe where carbon savings will occur. Already bogus arguments have been proposed that despite palm oil not meeting the 35% threshold figure of emission saving, (because of fictitious default value of carbon emission saving of 19 % assigned to the crop ), it will continue to be allowed for use in biofuel in the EU but will not be given tax exemptions. Such arguments make no business sense at all as no one would use palm oil under punitive tax discrimination.

Highly disputable land-use change calculations are already being designed to ignore the effect of deforestation avoidance whenever net importing countries import land-efficient palm oil to replace soyabean or rapeseed oil as raw material for food or fuel. The outcomes are equally predictable. Not only will carbon emissions be increased multifold, but the shortages of supply will force prices to rise which will severely hamper consumers in developing countries to have access to affordable oils and fats.

When shortages hit the market, palm oil net exporters such as Indonesia and Malaysia will be the beneficiary of high prices for their commodities. The WENGOs will probably deny any responsibility in accelerating the shortages. They would also probably deny their role in accelerating deforestation that will contribute to a faster rate of global warming. While orang utans will continue to survive in the permanent forests of Malaysia and Indonesia as they have been well looked after for decades by authorities in these countries despite claims by WENGOs that these animals will become extinct by 2012, millions of children and adults in developing countries will suffer malnutrition from low availability of oils and fats as a result of the bogus WENGOs anti-palm oil campaigns. Will the WENGOs be answerable for their suffering?

The Western Environmental NGOs (WENGOs) are well known for their ruthlessness: they are deeply ideological, almost like religious fanatics in some cases. They are also relentless, well funded and cunning. In many instances they have no regard for facts. They shape their arguments on the basis of their effectiveness irrespective of facts, and their war aim is clear, to destroy your industry if you are the intended target.

This is the challenge faced by the oil palm industry which has been targeted by the WENGOs. Their aim is to destroy the oil palm industry starting with a day at a time, followed relentlessly by weeks, months and years of negative campaigns. For example the ruthless campaign by Zoo Victoria against the palm oil industry was based on mere exaggeration rather than on facts. A recent report by the Australian Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) finds that 10 out of 12 facts used by Zoo Victoria in its anti-palm oil campaign are either false or cannot be substantiated.The Zoo campaigner Ms Lowry later admitted working closely with the WWF.

Oil palm happens to be an agricultural crop of developing countries where farmers who were plagued by poverty may now have an opportunity to earn a decent living of up to US$ 20 per day compared to US $2 before they cultivated oil palm trees on the land. These farmers are crying for fair trade to prevail especially in the EU, USA and Australia where WENGOs campaigns have smeared the good image of their agricultural produce leading to new barriers being imposed to imports of palm oil.

In some instances the anti-palm oil campaigns have infiltrated policy makers in formulating regulations which are essentially trade barriers disguised as sustainability issues. The EU Renewable Energy Directives (RED), with their highly controversial system of default figures assigned especially to foreign raw materials like palm oil for use as biofuel is a clear example of a discriminatory trade barrier. No sound minded scientists will be able to justify assigning a pathetic low carbon emission saving figure of 19 % for palm oil, but it can happen in the EU as found in the RED regulations as a result of the influence of the WENGOs in policy making circles.

Similarly, the infiltration of WENGOs ideology in the World Bank has led to a departure of its policy which no longer promotes growth in developing countries when oil palm cultivation is involved. But WENGOs can avoid the path of destruction of developing countries agricultural industry and still contribute to a better world if their campaigns to save forest and mitigate green house gas (GHG) emissions are linked to actual sectors and countries that are truly involved in deforestation or those rampantly contributing to GHG emissions.

One area of potential progress is to focus on deforestation taking place in developed countries. I have pointed out this previously citing Canada as an example and since then some progress was observed. Recently, Canada made peace with the WENGOs by signing a moratorium on logging to reduce deforestation. This is a good example for other developed countries to follow. Deforestation moratorium alone is not sufficient. In order to increase forest cover, reforestation campaigns should be launched especially in the EU where forests have been decimated to less than 20 % of total area in many countries. They should follow the good example of Malaysia where forest cover is more than 50 % of the total country's area. Such re-establishment of forest cover will help mitigate global warming and provide habitats for animals.

Present focus by the WENGOs to restrict oil palm cultivation expansion in order to conserve forests is likely to stifle an important economic activity of developing countries. Other more feasible options should be considered. For example, deforestation in developing countries and coal mining in developed countries share common characteristics in that both are economic sectors which contribute to emission of CO2. If the WENGOs were to focus solely on no deforestation by preventing expansion of oil palm plantation in developing countries and yet allow the continuation and expansion of coal mining in developed countries, the emission of CO2 will continue undiminished.

Therefore, developed countries will continue to enjoy economic activities with substantial CO2 emission while poor farmers in developing countries are unfairly asked to make sacrifices and denied further access to an economic activity in order to save emission of CO2.

In reality, replanting of degraded forest land with oil palm is the most productive and useful thing to do, as it is the best way to reforest an area, sequester carbon and contribute to economic development. On the other hand, coal mining is a one way process of releasing locked carbon to the atmosphere causing global warming. The developing countries are also the least able to make the sacrifice to reduce their economic activity compared to developed countries.

This is where the WENGOs can re-align their campaigns by focusing on what developed countries could do in order to make a more meaningful contribution to their objective of reducing global CO2 emission and not just focus on stifling the growth of agricultural commodities of developing countries such as palm oil which will harm the income potential of the poor farmers who are only trying to earn a decent living. These oil palm farmers have a right to have a better life just like the WENGOs and they should be given a chance to improve their agricultural practices while facing the harsh realities of poverty which is common in developing countries. They are working with local NGOs to adopt the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) practices which takes time, and they need support in improving their sustainability practices instead of harassment by some WENGOs from far away lands on how best to cultivate their crops.

Blog post by Mary Kelley

On an individual basis the wasted standby power of house hold electronic devices is usually very small, but in today's age almost everything we use plugs in and that adds up! Wasted energy is not just exclusive to the obvious items like cell phone chargers, and computers, any appliance you can plug in could be a contributer to the "Phantom Load". Phantom energy is apparently on the rise as well likely due to the increase in electronics. According to a study by Alan Meier at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in Berkley CA. phantom energy accounted for about 5% of all households energy use in 1998, when he ran the study again in 2000 the rate had risen to an estimated 10% of household energy use. In other words if you took measures to reduce your consumption you could save up to a months worth of energy costs, and that's something I am sure we can all see value in given the economy etc. On a national level that turns into $3 billion in annual energy costs. This isn't exclusive to America either, the UK averages about 8% and France was in at 7% in 2000. In addition to the impact it has on our wallets it is also leaving a pretty big carbon foot print on the planet, if 1 million households halved their phantom power load, we'd eliminate 150,000 tons of CO2 per year. Yikes!




Here's a short list of some of the common household sucks:

Anything with a clock or digital display
Coffee makers
Rice Cooker
Dust Busters
Baby Monitors
Laptops
Printers
Computer Speakers
DVD/VCR
Video games
Security systems

Chargers of any sorts

Garage Door Opener

Cable Box