Palm | Kelapa Sawit

Zoos in various states in Australia recently issued defiant statements defending their position to continue to allow NGOs to use their premises as campaign grounds to link the oil palm industry with orang utan habitat loss. Posters displayed by the NGOs on the cages housing the orang utans at the zoos were found to be offensive by a visiting Malaysian Tourism Minister as they contained insinuations which do not reflect the true situation of how orang utans have long been cared here in Malaysia.The controversy probably has increased the zoos gate collection but propagating lies about orang utans and the Malaysian oil palm industry would not be tolerated by Governments as they affect the livelihood of our oil palm farmers who are dependent on this crop as a source of income to feed their families.

Zoos Victoria and other related zoos should take note that orang utans colloquiums are organized regularly in Sabah, Malaysia. If any of the Zoo officials are interested in discussing progress and other aspects of the orang utans, they should register and participate in such colloquiums and offer their expert opinion for discussion with other renowned orang utan scientists. As reported at our earlier colloquium, orang utan conservation programmes initiated in the 1960s in Sabah have shown that the population of our orang utans has stabilised in parallel with the size of land that the state has gazetted for conservation as permanent forest reserve. The total area of the permanent forest reserve is approximately 50 % of the total area of the state, thus setting aside ample forest land for purposes of biodiversity conservation, habitat needs for wildlife and mitigation of global warming.

Orang utan is a national icon for our tourism industry especially for Sabah and Sarawak where these animals are indigenously found. It is highly unethical for zoos in Australia to use them as an icon for antagonizing the oil palm farmers. Millions of tourists come to Sabah and Sarawak to see genuine orang utans in the wild and at sanctuaries where they show up during feeding times unlike the caged enclosures in zoos in Australia where the orang utans are essentially prisoners.

We are aware that the Zoos are playing crony to the NGOs on a bigger plan to legislate for the labeling of palm oil to discourage its use in food in Australia. With the new minority government, the threat of such negative labeling to be approved will be significantly raised because of the influence of the green MPs in the coalition. Trying to block the flow of palm oil into Australia for food applications through legislative means may seem to be a small issue to the zoos which are partly funded by the state governments. However, palm oil is a major agricultural produce of Malaysia and Indonesia. Trade in palm oil is an important source of revenue for these countries and their farmers.

Australia should know the importance of promoting trade in agricultural products. Annually, Australian farmers exports RM389 million (2009)worth of live animals and meat to Malaysia in addition to the exports of huge amount of cereals. Malaysian farmers in exchange export (a lower amount) RM 306 million worth of palm oil to Australia. For many decades, governments and farmers from both countries have worked hard to establish a healthy growth in trade for their agricultural commodities, but this is now being jeopardized by campaigns carried out by Zoos Victoria and their cronies which could wreck the two-way friendly trade of agricultural products of both countries. Even if the zoos and their cronies are successful in persuading the Australian government to pass the discriminative labeling legislation proposal through parliament, and curtailing RM 306 million worth of palm oil from being freely used in food products in Australia, it is unlikely that orang utans will benefit from this exercise. Have they for a moment stopped to ponder that the oil palm farmers could very well ask their government to retaliate and Malaysia may have to look elsewhere for the supply of beef and live animals worth RM 389 million? It is also likely that Indonesian oil palm farmers will ask their government to join the retaliation and further damage could be inflicted to the beef and live animal trade as Indonesia is a bigger importer of beef from Australia as compared to Malaysia. Governments know better than to allow such a situation to occur as it affects their trade and government relations. Certainly, the Australian beef farmers Associations would not allow trade to degenerate and Zoos Victoria will be held accountable for such predicaments.

There are options to consider for the serious conservationists at Zoos Victoria . Orang utans sanctuaries are commonly found in the states of Sabah and Sarawak. Projects related to orang utan conservation can be proposed under the auspices of the Malaysian Palm Oil Wildlife Conservation Fund (MPOWCF) for consideration. All that needs to be done is to write in to MPOC with a comprehensive project proposal.

Alternatively, Zoos Victoria should focus on the conservation of the many endangered animal species in Australia because of habitat loss. For example, the Koala bears population is reducing rapidly, down to about 40,000 and the Cassowary birds are fast disappearing with a population estimated to be less than 1000 throughout Australia. The Cassowary birds would be far more interesting as a study option as compared to the orang utans. If you were to disturb their young, they can defend themselves by giving you a frontal kick which can be fatal! However, if the genes responsible for the big size of the Cassowary birds are transferred to chickens, the world could potentially have more meat supply. But if the Zoos in Australia are busy in their self-appointed role to campaign for our orang utans (which are already well cared for), and neglect to conserve their own Cassowary birds and allow them to go extinct, the world may miss a golden opportunity to improve on the poultry industry.

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.