Palm | Kelapa Sawit

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.

I was invited by the Senate Committee on Community Affairs in Canberra, Australia to give a testimony on the mandatory labeling of palm oil proposed under the Truth in Labeling – Palm Oil Bill. It seems that palm oil is now a target not only of Western Environmental NGOs (WENGOs), but also some ambitious Green Politicians of the developed world. On reflection, the WENGOs could be accused of taking the issue too far without thinking how their actions and allegations are un-justified and how these may affect the livelihoods of poor oil palm farmers in developing countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia.

I would not blame the Green Politicians for their lack of knowledge on the oil palm industry; the utterances that they made to support the Bill in Canberra clearly revealed their ignorance. They claim for example, that palm oil is a ‘fruit’ oil and should not be labeled as a ‘vegetable’ oil. Obviously, the WENGOs have diligently fed their Green Senators with the necessary cannon powder to debate on the Bill, but it was soon pointed out at the hearing that olive oil, produced as a fruit oil in the EU and Australia is also classified internationally as a vegetable oil because it comes from a plant or vegetable source as opposed to animal fats which come from animal sources.

The greatest flaw and danger in the proposed palm oil labeling Bill is its discriminatory treatment (or more accurately, mistreatment) of palm oil. The Bill was proposed based on WENGOs’ allegations and not on well founded studies of the palm oil industry in Malaysia, Indonesia and many other developing countries in Tropical Asia, Africa and Latin America. If every nation were to create legislations to restrict the import of commodities produced by other countries based on allegations, there will soon be no more trade to be carried out internationally.

My testimony questioned the validity of the labeling Bill as it undermines an industry which is critical to Malaysia’s prosperity; it would also impose higher costs on businesses of both countries and subject Australian consumers to a higher cost of living. Truth in food labeling should be driven by health issues, not political expedience, which is behind some of the campaigns revolving around this Bill.

The greatest impact of this Bill will be to single out palm oil as the only product in Australia to mandatorily be labeled for reasons other than health and nutrition, and to severely hinder efforts of developing countries to utilize palm oil as a means for alleviating poverty.

The Bill recommends palm oil to be labeled separately while other plant oils can continue to be labeled as vegetable oils. Certified sustainable palm oil (CSPO) marking to indicate sustainable palm oil has to be mandatorily indicated. While this form of labeling was touted as a means of providing consumers freedom of choice, it will also give the WENGOs an opportunity to demonize palm oil and campaign against the use of uncertified palm oil in food products.

There is no objection to such a Bill if all oils are fairly mentioned when used in a product as practiced in countries such as in the USA. However, the supporters of the Bill have twisted the facts by saying that only palm oil is separately labeled in the USA. In addition, there is no objection to RSPO certified palm oil to be indicated on a voluntary basis as a promoted brand on food labels. This is currently the aim of RSPO i.e. to have products using its certified palm oil to carry its logo which is a form of positive voluntary labeling.

Ironically, more than 3.5 million tonnes of CSPO are already available to buyers, yet many are unwilling to commit or purchase the oil. Most are unwilling to pay the premium to help share the cost of certification incurred by the producers. So, instead of asking the buyers who had demanded for CSPO to support their cause, WENGOs have been forcing their Governments to enforce labeling rules to have CSPO marking, thus making it mandatory for them to use only certified palm oil hoping to avoid paying a premium.

WWF who introduced the RSPO scheme as a business to business initiative to improve market access of palm oil to the EU and Australia, promised that the scheme will be voluntary. Nevertheless, at the Canberra hearing, WWF supported the Bill which will cause palm oil to be mandatorily labeled. WWF has conveniently forgotten the business to business principle of RSPO, but instead, wanted the government to intervene by the use of legislation.

WWF is aware that a large number of oil palm smallholders cannot afford to be certified under the costly RSPO scheme even though they have nothing to do with deforestation or extinction of the Orang-utans. The smallholders can equally produce sustainable palm oil, except that it is non-certified. They have been farming and planting oil palms for generations on legitimate agricultural land where no Orang-utans exist just like other oilseed farmers elsewhere in the world. Even the RSPO Secretary General has opposed the Bill stating that it is unfair to single out palm oil which will lead to it being ostracized by WENGOs when other competing oilseeds are non-certified and involve the use of much larger land resources globally.

The contradictory behavior of WWF attracted my attention. Palm oil producers should examine the true intentions of WWF. Both the palm oil suppliers and food manufacturers (members of RSPO) present at the hearing were against the Bill, while WWF who is also a RSPO member glaringly supported the Bill. WWF should be asked to decide to choose to stay as a member of the RSPO, and work to help the success of the RSPO scheme as it was designed to be, or remain as an anti-palm oil NGO outside the RSPO like Greenpeace and others.

For example, Andrew Rouse, Acting Head of Sustainability, WWF mentioned in his testimony that palm oil is a worthy candidate for labeling as it has a major effect on deforestation and environment.

On one hand WWF is seen to be supporting the oil palm industry through the RSPO but on the other hand it is not only supporting the Bill in Australia but has been supporting Zoos Victoria’s campaign against palm oil. According to Andrew Rouse mandatory labeling helps to drive consumer attention to an issue and provides an avenue for them to support CSPO.

Should WWF have intentions to use the RSPO scheme to control the palm oil supply chain by applying government legislation and consumer lobby, it should re-evaluate its intentions. Most countries especially the EU, are net importers of oils and fats and palm oil is a critical source to meet the shortage. Should Governments decide to legislate on the use of CSPO based on allegations made by WENGOs, claiming that oil palm causes deforestation and loss of Orang-utans, then producing countries could also decide to impose an export duty on CSPO so that smallholders who are highly burdened by this new regulation will be indirectly compensated for the increase in cost due to certification. As forty three percent of oil palm plantations are owned by smallholders, any new legislation by foreign governments will affect the poor smallholders who have over the years, through planting of oil palm, managed to enjoy a decent income and standard of living.

New legislations being imposed by Governments should always take into consideration the impact it will have on the supply chain and producing country and this should be based on proper impact assessment studies that are carried out by legitimate bodies. Imposing legislation based on distorted information by WENGOs with vested interest will eventually prove to be either ineffective or force oils and fats importing countries to be further burdened by paying more for an essential commodity to feed their population.

Manufacturers such as the Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC) are already calling upon their government to stop such legislation as this will eventually mean a higher cost for industries which will be passed on to consumers who are already facing tough times with the rather bleak world economic situation.

My formal testimony to the committee, corrected many of the allegations made against the palm oil industry by the WENGOs where I demonstrated the negative impact that labeling would have on producers of palm oil. I demonstrated that the palm oil industry in Malaysia is a critical sector for prosperity and economic development.

The behind-the-scene role that WENGOs have played in advancing their agenda, through campaigns involving Zoos, promoting misinformation, and neglecting the needs of Malaysia’s rural poor and smallholders was clearly stated in my testimony.

“[The Bill] may make the adherents and supporters of Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund have a great degree of self satisfaction when sipping their skinny lattes, but to 570,000 Malaysians and their families there is no self satisfaction. All they see is a threat to the livelihoods.

“Do the international NGO’s – Greenpeace and WWF – want to keep people in poverty?”

“Do they view the people of my country as participants in some sort of case study?”

“Malaysia pledged at the United Nations Rio Earth Summit in 1992 to retain at least 50% of its total land area under forest and that plantation crops would only be permitted on the land set aside for agriculture. Malaysia has greatly exceeded this target considering that 56% of its land is still under forests.”

“Forty three percent of oil palm plantations are owned by smallholders. Palm oil companies have invested significantly in schools, roads, water and hospitals for their workers. The palm oil industry directly employs over half a million Malaysians. Hundreds of thousands more rely on these incomes.”

In addressing the WENGO claims that oil palm plantations were a major threat to Orang-utans, I mentioned that the proposed Australian labeling legislation would have no benefit for the environment, forests or Orang-utan populations of Malaysia.

“It is unfortunate that the Orang-utans have been used, or more accurately misused, in this debate.”

“Our industry is not a rapacious destroyer of either forests or Orang-utans. We have been accused of this, we have been pilloried on it – and it is totally inaccurate.”

The Malaysian team at the inquiry had to correct many false allegations made against the industry by WENGOs.

WWF and the Palm Oil Action Group (POAG) claimed that oil palms removed nutrients from the soil, making the soil completely useless after 50 years. This was refuted by a Danish planter (a RSPO member) present to give his testimony. He advised the committee that the first oil palms on his Malaysian plantation run by his company were planted in 1918 and now the fifth generation palms were thriving in the same soil. His testimony proved to be more credible than the testimony by WWF and POAG.

The Senators also heard a moving testimony from a Malaysian witness from Sarawak of how the oil palm industry had opened opportunities for farmers in Malaysia especially Sarawak, supported their way of life and provided a better education for their children. All this had translated into a more informed community thus improving the well-being of the rural people. His testimony carried particular weight before the committee due to his ability to identify with under-developed communities, as acknowledged by some of the Senators. After all, he was born in a long-house located in a natural rainforest environment in Sarawak. (He did not choose to live and hunt in the rainforest as romantically expected by the WENGOs but went to England to study accountancy and now heads a company involved in planting oil palm for thousands of small farmers under the Sarawak Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation Authority (SALCRA) scheme.)

The Committee was visibly taken aback by the strong testimony as well as the distinguished panel of Malaysian representatives as it reflected the importance of the issue to both Malaysia and the oil palm industry. The Committee was presented with facts not rhetoric; after all, the issue being discussed was not one that can be taken lightly when it would very well affect the livelihood of poor oil palm farmers who would be forced into poverty.

It is important for all of us to keep in mind that food is a basic necessity for people. As the world population grows, so will the demand for food items such as oils & fats. Many countries are already net importers of oils and fats. Compulsory labeling schemes to curb palm oil trade will only invite retaliation to counter the effect. For example, producing countries may impose higher export duties on CSPO to raise revenue to pay for certification costs. It is the consumer who will be most affected.

As for the Malaysian delegation, we were there to defend our right to use part of our country land area for agriculture to plant oil palm. The combined oil palm plantations in Indonesia and Malaysia account for only 0.23 % of global agricultural land area while the combined populations of Indonesia and Malaysia account for 3.9% of the world population. This demonstrates that both countries do not use even 1/10 of their proportionate rightful quota of land to plant oil palm.

Surprisingly, there were no questions directed at the carbon emission of our oil palm industry which is very small if not negative. I would not have hesitated to point out the massive carbon emission arising from the agricultural industry in Australia (millions of Australian ruminants such as cattle emit methane, a very potent GHG from their stomachs regularly). Australia is also a major producer, consumer and exporter of coal, a very dirty fuel with respect to GHG emission. The WENGOs conveniently overlook these big GHG emitters when their country’s economy is critically dependent on them but choose instead to demonize the oil palm industry which is a negligible emitter of GHG in comparison. On reflection, it is not unreasonable that many commentators have accused them of practicing Green Colonialism.

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.

The world population is estimated at 6.8 billion today. This is predicted to increase to 8 billion people in 2030 and 8.9 billion by 2050. There will be many more mouths to feed perpetually in the future thereby increasing the demand for food.



Over 1 billion, or 15% of the world still do not have enough food on a regular basis. At the turn of this century, United Nations expounded eight Millennium Development Goals. On top of the list is the goal to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. The need to address this important issue was echoed, not too long ago, at the World Summit on Food Security that was held in Rome, Italy in November 2009. Very recently, in April 2010, World Bank launched the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), which is a new multi-donor trust fund to improve food security and incomes in low-income countries through assistance to agriculture.




What is food security? According to FAO, food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.

The oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) is an important agricultural crop, which yields three important sources of food, namely palm oil, palm kernel oil and palm kernel cake. An average of 3.7 tonnes of palm oil, 0.4 tonnes of palm kernel oil and 0.6 tonnes of palm kernel cake is obtainable from one hectare of land. While the first two products can be used for human consumption, such as cooking oil, margarines, shortenings, bakery fats, vanaspati, ice creams and Vitamin E, etc., palm kernel cake is used as an animal feed.




The two major palm oil producers in the world are Indonesia and Malaysia, with outputs of 21.1 and 17.6 million tonnes respectively in 2009. Together, they constitute a magnanimous 85.3% of the world’s production.




Palm oil constitutes the major bulk of the world’s production of oils and fats. It contributed to 27.6% share when its production in 2009 was 45.5 million tonnes. Soyabean ranked second with a production of 35.9 million tonnes or 21.8%, animal fats third with 24.4 million tonnes produced or 14.8% while rapeseed was fourth with an output of 21.5 million tonnes or 13.1%.




There are hurdles to overcome during the pursuit to achieve food security in the future. A major obstacle is the diminishing availability of already scarce arable land. While population increases, the lack of arable land may not permit this to happen as it decreases from 0.75 hectares in 1922 to 0.23 hectares in 2005 and this will decrease further to 0.19 hectares per capita in 2030. An urgent need to use this scarce resource wisely can be realized if palm oil is chosen as the preferred oil over the other major vegetable oils. Due to oil palm’s high land productivity, whereby it can produce 4.1 tonnes versus 0.59, 0.42 and 0.36 tonnes of oil per hectare for rapeseed, sunflower and soyabean respectively, 7 times less land area is needed to obtain the same amount of vegetable oil if palm oil substitutes rapeseed completely.




Similarly, palm oil’s substitution for sunflower and soyabean saves 10 to 11 times more land from being cleared and planted with these two crops. The extra land saved, could then be used to plant other crops or for animal husbandry.




With land scarcity, palm oil’s contribution to ensure food security comes from successful research carried out in Malaysia, whereby clonal oil palm materials, capable of producing 25 to 50% more fresh fruit bunch yield are already planted in the fields. As such, higher land productivity than that obtained currently, can be expected from oil palm in the future, without resorting to felling more new land.

Vegetable oils such as palm, rapeseed, sunflower and soyabean can be used as biofuels. There is concern that there will be competition between these vegetable oils for use as food or fuel. Chatham House, United Kingdom has optimistically projected that 28% of vegetable oils or 57 million tonnes will be used for biofuels in 2015, with the balance of 72% to be used for food. In 2050, 39% of total vegetable oils will be used as fuel and the balance of 61% will be used for food. Such projected large amounts of vegetable oils dedicated for biofuel usage is unlikely to happen.

Progress has been made to convert biomass to biofuel leading to minimal quantities of vegetable oils being used as biofuels. In this respect, palm oil has a sustainability edge over soya, rapeseed and sunflower, as the oil palm, which is a perennial crop, produces large amounts of biomass all year round and these can be used for biofuel. Palm kernel is already used as a fuel source while palm briquettes can be made from empty fruit bunches. Methane from the palm oil effluent ponds is also trapped and used as biogas. Thus, besides ensuring food security, a new business of converting waste to wealth is created in the palm oil industry.




Palm oil can enhance food security by ensuring that the competition between food and fuel is minimal when its biomass are utilized for fuel and, therefore, any price hike will not be the result of such competing demands.

One of the drivers that often derail food security is the inability of the rural population, some of which live below the poverty level, to be able to afford sufficient food. The oil palm is a proven economic crop that has been used successfully to eradicate poverty due to its successful cultivation. The FELDA model in Malaysia bears testimony to such a success.

In conclusion, palm oil is the leader among the major vegetable oils that has the greatest potential to overcome food insecurity. It is capable of doing so in a very sustainable way since it requires the least land to produce the same amount of oil, thus freeing diminishing arable land for the cultivation of other crops or for animal husbandry. It is also proven that oil palm cultivation can help to eradicate rural poverty and hunger, which is one of the primary Millennium Development Goals.

Ensuring adequate supply of edible oils for the world market at affordable prices is very important to low income people of the developing world. Derailing future expansion of palm oil production through the Western Environmental NGO anti-palm oil campaigns will impact food security among the developing country population the most. It will also lead to massive deforestation as 10 times more land would be required to plant competing crops such as soyabean to meet future shortages compared to oil palm cultivation.

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.

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?

For a tropical country such as Malaysia, every inch of land would be under forest or would have been under forest cover sometime in the past. I am always willing to acknowledge that all our agricultural activities, our industrial land, our towns, cities, highways and airports have replaced forests and have affected biodiversity or have released green house gases to the atmosphere . Every country has sacrificed some of their land for agricultural and other uses over the years when they undergo the process of development. Some use their land extensively for agriculture, others don't. Others have not yet the time or the funds to develop their land, as is the case with many developing countries.

Current debate by some NGOs is tending to link agricultural activities with deforestation. To have a healthy debate, there must be some definitions. For example, what percentage of our country's land area is allowed for agriculture, and what percentage should be conserved as forests. Would this percentage be uniform as an international benchmark, or should it be different for developed countries as compared to developing countries. If it is different who is to determine what is the right percentage, especially for those developing countries which since achieving independence from their colonial masters have not been able to develop their land for agriculture.

In Malaysia, oil palm and rubber are major agricultural crops. Some NGOs try to alledge that oil palm causes deforestation, but they never made such critisms on our rubber industry. If we cannot grow oil palm we surely will grow rubber, cocoa, coconuts etc on our agricultural land, and get on with our daily life. If we use 24 % of our land for agriculture, is that wrong. What if we use 30% for agriculture. Why cann't we follow the UK which used up to 70 % of their land for agriculture and enjoy a good standard of living as a result. Are we not allowed to enjoy a good standard of living? Put it in another way, if the UK were to only use 8%of the land for agriculture as in Sarawak, it is likely that their standard of living would be lower than what they enjoy for now.

Why don't we set up an international standard for the percentage of agricultural land allowed for each country. Let us start with a range of 30 to 50 % allowed for conversion to agriculture. In terms of carbon footprint, related to global warming, those countries keen to comply with the target and bring their agricultural land ratio to below 50% can reforest their land accordingly. Those countries still having less than 50 % of their land under agriculture can be allowed to develop according to their development needs. In times of food shortage, it is important to expand food production by making land available for agriculture. If 50% of arable land is allowed for agriculture and up to 50 % left as forest, there will be a fair balance for wildlife habitats and human food production capacity.

It will be good if the NGOs provide leadership in coming out with the guidelines. Otherwise, we argue on different assumptions and understanding on what constitute deforestation. Some even post personal criticisms from such misunderstanding. It is important to have an open debate. In our recent sustainability conference, I raised a few bold ideas in front of 500 attendees, but no one was bold enough to challenge my statements. Later some criticisms were raised in the NGOs websites. So much for being bold or otherwise.