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.

Recently, the Malaysian and Indonesian Ministers in charge of the palm oil industry had a roundtable dialogue with US NGOs, government officials and other food and non-food customers to discuss palm oil sustainability issues. Both the Malaysian and Indonesian delegation members were keen to hear green NGOs views and were prepared to provide counter viewpoints explaining how palm oil is produced sustainably in their respective countries.

What I have noticed lately is that the ultra green NGOs often fail to attend these dialogues. They prefer instead to raise their same old issues not in a face to face manner, but via their media channels on the internet, where they can repeat their infamous allegations on oil palm linking it to deforestation. This time, they broadcasted their counter views through the internet just a few days after the dialogue ended when the Ministers had returned home to their respective countries. In fact, our organizers informed us that the NGOs were so paranoid about the dialogue being held that they sent out emails twice unethically informing all invitees that the dialogue had been cancelled! The unscrupulous attempt to sabotage the meeting did not work and merit our condemnation. More than 50 important stakeholders including friendly NGOs attended the meeting. Nevertheless, we have to take this threat seriously. Next time around, the sabotage could be life threatening.

The Ministers decided to make a trip to the land of the green NGOs to dialogue on palm oil sustainability and to convey their convictions that palm oil does not cause any significant deforestation nor does it contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions(GHG). They were ready to explain these to the dialogue participants and additionally, share the more important secret of the vital contribution of palm oil towards global food security, national employment opportunities and lifting developing country farmers out of poverty. Palm oil as an agricultural crop has that potential.

I did notice, in reading the ultra green NGO statements which make reference to issues raised at the dialogue, that the information they received from their friends present at the meeting seemed to have deviated substantially from the original consensus arrived at the dialogue. All questions were fully answered by the delegation from Malaysia and Indonesia during the dialogue which ended with everyone fairly contented that their doubts and wrong perceptions were satisfactorily addressed.

During the dialogue, I elaborated on the progress made towards ensuring that our palm oil is the most sustainable in the oils and fats industry and this is restated as follows:-

Globally accepted definition of sustainability contains the three Ps: concern for the People, Planet and Profit. Palm oil fits the three Ps rather strategically.

1. People: People globally benefit from palm oil through improved food security and an access to cheaper supply of cooking oil; and for the two main producer countries, namely Malaysia and Indonesia, palm oil earns an estimated US$40 billion a year in terms of export revenue. Most of the income would be well distributed to families in the rural farming communities who can then send their children for basic education which will enable them to earn a decent living in future, and live comfortably in the modern world where hand phones are a common need and ipads are occasionally a new household item to replace the need to buy newspapers.

Green NGO allegations of oil palm plantations encroaching into land belonging to indigenous people in Borneo are already being addressed by the authorities. The indigenous people truly want a share of income from the development of the land in the vicinity of their traditional villages and long houses. Oil palm will help them achieve this, thus enabling them to have an assured income as opposed to their past and traditional practice of cutting logs and hunting animals from the forest (often illegally and unsustainably). In Malaysia, the authorities are undertaking perimeter survey of indigenous people community land-claims to ensure ownership is clearly established and overlapping claims on land are minimized. This will take some time to resolve and in all cases, the courts are there to help settle outstanding issues. Developed countries should understand that developing countries have to face such unresolved issues. That is why we are called developing countries.

2. Planet: Planet means environment conservation. Oil palm occupies only 6 % of the total land area of Indonesia. The ultra green NGO allegations that 2 million hectares of forests are destroyed to make way for oil palm cultivation every year in Indonesia is pure rubbish. The arithmetic simply does not add up. With these half baked figures, there would be 20 million hectares of oil palm plantations added between the year 2000 and 2010. The fact remains that Indonesia has only over 7 million hectares of oil palm plantations and not over 20 million hectares as implied by the ultra green NGOs!

Malaysia has a land area of 33 million hectares. It has envisaged that its total oil palm plantations of 4.85 million hectares are part of it allowable agricultural land which occupies about 25 % of the total land area of the country. The country has pledged to keep at least 50 % of its land area as permanent forest. The remaining 25 % of the country’s land area would be utilized for industrial development, cities, towns and villages and other infrastructural facilities such as roads and highways, recreation areas, lakes and other water bodies. Under this strategy, the entire palm oil produced in Malaysia is already sustainable as it has a balanced provision of permanent forest and agriculture areas that meet the standard practiced by any developed country. Ideally, certification for sustainability should be undertaken for the whole country as one production unit for palm oil. All the elements relating to palm oil’s sustainability, such as the need to conserve forests, are met when the whole country is regarded as one production facility for palm oil.

Ironically, the oil produced by developed countries is not sustainable and cannot be certified sustainable partly because it is often genetically modified and NGOs such as WWF have not been successful in forcing the US soyabean farmers to agree to have a sustainability scheme for soya bean oil.

3. Profit: The profit component in the requirement for sustainability is sufficiently met by palm oil production. Oil palm cultivation has undergone many cycles of replanting and yields have been maintained at a high level reflecting no deterioration in land fertility. The high yield of 10 times that of rivals such as soyabean means that oil palm plantations remain profitable whether operated by big plantation operators or by smallholders.

Misguided campaigns against palm oil
The current contention by green NGOs that only WWF introduced RSPO certified palm oil must be used in their countries is a big disservice to the thousands of small oil palm farmers globally who aspire to have fair access for their palm oil into the world markets. These farmers have similar aspirations to those of developed country small farmers who hope to export competing oilseeds and oils that they produce to the rest of the world. The recent initiative of green NGOs to use girl scouts to propagate campaigns against palm oil is indeed shameful. It will only poison their young minds by teaching them to spread lies. Their actions may well lead to a restricted market access for palm oil which will affect the livelihood of millions of poor farmers in the developing countries. Without a steady source of income, poor farmers and rural communities who need to survive will resort to more deforestation and animal hunting, leading to unsustainable conservation of forests and wildlife. Will the girl scouts take responsibility for putting developing country farmers and their families into a life of misery?

The ultra green NGOs, the green politicians and some concerned individual consumers who act against palm oil should read the latest interview given by a WWF official where he states that the anti-palm oil campaign is a result of their environmental protection strategy based on their skewed definition of sustainability and transformation of markets.. WWF, as claimed, has identified some 15 top sectors with environmental risk which needs to be saved from further destruction. It appears that only environmental conservation is important in their definition of sustainability and not the 3 Ps as practiced universally. According to the WWF philosophy, as long as there is deforestation, the producers will be harassed accordingly. In addition, big international corporations have been identified to be shamed for using ‘unsustainable’ raw materials. WWF has proudly cited palm oil as their most successful project where some 6% of palm oil exports has been certified through the WWF introduced RSPO scheme for the last two years, while for other commodities, there was a poor success rate of the WWF initiated certification campaigns with no more than 1 % adoption after years of campaigning.

Palm oil producers did realize the skewed definition of sustainability propagated by WWF. As palm oil is already highly sustainable, the producers nevertheless agreed to give the RSPO scheme a try, hoping that those needing certified palm oil can have access to such products. It does not mean that non-certified palm oil is less sustainable or not sustainable. It is just that it has not undergone a certification process. For example, small holders who have operated their oil palm plantations for generations cannot afford the certification cost. WWF or other NGOs have not provided them with financial assistance to enable them to be certified. The RSPO scheme, if made mandatory will mean that the smallholders who are long established farmers (nothing to do with deforestation) will be victimized and their produce will be denied market access because they do not have the money to employ costly foreign auditors to certify their farms as per RSPO criteria in order to have certification for the palm oil produced.

It is therefore important for WWF to revise its strategy and devise a better scheme to include participation of the small holders which form 40% of the producers of palm oil in Malaysia. One way is to regard the whole country as one production unit for producing palm oil sustainably. Sustainable principles and criteria can be devised accordingly at a macro level to ensure there is proper balance between the need for the three Ps. Malaysia is probably ready to adopt such a scheme if NGOs such as WWF can support this move. Otherwise, there will continue to be a clash of definitions relating to sustainability. The end result will be a lose-lose situation with WWF failing to save the forests and conserving the environment and the oil palm farmers becoming victims of vicious NGO campaigns.

No sovereign government will agree to subject its most important economic sector such as oil palm to be dictated by NGOs such as WWF on how to produce this crop. This is akin to allowing backdoor legislation where rules governing the country’s land resources are made not in parliament but by NGO driven organizations such as the RSPO.

Fearing that the monopoly of the WWF initiated RSPO scheme for palm oil will cost producers dearly, the Indonesians have established an alternative national sustainability scheme for palm oil (ISPO) to compete with the RSPO. ISPO is offering sustainability guarantee on a macro national scale since it is mandatory for all producers to comply. In addition, Indonesia has already initiated a moratorium on deforestation, to further give assurance that their oil palm cultivation does not cause deforestation.

Similarly, the Malaysians would probably introduce their own national sustainability scheme (MSPO) to be operated on a macro level by viewing the whole country as a single production unit for palm oil. The Germans have already introduced their own scheme for sustainable supply of raw material for biodiesel under the ISCC standard and the US has introduced a similar sustainability standard scheme under the EPA RFS series. None of them chose a WWF driven sustainability scheme as such a process would be tantamount to surrendering country level rule- making to foreign based NGOs.

While sustainability in raw material production is a common aspiration shared by producer countries and the NGOs, both defer on the definition of the concept. Producer countries cooperation to implement the NGO initiated RSPO scheme has been abused by the appearance of anti-palm oil campaigns where the demand is unclear. Many of the NGOs and green politicians take the stance that the oil palm should not exist because it was planted on former forest land and therefore causes deforestation. This extreme view has no room or provision for developing countries that need to develop their land assets, stabilize their forest reserve areas and generate employment to provide income for the rural farmers.

It must be realized that forcing unfair schemes to be adopted by poor farmers will be a futile attempt. The NGOs are not elected representatives of the farmers. It is the politicians who are entrusted to make legislations and look after the needs of the voters. There must be a better approach for attaining sustainability objectives perhaps through international agreements on how much forest each developing country should preserve and how much of the country’s land area is allowed for agriculture. For now, it looks like it is a free- for- all rule of the jungle that the NGOs are practicing, condoning one set of rules and exemptions for the developed world and another set of rules on sustainability for Malaysia and Indonesia even though the two countries have shown willingness to get its palm oil certified for sustainability on a voluntary basis. Little appreciation is given to the fact that by using only 14 % of its land area to plant oil palm, Malaysia is able to supply almost 30 % of the world’s oils and fats export requirements with 20 million tonnes of palm and palm kernel oils produced. If Malaysia were to produce the equivalent of 20 million tonnes by growing soyabean like the US or Brazil where no certification is needed to enter the world market, a land area of 50 million hectares would be needed compared with only 33 million hectares available as total land area of the country. The world should be thankful for the high productivity of oil palm. Income from palm oil generates enough prosperity to prevent forest from being converted into agriculture areas. Oil palm is a better paymaster for keeping forest intact as desired, compared to developed countries who have failed in their promise to compensate developing countries for keeping their forests conserved under the REDD scheme introduced by the UNFCC climate change agenda.

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.

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.

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?