Palm | Kelapa Sawit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.