Washington Dialogue on Sustainable Palm Oil – NGOs Fail to Sabotage Event

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.

How Sustainable Production of Palm Oil Contibutes to Reduced Global Warming

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

Sustainability: New Market for Certified Sustainable Oils and Fats?

Confusion reigns over certified and uncertified oils

In recent years, the Western Environmental NGOs (WENGOs) together with producers and buyers of palm oil have attempted to promote the development and market for certified sustainable oils and fats products in addition to existing non-certified products. This has resulted in two types of market for oils and fats: the certified sustainable oil market and the market for normal oils that are not certified. The most desirable and ideal market is of course one where the oils and fats products are proven to be sustainably produced. The proof is via a certification and auditing process where the oils or fats which are found to comply with a set of sustainability principles and criteria will be issued certificates attesting to their sustainable production and processing. These products are supposed to be marketed at a premium to meet the needs of sophisticated markets especially in the EU. In the case of palm oil, such products are referred to as Certified Sustainable Palm Oil in general or Certified RSPO palm oil (CSPO) if the RSPO system is used as the basis for auditing and certification. In contrast, the main market is still mostly for non-certified normal palm oil. Such products cannot be marketed as sustainable as the WENGOs will protest that there is no proof of sustainability. Neither can it be labeled as unsustainable palm oil as there is no proof for that either.Unfortunately, Certified RSPO palm oil has received limited acceptance thus far. The available capacity in Malaysia of about 1 million tonnes of CSPO palm oil has not been fully taken up. Only 30 % of the potentially available RSPO palm oil has been exported to the EU. The main excuse is the lack of willingness of the importers to pay a premium to offset the initial cost of certification. To make matters worse, some of the WENGOs are casting doubts on the ability of RSPO members to supply sustainable palm oil.

What Deforestation?

Many critics of the Malaysian oil palm industry do not know that Malaysia agreed to generously keep aside its pristine natural tropical forests 15 years ago when the country pledged at the Rio Earth Summit to maintain a minimum of 50% of its land area under permanent forests. The policy behind the pledge remains intact as Malaysia today still has 56% of its area under permanent natural forests. Such a large percentage of forests is maintained mainly for conservation purposes and to support the forest industry which enables Malaysia to be a world major exporter of tropical timber. Besides providing more than adequate area for biodiversity and habitat needs including home for the orang utans and global warming mitigation purposes, the timber industry allows Malaysia to earn some RM 22.56 billion in 2008 or 3.4% of the country’s export earnings.

Timber production has gone through its own cycle of environmental attacks by NGOs and remedial measures have been put in place to ensure only sustainably managed timber and legal timber products are exported. The process of adopting an internationally recognised certification scheme for sustainable and legal timber has taken a long time to evolve as not all producer countries and importers are committed to adopt a common sustainability scheme. Malaysia has progressed much in these efforts as more and more of its timber are exported under some forms of certified timber scheme depending on the demand and agreement with the regional importers.

If Malaysia’s forests are already recognised to be sustainably managed, and not be allowed for conversion to other uses in order to stabilise the area, how then can the allegations still be made by NGOs linking oil palm cultivation with deforestation? Ignorance and wrong assumptions are to be blamed. Land developed for agriculture lies outside the permanent forest areas under the country’s land use policy. This means up to 50% of the country’s land area can be developed into various land uses for national development. As a developing country, Malaysia needs to develop its land to build cities and towns, villages and industrial parks, recreational grounds and water bodies, roads and highways and of course create agricultural areas to plant food and commodity crops for its people. Based on the guidance of the national land use policy, about 25% of the country is allocated to agriculture and the remaining 25 % is for the other uses keeping in mind that a minimum of 50 % of the country is already locked in for conservation purposes such as permanent natural forests.

Malaysia aspires to be a developed country by the year 2020 and like most developed countries, conversion of forests into agriculture took place decades or centuries ago. In Malaysia deforestion for agriculture was pioneered by the British in the early part of the 20th Century when forest areas zoned for agriculture were cleared to plant initially coffee, then rubber and later oil palm as dictated by the feasibility of producing such crops during that time. Even after Malaysia achieved independence in 1957, the development of agriculture continued, as until then the benefits of plantation agriculture were mainly enjoyed by the British who owned most of the large plantation companies. To allow the locals to enjoy the same benefits, FELDA was created. It was mandated to develop around 2 million acres of mostly forested land to resettle landless farmers. Professional surveyors from New Zealand were recommended by the World Bank to survey the forests to identify areas suitable for agriculture for FELDA to open up its land development schemes beginning in the 1950s with funds from the World Bank .

Like the developed countries, Malaysia too can give the excuses that the main deforestation of its land for conversion to agriculture has occured in the distant past, but unlike the situation in the developed countries, development was made under the supervision of international professional land surveyors and officially funded by the World Bank. For NGOs and their followers to come back years later to make allegations linking oil palm cultivation with deforestion in Malaysia is not proper, and probably decades too late. It is akin to barking up the wrong tree. The NGOs seem to suggest that deforestation in the developed countries was something that occured in the past beyond the control of their present governments. For example, the Romans were blamed for removing most of the forests of Britain. British NGOs should also admit that Malaysia’s pristine forests were mostly deforested by the British when they established their rubber and oil palm plantations during the first half of 20 th century. However, they did it in a civilised way by leaving a sizeable area of forests to be reserved as protected forests. That legacy led to the current policy of maintaining at least 50% of Malaysia as permanent natural forests.

The current land use policy as described above, brings many benefits to Malaysia especially when confronted with the challenges of the global warming debate. Firstly, with at least 50% of its forest intact, and up to 90 % of its agricultural land planted with tree crops, thus providing another 22% equivalent of the country’s land with tree cover, Malaysia can still claim to be a net carbon sink country based on currently available data. We are reminded recently that President Obama proudly announced that the USA is providing incentives to encourage reforesting of abandoned agricultural lands to promote more tree cover and mitigate global warming. It would not be too difficult to recognise that most of the agricultural lands in Malaysia have been planted with forest tree species, oil palm and rubber all along (without any incentives given!). That is why Malaysia is still a net carbon sink country despite having industrialised for the last 50 years.

The second benefit of our land use policy is our ability to face up to any allegations of deforestation especially when these are linked to the development of our agricultural sector. Malaysia’s forest to total land ratio is superior to that of most other countries, and so too is our agricultural land to total land area ratio. No one can accuse Malaysia of not providing enough forests to provide habitats to sustain the orang utans population as Sabah has almost 50% of its area under natural permanent forests and Sarawak has much higher. These are the two States of Malaysia where orang utans exist in the natural forests. The recently organised orang utan colloquium did recognise the need to reconnect the fragmented forests outside the main permanent forest using the concept of forest corridors to provide extra flexibility for the orang utans to travel back to the main forest after visiting the fragmented forests and nearby oil palm plantations where more food is available.

Thirdly we should be reminded that biodiversity is not supposed to be found in our agricultural land as is the case with all other countries. Our policy of conserving more than 50% of our land as permanent natural forests which include natural parks, wildlife sancturies and totally protected forest will provide for the need to conserve biodiversity. I can not help thinking how illogical some of the debates that are going on in the internet (some even by Professors) who grossly exaggerate that our agricultural lands, including oil palm and rubber plantations do not have as much biodiversity as the natural forests: why must our agricultural land including oil palm and rubber plantations have high biodiversity like the tropical forests? Are agricultural lands in the West having as high biodiversity as the temperate forests? I hope these groups will understand once and for all that when 50% of our land is locked in as permanent protected forests, preservation of biodiversity and wildlife habitats is assured. If not tell us how much more land, percentage wise, should be under forest and do the countries where these critiques come from provide their share of natural forests or plantation forests to protect the biodiversity and wildlife habitat requirements to the same high standards as adopted by Malaysia. Show us figures for comparison.

In a world where the EU and the USA would not agree to clean up their emitted CO2 unless developing countries do the same, Malaysia can claim to have already contributed its share by being a net carbon sink country. More than 80 % of the accumulated CO2 leading to the accelerated increase in global CO2 concentration was from years of industrial development taking place in the developed countries. Now the EU is proposing that developing countries must commit to reduce their emissions, or else there will be no agreement at the coming Copenhagen Climate Change meeting, meaning that the EU and USA would not clean up the accumulated emissions that they have caused in the past which are contributing to the present global warming tendency. I am sure the developing countries at the Climate Change meeting in Copenhagen in December will insist on equitable responsibility for the developed countries to first clean up their massive past emissions before commitments for future emission reduction can be shared by all countries.

The same argument is made in the deforestation debate by the western NGOs who are asking developing countries to preserve their forests while developed countries need not have to do anything because they have already deforested most of their forests. Is Malaysia supposed to help clean up the emission of the developed countries (due to their past overdeforestation) by keeping a maximum area of forests even though the country is already a net carbon sink country,( ie has taken care of its own CO2 emissions by keeping enough forests)? Some developed countries like Canada is still deforesting for agricultural development , where up to 10 million hectares are planned to be deforested in the near future. Why do the NGOs remain silent on such deforestation. How many times have the NGOs cited Canada for continuing to deforest up to 100,000 hectares per year for agricultural developments (and another 10 million hectares are still planned to be deforested), compared to accusations levelled at Malaysia where deforestation has essentially stopped 15 years ago and the total area developed for oil palm in the last 100 years is only 4.5 million hectares or less than 0.09 % of total agricultural land area of the world.

If Malaysia is already a net cabon sink country it should be appreciated for its contribution to mitigate global warming. It also means that its land use policy is working optimally to benefit the planet, the people and the national development objectives. The NGOs should not ask Malaysia to do more than its equitable share in mitigating global warming, or providing biodiversity and wildlife habitat conservation. We have already sacrificed greatly in maintaining a large percentage of our land as forest. Revenue generated from natural forests is 33 times lower than the revenue if the land is used for agriculture for oil palm or rubber cultivation. At present, our sacrifice for keeping an above average percentage of forests is not being compensated by the rich net CO2 emitter countries of the world; our role as a carbon sink country in helping to clean up the CO2 emitted by developed countries remains unappreciated; our palm oil, a produce of our agricultural industry continues to be smeared. It is hard to make sense of these illogical situations unless we agree that the ulterior motives by the EU and their NGOs are to block the import trade of a competitive product like palm oil, or allow the NGOs to collect toll money by introducing unnecessary certification schemes or shall we agree that greed and double standards have overtaken fairplay in order for some to survive in this modern world.

(Note: Follow this Blog in a future article to learn of the manupulations and professional act of omissions used to limit the import of palm oil into the EU and USA which will result in both set of countries promoting the worst biofuels on earth using locally produced oils and fats).

Misquoted in The Star Newspaper

Ms Hillary Chew is a respected environmental campaigner for the Star and should not write words as though they were from my statements. I never said that oil palm plantations are good habitats for orang utans. Additionally, I have never seen statements by the oil palm industry insisting that the oil palm plantations have no less biological diversity than the natural forests. These are Ms Chew's own words.

Those attending the recent orang utan colloquium are free to report in any way they like. In my view, the most important finding is the report by Dr Acrenaz that the orang utans do indeed feed on the loose fruits of the oil palm. Previously, the other orang utan "experts" insisted that orang utans do not eat the oil palm fruits.

Environment Comment

Mr Sean Whyte complained in the media as an NGO that the NGOs are doing a good job telling the truth about the manner that the oil palm industry is run. This is a good start and the role played by the NGO is most appreciated. As far as Malaysian oil palm industry is concerned, there are numerous laws in this country to protect the industry, environment and the people. NGOs are encouraged to report to the authorities of any wrong-doings, and culprits would be punished. If no report of wrong-doings can be submitted, then NGOs are simply acting as critiques spreading erroneous assumptions and "it was reported" type "facts" again and again. Let us have the complaints in the form of an official report, and the industry through its enforcement body such as the MPOB can response to the complaints. Thank you for your good intention.

Yusof Basiron CEO MPOC

Perverted Views of Anti-Developing Country(ADC) Environmentalists

Fanned by media support, the anti-developing country environmentalists are desperately competing for the limelight by making outrageous statements hoping to impart maximum damage to the image of products exported from developing countries. The Friends of the Earth (FOE) was recently quoted as saying that “palm oil helps nobody” in their eagerness to campaign against the use of palm oil in Cadbury chocolates in New Zealand. Palm oil, exported mainly from Malaysia and Indonesia, is produced from legitimate agricultural lands just like competing soyabean or rapeseed oils. FOE is well aware that palm oil has helped farmers in Malaysia and Indonesia climb out of the poverty trap which has long been afflicting developing countries. With oil palm as their main crop, farmers in Malaysia and Indonesia are earning US $20 per day presently as compared to US$ 2 per day 30 years ago when oil palm was not a major crop. Campaigning against the produce of developing country farmers by some developed country NGOs is considered plain unethical as these farmers and plantation workers want to have a better life just like their counterparts in developed nations.

In a related event, Greenpeace, an EU based NGO, recently campaigned for New Zealand farmers against the use of palm kernel meal as animal feed for the dairy industry. Greenpeace “attacked” the famous milk brand of New Zealand (Fonterra) by alleging that demand for palm kernel meal by milk farmers will help cause deforestation.

Getting the facts wrong can be counterproductive. The natural forests of New Zealand were mostly wiped out within a generation of white settlements in the 19th and 20th centuries. These natural forests were replaced with grazing land, to produce milk, meat, and wool which are the main exports of New Zealand. One wonders why an agricultural product produced out of deforested land in New Zealand is acceptable to Greenpeace while an agricultural product from Malaysia is often demonised. Both countries cleared land for agricultural purposes long ago, and the extent of deforestation was much more extensively carried out in New Zealand compared to Malaysia. Yet no questions are raised on this matter? Why are NGOs selectively picking developing countries for their campaigns when the actual land clearance is much more obvious in countries like New Zealand and others?

It puzzles me when NGOs ask Cadbury to use cocoa butter rather than oil palm fat in their chocolate formulation. This surely does not solve the problem of alleged deforestation since cocoa is also planted on the same tropical land of Malaysia where oil palms are grown. Are these so called greenies aware that more land needs to be allocated to planting cocoa (more deforestation possibility?) since the fat yield of cocoa is very low as compared to oil palm.

Discouraging New Zealand farmers from using palm kernel meal as part of feed material for dairy cattle will damage the milk industry as yield of milk will surely decline. (Palm kernel meal helps increase milk yield in dairy cattle significantly). Without palm kernel meal, farmers have to supplement the feed shortage and overcome yield decline, by having larger grazing areas which mean a much larger area needed to be deforested in New Zealand.

In the 1950s to 1990s,when Malaysia opened up its jungle land to resettle landless farmers , surveyors from New Zealand were employed to identify land areas suitable for agriculture to plant oil palm and rubber. Are these knowledgeable surveyors not recognised for their contributions to help develop the Malaysian economy?

To me forests, whether temperate or tropical, are valuable to sequester carbon dioxide to prevent global warming. Why then are forests in tropical countries the only target for preservation? This would give developed country farmers a big advantage in exporting their agricultural products unimpeded compared to us in the developing countries. Thus the “ruling by the ADC NGOs” can only apply to those with perverted view points or those naturally opposed to developing countries trying to develop their economy and export agricultural products to earn a decent income. By practicing double standards these perverted NGOs will conveniently ignore the over-deforestation that has taken place in the developed countries which continues till today. If the intention is to reduce carbon emission, let focus on the real culprit: the use of fossil fuel contributes up to 80% of global CO2 emission which mainly occurs in developed countries, but guess who gets the eventual blame - again China and India - .. another popular perverted viewpoint of some NGOs and even western governments.

While writing this piece, the Hon. EU Ambassador to Malaysia came to my office to discuss progress in the palm oil industry in relation to the EU proposed legislation for renewable fuels. He confirmed the concern of the EU for Malaysia not to repeat the mistakes of the developed countries which have over-deforested and have lost biodiversity due to extensive agricultural development. I wonder if the EU automatically assumed that Malaysia will make the mistake of developed countries. When asked why the EU cannot correct their own mistakes by replanting the lost forests, he replied that it was difficult (I couldn’t help thinking that they can spend billions sending people to the moon!), but did say that some countries are beginning to reforest. I also pointed out that on a per capita basis, our forests are currently providing a free service by cleaning up (sequestering) the CO2 emitted by developed countries because of their high per capita consumption of fossil fuel, and our countries should be compensated. There are no freebies in this world. In response, the Hon. Ambassador was keen to explore Malaysia’s proposal as he believes that Malaysia has some possible solutions to offer which the EU may be keen to pursue.

Malaysia should therefore be able to offer its oil palm production model that is linked to the EU concept of sustainable development if the EU in return offers to compensate for sacrifices made to maximise our forest cover. Currently Malaysia’s reforestation programme is funded by the government to the tune of RM 2 billion under the 9th Malaysia’s Five Year plan. In the coming 10th Malaysia’s Five Year Plan, the timely availability of a compensation scheme from the EU could further extend the reforestation programme. Such win-win proposal will allow the EU and their NGOs the opportunity to pay for the extra forests that they desire while our agricultural products such as palm oil are not haressed through the threat of legislations and other trade barriers which could undermine the income of developing country farmers.

Dialogue on Sustainability, Deforestation and Global Warming

The writer had the pleasure of chairing a joint Q&A session with the Hon. Malaysian and Indonesian Minister

During a recent series of meetings between Malaysian palm oil delegation members and European Ministers, Members of Parliament, EU Officials, experts and NGO representatives, it became clear to me that some of the European dialogue partners have very strange perceptions and views relating to deforestation, sustainability and carbon dioxide or green house gas (CHG) emissions. I took note of their views and tried to analyse why they were often very much opposed to the views of the palm oil producers who are involved in the day to day operations of the oil palm industry.

Question from EU Member of Parliament: - “Agricultural crops usually draw too much water from the soil resulting in water shortages which later lead to desertification. Will oil palm cultivation lead to water stresses resulting in unsustainable production?”

From my experience, such a question is best answered if the questioner can visit a typical oil palm plantation in Malaysia. As the Hon. MEP was later informed, the oil palm grows well in the tropical climate of Malaysia where evenly distributed rainfall exceeds the ideal level 2000 mm per year. As there is no irrigation needed water is not diverted away from water bodies therefore avoiding water shortages and stresses. Even water used for processing during oil extraction is recycled, after treatment, to waterways thus avoiding environmental problems.

The lack of knowledge on oil palm plantation and using other temperate crops as bench mark seemed to be the reason for the inaccurate perception and suspicious nature of the question posed by the Hon. MEP.

Question from a big buyer of palm oil: - Why can’t the palm oil industry stop converting forests for oil palm plantations, and instead work hard to increase yield per hectare which ultimately will increase supply sufficient enough to meet the expansion in demand for palm oil?

The gentleman was basically posing a theoretical question although he was very serious. In theory, it is possible to double the yield of the palm in Malaysia and individual plantations have regularly achieved such results. His own company which used to have oil palm plantations in Malaysia tried to increase the yield for their estates and surrounding smallholders but failed to achieve substantial improvements. It is even more difficult to have the whole industry to double the national average yield because of the heterogeneous players of small-scale farms and big plantations.

To demand a moratorium on deforestation is too premature and will be punitive to developing countries. Developing countries are yet to develop their agricultural sector fully and a state like Sarawak has only 8% of its total land area under agriculture compared to 70% in the UK. Large tracks of degraded forest land can be developed into agricultural areas with the potential of rehabilitating the land into sustainable agricultural areas and the revenue generated will help preserve the remaining forests from unwarranted encroachments and subsequent degradation. Oil palm is the best crop to help rehabilitate the ecology of degraded tropical land while bringing remunerative income.


Although there are many types of forest classification in Malaysia, and they can serve different functions including for agriculture, our dialogue partners in the EU seem to know only the phrase “tropical rain forest” and hold the view that these forest must be preserved at all costs. In Malaysia every area of land was originally rain forest and the present non forest areas will revert to become rainforest if left undisturbed for about 20 years. A moratorium on no deforestation will simply mean no development, and the country will remain underdeveloped forever.

A large turnout at the World Sustainable Palm Oil Conference 2008 in London

It is better for NGOs and green MEPs in the EU to campaign hard to recreate the over-deforested (agricultural)land of Europe into reforested areas. The objective of maintaining biodiversity and sequestering carbon through reforestation in Europe would contribute significantly to prevent global warming, and this sets a good example for developing countries.It would even be better if the EU countries can follow the standard set in Malaysia and Indonesia where forest areas exceed 60 % of total land area while still managing to produce and export vegetable oils (palm oil and palm kernel oil) accounting for 75% of world net exports of oils and fats.

A common question asked by the dialogue partners during the meetings was how the EU authorities arrived at such a damaging typical default figure of 32 % carbon emission saving for palm oil compared to petroleum fuel, which makes its look the least desirable raw material for biodiesel production.

Apparently, an incomplete equation and a punitive assumption of processing in-efficiencies were used to show low default values for palm oil. The typical default value for palm oil was even lower than the accepted thresh-hold carbon emission saving figure of 35 % stipulated in the proposed EU biofuels directive.

It is illogical for a perennial crop with an all-year-round lush green canopy similar to that of a planted forest type of environment, and that yields ten times more oil per hectare compared to soyabean, to be given an inferior carbon emission saving default figure of 16%.

A study using the Life Cycle Inventory Technique by Dr Chen, a scientist with the Standard and Industrial Research Institute of Malaysia (SIRIM) showed that palm oil is a net carbon sequester when used as biodiesel. It means that palm biodiesel achieves carbon emission savings of more than 100 % when compared to petroleum diesel, and not 16% as assigned by the EU authorities. This is derived from the carbon sequestration and multi co-product characteristics of the oil palm, and if confirmed by other independent studies, this new figure will mean that only palm oil is fit to be used as biodiesel while the other competing oils will only have a marginal carbon emission saving effect and most of them will not meet the new thresh-hold carbon emission saving of 45 % proposed in the latest EU biofuels directive.

How Much Agricultural Development is Right for a Sustainable Future of a Country

Image source: Malaysian Palm Oil Council

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

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

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

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

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

Carbon Debts

Image source: Pbase.com

Current debate on sustainability and global warming relates to green house gases emissions. Those experts with vested interest to potray negatively on targeted industries are devising and manupulating various formulae and asssumptions to potray undesirable carbon emmission figures for their targeted industry while carefully ajusting to ensure their national industries competing in the related industries are not affected. Palm oil industry has been facing this manupulative expert data for sometime now in the EU and USA.

One simple approach used is to arbitarily establish a cut-off date in counting the start of carbon emission. The RSPO wanted the cut-off year to be 2005. The EU is proposing 2007. Both dates will exclude the agricultural areas of the EU or USA from having a carbon debt based on the removal of the original forest on the land before it was turned into agriculture. Competing crops from these countries in the form of rapeseed or soya will have a head start in their comparison with palm oil when relating to their carbon emission numbers.

I would propose that all land when turned into agricultural use will carry a carbon emmission debt based on the original forest that was cleared. The cleared forest which acted as a carbon sink had released carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. If the land is reforested the carbon debt is repaid. Developed countries can opt to reforest their converted land rather than ask developing countries to sacrifice development through no deforestation.

This recognition of a past carbon debt on every hectare of land under agriculture is a fairer basis as the starting point for calculating carbon emission numbers of various crops. If I have some support on this idea, it may be worthwhile to push it as a standard for international adoption.

Question of Sustainability

Image source: Malaysian Palm Oil Council

We receive many requests for information on sustainability of the palm oil industry. Those involved in the palm oil industry like to have information to counter negative allegations linking oil palm cultivation to potential deforestation. Those in the middle of the debate want to know more of the true situation in order to form their own opinion. Those NGOs and their followers bent on opposing the growth of the oil palm industry simply want to demonise the palm oil industry whenever they could without regard to the facts or supporting statistics.

For example, statements are made accusing the oil palm plantations as the cause of deforestation in Malaysia. These statements are never supported by statistics or verified evidence. Isolated cases of bad practices in other countries are used to generalise for the whole of the oil palm industry including those in Malaysia.

The most important point to note is that oil palm is our agricultural crop, planted on legitimate agricultural land which the country has zoned for agricultural use. Compared to other countries the use of land for agriculture in Malaysia is very conservative, about 20 to 24 % of total land area of 33 million hectares. We choose to plant oil palm and rubber on the majority of the agricultural land of the country; that is the choice of the farmers and land owners. They could have planted soyabean or corn. Would that make soyabean or corn non sustainable?

Some NGOs and their followers even influence legislators to avoid using palm oil as a source of biodiesel. They also support well-known supermarkets or consumer products companies to avoid using palm oil products. This is obviously unfair as legitimately produced palm oil from Malaysia is denied access to their countrys' markets while their countrys' products continue to enjoy access to Malaysian markets. As a small developing country, we need to generate foreign exchange revenue from exporting palm oil to import goods from other countries. If our major agricultural produce like palm oil is denied access to certain countries, we will soon be unable to import other countrys' products for lack of foreign exchange.

A country in economic dificulty will not be able to care or pay for environmental conservation which is the original objective of the environmental NGOs in their campaigns against palm oil.

Malaysia is presently able to have a clear forestry policy to have about 50 to 60% of the country land area to be under permanent forest. Sustainable forest manangement systems are in place and laws are also in place to prevent the permanent forest areas from being converted to agriculture or other uses. We could easily announce a meratorium on deforestion of our permanent forest but this has to come at a time when the least developed state in the country has had the time and opportunity to develop their resources sustainably. For example, the state of Sarawak has lagged behind in agricultural development and less than 8% of the country is under agriculture, compared to the UK, a similar size country which has 70% of its land under agriculture.

As President of Brazil recently said at a meeting with 100 international legislators in Brazilia regarding deforestation and global warming "How can we ask the poor countries to take on the sacrifices the others didn't take on?", alluding also to the fact that industrialised countries are to blame after polluting the planet for centuries.

The Malaysian oil palm industry is working towards the need to produce certified sustainable palm oil by supporting the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) initiative. Other efforts are made to ensure the protection of wildlife habitats and biodiversity. Such efforts will take time, and need financial support. The Malaysia Palm Oil Wildlife Fund (MPOWF) is being used to help in this initiative. It is a matching fund that the MPOC will honour to match if donors come forward to contribute to finance a specified wildlife or biodiversity conservation project. Please contact us for more details and share the burden of maintaining a sustainable planet.