Sustainability in Aviation Fuel: Palm Oil is Part of the Solution

For many years, the aviation industry has been criticized for its high carbon GHG emission. Of the total global emissions, 56 % comes from burning of fossil fuels and 17 % from agriculture. The aviation industry alone contributes 649,000,000 tonnes of GHG emission annually which represents 2 to 3 % of the total globally! The Boeing Company and other aviation industry operators held a Forum in Kuala Lumpur recently to explore new sources of renewable biofuels for the aviation industry.

In comparison, calculations reveal that emissions from the oil palm industry are indeed very small. The world oil palm area of 14 million hectares is only 0.25% of global agricultural land. Therefore, the GHG emission from the oil palm industry is 0.25% x 17% or 0.04% of the total global GHG emission. At the country level, Malaysia’s oil palm cultivated area of 4.85 million hectares represents 34.6% of the world’s oil palm cultivated area and hence its GHG footprint is 34.6% x 0.04 % or 0.014% of the global GHG emission. Even doubling the cultivated area for oil palm in Malaysia would see a negligible increase of its GHG footprint to 0.028% of global emission.

A Scam Behind the Australian Palm Oil Labelling Bill?

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.

Australian Labelling Bill on Palm Oil Against WTO Provisions

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.

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.

The Case of WENGOs Blindly Pushing for Labelling of Palm Oil

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.

Palm Oil: How Greenies Threaten Jobs and Food Security

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.

Critical Role of Palm Oil in Enhancing Food Security

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.

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

Zoos Victoria Creating Agricultural Trade War Amongst Friendly Nations

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.

Biased Studies on Deforestation and Indirect Land Use Effect of Oil Palm

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.

Deforestation Moratorium and Future Shortages of Food Supply Will Require 10 Times More Forest Conversion

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.

How WENGOs Can Contribute to a Better World?

The Western Environmental NGOs (WENGOs) are well known for their ruthlessness: they are deeply ideological, almost like religious fanatics in some cases. They are also relentless, well funded and cunning. In many instances they have no regard for facts. They shape their arguments on the basis of their effectiveness irrespective of facts, and their war aim is clear, to destroy your industry if you are the intended target.

This is the challenge faced by the oil palm industry which has been targeted by the WENGOs. Their aim is to destroy the oil palm industry starting with a day at a time, followed relentlessly by weeks, months and years of negative campaigns. For example the ruthless campaign by Zoo Victoria against the palm oil industry was based on mere exaggeration rather than on facts. A recent report by the Australian Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) finds that 10 out of 12 facts used by Zoo Victoria in its anti-palm oil campaign are either false or cannot be substantiated.The Zoo campaigner Ms Lowry later admitted working closely with the WWF.

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.

Senseless and Immoral Attacks on Palm Oil by NGOs

EU funding anti palm oil campaigns

A recent report revealed that the EU, through its environmental ministries and commissions is involved in funding up to 70% of the operating budgets of environmental NGOs. These NGOS are now viciously campaigning against palm oil imports into the EU especially for biofuels. We regard this as a senseless and immoral attack on exported commodities such as palm oil produced by developing countries. Such funding implicates the EU for creating barriers to trade for agricultural products from developing countries. Unlike the EU, developing countries do not have access to financial resources to fight such government funded vicious campaigns. The eventual outcome will be untold miseries where poor farmers in developing countries lose their source of income as their export commodities are unable to enter the EU market. Such covert protectionism by rich countries directed at products of developing countries is against the spirit of fostering international trade as promoted by WTO.

Lessons from Copenhagen

There is little attempt at hiding the intention of the EU to limit the growth of developing countries by forcing them to follow the path of a low carbon economy as this was the main agenda proposed at the Copenhagen Climate Change meeting in December last year. The latest report of the UK Environment Ministry regarding Post Copenhagen clearly spells out this intention. Part of the strategy or ploy was to pressure developing countries to stop converting forests into agricultural areas as deforestation is alleged to emit green house gases (GHG) . The outright rejection by developing countries against any effort to restrict their future growth as clearly conveyed at the Copenhagen meeting should be a lesson to the anti-palm oil NGOs that their governments would not be successful in forcing the developing countries from continuing to develop their economy. The lesson learnt from Copenhagen is that no amount of pressure or promise of compensation will make the developing countries surrender their rights to future development. When promises of compensation in the tune of billions of dollars were coming from countries that are themselves in severe debts and deficits, it would be suicidal for developing countries to agree to any attempt to curtail their economic growth on the basis of needing to reduce carbon emission. If carbon emission from deforestation is an issue, what about carbon emission from coal mining and fossil fuels? In all fairness, developing countries often wonder why environmental NGOs in the EU are busy scrutinizing oil palm plantations when their focus should be to campaign against much more highly polluting industries such as coal mines in the UK, Germany and Poland. These mines are the cause of global warming and environmental disasters.

Senseless attacks on palm oil will only hurt poor farmers in developing countries BUT - stopping local coal mining will certainly mitigate carbon emission.

It is a senseless act on the part of the EU and DG Environment to fund NGOs to campaign against the growth of the palm oil industry using the guise of the need to reduce GHG emissions and preserving biodiversity. Why stop oil palm cultivation when most of such activities are legitimate creation of agricultural land from unproductive degraded forests which have been logged many times in the last 50 years. NGOs admit to the fact that some 25 million hectares of forests have been deforested in Indonesia over the last 25 years. As the total area of oil palm cultivation is only around 7 million hectares, oil palm cultivation cannot be the cause of deforestation. In fact, oil palm does a great deal of justice to the environment by rehabilitating degraded forest into an equivalent of a plantation forest that brings immense benefits including rebuilding its carbon stock or sequestering carbon, providing income to farmers and food and fuel to the world. Furthermore, the land concerned has contributed to its share of carbon sequestration because the timber removed over the last 50 years is preserved and reused in developed countries as door and window frames, beams and roof trusses. These timber products act as perpetual carbon storage and only release CO2 when they are discarded or the houses are burned occasionally.

Replanting tropical degraded land with oil palm helps to continue the carbon sequestering cycle into the future. If the UK NGOs are targeting to reduce carbon emission from such deforestation, it clearly is a case of a misdirected campaign. It would be far better to focus locally where activities like coal mining are blatantly contributing to the release of carbon stored from deep below ground. The annual production of 18 million tonnes of coal in the UK would emit more than 52 million tonnes of CO2. Greenpeace should speak out as they do for tropical forest that such reserve of carbon stock should better be left un-mined. It is far more absurd that some attempts are being proposed to pump back CO2 into underground storage as a means for artificial carbon sequestration. Pumping CO2 under high pressure for such storage purposes will cause even more carbon emission. Compared to the 18 million tonnes of palm oil annually produced in Malaysia which emits no net CO2 since the CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere during oil synthesis in the plant, it is clearly more logical to promote palm oil even as biofuel. If it is a toss up between stopping oil palm planting on degraded forest land in Sarawak or Indonesia and closing coal mines in the UK, it is more logical to campaign for the latter as the UK would have the technology and capacity to turn to alternative nuclear fuel which has little carbon foot-print.

The money promised at the Copenhagen meeting by the UK to fund forest conservation in developing countries should instead be used to compensate local coal miners when their mines are closed. Those extreme NGOs who campaign for excluding palm oil in food products should rethink their strategy. Shouldn’t the campaign be directed at closing coal mines in the UK as the mines will never be certified sustainable and coal is better stored where it exists deep underground and not burnt as fuel to cause global warming. Closing coal mines in the UK is more acceptable as miners who are out of job can obtain social benefits whereas stopping poor farmers from producing palm oil will cause starvation and related miseries. For this reason, most of our local environmental NGOs are supportive of sustainable expansion of the oil palm industry, provided that the benefits are distributed equitably to local communities where the plantations are established. If the local NGOs in Malaysia and Indonesia are not against oil palm cultivation , why then are foreign NGOs taking an anti-palm oil stance?

Earning the right to trade

It is immoral to block the import and use of palm oil in the EU . There is certainly no justification to do so. If palm oil is a legitimate agricultural produce and countries such as Malaysia have provided sufficient amount of forest reserves for purposes of conserving biodiversity, habitats of the orang utans and mitigating global warming, then palm oil has earned its right to trade. How can palm oil be rejected when it was the British who established major oil palm plantations in Malaysia just as they later established rapeseed farms at home in the last few decades. Why should these plantations be required to be certified sustainable when rapeseed, soyabean or olive oil produced in the developed countries are given preferential treatment even though they are not sustainably produced.

Massive deforestation is not due to oil palm cultivation

Recent campaigns for e.g. against Kit-Kat makes a mockery of the sensibility and rationality in handling an issue. A multi-ingredient raw material usage product like Kit -Kat will not be able to ensure that all the ingredients used are from certified sustainable sources. Singling out palm oil for it to be sustainable is unfair and punitive to the palm oil trade. If palm oil as an ingredient in a food product is needed to be certified sustainable, why are the other ingredients not required to do so.? The use of rapeseed or soyabean oil or sugar in such products leads to far more deforestation and global warming. In the last twenty years soya bean planting in Argentina, Brazil and the USA and rapeseed planting in Canada and Europe involved at least 60 million hectares of land expansion, most of which caused massive deforestation. The world planting of oil palm over the last 100 years has only amounted to less than 15 million hectares and the countries involved still have generous amount of permanent forest left for maintaining biodiversity and sequestering CO2.

Losers and winners

Eventually trade restrictions against palm oil into Europe will cause the EU to develop a distorted biofuel policy that will promote the least sustainable and most expensive fuels such as local rapeseed and soyabean oils. The extra cost for such a fiasco will have to be borne by the EU public. In the mean time, environmentally friendly fuel such as palm oil will be denied its opportunity to contribute its known environmental benefits in mitigating global warming, while farmers in developing countries are penalised undeservingly by the trade barriers established by the EU and their sponsored environmental NGOs.

Palm oil: A Crop of Peace & Prosperity

In an earlier article, I highlighted the fact that science is on the side of palm oil - be it in the area of nutrition, biofuel or global warming. There is enough scientific evidence to defend palm oil’s status as a nutritious food oil. Recently a meta analysis research publication confirmed that saturates (palm oil is 50 % saturated) are not associated with Conorary Heart Diseases (CHD), stroke or heart attacks.

What about allegations linking palm oil to deforestation?

There is an earlier definition by a FAO experts meeting (2005) that qualifies oil palm as a forest plantation. Forest plantation is defined as “forest stand in which trees have been established by planting or/and deliberate seeding or coppicing with either native species or non-native species that meet all the following criteria, namely, one or two or few species, even-aged and regular spacing.”

Recently, the anti- palm oil NGOs voiced their frustration at a leaked EU document that recognizes oil palm as a forest plantation. It is highly likely that any new definition created, will qualify oil palm to be regarded as a forest plantation. NGOs are becoming desperate in their criticism as they refuse to face the facts and remain detached from reality. Unfounded allegations will only mean that it will be more difficult for them to defend their statements. For e.g. a reporter from the BBC was quoted as saying that Sarawak has only 3 % pristine forest left. In reality, Sarawak has more than 60% of its land as permanent forest reserve!. Since most of the outrageous statements are coming from the UK and Australia, there must be something wrong with their perception of palm oil. I will be meeting the British High Commissioner soon to enquire why their NGOs do not use good science in persuing their agenda and criticisms.

There were mixed responses from readers whenever positive claims were made on palm oil. The skeptics found it hard to believe that palm oil is an excellent product. Some would go for the usual character assassination of me to highlight their viewpoint. Mostly, it is due to lack of awareness that prompts readers to be influenced into an anti-palm oil stance. There are, on the other hand, numerous supporters who want me to continue explaining to the stakeholders the issues confronting the Malaysian palm oil industry.

Latest published paper confirms saturated fats are not associated with coronary heart diseases (CHD), stroke, or heart attacks

I have come a long way to be able to share my point of view on palm oil without fear or favour. I was with the then Palm Oil Research Institute of Malaysia (PORIM) and the present Malaysian Palm Oil Board(MPOB) for 27 years, spending half of that time spearheading the organsiation as the Director General and helping to lead and commission research projects on all aspects of the palm oil industry. This included some 160 nutritional research studies in various centers of excellence in major consuming countries of the world. After following the developments of nutritional research on palm oil and other oils and fats, reading many research papers and listening to many conferences on the subject, I am not surprised to read the latest findings in the paper which concludes that saturated fats are not found to be associated with increased risks of CHD, stroke or heart attack.

Many nutritional research projects on the comparative effects of palm oil had to be carried out in the past to verify a finding pointed out to us by an expert from the Food and Drug Authority(FDA) in the USA that “although palm oil has about 50 % saturated fatty acids in its composition, it does not behave like a saturated fat in its cholesterol raising effects” based on a publication in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (AJCN) in July, 1987. An explanation for this finding was discovered after numerous studies , namely that in the presence of a few percent of essential fatty acids( polyunsaturated fatty acids ), palm oil is not cholesterol raising in its effects.
In practice, most diets would have a few percent of these essential fatty acids (EFAs) present as they are naturally found in a variety of food sources including seeds and grains, and thus palm oil will perform well in most situations where the needed EFAs are likely to be present.

We have gone beyond the expectations of our stakeholders in pursuing the opportunity for commercialising the good nutritional attributes of palm oil. We knew from our research that palm oil helps to raise the good HDL cholesterol. We also know from previous studies that in the presence of soft oils (i.e. sufficient EFAs) palm oil will not raise cholesterol levels. Combining the two findings enables a new formulation to be tested in a clinical trial in the USA where a ratio of 50% palm oil and soft oils or similar blends were found to improve the good HDL to bad LDL cholesterol ratio in the participants. The result was patented and approval of FDA was obtained to allow such fat blend products formulated according to this finding to be labeled with the cholesterol ratio improvement claim. When the market was hit by the trans-fatty acids ban due to its adverse effect on cholesterol, palm oil became the preferred choice for use especially in solid fat products in the USA.

While allegations are made to smear palm oil as unhealthy, these are mere generalisations on the unhealthy role of saturated fatty acids. Palm oil is linked to it because it is regarded as a saturated fat. There were no references made to actual nutritional studies on any detrimental effects of palm oil in the diet. Now that a new published study totally refutes any association of saturated fats with CHD or stroke, it will be hard for opponents of palm oil to carry on smearing it as unhealthy because of its saturated fats content. On the other hand, palm oil has the endorsement of the FDA to show that its blend improves cholesterol ratio of the subjects.

Palm oil provides functionality which is not possible with liquid soft oils

For solid fat products, palm oil is able to deliver the functionality needed to make shortenings for baking breads and cakes or in the production of margarine. Liquid oils such as soyabean and rapeseed oils are unable to produce solid shortenings unless they are hydrogenated which would either turn them into fully saturated fats or would have the health harming trans fatty acids created through the required partial hydrogenation process. Palm oil thus saves the food industry from collapsing due to the lack of fats supply at affordable prices. In addition, the superior (nutritional) claim by palm oil blends enables the market to use palm oil without any guilt in case the past negative stigma brought by the anti-palm oil campaigns of the 1980s influences consumers. With a beneficial nutritional claim and excellent functionality, palm oil is without rivals in the market place. This is consolidated by its competitive price, through discounts to other oils and fats because palm oil is 10 times higher yielding as compared to other oils. It is rather unethical for opponents of palm oil to now discourage its widespread consumption in food because this would mean denying consumers the benefits of a nutritionally and functionally proven product that is also competitively priced.

Palm oil qualifies as both agricultural and forest plantation

The versatility of palm oil is always overwhelming to new comers. Palm oil is only 10 % of the output biomass generated by the oil palm plantations on a dry weight basis. The usable residual biomass fiber produced per hectare per year on an oil palm plantation is often much more than that of planted or natural forests. Some oil palm plantations are already extracting lumber from the oil palm trunks; the trunks can also be used to produce veneer for making plywood, while fiber from the fronds, trunks or empty bunches are increasingly being used to make medium density fiber board’s (MDF). From the perspective of fiber production and utilisation, the oil palm plantation is no different from other forest plantations.

The EU definition of forest plantations as an area that is covered with continuous canopy of trees that can grow to several meters will certainly be fulfilled by an oil palm plantation. It is not difficult to figure out why the oil palm plantation is often a better forest plantation than other forest systems. For a start, the oil palm is a forest species commonly found in the jungles of tropical Africa and by planting the oil palm in a triangular system to maximise the absorption of sunlight in a plantation, canopy cover is maximised. The oil palm happens to be a prolific synthesis of biomass and by planting the population of elite palm trees in an area, the oil palms above average performance will be better than other forest systems where trees are a mixture of elite and non elite performers as most are not prolific synthesis of biomass. While waiting for the palm trunks to mature in a 25 year period like other forest species, fiber products are obtainable continuously throughout the year from the empty fruit bunches and fronds. Such a high productivity of useable biomass cannot be matched by most forest systems.

Oil palm – first an agricultural crop and then a forest plantation

Developing countries like Malaysia have their sovereign right to dedicate part of their land for agricultural purposes. It happens that oil palm can grow well in Malaysia and 66 % of the agricultural land ( or 13 % of the country’s area) is grown with oil palm. For those concerned with biodiversity preservation, Malaysia has repeatedly announced the setting aside of at least 50% of the country ‘s land area as permanent forests. International agreements only require the setting aside of 10% of a country’s area for purposes of biodiversity conservation. The oil palm cannot be accused of causing deforestation in Malaysia when a large area of forests is being preserved permanently. For every hectare of oil palm, the country preserves four hectares of permanent forest, which is a very healthy balance in terms of land use policy. Even the habitats of the orang utans are preserved as the States of Sabah and Sarawak maintain about 50% or more of their land area under permanent forest. This area should be more than sufficient for the orang utans considering that humans too require land to plant agricultural crops to meet their food requirements. The fact that many orang utans like to foray into the agricultural areas looking for food is a positive contribution of our agricultural crops, which implies that the oil palm not only provides food for the world population but also for the orang utans, birds, squirrels, monkeys and other animals. An important contribution of palm oil is its ability to supply a vital food component (fat or oil) to billions of people around the world while providing millions of jobs, and remunerative income to small farmers and plantation workers in the palm oil producing countries. I was informed recently that in the southern Philippines, oil palm is called the crop of “peace and prosperity” because with a steady source of income from the sales of palm oil, farmers are able to live in peace in a region that was historically plagued by unrests.

Copenhagen: Outcome as Predicted

The recently concluded Copenhagen climate summit was viewed by many participants as a failure for its inability to yield sizable reductions in carbon emissions. But for those concerned with the welfare of the world’s poor, particularly many of those living in tropical climates, the summit’s failure was in fact its greatest triumph. An effort by wealthy Western country activists to limit the economic growth potential of the developing world was roundly defeated.

The effort to cap poor country growth includes an initiative called Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing countries (REDD). Crafted by the World Bank in conjunction with policymakers from several rich countries, REDD’s stated objective is to "avoid deforestation." But it is more accurate to say that it is an attack on palm oil producers and those who benefit from the industry’s jobs and products.

It is not surprising that some of the European and North American countries that are major manufacturers of competing vegetable oil are enthusiastic proponents of REDD. After all, Europe and North America long ago cleared away their forests to make room for industrial agriculture and manufacturing, including vegetable oil production. In so doing they paved the way for sustained economic growth for their people. Regulations such as REDD impose no direct cost burden on rich countries.

The demands imposed by REDD are unfair and unnecessary. They are unfair because they make it impossible to do what rich nations have done – harness domestic natural endowments in pursuit of economic growth.

They are unnecessary because they ignore the reality of natural resource harvesting in much of the developing world today. In Malaysia, for example, policymakers and industry teamed up to set aside half the country’s forest lands for protection. Fifty-five per cent of the country was pledged (at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and again at the Copenhagen meeting ) as permanent forest reserve. Adding plantation agricultural land, total forest coverage in Malaysia is greater than 70 per cent, more than any developed economy. In Malaysia, oil palm planting is only permitted in areas set aside for agricultural development and not on permanent forest reserve land.

We learned from other nations’ mistakes, and we are being careful stewards of our land. We do not need those countries that abused their own land endowments telling us how to manage our resources.

The world will never be able to meet its goal of sustainable development for all if it insists on binding the economic potential of the developing world.

Yet it seems the wealthy donors, the World Bank, the UK and the US had made up their mind even before they got to Copenhagen. They had already acted to limit aid to improve forest management only to developing countries which had committed to no longer convert any natural forest to activities critical to economic growth and to provide a sorely needed boost to agricultural productivity.

As predicted in my previous blog article, developing countries will not agree to any cheap tradeoff scheme to stop deforestation and development as proposed by the UK NGOs and their goverment. It was rightly so when the Chinese negotiators dismissed the UK proposal on behalf of the developing countries and went on to negotiate the accord with the USA. The economic power of the Chinese was truely displayed in the exclusive group undertaking the accord negotiation.

The week before Copenhagen, The Economist, ran a cover story “How to Feed the World.” It dramatically illustrated an emerging crisis because of neglect of the need to increase production of agriculture to meet global demands for food.

The next summit, in Mexico City, will present an opportunity to reverse these anti-development positions and chart a new way forward, one that embraces developing world economic growth and a healthy environment for all.

Look out for the Malaysian Palm Oil Brand

As we approach the year end, thousands of oil palm farmers and smallholders are relieved at the prospect of palm oil prices being maintained at more than RM 2400 per tonne for December 2009. Although the lucrative prices for 2008, which were partly influenced by high prices of petroleum, could not be repeated, the present year end daily prices of above RM 2400 per tonne signal many positive trends that await the industry in 2010.

Buyers too were happy that palm oil continues to provide them with an abundant supply of affordable raw material for various end-uses. Palm oil is still sold at a discount to soya, rapeseed and sunflowerseed oils. Malaysian palm oil suppliers are able to comply with the needs of the buyers, by adhering to the wisdom that customers are always right. In Europe, even power plant operators are able to use certified sustainable Malaysian palm oil viably to produce electricity and heat. Such power plant operators have limited choice as using locally available rapeseed oil will cause their engines to malfunction because of polymerization problems of the rapeseed oil in the engines during operations.

The EU is beginning to recognize the role of the RSPO in supplying certified sustainable palm oil for its biodiesel requirements. The EU politicians are worried of their green NGOs who would otherwise campaign on banning the use of palm oil for fuel and food. Such campaigns have recently spread to New Zealand and Australia through their Zoo authorities and ''experts' who claim to be concerned over the orang utans and allegations of deforestation. Sustainably produced palm oil seems to be the solution to resolve the NGOs' concerns as banning the imports of palm oil is not a real option because it would be against WTO provisions.

Buying certified sustainable palm oil seems a viable option for the EU politicians to recommend in order to avoid being harassed by the green NGOs. For this reason, the RSPO scheme should continue to be improved to meet the needs of the EU importers.

The rest of the world continues to focus on getting enough oils and fats to meet their annual needs. Most countries are net importers of oils and fats. Only Malaysia, Indonesia and Argentina are major or significant net exporters of this commodity, and for countries which are not self-sufficient they have to buy from the three net exporter countries. The EU net imports of oils and fats amount to over 8 million tonnes per year ( equivalent to half the total export of palm oil by Malaysia ), but it is also one of the most 'demanding' net importers, insisting that palm oil must be certified sustainable when used for biodiesel. The EU biodiesel standards have some 26 parameters which palm biodiesel exporters must comply with. These pose a daunting challenge for biodiesel producers to do business with EU importers.

Moving forward into 2010, a few issues remain unresolved. I am puzzled at the misinformation still in the minds of many important people in the EU when we recently met them during our visit to Europe.

During a private consultation in London, HRH. Prince Charles in talking to the MPOC Chairman, complained that oil palm is a mono-culture industry and lacks biodiversity. Obviously many people forget that oil palm is an agricultural crop planted on legitimate agricultural land just like soyabean or olive plantations which are also mono-cultures, and it should not be compared to biodiversity in the forests. Why must the green NGOs in the UK and their followers be opposed to the growth of agricultural crops of developing countries such as Malaysia when these crops have been grown responsibly for generations and subjected to various national regulations and laws. For Malaysia, our land use policy is based on the pledge made at the Rio Earth Summit more than 15 years ago to conserve at least 50% of the country under permanent forests (to provide for biodiversity and habitat requirements), while 25% is zoned for agriculture and another 25 % for other industrial uses. With oil palm occupying 13% of the total land area, it means that for every hectare of oil palm, the country conserves 4 hectares of permanent forests. Because land for agriculture is already limited, and the permanent forests are off-limits to agricultural conversions, oil palm plantings have been much reduced. Certainly oil palm cannot be associated with deforestation in Malaysia as it should not happen except in the distant past when the current agricultural land (making up 25% of the country) was first cleared. This was needed for the country to develop, just like other countries. In comparison the UK developed 72 % of its land for agriculture and only has 11 % retained under forest.

During another dialogue in Kuala Lumpur hosted by the Minister of Trade of the UK, he suggested that the RSPO is the right platform for the oil palm industry to engage the environmental NGOs to ensure sustainable certified palm oil can be exported to the EU. He was surprised when I told him that many of the aggressive UK NGOs refused to be members of the RSPO. In fact the palm oil producers were disappointed by RSPO promoters who promised to have the NGOs as members and stakeholders to negotiate a susccessful RSPO certification scheme. Right now the NGOs outside the RSPO are more influential and they campaign against the RSPO to make those NGOs who are members of the RSPO to appear ineffective.

During a meeting with the Economic Minister of the Netherlands we were told to supply sustainable palm oil as this is what the EU wants. We did inform her in reality that there are more than 1 million tonnes of sustainable certified RSPO palm oil potentially available from Malaysia right now, but only 10 % was imported by the EU. It is interesting to note that the EU talked of putting up US$ 2 billion to compensate developing countries to maintain their forests. In reality, RSPO is a scheme that promotes the conservation of forests, but the EU is shying from paying even the US$ 50 per tonne premium for RSPO certified palm oil. At least EU importers should pay the producers to cover the cost of certifying the oil which involves employing auditors some of whom have to fly in from the EU to conduct the auditing process. In other words, the buyers must help pay for the cost of employing the EU auditors and not ask poor farmers and oil palm workers of developing countries to fork out for the extra cost of producing certified sustainable palm oil to meet the European needs.

Many other issues relating to the habitat needs of the orang utans and global warming will continue to be associated with the oil palm industry by some misinformed people and other uninformed followers of the debate. As far as Malaysia is concerned, specialized conferences on orang utans and Green House Gases (GHG) emission and mitigation have been organized during 2009. Experts attending these conferences have no major issues to raise with the Malaysian palm oil industry during the deliberations. In fact no one raised major issues that are not already addressed by the industry. Many of the environmental allegations are not relevant to Malaysia. There were almost no real issues to debate on. On the other hand, some level of satisfaction was expressed by international experts on orang utans and GHG issues in relation to efforts undertaken by Malaysia.

It is time to brand Malaysian palm oil for better public and consumer perception. Some of the brand claims could be that Malaysia is ready to supply sustainable certified RSPO palm oil to the EU market, especially for its biodiesel requirement. The RSPO's intention to incorporate on a voluntary basis carbon emission saving parameter in its certification criteria would be much anticipated as an important improvement to the RSPO scheme.

In preparing for the climate change meeting in Copenhagen, it was found that oil palm together with other plantation tree crops such as rubber, cocoa and coconut enable Malaysia, in addition to its 56% permanent forest cover, to classify itself as a net carbon sink country despite having industrialized for the last 52 years since achieving independent. Obviously it is the tree crops such as oil palm that have partly contributed to make Malaysia a net carbon sink country, effectively contributing to remove carbon dioxide from the globe when other countries are still haggling especially at the Copenhagen Climate Change meeting on who should be making the first move to reduce emissions given that most of these countries are net co2 emitters.

Getting the facts right has been the theme of this blog. Some readers may continue to question the facts as presented, and some even resort to claiming that these are lies. There must be a way forward where doubters can be assured of an authentic and fair source of information. One other way is for them to visit Malaysia and meet the producers and see the oil palm plantations. We have many plantation resorts where tourists can enjoy their visits to Malaysia. Another approach is to continue commenting and submitting your queries to this blog to exchange views. Malaysian palm oil is already a brand name that is sought after by discerning buyers and consumers. Improvements will continue to be introduced in 2010 and thereafter. Let us know how we can help.

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