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.
Showing posts with label palm oil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label palm oil. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, September 19, 2008
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.
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.
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.
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 LondonIt 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.
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.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Carbon Debts
Image source: Pbase.comCurrent 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.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Question of Sustainability
Image source: Malaysian Palm Oil CouncilWe 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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)