Figure 1 – Oil Palm VS Total Grain & Oilseed Area
Oil palm is the main agricultural crop of major palm oil producer countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia where it occupies 13% and 5% of their land area respectively. Assuming that developing countries are allowed to use part of their land area for agriculture and plant the most profitable crops to provide employment, produce food and generate income, the above figures show that there is no excessive over exploitation of forests due to planting oil palm as a cash crop. Nationally, both countries retain much higher percentages of forest as compared to developed countries as shown in Fig 2.
Figure 2 – Forest in Developed VS Developing Countries
If WENGOs claim that global warming is caused by loss of forests due to oil palm cultivation, it would be useful to know that oil palm share of world agricultural land is only 0.22 % as shown in Fig 3. The share of loss of carbon stock (deforestation) caused by oil palm compared to total global agriculture is thus assumed to be 0.22 %. This does not include the positive carbon sequestering effect of the oil palm trees. It is therefore morally unacceptable for WENGOs to discourage palm oil producing countries from practicing their share of agriculture which accounts for merely 0.22 % of world agricultural area.
Figure 3 – World Cultivated Area of Oilseeds
Even the total GHG emission of global agriculture of 17 % is considered small compared to that from the burning of fossil fuel which contributes to a high 57% of GHG emission as shown in Fig 4. The carbon foot print of the oil palm cultivation globally is therefore 0.22% x 17% of the total or 0.0374 % of global GHG emissions. This has no bearing on global warming hence making it immoral to blame oil palm as a significant contributor of global warming while facts prove otherwise.
Figure 4 – Largest Contributor to Climate Change is Fossil Fuel Usage
Many other economic activities are responsible for the vast amount of GHG emission. These activities are accepted as part of the economic growth processes needed to sustain the world economy. Efforts to reduce GHG emissions should be directed at these economic activities as they are the main cause of GHG emission. Curtailing the expansion of oil palm on the basis of its impact on global warming is therefore scientifically unjustified as the contribution is only 0.0374 % of global GHG emission.
If the loss of biodiversity is used as an argument to discourage oil palm cultivation, there is ample forest being conserved as shown in Fig 2 above. The UN Convention only requires 10 % of the country land area to be kept as forest for conserving biodiversity and Malaysia has far exceeded this by committing 50%.
Despite the lack of convincing evidence to pin down the palm oil industry against global warming or biodiversity loss, both producer countries have given full cooperation to comply with the needs of stakeholders and WENGOs to produce palm oil sustainably. They have fully embraced the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) to enable palm oil to be certified to meet sustainability principles and criteria. The Indonesians have signed an agreement with Norway to have a moratorium on deforestation while the Malaysian government has repeatedly announced its assurance of maintaining at least 50% of its land area as permanent forest. Deforestation thus appears as a non issue.
To ensure a level playing field, it is timely that a similar certification for sustainability be required for other oils produced by various countries worldwide. Otherwise, it will be a clear reflection of the oil palm industry being victimised by being asked to comply to certification needs for sustainability when no scientific justification exist to allow the world to benefit from global warming mitigation or improved biodiversity. Without premiums given to RSPO certified palm oil it becomes a big burden for oil palm farmers to bear the added cost of certification when their counterpart farmers producing soyabean or rapeseed do not have to be certified for sustainability.
Certifying the other (low yielding and land inefficient) oilseed crops for sustainability would at least contribute to a greater amount of carbon emission reduction compared to oil palm, even though the quantum of saving is still small compared to the carbon footprint of fossil fuel and other agricultural activities.
All evidence clearly shows that there is no moral ground for the WENGOs to campaign against palm oil. Unless the WENGOs can quantify and show that there are clear benefits relating to global warming or biodiversity improvements, or economic premiums for sustainable certified palm oil, then it is only a matter of time when the palm oil producers realise that they have been hoodwink by the NGOs who only impose the no deforestation condition on palm oil but don’t bother to do likewise on other low yielding crops which occupy vast area of land.
4 comments
Rina says:
Dec 9, 2010
NGO’s money can be stretched further here in the southern countries. It does not take them far to fight in the north.
John Hater says:
Dec 15, 2010
These hypocrite WENGOs can’t cut back on fossil fuels as they wanted to maintain their wasteful lifestyle at the expense of developing countries’ green lungs. While the US still refuse to agree to cut back on their carbon emissions let alone agree to the Kyoto protocol, and the western agricultural lands are way bigger than of developing countries like Malaysia and Indonesia and outstrips their forests, they still have the guts to tell us to save our forests.
It’s a clear trade protection and a hypocritical values that is being uphold by the WENGOs.
Eileen Lee says:
Dec 21, 2010
It is undeniable that there are relatively and comparatively higher percentage of carbon emission points than cultivation of oil palms. In fact, they are diffuse! Such tension is, afterall, typical in climate change discourses, the tension between development and environment.
I do applaud the effort here in responding with facts but these are the information that is needed to be disclosed to the public across borders. The lack of social media locally on this course is the first step of losing the battle without fighting. Claims made only by a government-linked firm is not as strong as a third party opinion. Where are the other voices? Without strategic involvement of stakeholders, such claims are nothing other than just a child’s ranting in the eye’s of the public.
There will always be a fine line between sustainable cultivation and deforestation. As we see here, clearly the WENGOs have taken the stand on the latter, easily. However, let us not lose our perspective. If we claim that the forests are ours, this means we are in the greatest losing end if we lose them. Strong sustainability is all about non-substitutability.
As for the case on protectionism, I believe as long as we are binded by the laws of free trade, the concerned countries are in no way able to cause harm directly. This where WENGOs come into picture since technically, they are non-governmental. They are liberal in their speech as this is the reason of their existence. The harm that could possibly arise from them is the changes in consumption and production of the consumer market. Clearly, countering with the same approach could be the best way out.
Logic Syndrome says:
Dec 22, 2010
The reason palm oil biodiesel is being fought against (in context of burning rainforest to clear land for palm oil) is because there is zero marginal benefit. The entire goal of using biodiesel is to reduce carbon content in the atmosphere, but by burning down rainforest you produce a large amount of carbon (CO2) that gets thrown into the atmosphere. It is counter intuitive to make biodiesel using palm oil in this fashion. It is a complete waste of time and energy, and the whole project amounts to nothing more than a welfare program. If you were growing the palm for FOOD purposes, it would be a different story.