29.05.2019 (The Star Online) - I REFER to the letter “Sustainability is a balancing act” (The Star, May 25) and would like to comment on several points raised by the writer, Professor Datuk Dr Ahmad Ibrahim.

Firstly, he stated that the oil palm industry plays a significant role in alleviating poverty in developing countries. I partially agree with him but would like to add that it is also undeniable that there are companies that are involved in land-grabbing activities, depriving locals of their land in the name of development and giving the oil palm industry a bad rap.

The recent outcry of the Mulu natives near Gunung Miri National Park, the land dispute between Iban smallholders in Melikin, Serian and two oil palm plantation companies, eviction of local farmers to allow a state-owned company to cultivate oil palm in Sulawesi, and the death threats issued to the Auyu people after they refused to sign a letter of support for an oil palm company in New Guinea are some of the examples of such activities. Sometimes, only the rich get richer.

Second, the author indicated that there are civil society groups who are not in favour of palm oil because its cultivation has led to deforestation. It is, however, a fact that oil palm cultivation do cause deforestation.

Looking at the list of detailed environmental impact assessments (DEIA) reports for Pahang last year on the Department of Environment website, there are five approved oil palm plantation development proposals. The EIA report for the oil palm plantation development at Kampung Paya Rambutan and Tebu Hitam is not included. However, in the executive summary for the oil palm plantation development proposal at Bukit Ibam Forest Reserve, Tembeling and Ulu Lepar, it is clear that deforestation will occur prior to oil palm cultivation.

Also, for further expansion, where else can we plant oil palm in Malaysia if not on cleared forest lands? Do we even need more oil palm plantations, given the low palm oil price currently? Food for thought?

Third, the author said that oil palm and forests perform equally well in removing carbon dioxide. This is debatable due to conflicting findings on the matter. However, in terms of other ecosystem services, oil palm is incapable of replacing forests in the role of water catchment and flood control. Otherwise, all state governments would have logged and planted oil palm at water catchment and floodplain areas to increase state revenue instead of maintaining forest cover.

Fourth, the author claimed that oil palm is vigorously blamed for the declining population of orang utan, and that this has been used to generate sympathy from consumers. Campbell-Smith et al. 2011, Ancrenaz et al. 2014 and Jonas et al. 2017 have identified that oil palm development is a major threat to orang utan survival and that many orang utan habitats have been converted into oil palm plantations over the years.

Anyone suspecting their research to be dubious science is welcome to write to the publishers, provide irrefutable evidence and request for the publications to be withdrawn. Also, if there are any peer-reviewed research with sound study design and sufficient sample size which clearly shows that forest removal or conversion into oil palm plantation does not affect orang utan populations negatively, I am eager to learn more.

Fifth, the author suggested adjusting the water table to reduce carbon release from peat in the process of oil palm cultivation. The author, however, neglected other negative impacts from planting on peat soil. The loss of freshwater fishes that spawn in peat swamp forests is perhaps trivial but we should keep in mind that drained peat soil catches fire easily, and that peat swamp forests are crucial for flood control. I trust most readers have not forgotten the awful haze that threatened our health every year or the infrequent floods that terrorize those who live in high-risk flood areas. Are we truly prepared to face the consequences of planting on peat soil?

Sixth, the author wrote that many blamed the declining average national palm oil yield on the poor transfer of technology especially to the smallholder community.

This is baffling because a Bernama article titled “Malaysian palm oil yields on alarming downtrend” published on March 6 suggested that the decline was mainly due to mismanagement (which led to lack of replanting), and rising labour and fertilizer cost. Perhaps the Malaysian Palm Oil Board can clarify.

Also, though I wholeheartedly support increasing yield on existing plantations as a long-term alternative to further expansion, raising the palm oil yield should not be a priority now. The palm oil price cannot improve given the current high inventory level. Increasing yield now will just depress the price further. The top priority should be exploring means to increase demand and reduce reserves in order to support the price, which will truly benefit smallholders.

Lastly, I must admit that I am unable to grasp the take-home messages from the author’s article. Painting a rosy picture of oil palm now is not likely to help the Malaysian oil palm industry or enhance the industry’s “green” image.

To combat the ongoing anti-palm oil campaigns, the Primary Industries Ministry is planning to cap Malaysian oil palm expansion at 6.5 million hectares and pushing for 100% Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) certification by end of this year. Also, the Love My Palm Oil campaign is currently in full swing.

At the same time, to improve the palm oil price, the government is seeking new markets (especially in Africa), reaching more palm oil deals with China and even considering palm oil barter for military equipment with several countries.

I trust the government and the oil palm industry will greatly appreciate if the author can provide constructive recommendations (that truly satisfy the three pillars: people, prosperity and environment) to address the current oil palm predicament instead.

SEN TANP

Melaka

Read more at https://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/letters/2019/05/29/true-stats-on-palm-oil/#YcTgXTkzqREr6fx9.99