MARKET DEVELOPMENT
Countering oil palm critics
Countering oil palm critics
23/6/07 (The Star) - EARLIER this month, Plantation Industries and Commodities Minister Datuk Peter Chin led a delegation of palm oil industry representatives on a six-day trip to the Hague, Brussels and London. The mission was to address the groundswell of negativity towards palm oil.
Over the past two years or so, several environmental groups based in Europe and the United States have insisted that oil palm cultivation in Malaysia and Indonesia leads to a list of ills such as deforestation, climate change and the decline of the orang utan population.
This is a familiar situation for the Malaysian palm oil industry. In the late 1980s, soybean growers in the US mounted an information offensive that painted palm oil as an unhealthy food option.
Malaysia counterattacked by steadfastly and systematically refuting the claims. Eventually, a truce was hammered out, but two decades later, there are still many people who remain convinced that palm oil is as harmful as alleged in the smear campaign.
That says a lot about the effectiveness of an operation to influence the masses. If designed and executed well, it leaves an almost indelible impression.
Such a thing cannot go unchallenged. As such, it's right that Malaysia has begun engaging various parties overseas to present its side of the story in relation to the allegations that its oil palm industry causes environmental damage. At the same time, we have to accept that we will be in for a long struggle.
There are crucial differences between the current anti-palm oil lobby and that of the 1980s. For one thing, the latter is essentially part of a business turf war. Threatened by the fact that palm oil had been gaining market share, the soybean farmers hit out at the competition by preying on the fears of consumers.
On the other hand, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Wetlands International and WWF are the ones that have recently criticised the oil palm industry.
Because they have vociferously complained that the plantation companies' activities are creating problems that can potentially affect everyone on the planet, these NGOs are widely seen as crusaders against corporate greed and political feebleness.
There are strong emotions at work here. There is no doubt that we ought to respond to misinformation and mistakes, but we also need to understand that throwing facts, corrections and testimonies into the melee cannot be the only way to fight this fight.
To start with, everybody in the industry ought to fully realise that the concerns raised by the NGOs will not go away anytime soon. These issues have political weight and there is a real danger of them turning into business obstacles. Amid the buoyant CPO (crude palm oil) prices, it's easy to underestimate these adversarial forces.
In fact, this should be seen as an opportunity to push the Malaysian palm oil industry to greater heights. After all, it makes sense that the authorities should also focus on where it has the most sway.
When countering the charges of the NGOs, we need to stand on firm ground. That means we have to be assured that the industry is indeed generally innocent of the charged levelled against it. It's about credibility. Every time a plantation company takes a short cut and hurts the environment, the NGOs' arguments are strengthened.
Sure, there will always be black sheep. It's okay to admit that. That demonstrates openness. However, that is meaningless if not accompanied by strict and effective enforcement.
There has to be a stronger push to improve yields across the board in Malaysia. Our average CPO yield per hectare last year was 3.9 tonnes. Compare this with the achievements of the most efficient growers, who have come close to extracting 6 tonnes from every hectare.
That's a yawning gap. If there's an all-round commitment to drive up yields, we can increase our CPO production substantially without taking up more land – something that the NGOs certainly can't grumble about.
There's also the tricky matter of the oil palm planting practices in Indonesia. Considering the extent of Malaysian involvement in the Indonesian industry, we cannot distance ourselves from our neighbour. This is why it's important that the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) matures into a strong and reliable presence.
The RSPO describes itself as “an association created by organisations carrying out activities in and around the entire supply chain for palm oil to promote the growth and use of sustainable palm oil through cooperation within the supply chain and open dialogue with its stakeholders”.
Its first major task is come up with a definition of sustainable palm oil, and this must be supported by a set of criteria that are accepted by the stakeholders.
This is not as easy as it sounds, but when it is done, we will be a step closer to introducing a global framework for standards and certification that will hopefully reward oil palm growers who believe in doing the right things. That will be the best answer to any anti-palm oil lobby.
Over the past two years or so, several environmental groups based in Europe and the United States have insisted that oil palm cultivation in Malaysia and Indonesia leads to a list of ills such as deforestation, climate change and the decline of the orang utan population.
This is a familiar situation for the Malaysian palm oil industry. In the late 1980s, soybean growers in the US mounted an information offensive that painted palm oil as an unhealthy food option.
Malaysia counterattacked by steadfastly and systematically refuting the claims. Eventually, a truce was hammered out, but two decades later, there are still many people who remain convinced that palm oil is as harmful as alleged in the smear campaign.
That says a lot about the effectiveness of an operation to influence the masses. If designed and executed well, it leaves an almost indelible impression.
Such a thing cannot go unchallenged. As such, it's right that Malaysia has begun engaging various parties overseas to present its side of the story in relation to the allegations that its oil palm industry causes environmental damage. At the same time, we have to accept that we will be in for a long struggle.
There are crucial differences between the current anti-palm oil lobby and that of the 1980s. For one thing, the latter is essentially part of a business turf war. Threatened by the fact that palm oil had been gaining market share, the soybean farmers hit out at the competition by preying on the fears of consumers.
On the other hand, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Wetlands International and WWF are the ones that have recently criticised the oil palm industry.
Because they have vociferously complained that the plantation companies' activities are creating problems that can potentially affect everyone on the planet, these NGOs are widely seen as crusaders against corporate greed and political feebleness.
There are strong emotions at work here. There is no doubt that we ought to respond to misinformation and mistakes, but we also need to understand that throwing facts, corrections and testimonies into the melee cannot be the only way to fight this fight.
To start with, everybody in the industry ought to fully realise that the concerns raised by the NGOs will not go away anytime soon. These issues have political weight and there is a real danger of them turning into business obstacles. Amid the buoyant CPO (crude palm oil) prices, it's easy to underestimate these adversarial forces.
In fact, this should be seen as an opportunity to push the Malaysian palm oil industry to greater heights. After all, it makes sense that the authorities should also focus on where it has the most sway.
When countering the charges of the NGOs, we need to stand on firm ground. That means we have to be assured that the industry is indeed generally innocent of the charged levelled against it. It's about credibility. Every time a plantation company takes a short cut and hurts the environment, the NGOs' arguments are strengthened.
Sure, there will always be black sheep. It's okay to admit that. That demonstrates openness. However, that is meaningless if not accompanied by strict and effective enforcement.
There has to be a stronger push to improve yields across the board in Malaysia. Our average CPO yield per hectare last year was 3.9 tonnes. Compare this with the achievements of the most efficient growers, who have come close to extracting 6 tonnes from every hectare.
That's a yawning gap. If there's an all-round commitment to drive up yields, we can increase our CPO production substantially without taking up more land – something that the NGOs certainly can't grumble about.
There's also the tricky matter of the oil palm planting practices in Indonesia. Considering the extent of Malaysian involvement in the Indonesian industry, we cannot distance ourselves from our neighbour. This is why it's important that the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) matures into a strong and reliable presence.
The RSPO describes itself as “an association created by organisations carrying out activities in and around the entire supply chain for palm oil to promote the growth and use of sustainable palm oil through cooperation within the supply chain and open dialogue with its stakeholders”.
Its first major task is come up with a definition of sustainable palm oil, and this must be supported by a set of criteria that are accepted by the stakeholders.
This is not as easy as it sounds, but when it is done, we will be a step closer to introducing a global framework for standards and certification that will hopefully reward oil palm growers who believe in doing the right things. That will be the best answer to any anti-palm oil lobby.