huffingtonpost.com (31/1/2017) - The EU’s Environment MEPs voted in favor of a new upgraded, nationally binding target on renewable energy last week. Part of the approved legislative text reads as:

The draft legislation states that the share of biofuels in this effort should be no more than 7% of final consumption of energy in road and rail transport. MEPs propose to phase-out food-based, first-generation biofuels responsible for driving deforestation by 2030, and already from 2021 for those made from palm oil, while encouraging the development of cleaner biofuels.

The proposed ban on palm oil as being a driver of deforestation without exception is nothing less than a slap on the face for palm oil producers that have been working on making their operations sustainable in a global sense. This including avoided deforestation to fight climate change.

It is a well known fact that palm oil cultivation has resulted in the loss of forests as developing countries in the Global South rushed to meet the booming global demand for vegetable oils. With Halloween upon us, there is no end of renewed calls to boycott candies using palm oil in order to save orangutans but is picking on palm oil a credible answer to saving forests or orangutans? Let’s look at the biggest producer of palm oil today, Indonesia. An online search will confirm that it is a country with a huge loss of primary forests and home to the orangutans.

What if Indonesia wanted to delay any punitive actions on its agri-economy and decided to grow corn and soy instead of palm oil? It would gain an added breathing space until 2030, when these crops face the same proposal of being phased out from the EU’s source of biofuels. Would this make a difference and save forests? It would not. I won’t get into the high yields of oilpalm arguments here as my point today, is that the EU MEPs decision on palm oil will likely end up as being a mere insult to some palm oil companies.

Undermining Efforts to Make Palm Oil Sustainable

Let me use Golden Agri Resources(GAR) as an example of how the EU MEPs decisions could undermine sustainability initiatives in the palm oil industry.

As one of the biggest Indonesian producers of palm oil, GAR was in the bad old days, a favorite target in the cross hairs of Greenpeace campaigns. Pressure from Greenpeace resulted in the company’s adoption of a Forest Conservation Policy in 2011, using the controversial plantation PT Kartika Prima Cipta( KPC) as a model for its new policy. Added to the challenge of creating a model for its new path towards conserving forests, social issues were thrown in that created a challenge that made it look like the company’s goals were impossible in an environment where the local governments were not fussy about saving forests or protecting the rights of local people.

What better indicator of sustainable biofuel could the MEPs want? This is the same index that removed Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV based on negative news on their diesel emissions.

There is no cleaner biofuel than sustainably produced palm oil. If the current standards used to define sustainable palm oil under the ISCC or RSPO are deemed inadequate to prevent importing deforestation, then the MEPs should by all means, continue with their plans to create an EU standard for sustainable biofuels, whether from Brazilian ethanol or Indonesian palm oil

I was really excited when the MEPs first brought up the idea for an EU certification standard for palm oil. This had the potential to have a big influence how land would be used in countries like Indonesia. The environmental footprint of the average European citizen needs to be reduced for sure and biofuels for transportation can play a big part in achieving this.

Meeting Emissions Targets Will Require Available Resources

It might be exciting for a family adventure to hit the road without a map but it is a scary proposition when it comes to meeting the declared purpose of reducing the emissions of nations. The legislative wording for a biofuels policy that includes “encouraging the development of cleaner biofuels” is like heading out without a map. Heaven forbid that the EU MEPs try to produce all of their biofuel requirements in Europe. The current status of EU member states biodiversity level is something we cannot ignore. Whether it’s an insect in Germany or a rhinoceros in Indonesia, these are all the life forms that makes global biodiversity so amazing. So, rather than condemning this ready source of energy in its entirety, let the individual producers like GAR or producer countries like Malaysia prove their merit.

Just as the EU needs biofuels, the orangutans needs the EU’s influence on the palm oil industry. The main reason for GAR’s investments into making its product sustainable was to meet sustainability demands from its customers in the EU. If there’s no market for it, why would GAR continue to spend on creating something no one asked for?

I hope the proposed ban on palm oil in Europe’s biofuels is set aside in favor of a challenge to producers to meet new standards. It would be truly disappointing to lose this golden argument for conservation when the nickels and dimes of global trade deals are used as a final resort by palm oil producers to continue access to the EU market..