National Certification Schemes For Sustainable Palm Oil in EU Deforestation Regulations

National Certification Schemes For Sustainable Palm Oil in EU Deforestation Regulations

• The EU’s “green policies” in regulating imported deforestation, threatens the livelihoods of millions of palm oil farmers globally
• Palm oil producing countries have protested against this discrimination vociferously as the “green policies” make their way towards legislation
• Senior EU diplomats have suggested that the EU discrimination against palm oil farmers should be ignored even as the EU seeks closer relationships with palm oil producing countries

The message from CPOPC, which represents the main producers of Indonesia and Malaysia as well as other palm oil producing countries, is that the EU must engage the producing countries in introducing any legislations that impact on the industry. The smallholders who represent 40 per cent of the total supply of CPO produced globally should not be sidelined and must be included in the whole supply  chain. These are in line with the UN SDGs towards poverty eradication.

As one of nature’s greatest gifts to mankind, the oil palm has contributed to the development of producing countries in a sustainable way that is unmatched by any crop in the world. It’s high yield per acre has meant that less land is needed to generate income for the farmer, all the way up to export revenues for producing countries.

With the advent of new technologies, the palm oil industry has revealed new resources to fight climate change with renewable energy sources from plantation wastes.

Despite all the evidence of the sustainability of palm oil as a crop, the EU continues to brush off palm oil as a sustainable commodity for the Union. If the EU wants closer cooperation with ASEAN countries, the problem with EU discrimination against palm oil must be addressed first.

The livelihoods of millions of families in Indonesia and Malaysia, from farmers to factory and office workers and those that benefit from the export revenues of palm oil, cannot be set aside. Full cooperation between the EU and ASEAN countries demands that the problem of palm oil which the EU created, must be included.

Debunking the ILUC theory with ground facts

The guesswork of the ILUC theory, which the EU uses to exclude palm oil from its green policies, including this latest attempt by senior diplomats, have been exposed to be false.

In the years since the EU adopted the ILUC theory to form its antagonistic approach against palm oil, the ground evidence shows , that the estimated 20+ million hectares of palm oil has stabilised. This is due to the fact that producing countries are relying on the crop to bring development to rural communities. As more of these rural communities have benefited from the industry, the need to open more plantations have stabilised.

But more remarkable than bringing development to rural communities in Indonesia and Malaysia, is the fact that this small area of cultivation, as compared to other vegetable oils like soy, sunflower, rapeseed, has produced enough capacity to serve countries in need of vegetable oils.

National Policies and Certifications

It’s understandable that the EU, having taken such a hardline against palm oil, will have a difficult time to back pedal its approach. This is likely why senior diplomats would prefer to avoid talking about palm oil even as the EU seeks closer ties with ASEAN.

That is a problem the Union created for itself. Palm oil producing countries should have been given the benefit of the doubt in ILUC, before the Union adopted such a hostile approach against palm oil.

As it stands, it looks like the EU will proceed with its green policies despite all protestations from countries that export to the EU. The concerns with the EU’s Corporate Due Diligence Directive, commonly referred to as CS3D, has extended to European stakeholders. Industry stakeholders in FEDIOL have expressed concerns over the exclusion of smallholders. Environmental groups like FERN have expressed concern that an EU wall against palm oil will lead to increased deforestation as the industry turns to less demanding export destinations.

Having targeted common consumer goods including cocoa and coffee besides palm oil, the EU may have chewed off more than it can handle.

It is therefore, worth noting at this point of the controversial green policies, that national policies and certification of commodities is an element that the EU must integrate into the green policies.

While the ISPO and MSPO were initially created to assuage the concerns of markets like the EU, they have in recent years, become an integral part of national commitments to sustainable production.

National certification programs like ISPO and MSPO, offer all the influence required by the EU green policies, on downstream supplies. The backing of government commitments to sustainable production of commodities targeted by the EU is more efficient in fighting deforestation on a land scape level.

This is best exemplified by the green policies, which target commodities including palm oil, rubber and timber which are all exported by Indonesia and Malaysia. Any attempts to have their imports into the EU certified by third party “Authorised Representatives” would make the process burdensome and further cause EU exports to lose competitiveness.

In these critical times of fighting climate change and reducing emissions from commodities, the CPOPC strongly recommends that the EU accepts national certification programs for palm oil, as credible assurance for deforestation-free palm oil.

The EU must rate Indonesia and Malaysia, as “Low Risk” for commodity specific deforestation, which has been proven by decreasing rates of deforestation in palm oil producing countries.

(Robert Hii – Author of sustainability issues, with a focus on palm oil in South East Asia)