Any agricultural venture including corn, soya, livestock ranching, logging, mining and the resulting urbanisation are contributory factors to deforestation. Regardless of each product’s contribution as a percentage to the whole, whether it is 1% or 99%, it is still deforestation and has been in existence for centuries, accelerating during the 18th century with the advent of the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions.
Oil Palm cultivation is no exception to deforestation which has, and can continue to, cause irrecoverable damage to biodiversity. Yes, we must admit to it. We should also embrace and address it by demonstrating the fact that we are not ignorant of the issues and that if we do not do something about it now, irrecoverable losses will rapidly mount and we may very well spiral into a dystopian future characterised by environmental disasters.
Ironically, the very product that could partially alleviate the burden of carbon emissions on our environment from mineral oils has become a target and turned into one of the primary causes of environmental damage.
Various NGO’s and other parties, possibly with deep vested interests, have managed to convince Western lawmakers to make a stand against the Oil Palm industry, citing bad practices employed by some errant parties. The extent of this stand has been far reaching with almost any and all products with even a trace of Palm Oil being pulled off shelves in certain countries.
The ongoing devastation that is taking place in the rainforests of the Amazon or the “lungs of the planet” lends some perspective. Even offers of help from a vast number of countries to contain the fast spreading fires seem to have fallen on deaf ears or plainly rejected. Again, vested interests seem to be swaying the final decision.
So what has Malaysia decided to do about it the impact of Palm Oil development on local deforestation? What is our strategy? We have embarked on a public relations strategy, at a massive cost of some US$1 million, in an attempt to change the world’s perception of Palm Oil and the US$60 billion industry!
Are our hopes and future really pinned on the talents of companies who caution that if their particular skillsets are not employed, the ongoing onslaught of negative publicity may result in Palm Oil being tarnished to the extent that it ends up like tobacco? Clearly there is confusion between a need and what can be nothing more than just a want.
Pinning the welfare of farmers and the economic hopes of the nation to an arsenal of communication antics made available by certain quarters, including lobbyists with vested interests, seems to be a step in the wrong direction. It doesn’t solve the problem and probably may not even be successful in changing the negative perception either.
Credit must be given where it is due. The Malaysian Government has set a self-imposed target of a maximum area of arable land cultivation for Oil Palm at 6.55 million hectares. This commitment is well below the maximum threshold set at the Rio Summit way back in 1992 where PM Mahathir committed to maintaining at least 50% of landmass under forest cover.
Malaysia has also stepped up its game by introducing its own certification programme under the guise of Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) and making it mandatory for all Palm Oil companies to comply with by 2020 or be locked out of the market.
This shows that we recognise the problem and we are taking some steps to address it. In fact, as of July 2019, some 47% or 2.7 million hectares of Oil Palm area has been certified by MSPO. But is this enough?
We are only months away from the self-imposed deadline but industry participants seem lackadaisical in narrowing the gap. To encourage smallholders to obtain the certification, a cash incentive of MYR135/hectare has been provided to fast track the certification process but the take-up rate seems to have lost momentum.
These are facts and figures that are easily available to the general public and do not require a magic wand costing circa US$1.0 million to raise awareness to the powers-that-be in order for us to be able to avoid negative branding or unjust categorisation.
Surely, instead of spending our limited resources on external parties in an effort to change perceptions we should be engaging with the industry and encourage the laggards through education, guidance and provision of the necessary hand-holding and support systems to ensure that the target is met?
Wouldn’t this show our commitment towards achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and prevent our Golden Crop from being turned into an “Ecopolitical Pawn” in the games being played by the Western World to protect their interest?
Tissa Perera, FISP / Giri Balakrishnan