3 MPCD report by Palm Oil Monitor attempts to severe CPOPC partners
The Indonesian palm oil industry appears to have voiced its dissatisfaction with its closest ally in the palm oil industry from the Malaysian industry over the issue of quality of palm oil for consumer markets.
In a criticism laden blog published by Palm Oil Monitor, the industry aired out all its grievances against its ally in Malaysia.
Palm Oil Monitor’s blog, which we assume had the blessings of the Indonesian palm oil industry, went from criticizing Malaysia’s position on 3-MPCD to criticizing Malaysia’s refusal to challenge the EU’s position on palm oil in biofuels at the WTO. The blog went so far as to mock Malaysia’s position as the second largest producer of palm oil in the world when it sneered at the fact that Malaysia caters too much to buyer demands.
If it is true that the blog post by Palm Oil Monitor had the approval of the Indonesian palm oil industry prior to publication, the obvious question is why did the Indonesian industry choose to use a little known media platform to air its grievances when it could have discussed the issue with their Malaysian counterparts?
The differing views on 3 MPCD between Malaysia and Indonesia has long been established. The Malaysian Palm Oil Council had said back in 2017 that it was working towards the reduction of 3 MPCD esters and GE. This was confirmed in a news report in 2019 that laid out all the steps that Malaysia would take to meet the new EU requirement.
Palm Oil Monitor went on to claim that a consensus had been reached by both Malaysia and Indonesia and asked why Malaysia had “walked back its position on 3 MPCD.” The link provided to support the blog’s statement is broken and could not be found.
What can be found is a report on Reuters which mentioned the consensus as part of a wider report on Malaysia’s encouragement to its Indonesian counterparts to accept the EU standards on 3 MPCD.
Differences in opinions between palm oil producing countries
Differences in opinions between these two palm oil producing countries is nothing new. They are certainly not something that would cause anyone to question Malaysia’s commitments to the CPOPC as Palm Oil Monitor insinuated.
Colombia which has long marketed its palm oil as “unique and different” from palm oil associated with environmental problems actually became a member of the CPOPC despite its difference of opinion on how palm oil should be cultivated. In fact, Colombia is one of the biggest producers of certified organic palm oil. Why go to the trouble and expense of producing organic palm oil? Simple answer is there is a market that demands it and if the buyers demand it, then its up to the growers to grow it, not question the whys behind it because the buyer is always right.
The Buyer is Always Right
This is something that the bloggers at Palm Oil Monitor do not understand.
The facts stand that Malaysia has ramped up the environmental quality of its palm oil under the national certification scheme, Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO). Insider information from Indonesia says that the Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) scheme is being revamped to try and gain acceptance from international markets. These are high cost investments to meet the demands for quality from buyer countries.
It is unfortunate to see pro palm oil platforms like Palm Oil Monitor derail their efforts. Their scrappy ready to fight anti palm oil messages may well gain the funding and support of some players in the palm oil industry but historical trade figures will show that this sort of negative messaging only builds up a distaste for palm oil in consuming countries.
If trading relationships could be built on a naïve “Don’t ask, don’t get” approach, then the Malaysian and Indonesian palm oil industries should well ask the EU to drop the issue of deforestation in palm oil.
Published April, 2020. CSPO Watch
In a criticism laden blog published by Palm Oil Monitor, the industry aired out all its grievances against its ally in Malaysia.
Palm Oil Monitor’s blog, which we assume had the blessings of the Indonesian palm oil industry, went from criticizing Malaysia’s position on 3-MPCD to criticizing Malaysia’s refusal to challenge the EU’s position on palm oil in biofuels at the WTO. The blog went so far as to mock Malaysia’s position as the second largest producer of palm oil in the world when it sneered at the fact that Malaysia caters too much to buyer demands.
If it is true that the blog post by Palm Oil Monitor had the approval of the Indonesian palm oil industry prior to publication, the obvious question is why did the Indonesian industry choose to use a little known media platform to air its grievances when it could have discussed the issue with their Malaysian counterparts?
The differing views on 3 MPCD between Malaysia and Indonesia has long been established. The Malaysian Palm Oil Council had said back in 2017 that it was working towards the reduction of 3 MPCD esters and GE. This was confirmed in a news report in 2019 that laid out all the steps that Malaysia would take to meet the new EU requirement.
Palm Oil Monitor went on to claim that a consensus had been reached by both Malaysia and Indonesia and asked why Malaysia had “walked back its position on 3 MPCD.” The link provided to support the blog’s statement is broken and could not be found.
What can be found is a report on Reuters which mentioned the consensus as part of a wider report on Malaysia’s encouragement to its Indonesian counterparts to accept the EU standards on 3 MPCD.
Differences in opinions between palm oil producing countries
Differences in opinions between these two palm oil producing countries is nothing new. They are certainly not something that would cause anyone to question Malaysia’s commitments to the CPOPC as Palm Oil Monitor insinuated.
Colombia which has long marketed its palm oil as “unique and different” from palm oil associated with environmental problems actually became a member of the CPOPC despite its difference of opinion on how palm oil should be cultivated. In fact, Colombia is one of the biggest producers of certified organic palm oil. Why go to the trouble and expense of producing organic palm oil? Simple answer is there is a market that demands it and if the buyers demand it, then its up to the growers to grow it, not question the whys behind it because the buyer is always right.
The Buyer is Always Right
This is something that the bloggers at Palm Oil Monitor do not understand.
The facts stand that Malaysia has ramped up the environmental quality of its palm oil under the national certification scheme, Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO). Insider information from Indonesia says that the Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) scheme is being revamped to try and gain acceptance from international markets. These are high cost investments to meet the demands for quality from buyer countries.
It is unfortunate to see pro palm oil platforms like Palm Oil Monitor derail their efforts. Their scrappy ready to fight anti palm oil messages may well gain the funding and support of some players in the palm oil industry but historical trade figures will show that this sort of negative messaging only builds up a distaste for palm oil in consuming countries.
If trading relationships could be built on a naïve “Don’t ask, don’t get” approach, then the Malaysian and Indonesian palm oil industries should well ask the EU to drop the issue of deforestation in palm oil.
Published April, 2020. CSPO Watch