Palm Oil Council to Ramp Up Media Communication
The Council of Palm Oil Producing Countries (CPOPC) is aiming to ramp up its public communications with a media campaign.
The success of its hard hitting series of blogs has been able to reach key audiences as the CPOPC tackled hot media topics like Greenpeace’s report “Destruction: Certified.” This communications success has inspired the CPOPC to expand the reach of its information campaign.
We reached out to the CPOPC to gain some insights into the information campaign.
The success of its hard hitting series of blogs has been able to reach key audiences as the CPOPC tackled hot media topics like Greenpeace’s report “Destruction: Certified.” This communications success has inspired the CPOPC to expand the reach of its information campaign.
We reached out to the CPOPC to gain some insights into the information campaign.
CSPO Watch: There has been a lot of talk from Indonesia and Malaysia about fighting the “black campaigns” against palm oil. Is the new information campaign concept a concentration of effort to avoid duplication?
CPOPC: That is correct. The member states that make up the CPOPC share a common concern that there is too much misinformation, in some cases, outrageous falsehoods about palm oil which must be challenged.
CSPO Watch: The “black campaigns against palm oil” as Indonesia and Malaysia call it is not new. It has been around for years so why now? Why not ten years ago when palm oil started to become a target of media in Western countries?
CPOPC: Why now? Palm oil producing countries especially Indonesia and Malaysia have been vocal about questioning foreign media that portrayed palm oil negatively. It wasn’t a big deal at the time. Foreign NGOs would do some simple studies as “research” to condemn the crop, palm oil producing countries would challenge their findings and life carried on. Their attacks against palm oil had some beneficial effect which we should thank them for as palm oil is now the most highly certified and regulated vegetable oil crop in the world. But despite the facts from scientific research, we continue to see palm oil as a scapegoat for climate change.
But to answer why now, there’s two main reasons. First, the EU decision to ban palm oil from its biofuels use came as a shock to palm oil producing countries. With all the facts that palm oil is the best crop for food and fuel, the EU went ahead with the proposed ban. We asked ourselves why? Was it politically motivated? Or a protectionist policy? A discriminatory policy? Why are European citizens signing petitions demanding the boycott of palm oil? Why don’t they believe us that the orangutans are nowhere close to extinction as foreign media claims?
Both Indonesia and Malaysia have strong legal protection for orangutans which are as strong as what China has for pandas. The populations of pandas is recovering thanks to the efforts of the Chinese government. Meanwhile the orangutan population in Indonesia and Malaysia has also been estimated at 100,000 orangutans, a wonderful increase based on the latest technologies. How is that even close to extinction?
More shocking is the data which was compiled on vegetable oils worldwide. Indonesian Vice Minister Mahendra Sriregar presented these in a webinar recently.
The data shows harvested areas of vegetable oils with palm oil as the smallest. Rapeseed and sunflower areas are a higher than palm oil but most shocking is soy which grew from 60 million hectares in 1995 to 130 million hectares in 2019. Where is the global outcry to save biodiversity in the countries that produce these other vegetable oils?
This is clearly misinformation and fear mongering to tarnish the image of palm oil. We could easily launch media campaigns to show how big wildlife in soy and rapeseed producing countries have much lower numbers than orangutans but our interest is in a race to the top, not mudslinging at the bottom of the pit.
But the main reason for a comprehensive information campaign now is to inform those countries that want to ban palm oil, that climate change affects all of us. There is no time to lose as we need global stakeholders to contribute what they can to fight climate change. Palm oil producing countries have shown that they are willing and ready to fight climate change, even at the expense of foregoing development in some localities to preserve high carbon stock areas. But this message seems to have been lost upon some countries especially the EU.
This is when we realized that palm oil producing countries should pay some attention to what is being said in social media. We at the CPOPC have seen misinformation on palm oil in social media at a level that is mind numbing. How could media smart people be so unaware of the good things happening in tropical countries?
If I can quote Bill Gates, the answer might be in his simple statement that “lies spread faster than facts on social media.” Mainstream media in the West is a part of the problem as they’ll gladly do a two spread on bad news but won’t share good news like how much forests are being protected in palm oil producing countries.
CSPO Watch: But its not only foreign media that is featuring palm oil in a negative light, many local non-profits, admittedly funded by foreign interests have criticized the palm oil industries in Indonesia especially. If they are spreading half-truths or misinformation, wouldn’t it be easier to simply shut them down instead of having to respond to their allegations?
CPOPC: No. That would go against the beliefs of palm oil producing countries in the freedom of the press. Their opinions maybe harsh but allowing them to publish their opinions is one meaningful way to discover the overall concerns of our citizens in order to find solutions for sustainable development.
For example, foreign media loves to talk about land grabs from indigenous peoples for palm oil. A simple solution to address land ownership would have been to create Western style reservations where all indigenous tribes are shuttled off to an area where they can “live in harmony with nature” as Western media tells it.
That in our opinion, is a human rights travesty. To respect their land rights, palm oil producing countries have preferred the slow and arduous path of incorporating the indigenous peoples into the bigger national development schemes. It is not an easy task when you consider the hundreds of tribes in Indonesia and Malaysia which are further challenged by the different villages that one tribe may lay claim to. As tough as it is to find amicable solutions, we believe this is better than excluding them from national development plans by enclosing them within reservations.
CSPO Watch: Wildlife and indigenous peoples may be the dominant topics on palm oil but what about the overall messaging that palm oil is bad for human health?
CPOPC: That is a big area of misinformation which we will address. Studies have shown there is a difference between plant-based saturated fats from palm oil or coconut oil compared to animal fats. Yet other studies have challenged the old findings on saturated fats and linked health problems to carbohydrates, not saturated fats.
Understandably, these questions need further studies but one health benefit of palm oil is unquestionable as recent scientific research has shown that palm oil, especially red palm oil, has superior nutritional values in its naturally occurring Vitamins A and E. Research in nutraceuticals has shown that the form of Vitamin E from palm oil which is tocotrienols, is more bioavailable than other forms of Vitamin E. This is absolutely essential for heart and brain health especially in Western countries where most foods have added supplements just to provide basic nutritional input.
Getting this information out to consumers will take time as we have to correct the many layers of misinformation that had been heaped onto palm oil in past decades.
CSPO Watch: That sounds like a major task ahead for CPOPC. But most of the criticism and misinformation against palm oil has come from Western countries. These make up only a third of the global market for palm oil as India and China are big consumers. Will the CPOPC be reaching out to consumers in these markets?
CPOPC: We will definitely. India and China are important markets for palm oil producing countries. The issues are slightly different as these markets focus more on affordability than sustainability. Its entirely understandable that they would do so as the average consumer in India or China would not have the same level of personal wealth as the consumer in the West.
The key message for these countries therefore, will focus on the health benefits of palm oil. There is enough medical research into the health benefits of palm oil that we plan to use these to debunk the myths on palm oil once and for all.
CSPO Watch: Does that mean the sustainability of Indonesian and Malaysian palm oil will be put aside in catering to these price conscious markets?
CPOPC: Not at all. This is a fallacy created by Western “experts” who make a good living from palm oil even though they have never been to a palm oil farm.
They point at India and China as “leakage markets” where “unsustainable palm oil” as they call it, finds ready buyers looking for a bargain. The perception they have created is that palm oil is “cheap” and is therefore used by brands to increase profits by “hiding their use of palm oil under different names.” This ranks among the most unscrupulous of practices by these people who make a living off palm oil.
Imagine if palm oil was not used in their markets. These people would be out of work! For the masses of consumers that benefit from fair prices for consumer goods, palm oil is an effective check and balance against the highly inefficient crops in soy and rapeseed as the living costs of the average palm oil farmer is far below that of soy or sunflower.
But getting back to the fallacy of “leakage markets” these experts are clueless when it comes to agriculture. If they had any basic knowledge of farming, they would know that it is impossible to maintain a farm where part of it is “sustainable” and parts of it is “unsustainable.” This is especially the case for palm oil where a complex supply chain dictates that the whole farm has to be sustainable!
CSPO Watch: Having read the recent blogs on CPOPC’s website on national certifications, how does that relate to the “whole farm being sustainable?” Where does the national certifications under ISPO and MSPO fit in?
CPOPC: The ISPO and MSPO as national schemes fit well into the new demands of environmental groups which have lambasted voluntary certification schemes. Their call for a G2G agreement on forests, human rights and sustainability is an exciting opportunity for the member states of CPOPC to feature their best efforts.
CSPO Watch: But how does this relate to the “whole farm being sustainable?”
CPOPC: The thing you have to realize, is that palm oil, as important as it is to the producing countries, is only one of several sources of revenue and means of development. It is not all. Palm oil producing countries rely on many different industries from extractive ones like timber and palm oil to higher value industries in manufacturing. In terms of industries that carry an impact on forests, palm oil producing countries have shown a commitment to their preservation that is without equal.
Don’t take my word for it. Look up the reports from World Resources Institute or the Global Forest Watch. Palm oil producing countries have much less impact on forests than other regions that produce little or no palm oil. The undeniable fact is that palm oil, the crop, can bring development to rural communities in developing countries with minimal capital input and use of land.
Take Brazil for example, the current hot target for Western environmental groups. Soybean to supply global demand occupy 38 million hectares for the planting year of 2021. Palm oil planted areas account for only 175,000 hectares. Could Brazil have saved more forest areas if it concentrated on palm oil instead of soy?
We would like to think so but the fact is that the world does not revolve around palm oil production. With global planted areas of palm oil at about 26 million hectares, even if all these plantations were rewilded and returned to nature, it would not make a dent in the global impact of agriculture! Even if we ignore the big land footprint of cattle and look at vegetable oil crops only, soy, rapeseed and sunflower occupies many times the acreage of land that palm oil does. You can imagine the environmental disaster in soy and rapeseed producing countries if they had to replace palm oil. Or worse, if palm oil producing countries grew soy or rapeseed instead.
These are the points that must be made at the EU-ASEAN Joint Working Group on vegetable oils. There can be no justification to ban palm oil from EU subsidies based on a concern for tropical forests and climate change. Studies into the carbon emissions of annual crops like soy and rapeseed show that they are high risk for the amount of emissions every year when new crops are planted!
CSPO Watch: Thank you for your straightforward thoughts on the issues around vegetable oils. It is obviously a topic that a single interview would not be able to cover so I look forward to reading more on the issues through CPOPC blogs.
Published April 2021. CSPO Watch
CPOPC: That is correct. The member states that make up the CPOPC share a common concern that there is too much misinformation, in some cases, outrageous falsehoods about palm oil which must be challenged.
CSPO Watch: The “black campaigns against palm oil” as Indonesia and Malaysia call it is not new. It has been around for years so why now? Why not ten years ago when palm oil started to become a target of media in Western countries?
CPOPC: Why now? Palm oil producing countries especially Indonesia and Malaysia have been vocal about questioning foreign media that portrayed palm oil negatively. It wasn’t a big deal at the time. Foreign NGOs would do some simple studies as “research” to condemn the crop, palm oil producing countries would challenge their findings and life carried on. Their attacks against palm oil had some beneficial effect which we should thank them for as palm oil is now the most highly certified and regulated vegetable oil crop in the world. But despite the facts from scientific research, we continue to see palm oil as a scapegoat for climate change.
But to answer why now, there’s two main reasons. First, the EU decision to ban palm oil from its biofuels use came as a shock to palm oil producing countries. With all the facts that palm oil is the best crop for food and fuel, the EU went ahead with the proposed ban. We asked ourselves why? Was it politically motivated? Or a protectionist policy? A discriminatory policy? Why are European citizens signing petitions demanding the boycott of palm oil? Why don’t they believe us that the orangutans are nowhere close to extinction as foreign media claims?
Both Indonesia and Malaysia have strong legal protection for orangutans which are as strong as what China has for pandas. The populations of pandas is recovering thanks to the efforts of the Chinese government. Meanwhile the orangutan population in Indonesia and Malaysia has also been estimated at 100,000 orangutans, a wonderful increase based on the latest technologies. How is that even close to extinction?
More shocking is the data which was compiled on vegetable oils worldwide. Indonesian Vice Minister Mahendra Sriregar presented these in a webinar recently.
The data shows harvested areas of vegetable oils with palm oil as the smallest. Rapeseed and sunflower areas are a higher than palm oil but most shocking is soy which grew from 60 million hectares in 1995 to 130 million hectares in 2019. Where is the global outcry to save biodiversity in the countries that produce these other vegetable oils?
This is clearly misinformation and fear mongering to tarnish the image of palm oil. We could easily launch media campaigns to show how big wildlife in soy and rapeseed producing countries have much lower numbers than orangutans but our interest is in a race to the top, not mudslinging at the bottom of the pit.
But the main reason for a comprehensive information campaign now is to inform those countries that want to ban palm oil, that climate change affects all of us. There is no time to lose as we need global stakeholders to contribute what they can to fight climate change. Palm oil producing countries have shown that they are willing and ready to fight climate change, even at the expense of foregoing development in some localities to preserve high carbon stock areas. But this message seems to have been lost upon some countries especially the EU.
This is when we realized that palm oil producing countries should pay some attention to what is being said in social media. We at the CPOPC have seen misinformation on palm oil in social media at a level that is mind numbing. How could media smart people be so unaware of the good things happening in tropical countries?
If I can quote Bill Gates, the answer might be in his simple statement that “lies spread faster than facts on social media.” Mainstream media in the West is a part of the problem as they’ll gladly do a two spread on bad news but won’t share good news like how much forests are being protected in palm oil producing countries.
CSPO Watch: But its not only foreign media that is featuring palm oil in a negative light, many local non-profits, admittedly funded by foreign interests have criticized the palm oil industries in Indonesia especially. If they are spreading half-truths or misinformation, wouldn’t it be easier to simply shut them down instead of having to respond to their allegations?
CPOPC: No. That would go against the beliefs of palm oil producing countries in the freedom of the press. Their opinions maybe harsh but allowing them to publish their opinions is one meaningful way to discover the overall concerns of our citizens in order to find solutions for sustainable development.
For example, foreign media loves to talk about land grabs from indigenous peoples for palm oil. A simple solution to address land ownership would have been to create Western style reservations where all indigenous tribes are shuttled off to an area where they can “live in harmony with nature” as Western media tells it.
That in our opinion, is a human rights travesty. To respect their land rights, palm oil producing countries have preferred the slow and arduous path of incorporating the indigenous peoples into the bigger national development schemes. It is not an easy task when you consider the hundreds of tribes in Indonesia and Malaysia which are further challenged by the different villages that one tribe may lay claim to. As tough as it is to find amicable solutions, we believe this is better than excluding them from national development plans by enclosing them within reservations.
CSPO Watch: Wildlife and indigenous peoples may be the dominant topics on palm oil but what about the overall messaging that palm oil is bad for human health?
CPOPC: That is a big area of misinformation which we will address. Studies have shown there is a difference between plant-based saturated fats from palm oil or coconut oil compared to animal fats. Yet other studies have challenged the old findings on saturated fats and linked health problems to carbohydrates, not saturated fats.
Understandably, these questions need further studies but one health benefit of palm oil is unquestionable as recent scientific research has shown that palm oil, especially red palm oil, has superior nutritional values in its naturally occurring Vitamins A and E. Research in nutraceuticals has shown that the form of Vitamin E from palm oil which is tocotrienols, is more bioavailable than other forms of Vitamin E. This is absolutely essential for heart and brain health especially in Western countries where most foods have added supplements just to provide basic nutritional input.
Getting this information out to consumers will take time as we have to correct the many layers of misinformation that had been heaped onto palm oil in past decades.
CSPO Watch: That sounds like a major task ahead for CPOPC. But most of the criticism and misinformation against palm oil has come from Western countries. These make up only a third of the global market for palm oil as India and China are big consumers. Will the CPOPC be reaching out to consumers in these markets?
CPOPC: We will definitely. India and China are important markets for palm oil producing countries. The issues are slightly different as these markets focus more on affordability than sustainability. Its entirely understandable that they would do so as the average consumer in India or China would not have the same level of personal wealth as the consumer in the West.
The key message for these countries therefore, will focus on the health benefits of palm oil. There is enough medical research into the health benefits of palm oil that we plan to use these to debunk the myths on palm oil once and for all.
CSPO Watch: Does that mean the sustainability of Indonesian and Malaysian palm oil will be put aside in catering to these price conscious markets?
CPOPC: Not at all. This is a fallacy created by Western “experts” who make a good living from palm oil even though they have never been to a palm oil farm.
They point at India and China as “leakage markets” where “unsustainable palm oil” as they call it, finds ready buyers looking for a bargain. The perception they have created is that palm oil is “cheap” and is therefore used by brands to increase profits by “hiding their use of palm oil under different names.” This ranks among the most unscrupulous of practices by these people who make a living off palm oil.
Imagine if palm oil was not used in their markets. These people would be out of work! For the masses of consumers that benefit from fair prices for consumer goods, palm oil is an effective check and balance against the highly inefficient crops in soy and rapeseed as the living costs of the average palm oil farmer is far below that of soy or sunflower.
But getting back to the fallacy of “leakage markets” these experts are clueless when it comes to agriculture. If they had any basic knowledge of farming, they would know that it is impossible to maintain a farm where part of it is “sustainable” and parts of it is “unsustainable.” This is especially the case for palm oil where a complex supply chain dictates that the whole farm has to be sustainable!
CSPO Watch: Having read the recent blogs on CPOPC’s website on national certifications, how does that relate to the “whole farm being sustainable?” Where does the national certifications under ISPO and MSPO fit in?
CPOPC: The ISPO and MSPO as national schemes fit well into the new demands of environmental groups which have lambasted voluntary certification schemes. Their call for a G2G agreement on forests, human rights and sustainability is an exciting opportunity for the member states of CPOPC to feature their best efforts.
CSPO Watch: But how does this relate to the “whole farm being sustainable?”
CPOPC: The thing you have to realize, is that palm oil, as important as it is to the producing countries, is only one of several sources of revenue and means of development. It is not all. Palm oil producing countries rely on many different industries from extractive ones like timber and palm oil to higher value industries in manufacturing. In terms of industries that carry an impact on forests, palm oil producing countries have shown a commitment to their preservation that is without equal.
Don’t take my word for it. Look up the reports from World Resources Institute or the Global Forest Watch. Palm oil producing countries have much less impact on forests than other regions that produce little or no palm oil. The undeniable fact is that palm oil, the crop, can bring development to rural communities in developing countries with minimal capital input and use of land.
Take Brazil for example, the current hot target for Western environmental groups. Soybean to supply global demand occupy 38 million hectares for the planting year of 2021. Palm oil planted areas account for only 175,000 hectares. Could Brazil have saved more forest areas if it concentrated on palm oil instead of soy?
We would like to think so but the fact is that the world does not revolve around palm oil production. With global planted areas of palm oil at about 26 million hectares, even if all these plantations were rewilded and returned to nature, it would not make a dent in the global impact of agriculture! Even if we ignore the big land footprint of cattle and look at vegetable oil crops only, soy, rapeseed and sunflower occupies many times the acreage of land that palm oil does. You can imagine the environmental disaster in soy and rapeseed producing countries if they had to replace palm oil. Or worse, if palm oil producing countries grew soy or rapeseed instead.
These are the points that must be made at the EU-ASEAN Joint Working Group on vegetable oils. There can be no justification to ban palm oil from EU subsidies based on a concern for tropical forests and climate change. Studies into the carbon emissions of annual crops like soy and rapeseed show that they are high risk for the amount of emissions every year when new crops are planted!
CSPO Watch: Thank you for your straightforward thoughts on the issues around vegetable oils. It is obviously a topic that a single interview would not be able to cover so I look forward to reading more on the issues through CPOPC blogs.
Published April 2021. CSPO Watch