EU Listing of Malaysia as Standard Risk Hurts Indigenous Peoples
The EU's rating of Malaysia as a Standard Risk for deforestation will exclude Dayak farmers in Sarawak from the EU market according to the Dayak Oil Palm Planters Association (DOPPA) of Sarawak
Dayak oil palm planters will to pay for speed up land title process
The EU Commission has published its ranking of trade partners under the EU Deforestation Regulation’s benchmarking of countries.
The ranking of Malaysia as a Standard Risk for deforestation was met with howls of protests from Malaysia which had earlier declared that Malaysia deserves a Low Risk rating.
The Malaysian protests stood out in the silence of some countries which protested earlier against the EU’s deforestation regulations.
African countries where cocoa and coffee exports were shown as a cause of deforestation seemed to be content with a Standard Risk rating.
Brazil on the other hand has responded with an assertive position that repeated its criticism of the EUDR as:
“a unilateral and discriminatory measure that disregards national and multilateral efforts to conserve forest areas and tackle climate change.”
Argentina, another major exporter of soy to the EU, has also protested against the EU benchmarking of the country as a Standard Risk arguing that the classification is “unilateral and unjustified.”
Uruguay, which experienced significant deforestation between 2001 and 2023 was somehow rated as Low Risk by the EU.
According to Global Forest Watch, Uruguay has lost a considerable amount of tree cover since 2000, with a 25% decrease in tree cover between 2001 and 2023.
World Population Review confirmed this and gave some insights into how the EU benchmarking of countries was done.
“As can be seen in the graph, Uruguay is the leading global country that is affecting the growth of its trees at an alarming rate. Why Are Poorer Countries Affected More?
First-world countries rarely make the list for two reasons that skew results:
First-world countries, such as the US, UK, and former commonwealth countries do not have large amounts of forests around them when compared to the larger land masses such as the Amazon and Myanmar/Mexican jungles.”
It looks like the EU benchmarking of countries for deforestation risk is arbitrary. A review of forest data by Augustus Bambridge-Sutton for Food Navigator shows the benchmarking exercise is based on politics, not forests.
New Food Magazine raised more questions on the benchmarking of countries by the EU.
"As criticism grows over the political influences shaping the benchmarking, stakeholders will watch closely to see if the 2026 review delivers a more rigorous and transparent classification that truly supports the EU’s ambition to eliminate deforestation from its supply chains.
In a recent article with New Food Magazine, Professor Chris Elliott was also critical of the EUDR, warning of its “unintended and worrying consequences.” He highlighted the potential for food fraud, shifting deforestation to non-regulated commodities, and the ethical challenges posed by companies exploiting regulatory loopholes."
A bigger challenge for the EU Commission which came up with the benchmarking of countries is criticism from officials in EU members states.
"The list raised eyebrows among EU member states and environmental groups.
Austria's minister of agriculture and forestry, Norbert Totschnig, claimed countries with high deforestation risks were now classified as medium risk countries, adding that this undermined the efforts of 'countries like Austria, which have very strict laws and operate sustainably'.
Land&Forst Betriebe Österreich, an association of land managers, said: 'The current classification is incomprehensible and contradicts the clear wording of the regulation. Instead of a well-founded, data-driven assessment, political considerations seem to have played a decisive role.'
Italian Agriculture Minister Francesco Lollobrigida said 'no one denies that Belarus and Russia should be sanctioned' but called it absurd to group countries like Italy - along with others in Europe - with nations in Africa that, in his view, have significantly lower regulatory standards. Agerpres
The ranking of Malaysia as a Standard Risk for deforestation was met with howls of protests from Malaysia which had earlier declared that Malaysia deserves a Low Risk rating.
The Malaysian protests stood out in the silence of some countries which protested earlier against the EU’s deforestation regulations.
African countries where cocoa and coffee exports were shown as a cause of deforestation seemed to be content with a Standard Risk rating.
Brazil on the other hand has responded with an assertive position that repeated its criticism of the EUDR as:
“a unilateral and discriminatory measure that disregards national and multilateral efforts to conserve forest areas and tackle climate change.”
Argentina, another major exporter of soy to the EU, has also protested against the EU benchmarking of the country as a Standard Risk arguing that the classification is “unilateral and unjustified.”
Uruguay, which experienced significant deforestation between 2001 and 2023 was somehow rated as Low Risk by the EU.
According to Global Forest Watch, Uruguay has lost a considerable amount of tree cover since 2000, with a 25% decrease in tree cover between 2001 and 2023.
World Population Review confirmed this and gave some insights into how the EU benchmarking of countries was done.
“As can be seen in the graph, Uruguay is the leading global country that is affecting the growth of its trees at an alarming rate. Why Are Poorer Countries Affected More?
First-world countries rarely make the list for two reasons that skew results:
First-world countries, such as the US, UK, and former commonwealth countries do not have large amounts of forests around them when compared to the larger land masses such as the Amazon and Myanmar/Mexican jungles.”
It looks like the EU benchmarking of countries for deforestation risk is arbitrary. A review of forest data by Augustus Bambridge-Sutton for Food Navigator shows the benchmarking exercise is based on politics, not forests.
New Food Magazine raised more questions on the benchmarking of countries by the EU.
"As criticism grows over the political influences shaping the benchmarking, stakeholders will watch closely to see if the 2026 review delivers a more rigorous and transparent classification that truly supports the EU’s ambition to eliminate deforestation from its supply chains.
In a recent article with New Food Magazine, Professor Chris Elliott was also critical of the EUDR, warning of its “unintended and worrying consequences.” He highlighted the potential for food fraud, shifting deforestation to non-regulated commodities, and the ethical challenges posed by companies exploiting regulatory loopholes."
A bigger challenge for the EU Commission which came up with the benchmarking of countries is criticism from officials in EU members states.
"The list raised eyebrows among EU member states and environmental groups.
Austria's minister of agriculture and forestry, Norbert Totschnig, claimed countries with high deforestation risks were now classified as medium risk countries, adding that this undermined the efforts of 'countries like Austria, which have very strict laws and operate sustainably'.
Land&Forst Betriebe Österreich, an association of land managers, said: 'The current classification is incomprehensible and contradicts the clear wording of the regulation. Instead of a well-founded, data-driven assessment, political considerations seem to have played a decisive role.'
Italian Agriculture Minister Francesco Lollobrigida said 'no one denies that Belarus and Russia should be sanctioned' but called it absurd to group countries like Italy - along with others in Europe - with nations in Africa that, in his view, have significantly lower regulatory standards. Agerpres
|
|
|
Dayak Protests
The review of the EU’s benchmarking of countries for deforestation cannot come soon enough for the indigenous oil farmers in Malaysia. According to the Dayak Oil Palm Planters Association (DOPPA) in Sarawak, forty eight thousand indigenous farmers are at risk of having their harvests being rejected by corporate owners which sell to the EU. In simple terms, their harvests will be left to rot on the farms.
This is why DOPPA issued a media statement demanding the European Union (EU) to grant a ‘no risk’ exemption for indigenous farmers in Sarawak, following the EU’s decision to classify Malaysia as Standard Risk.
“Our concern is that while established big plantation companies may have the ability to provide proof of traceability for corporate oil palm plantations, the amount of paperwork required under Standard Risk may push corporate mills that supply the EU market to cut off independent smallholders."
He also criticised the EU’s reliance on satellite mapping to monitor compliance, arguing that such technology is flawed when applied to indigenous lands in Sarawak.
DOPPA had earlier urged the EU to accept Malaysia’s certification for sustainable palm oil, the Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) to ensure inclusivity for indigenous farmers impacted by the EU’s regulations.
The association of indigenous farmers had noticed the exclusion of small holders under the EU’s earlier demands for certified sustainable palm oil. Reports on the reliance of third party certification for sustainability showed that up to 93% of the EU’s imports of palm oil was certified by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO).
This sounds like an incredible level of commitment by European importers of palm oil to support the EU’s green ideals until you look at the statistics behind those imports.
A fresh report from Solidaridad showed that the RSPO had only certified 5.3% of smallholders in Indonesia and 0.08% in Malaysia.
The needed solution according to Solidaridad Europe’s senior policy advisor Marieke Leegwater is the inclusion of smallholders in sustainable production.
“Simply demanding sustainable production is insufficient. Companies need to commit to an inclusive value chain that recognises and integrates independent smallholder farmer perspectives and voices, and enables sustainable production by paying fair prices that make a living income possible.”
This is a reasonable proposal by Solidaridad considering how often the support of palm oil smallholders are quoted in corporate sustainability reports. Yet the small holder as a key player in corporate sustainability claims can barely scrape together a living income.
Evidence of the severe financial imbalances in the palm oil industry is evident by comparing the income of the Dayak farmer in Sarawak to the average worker in Singapore’s palm oil industry.
Without growing a single stick of oil palm, Singaporeans who work for banks and businesses involved in palm oil trade in Singapore make a better income from merely facilitating transactions. There’s enough money involved here that the money hungry WWF actually declared that certified sustainable palm oil production is In the Palm of Singapore’s Hands.
This is pure nonsense from WWF. If palm oil small holders are so critical to the sustainability of the palm oil trade overall, then sustainable palm oil production is in the hands of the forty eight thousand independent small holders in Sarawak as well as the millions of small holders world wide who have no means to meet expensive and techno-centric sustainability certification processes as set up by WWF.
Singapore serves as a major hub for global palm oil trade and finance where palm oil giants like Golden Agri Resources and Wilmar find financing and a convenient point of export. It's even good paying grounds for social media influencers like People’s Movement Against Haze who try to scrub clean Singapore’s role in palm oil by blaming it on Indonesia.
If profits and revenues from the palm oil industry were considered in the EU’s benchmarking of countries, Singapore should have been rated as Standard Risk along with Indonesia and Malaysia based on where it makes its money from. After all, where does Singapore get its palm oil from?
With an EU review of the benchmark of countries for deforestation due in 2026, DOPPA has demanded an exemption for indigenous farmers of palm oil, cocoa and coffee all of which are cultivated by indigenous peoples in Sarawak.
Quoting the Sarawak Land Code to confirm legality Napolean Ningkos provided a solid reason as to why the EU should exempt indigenous small holders from regulatory restrictions on imports.
“Our farms can only be cultivated after land titles are granted under the Sarawak Land Code, which recognises Native Customary Rights (NCR) as legitimate land ownership. The baseline for obtaining a land title is that our forefathers must have already developed the land.”
Will Ursula von der Leyen and the European Commission acknowledge these indigenous voices and be transparent in the review of the benchmarking exercise?
Published June 2025. CSPO Watch
The review of the EU’s benchmarking of countries for deforestation cannot come soon enough for the indigenous oil farmers in Malaysia. According to the Dayak Oil Palm Planters Association (DOPPA) in Sarawak, forty eight thousand indigenous farmers are at risk of having their harvests being rejected by corporate owners which sell to the EU. In simple terms, their harvests will be left to rot on the farms.
This is why DOPPA issued a media statement demanding the European Union (EU) to grant a ‘no risk’ exemption for indigenous farmers in Sarawak, following the EU’s decision to classify Malaysia as Standard Risk.
“Our concern is that while established big plantation companies may have the ability to provide proof of traceability for corporate oil palm plantations, the amount of paperwork required under Standard Risk may push corporate mills that supply the EU market to cut off independent smallholders."
He also criticised the EU’s reliance on satellite mapping to monitor compliance, arguing that such technology is flawed when applied to indigenous lands in Sarawak.
DOPPA had earlier urged the EU to accept Malaysia’s certification for sustainable palm oil, the Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) to ensure inclusivity for indigenous farmers impacted by the EU’s regulations.
The association of indigenous farmers had noticed the exclusion of small holders under the EU’s earlier demands for certified sustainable palm oil. Reports on the reliance of third party certification for sustainability showed that up to 93% of the EU’s imports of palm oil was certified by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO).
This sounds like an incredible level of commitment by European importers of palm oil to support the EU’s green ideals until you look at the statistics behind those imports.
A fresh report from Solidaridad showed that the RSPO had only certified 5.3% of smallholders in Indonesia and 0.08% in Malaysia.
The needed solution according to Solidaridad Europe’s senior policy advisor Marieke Leegwater is the inclusion of smallholders in sustainable production.
“Simply demanding sustainable production is insufficient. Companies need to commit to an inclusive value chain that recognises and integrates independent smallholder farmer perspectives and voices, and enables sustainable production by paying fair prices that make a living income possible.”
This is a reasonable proposal by Solidaridad considering how often the support of palm oil smallholders are quoted in corporate sustainability reports. Yet the small holder as a key player in corporate sustainability claims can barely scrape together a living income.
Evidence of the severe financial imbalances in the palm oil industry is evident by comparing the income of the Dayak farmer in Sarawak to the average worker in Singapore’s palm oil industry.
Without growing a single stick of oil palm, Singaporeans who work for banks and businesses involved in palm oil trade in Singapore make a better income from merely facilitating transactions. There’s enough money involved here that the money hungry WWF actually declared that certified sustainable palm oil production is In the Palm of Singapore’s Hands.
This is pure nonsense from WWF. If palm oil small holders are so critical to the sustainability of the palm oil trade overall, then sustainable palm oil production is in the hands of the forty eight thousand independent small holders in Sarawak as well as the millions of small holders world wide who have no means to meet expensive and techno-centric sustainability certification processes as set up by WWF.
Singapore serves as a major hub for global palm oil trade and finance where palm oil giants like Golden Agri Resources and Wilmar find financing and a convenient point of export. It's even good paying grounds for social media influencers like People’s Movement Against Haze who try to scrub clean Singapore’s role in palm oil by blaming it on Indonesia.
If profits and revenues from the palm oil industry were considered in the EU’s benchmarking of countries, Singapore should have been rated as Standard Risk along with Indonesia and Malaysia based on where it makes its money from. After all, where does Singapore get its palm oil from?
With an EU review of the benchmark of countries for deforestation due in 2026, DOPPA has demanded an exemption for indigenous farmers of palm oil, cocoa and coffee all of which are cultivated by indigenous peoples in Sarawak.
Quoting the Sarawak Land Code to confirm legality Napolean Ningkos provided a solid reason as to why the EU should exempt indigenous small holders from regulatory restrictions on imports.
“Our farms can only be cultivated after land titles are granted under the Sarawak Land Code, which recognises Native Customary Rights (NCR) as legitimate land ownership. The baseline for obtaining a land title is that our forefathers must have already developed the land.”
Will Ursula von der Leyen and the European Commission acknowledge these indigenous voices and be transparent in the review of the benchmarking exercise?
Published June 2025. CSPO Watch
|
|
|