EU MEP Vote to Ban Palm oil Biofuel Will Improve Industry Impact
Just as I expected, the EU MEPs drive to ban palm oil from its renewable energy directives(RED) went a step further this month as they confirmed their position to ban palm oil use in biofuels by January 2021. As reported by Dutch NGO Milieudefensie:
“A great victory for the rainforest and its inhabitants: the European Parliament today voted for an end to palm oil in biofuels as of 1 January 2021. 'The European Parliament is rescuing champion rainforest today.”
“A great victory for the rainforest and its inhabitants: the European Parliament today voted for an end to palm oil in biofuels as of 1 January 2021. 'The European Parliament is rescuing champion rainforest today.”
Headlines like this tend to distort the truth. This is not a great victory for the inhabitants of rainforests unless we assume that the indigenous peoples of rainforest-rich countries are happy to live in bamboo huts while eating endangered animals. Just this week, customary landowners in Papua New Guinea criticised British journalist Andrew Thomas for his documentary saying:
“Perhaps he should check his privilege and allow the people and government of PNG to make their own development choices, and prioritise the livelihoods of citizens over the tender feelings of fly-in journalists and foreign environmental activists,”
Neither is it saving rainforests as the EU decision to allow competing vegetable oils like soy and rapeseed to remain part of the RED creates opportunities for tropical countries to grow those crops should they decide to pursue the EU’s biofuel market. As further stated by Milleudefense:
“The European Parliament today also voted on the use of other food crops for fuel, such as soya and rapeseed. There seems to be no total ban on food fuels. But the use is being restricted. That is also profit for the forests, local residents, and food prices.”
If this decision ends up being adopted by EU countries, the consequences could be the exact opposite of what the EU is hoping to gain from the proposed ban.
Proposed Palm Oil Ban Could Bring Unexpected Results
The way I see it, this whole brouhaha over palm oil in EU biofuels is a distraction from the EU’s foreseeable failure to meet their commitments to the Paris Agreement.
Just as EU attempts at saving forests in non-EU countries have failed through schemes like the REDD, this new attempt to reduce global deforestation through the ban on palm oil-based biofuels will also fail to protect forests.
The current batch of MEPs with the support of their local agricultural industries are a formidable opponent for any palm oil industry members arguing against the ban. Irish MEP Sean Kelly was quoted as saying:
“We are not banning palm oil imports into Europe, we are just specifying that we do not want it to be considered to be renewable in our transport mix due to sustainability concerns,” he emphasised, underlining that the objective is to produce sustainable biofuels grown by EU farmers.
The thing is. developing countries will have to use the natural capital available to them to develop because there simply isn’t enough carbon offset money or charitable donations to do that for them.
The EU would do much better to use its considerable buying power to force sustainable development in developing countries. Examples of EU quality standards impacting global production of consumer products have shown success in mitigating environmental impact in the use of chemicals for textiles and agriculture. The same can be done for any palm oil they import. The Amsterdam Palm Oil Declaration is already in place and will be a much more effective tool to save forests than the proposed ban.
If the bottom line through all this is the protection of local economies in the EU, then we should acknowledge that and look for solutions because palm oil has contributed to European jobs. A happy meeting ground would see producer countries like Malaysia and Indonesia continue to provide raw materials that create palm oil-based jobs within the EU.
The need to delink their palm oil shipments from deforestation must be done of course. It’s up to the producer countries like Malaysia which has protested the proposal vehemently, or private sector suppliers to their EU buyers to meet any standard the EU can come up with. This is where I expect the proposed ban to have the best impact on protecting forests globally. Even if the adopted ban gets struck down at the WTO, it will serve as a Damocles sword over the palm oil industry globally.
“Perhaps he should check his privilege and allow the people and government of PNG to make their own development choices, and prioritise the livelihoods of citizens over the tender feelings of fly-in journalists and foreign environmental activists,”
Neither is it saving rainforests as the EU decision to allow competing vegetable oils like soy and rapeseed to remain part of the RED creates opportunities for tropical countries to grow those crops should they decide to pursue the EU’s biofuel market. As further stated by Milleudefense:
“The European Parliament today also voted on the use of other food crops for fuel, such as soya and rapeseed. There seems to be no total ban on food fuels. But the use is being restricted. That is also profit for the forests, local residents, and food prices.”
If this decision ends up being adopted by EU countries, the consequences could be the exact opposite of what the EU is hoping to gain from the proposed ban.
- Forests: As long as plant based energy like soy and rapeseed are allowed to be a part of a renewable energy program, who is to say that palm oil growing countries like Malaysia or Indonesia will not capitalise on that and cut down their palm oil farms to grow soy and rapeseed? The favorable environment for agriculture in tropical countries plus the fact that the cost of living is much lower means they can produce soy or rapeseed at much lower costs than their European competition.
- Forest inhabitants in places like Papua New Guinea will continue to be the poorest on earth. The romantic notion of forest peoples living contented lives in tree top houses is a fallacy. Impoverished people can have a devastating impact on nature as witnessed through poaching, illegal logging and mining in Third World countries.
- Food prices in the EU would surely go up should European vegetable oils try to replace the massive vacuum that would be left by the ban on palm oil in 2021. The only way food prices in the EU could come down is if the rapeseed industry in Europe converted its planted areas to grow food, rather than a biofuel which other countries can produce at a lower cost.
Proposed Palm Oil Ban Could Bring Unexpected Results
The way I see it, this whole brouhaha over palm oil in EU biofuels is a distraction from the EU’s foreseeable failure to meet their commitments to the Paris Agreement.
Just as EU attempts at saving forests in non-EU countries have failed through schemes like the REDD, this new attempt to reduce global deforestation through the ban on palm oil-based biofuels will also fail to protect forests.
The current batch of MEPs with the support of their local agricultural industries are a formidable opponent for any palm oil industry members arguing against the ban. Irish MEP Sean Kelly was quoted as saying:
“We are not banning palm oil imports into Europe, we are just specifying that we do not want it to be considered to be renewable in our transport mix due to sustainability concerns,” he emphasised, underlining that the objective is to produce sustainable biofuels grown by EU farmers.
The thing is. developing countries will have to use the natural capital available to them to develop because there simply isn’t enough carbon offset money or charitable donations to do that for them.
The EU would do much better to use its considerable buying power to force sustainable development in developing countries. Examples of EU quality standards impacting global production of consumer products have shown success in mitigating environmental impact in the use of chemicals for textiles and agriculture. The same can be done for any palm oil they import. The Amsterdam Palm Oil Declaration is already in place and will be a much more effective tool to save forests than the proposed ban.
If the bottom line through all this is the protection of local economies in the EU, then we should acknowledge that and look for solutions because palm oil has contributed to European jobs. A happy meeting ground would see producer countries like Malaysia and Indonesia continue to provide raw materials that create palm oil-based jobs within the EU.
The need to delink their palm oil shipments from deforestation must be done of course. It’s up to the producer countries like Malaysia which has protested the proposal vehemently, or private sector suppliers to their EU buyers to meet any standard the EU can come up with. This is where I expect the proposed ban to have the best impact on protecting forests globally. Even if the adopted ban gets struck down at the WTO, it will serve as a Damocles sword over the palm oil industry globally.