Palm oil producer countries to redefine sustainable palm oil
Indonesia is pushing for South-South cooperation on palm oil sustainability standards.
"Several BRICS countries have so far responded favourably to the idea, and there is already a consensus to create sustainable vegetable oil standards that acknowledge the challenges faced by developing nations."
"Several BRICS countries have so far responded favourably to the idea, and there is already a consensus to create sustainable vegetable oil standards that acknowledge the challenges faced by developing nations."
Indonesian palm oil
The big question as EURACTIV posed is whether a Global South standard on sustainability will be accepted by the Global North markets, Europe in particular.
The European Union sees itself as a market that is absolutely essential for the survival of poor palm oil or cocoa farmers in other countries and has been bossing these countries around on the issue of sustainability with a narrow focus on their forests.
This is what leads civil society organizations to imagine that their cushy jobs as pot bangers for the EU Commission will be secure as long as they shoot at what the Commission says to target.
CSOs should note that the EU Parliament has created a working group to investigate the EU’s funding of civil societies. This is not expected to fully clear the air on who funds these civil societies and what agendas were provided as part of the funding deals but it does call into question what truly motivates these CSOs. Environment or hired guns for the EU Commission?
As for Indonesia’s push for this South-South definition of sustainable palm oil, there is a bigger problem for Indonesia which will challenge its definition of sustainable palm oil.
Remember how carbon offsets were supposed to save the world while big business continues business as usual?
This was such an appealing notion that even the palm oil industries bought into it.
That didn’t work out.
Carbon offsets were exposed as a poor solution by Chris Lang for REDD Monitor. His work is worth exploring as he took deep dives into the failure of carbon offsets. One of the most revealing articles on REDD Monitor has to do with the notorious Nigel Purvis from Climate Advisers who charged $639 per hour for his office work.
The same Nigel Purvis was later identified as a key figure who took millions of dollars from the Norwegian government in a complex scheme based on carbon offsets. This report by Tor Aksel Bolle and Tarjei Leer-Salvesen for Panorama Nyheter reads like a crime novel on how Climate Advisers profited off paper protection of forests.
As the EU looks to reintroduce carbon trading, the World Economic Forum has laid out some recommendations for the EU to avoid the mistakes made in carbon trading but Indonesia should remain wary of the EU's return to carbon trading.
The thing about carbon trading is the core premise which requires forested countries to preserve their forests rather than develop them for crops like palm oil or cocoa.
Feeding Frenzy as Media Jumps for Clicks
Meanwhile, a bunch of CSOs have written a letter to Mondelez urging the food giant to not push for a delay of the EUDR, the EU’s demand of its trade partners to preserve forests.
"Citing an urgency for action the CSOs argued that the top two cocoa producing countries of Cote d'Ivoire and Ghana have lost over 94% and 80% of their forests, respectively, since 1990. And deforestation in West Africa for cocoa remains an ongoing problem. This deforestation has driven unfavourable rainfalls and weather anomalies, putting the cocoa heartland at risk. These environmental challenges are not causes for further delay, they are instead a clear signal of the need to act now."
The myopic opinions of these CSOs is a disservice to African farmers who grow cocoa and coffee to supply the EU with basic ingredients to make chocolatey treats and sweets.
Media supportive of the EUDR like Food Navigator wrote a drama filled piece of how the EUDR could crumble into nothingness if another delay was granted.
Citing "big names" like Nestle, Tony's Chocolonely and Barry Callebaut are ready for a full imposition of the EUDR, Flora Southey’s opinion was that the EU should stand firm on the imposition of the EUDR despite the possible granting of "negligible risk" status to high deforestation risk supplies from the US and some EU member states.
Gill Hyslop who writes for Bakery and Snacks was even more dramatic in her piece titled:
130 seconds to destroy a forest unless the EUDR holds the line
Gill quotes an European Commission monitor on wildfires in Europe where more than one million hectares of forests have “gone up in smoke” in 2025 compared to 222,000 hectares in 2024. Did Europe's imported goods cause out of control wildfires or bad policy on wildfire prevention?
The obvious blame for Europe's out of control wildfires can be put squarely on bad policies on prevention. Just look at Indonesia, the world's biggest producer of palm oil. Strong policies on preventing wildfires had the United Nations claiming that Indonesia leads the way in taming forest fires. Europe should learn from Indonesia and the UNEP on fighting forest fires instead of blame shifting.
The same goes for Gill Hyslop who went on to quote the American group Mighty Earth as an authority on forests and climate change. Quoting rich private groups like Mighty Earth who have hijacked forests and claimed them as a negotiating tool for their paycheck is entirely meaningless in the urgent discourse on climate.
Mondelez may have understood the problem better through reports like this one on cocoa and coffee from Africa Confidential.
Smallholders to be hit hardest as EU and ‘Big Chocolate’ resolve to impose new traceability rules next year
Sean Mowbray wrote a more comprehensive report on the EUDR and warned that it could have potential unintended consequences.
Based on trade flows and geopolitics in recent years, Sean Mowbray should have written that the EUDR’s potential for unintended consequences has been realized.
The green demands of the EU Commission and the reaping of profits from African farmers by European companies like Barry Callebaut or Nestle have become less important to African farmers in recent years.
A report from Swissinfo in 2021 had already indicated a shift away from Europe that posed a threat to the Swiss chocolate industry’s profits and its supply of raw materials.
The answer to the question whether China can help Africa outmaneuver “big chocolate” is now evident in 2025.
According to Inside China Business, the days of Wall Street brokers and trading companies reaping profits from cocoa and coffee are coming to an end. African countries are benefiting from downstream industries thanks to Chinese investments.
As far as Mondelez's shares are concerned, Wall Street will continue to benefit from Mondelez’s profits on Nasdaq as it looks to expand in the Chinese market.
Market Leakage and Smallholder Inclusion
As for the CSO’s calls for the EU to implement the Deforestation Regulations as scheduled for December 2025, that is tantamount to asking the EU to exclude millions of smallholders in the global south from the EU market which increases market leakage to other markets.
The report from Sean Mowbray quotes experts on the unintended consequences of the EUDR which Flora Southey and Gill Hyslop should note.
Indonesia with its millions of smallholders is investing in incentives to ensure that smallholders are not cut out from sustainability initiatives but the deadline set for them is March 2029.
This is a reasonable schedule as Indonesia makes its case with the EU through the voices of nine Indonesian women involved in the cultivation of cocoa, coffee, palm oil and rubber.
Including every smallholder and preventing market leakage at the same time will require the EU to work with partner countries the way it has with Malaysia in accepting the country's standard for sustainable palm oil the MSPO as an authority for EUDR compliance.
This is a huge achievement for Malaysia which committed to no deforestation for palm oil in order to meet the demands of its customers, the EU especially. This should earn Malaysia an automatic relisting to “Low Risk” or even “neglible risk” for deforestation under the EUDR’s Country Classification List of the EU’s ranking of trade partners.
A relist of Malaysia to Low Risk is crucial to its palm oil industry where the Standard Risk classification added administrative costs to its exports. Beyond costs, the EU's approval of Malaysia's sustainable palm oil production means that big brands including Ferrero, Mars, Mondelez and Nestle can put aside the concerns of their consumers when it comes to palm oil from Malaysia to focus on other ingredients.
As Euractiv reports:
"According to the diplomats, some palm oil buyers are already shifting to Malaysia – the world’s second-largest palm oil producer – where meeting geolocation requirements is seen as easier."
The Malaysian achievement shows that the bottom line for Indonesia is that a South-South push for sustainable palm oil can be accepted in the North as long as it sticks to the basic tenets of sustainability in people, planet and profit. It must be noted here that "people" and "profit" does not include Nigel Purvis or Climate Advisers or Mighty Earth who do not own a tree worth mentioning when it comes down to climate change.
The European Union sees itself as a market that is absolutely essential for the survival of poor palm oil or cocoa farmers in other countries and has been bossing these countries around on the issue of sustainability with a narrow focus on their forests.
This is what leads civil society organizations to imagine that their cushy jobs as pot bangers for the EU Commission will be secure as long as they shoot at what the Commission says to target.
CSOs should note that the EU Parliament has created a working group to investigate the EU’s funding of civil societies. This is not expected to fully clear the air on who funds these civil societies and what agendas were provided as part of the funding deals but it does call into question what truly motivates these CSOs. Environment or hired guns for the EU Commission?
As for Indonesia’s push for this South-South definition of sustainable palm oil, there is a bigger problem for Indonesia which will challenge its definition of sustainable palm oil.
Remember how carbon offsets were supposed to save the world while big business continues business as usual?
This was such an appealing notion that even the palm oil industries bought into it.
That didn’t work out.
Carbon offsets were exposed as a poor solution by Chris Lang for REDD Monitor. His work is worth exploring as he took deep dives into the failure of carbon offsets. One of the most revealing articles on REDD Monitor has to do with the notorious Nigel Purvis from Climate Advisers who charged $639 per hour for his office work.
The same Nigel Purvis was later identified as a key figure who took millions of dollars from the Norwegian government in a complex scheme based on carbon offsets. This report by Tor Aksel Bolle and Tarjei Leer-Salvesen for Panorama Nyheter reads like a crime novel on how Climate Advisers profited off paper protection of forests.
As the EU looks to reintroduce carbon trading, the World Economic Forum has laid out some recommendations for the EU to avoid the mistakes made in carbon trading but Indonesia should remain wary of the EU's return to carbon trading.
The thing about carbon trading is the core premise which requires forested countries to preserve their forests rather than develop them for crops like palm oil or cocoa.
Feeding Frenzy as Media Jumps for Clicks
Meanwhile, a bunch of CSOs have written a letter to Mondelez urging the food giant to not push for a delay of the EUDR, the EU’s demand of its trade partners to preserve forests.
"Citing an urgency for action the CSOs argued that the top two cocoa producing countries of Cote d'Ivoire and Ghana have lost over 94% and 80% of their forests, respectively, since 1990. And deforestation in West Africa for cocoa remains an ongoing problem. This deforestation has driven unfavourable rainfalls and weather anomalies, putting the cocoa heartland at risk. These environmental challenges are not causes for further delay, they are instead a clear signal of the need to act now."
The myopic opinions of these CSOs is a disservice to African farmers who grow cocoa and coffee to supply the EU with basic ingredients to make chocolatey treats and sweets.
Media supportive of the EUDR like Food Navigator wrote a drama filled piece of how the EUDR could crumble into nothingness if another delay was granted.
Citing "big names" like Nestle, Tony's Chocolonely and Barry Callebaut are ready for a full imposition of the EUDR, Flora Southey’s opinion was that the EU should stand firm on the imposition of the EUDR despite the possible granting of "negligible risk" status to high deforestation risk supplies from the US and some EU member states.
Gill Hyslop who writes for Bakery and Snacks was even more dramatic in her piece titled:
130 seconds to destroy a forest unless the EUDR holds the line
Gill quotes an European Commission monitor on wildfires in Europe where more than one million hectares of forests have “gone up in smoke” in 2025 compared to 222,000 hectares in 2024. Did Europe's imported goods cause out of control wildfires or bad policy on wildfire prevention?
The obvious blame for Europe's out of control wildfires can be put squarely on bad policies on prevention. Just look at Indonesia, the world's biggest producer of palm oil. Strong policies on preventing wildfires had the United Nations claiming that Indonesia leads the way in taming forest fires. Europe should learn from Indonesia and the UNEP on fighting forest fires instead of blame shifting.
The same goes for Gill Hyslop who went on to quote the American group Mighty Earth as an authority on forests and climate change. Quoting rich private groups like Mighty Earth who have hijacked forests and claimed them as a negotiating tool for their paycheck is entirely meaningless in the urgent discourse on climate.
Mondelez may have understood the problem better through reports like this one on cocoa and coffee from Africa Confidential.
Smallholders to be hit hardest as EU and ‘Big Chocolate’ resolve to impose new traceability rules next year
Sean Mowbray wrote a more comprehensive report on the EUDR and warned that it could have potential unintended consequences.
Based on trade flows and geopolitics in recent years, Sean Mowbray should have written that the EUDR’s potential for unintended consequences has been realized.
The green demands of the EU Commission and the reaping of profits from African farmers by European companies like Barry Callebaut or Nestle have become less important to African farmers in recent years.
A report from Swissinfo in 2021 had already indicated a shift away from Europe that posed a threat to the Swiss chocolate industry’s profits and its supply of raw materials.
The answer to the question whether China can help Africa outmaneuver “big chocolate” is now evident in 2025.
According to Inside China Business, the days of Wall Street brokers and trading companies reaping profits from cocoa and coffee are coming to an end. African countries are benefiting from downstream industries thanks to Chinese investments.
As far as Mondelez's shares are concerned, Wall Street will continue to benefit from Mondelez’s profits on Nasdaq as it looks to expand in the Chinese market.
Market Leakage and Smallholder Inclusion
As for the CSO’s calls for the EU to implement the Deforestation Regulations as scheduled for December 2025, that is tantamount to asking the EU to exclude millions of smallholders in the global south from the EU market which increases market leakage to other markets.
The report from Sean Mowbray quotes experts on the unintended consequences of the EUDR which Flora Southey and Gill Hyslop should note.
Indonesia with its millions of smallholders is investing in incentives to ensure that smallholders are not cut out from sustainability initiatives but the deadline set for them is March 2029.
This is a reasonable schedule as Indonesia makes its case with the EU through the voices of nine Indonesian women involved in the cultivation of cocoa, coffee, palm oil and rubber.
Including every smallholder and preventing market leakage at the same time will require the EU to work with partner countries the way it has with Malaysia in accepting the country's standard for sustainable palm oil the MSPO as an authority for EUDR compliance.
This is a huge achievement for Malaysia which committed to no deforestation for palm oil in order to meet the demands of its customers, the EU especially. This should earn Malaysia an automatic relisting to “Low Risk” or even “neglible risk” for deforestation under the EUDR’s Country Classification List of the EU’s ranking of trade partners.
A relist of Malaysia to Low Risk is crucial to its palm oil industry where the Standard Risk classification added administrative costs to its exports. Beyond costs, the EU's approval of Malaysia's sustainable palm oil production means that big brands including Ferrero, Mars, Mondelez and Nestle can put aside the concerns of their consumers when it comes to palm oil from Malaysia to focus on other ingredients.
As Euractiv reports:
"According to the diplomats, some palm oil buyers are already shifting to Malaysia – the world’s second-largest palm oil producer – where meeting geolocation requirements is seen as easier."
The Malaysian achievement shows that the bottom line for Indonesia is that a South-South push for sustainable palm oil can be accepted in the North as long as it sticks to the basic tenets of sustainability in people, planet and profit. It must be noted here that "people" and "profit" does not include Nigel Purvis or Climate Advisers or Mighty Earth who do not own a tree worth mentioning when it comes down to climate change.