UPDATE January 06, 2022
The original commentary below was posted three years ago, and brought up how the EU justified its use of Canadian tarsands oil, one of the most polluting sources of crude oil globally.
Since the original post, much has happened.
Both Indonesia and Malaysia have filed complaints to the WTO over Europe's bully tactics in singling out palm oil for punitive economic measures.
The European Commission's various proposals to stop imported deforestation kicked into high gear with Corporate Due Diligence Directive and a law on Deforestation Regulation, both of which are promoted by the EU as a way to save forests.
The EU's ambitions to save tropical forests would have been laudable if EU policy makers acknowledged that the use of fossil fuels is the biggest contributor to climate change and and threat to forests worldwide.
In these post-COVID days since our original post, the European Union continues to show off its hypocrisy in fighting climate change by buying more Russian fossil fuels despite the Union's "sanctions" against Russia.
Then the Union had the gall to tell other importers of Russian fossil fuels not to support Russia.
India's External Affairs Minister, S Jaishankar, defended India's move to import crude oil from Russia notwithstanding the growing disquiet over it by Western powers, saying that Europe has imported six times the fossil fuel energy from Russia than India has done since February 2022.
What use is the European Union's grand pledges and laws on curbing deforestation if its own economic policies are not in line?
-----------
The original commentary below was posted three years ago, and brought up how the EU justified its use of Canadian tarsands oil, one of the most polluting sources of crude oil globally.
Since the original post, much has happened.
Both Indonesia and Malaysia have filed complaints to the WTO over Europe's bully tactics in singling out palm oil for punitive economic measures.
The European Commission's various proposals to stop imported deforestation kicked into high gear with Corporate Due Diligence Directive and a law on Deforestation Regulation, both of which are promoted by the EU as a way to save forests.
The EU's ambitions to save tropical forests would have been laudable if EU policy makers acknowledged that the use of fossil fuels is the biggest contributor to climate change and and threat to forests worldwide.
In these post-COVID days since our original post, the European Union continues to show off its hypocrisy in fighting climate change by buying more Russian fossil fuels despite the Union's "sanctions" against Russia.
Then the Union had the gall to tell other importers of Russian fossil fuels not to support Russia.
India's External Affairs Minister, S Jaishankar, defended India's move to import crude oil from Russia notwithstanding the growing disquiet over it by Western powers, saying that Europe has imported six times the fossil fuel energy from Russia than India has done since February 2022.
What use is the European Union's grand pledges and laws on curbing deforestation if its own economic policies are not in line?
-----------
Original Post from 2019 below
The European Union is looking to reduce its impact on global deforestation and has singled out palm oil in its biofuels as a target. This is being protested by palm oil producing countries of Malaysia, Indonesia and Colombia which collectively make up close to 90% of the global production of palm oil.
Indonesia is threatening to take the case to the World Trade Organization (WTO) to argue its case against the background of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal of poverty eradication. Malaysia has additionally said that any trade talks with the EU will be suspended until the palm oil dispute is settled. Public officials have even made statements suggesting that Malaysian procurement of defence weapons will favor only countries that support its palm oil industry.
Russian arms for Malaysia’s palm oil aside, the country is hoping China’s investments in Malaysia will lead to closer trade ties that include palm oil. Trade in palm oil with China is a fickle one where political influences like the Canada-China spat over Huawei has spilled over into its vegetable oils imports.
EU must lead on cleaning “dirty” palm oil with certification
The Russian arms for palm oil or China’s use of its economic clout for political gains may well turn out to be short term power plays but the one thing that should worry conservationists is the absence of any mention of sustainability from these two heavyweights.
The IUCN has warned that moving away from palm oil to a different vegetable oil like soy may have unintended consequences on conservation that will be many times worse. That report compares palm oil from Southeast Asia to lower yielding crops like soy in the Amazonas or rapeseed in Europe. A more direct consequence of the EU’s Delegated Act was reported by Foresthints.com which warned:
“The EU risks losing its entrenched role and engagement in safeguarding the Leuser Ecosystem if the EU delegated act takes effect, thus prompting the Indonesian government to sever its relationship with the EU and its member states in protest.
By mentioning a potential review of Indonesia’s relationship with the EU and its member states - including a review of its partnership with the EU in the protection of the Leuser Ecosystem - in the aforementioned joint letter, President Jokowi is clearly not playing around and should be taken seriously."
This is clear indication that the pressure from the EU to clean up palm oil production is working to protect forests in Southeast Asia.
The on-going efforts by Malaysia and Indonesia to certify their palm oil production under the Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) scheme and Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) scheme are further proof of the EU’s importance in the palm oil market.
European officials have meanwhile tried to play down the proposed ban by saying that the ban is only on the use of palm oil in biofuels, that the EU remains an “open market to palm oil.” This assurance is seen as false by palm oil producing countries which stand to lose market access to the biggest premium market for biofuels.
Will certification persuade the EU to drop the Delegated Act?
Certification alone may not be enough to dissuade the European Parliament from the ban on palm oil. It is a needed exercise for palm oil producing countries to show that any deforestation for palm oil is not wanton or illegal. What will persuade the European Parliament to drop the Delegated Act is the failure to meet their renewable energy targets. As opined by Vincente Lopez in Euractiv:
“ the EU has adopted confused energy and environment policies which could be self defeating in the long run.”
Dr Kamran Bokhari who is the Director of Strategy and Programs with the Center for Global Policy in Washington and a national security and foreign policy specialist with the University of Ottawa’s Professional Development Institute was more critical when he wrote in euronews:
“Another poor policy technique is to pick a relatively small issue and make it into a bogeyman, with the implicit message that if only we can solve this one problem, global warming will be reversed, the ice caps will refreeze and all will be well.
Examples of this problem are the inexplicable war on plastic bagsin much of the Western world, and the EU’s banning of palm oil when the alternatives such as soybean and rapeseed are even more harmful for the environment. Western governments making decisions that appease superficial “woke” campaigns (and maybe even secure them some “green” votes) will ultimately make the problem worse, not better.”
Legal Precedence for the Delegated Act
The Delegated Act which singles out palm oil has legal precedence that should embolden Malaysia and Indonesia to file grievance at the WTO. Looking at the history of banning products by the EU on imported goods, there is no doubt that unilateral decisions by the EU to ban products in European Union countries can become law. According to this report by Buzzfeed, the EU has banned 1300 ingredients deemed to be health hazards for its citizens.
The Union has even succeeded in banning seal products based on “moral values” despite the protestations of Canada and Norway.
However, the success of these unilateral decisions, do not apply to the proposed ban on palm oil in biofuels where the predominant excuse given is climate change.
In that context, the closest parallel to “dirty palm oil” can be found in the precedent setting case of the EU’s position on “dirty oil” from the tar sands of Alberta province in Canada.
In the early days of the European Union’s stated goal to reduce its emissions from “climate-wrecking fuels” , oil from the tar sands of Alberta was identified as a target. Mainstream media including the BBC was quick to cash in the topic and released report after report to attract viewers. Environmental groups were no less quick to condemn this “dirty oil” and tied in indigenous peoples protests against its use to the emissions and extinctions factors. As with the case of Malaysia and Indonesia today, Canada threatened the EU with trade wars if tar sands oil was banned.
Long story short, tar sands oil has now been given a clean label despite the protestations of green groups. Did the tar sands oil industry really reduce its environmental impact or were there other underlying factors that prompted the EU to backtrack on its ban?
The reason quite simply is energy security. The threat of having to depend on Russian sources of oil and gas to power the EU’s energy sources was enough to magically clean up tar sands oil for EU consumption.
For palm oil producing countries, there is no such political threat but an abundance of eagerness on their part to provide a solution to the EU’s transition from fossil fuels to renewables.
Will the EU’s added demand for crude palm oil or palm oil kernel shells lead to greater deforestation and human rights abuses in tropical countries? It will not. If anything, certification by the MSPO is helping indigenous peoples in Malaysia to gain land titles. Certification under the ISPO will help to reduce illegal palm oil which is a major cause of deforestation in Indonesia.
European powerhouses like Germany should look at what energy source dependent Japan is doing. Germany, which has pledged to close down most of the coal plants that backs up its renewable energy sources, needs to replace coal. Biomass and biofuels will be an important source for the replacement. What Japan is doing is relying on certification schemes to ensure the sustainability of their bioenergy sources and is doing it with equal weighing of producer countries need for development. This is global sustainability.
Published April 2019. CSPO Watch
The European Union is looking to reduce its impact on global deforestation and has singled out palm oil in its biofuels as a target. This is being protested by palm oil producing countries of Malaysia, Indonesia and Colombia which collectively make up close to 90% of the global production of palm oil.
Indonesia is threatening to take the case to the World Trade Organization (WTO) to argue its case against the background of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal of poverty eradication. Malaysia has additionally said that any trade talks with the EU will be suspended until the palm oil dispute is settled. Public officials have even made statements suggesting that Malaysian procurement of defence weapons will favor only countries that support its palm oil industry.
Russian arms for Malaysia’s palm oil aside, the country is hoping China’s investments in Malaysia will lead to closer trade ties that include palm oil. Trade in palm oil with China is a fickle one where political influences like the Canada-China spat over Huawei has spilled over into its vegetable oils imports.
EU must lead on cleaning “dirty” palm oil with certification
The Russian arms for palm oil or China’s use of its economic clout for political gains may well turn out to be short term power plays but the one thing that should worry conservationists is the absence of any mention of sustainability from these two heavyweights.
The IUCN has warned that moving away from palm oil to a different vegetable oil like soy may have unintended consequences on conservation that will be many times worse. That report compares palm oil from Southeast Asia to lower yielding crops like soy in the Amazonas or rapeseed in Europe. A more direct consequence of the EU’s Delegated Act was reported by Foresthints.com which warned:
“The EU risks losing its entrenched role and engagement in safeguarding the Leuser Ecosystem if the EU delegated act takes effect, thus prompting the Indonesian government to sever its relationship with the EU and its member states in protest.
By mentioning a potential review of Indonesia’s relationship with the EU and its member states - including a review of its partnership with the EU in the protection of the Leuser Ecosystem - in the aforementioned joint letter, President Jokowi is clearly not playing around and should be taken seriously."
This is clear indication that the pressure from the EU to clean up palm oil production is working to protect forests in Southeast Asia.
The on-going efforts by Malaysia and Indonesia to certify their palm oil production under the Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) scheme and Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) scheme are further proof of the EU’s importance in the palm oil market.
European officials have meanwhile tried to play down the proposed ban by saying that the ban is only on the use of palm oil in biofuels, that the EU remains an “open market to palm oil.” This assurance is seen as false by palm oil producing countries which stand to lose market access to the biggest premium market for biofuels.
Will certification persuade the EU to drop the Delegated Act?
Certification alone may not be enough to dissuade the European Parliament from the ban on palm oil. It is a needed exercise for palm oil producing countries to show that any deforestation for palm oil is not wanton or illegal. What will persuade the European Parliament to drop the Delegated Act is the failure to meet their renewable energy targets. As opined by Vincente Lopez in Euractiv:
“ the EU has adopted confused energy and environment policies which could be self defeating in the long run.”
Dr Kamran Bokhari who is the Director of Strategy and Programs with the Center for Global Policy in Washington and a national security and foreign policy specialist with the University of Ottawa’s Professional Development Institute was more critical when he wrote in euronews:
“Another poor policy technique is to pick a relatively small issue and make it into a bogeyman, with the implicit message that if only we can solve this one problem, global warming will be reversed, the ice caps will refreeze and all will be well.
Examples of this problem are the inexplicable war on plastic bagsin much of the Western world, and the EU’s banning of palm oil when the alternatives such as soybean and rapeseed are even more harmful for the environment. Western governments making decisions that appease superficial “woke” campaigns (and maybe even secure them some “green” votes) will ultimately make the problem worse, not better.”
Legal Precedence for the Delegated Act
The Delegated Act which singles out palm oil has legal precedence that should embolden Malaysia and Indonesia to file grievance at the WTO. Looking at the history of banning products by the EU on imported goods, there is no doubt that unilateral decisions by the EU to ban products in European Union countries can become law. According to this report by Buzzfeed, the EU has banned 1300 ingredients deemed to be health hazards for its citizens.
The Union has even succeeded in banning seal products based on “moral values” despite the protestations of Canada and Norway.
However, the success of these unilateral decisions, do not apply to the proposed ban on palm oil in biofuels where the predominant excuse given is climate change.
In that context, the closest parallel to “dirty palm oil” can be found in the precedent setting case of the EU’s position on “dirty oil” from the tar sands of Alberta province in Canada.
In the early days of the European Union’s stated goal to reduce its emissions from “climate-wrecking fuels” , oil from the tar sands of Alberta was identified as a target. Mainstream media including the BBC was quick to cash in the topic and released report after report to attract viewers. Environmental groups were no less quick to condemn this “dirty oil” and tied in indigenous peoples protests against its use to the emissions and extinctions factors. As with the case of Malaysia and Indonesia today, Canada threatened the EU with trade wars if tar sands oil was banned.
Long story short, tar sands oil has now been given a clean label despite the protestations of green groups. Did the tar sands oil industry really reduce its environmental impact or were there other underlying factors that prompted the EU to backtrack on its ban?
The reason quite simply is energy security. The threat of having to depend on Russian sources of oil and gas to power the EU’s energy sources was enough to magically clean up tar sands oil for EU consumption.
For palm oil producing countries, there is no such political threat but an abundance of eagerness on their part to provide a solution to the EU’s transition from fossil fuels to renewables.
Will the EU’s added demand for crude palm oil or palm oil kernel shells lead to greater deforestation and human rights abuses in tropical countries? It will not. If anything, certification by the MSPO is helping indigenous peoples in Malaysia to gain land titles. Certification under the ISPO will help to reduce illegal palm oil which is a major cause of deforestation in Indonesia.
European powerhouses like Germany should look at what energy source dependent Japan is doing. Germany, which has pledged to close down most of the coal plants that backs up its renewable energy sources, needs to replace coal. Biomass and biofuels will be an important source for the replacement. What Japan is doing is relying on certification schemes to ensure the sustainability of their bioenergy sources and is doing it with equal weighing of producer countries need for development. This is global sustainability.
Published April 2019. CSPO Watch