Norway is arguably the most vocal opponent of unsustainable palm oil production and procurement on earth.
The call for worldwide forest conservation began to get loud several years ago when in 2014, Norway made a joint declaration with Germany and the UK at a UN climate summit in New York, pledging to “promote national commitments that encourage deforestation-free supply chains, including through public procurement policies to sustainably source commodities such as palm oil, soy, beef and timber, according to The Independent.
Now let’s fast forward to 6 December 2018 as things got even louder - the Norwegian Parliament voted to implement measures and taxes to exclude palm oil-based biofuels with high deforestation risk, effective 1 January 2020, as reported in The Star.
A study by the Rainforest Foundation Norway found that the production of beef, palm oil, soy, and wood products in just seven countries with high deforestation rates (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Papua New Guinea), between 2000 and 2011, was responsible for 40 per cent of total tropical deforestation and 44 per cent of associated carbon emissions.
For the Rainforest Foundation Norway, which has been campaigning for years to secure a zero deforestation commitment from the Norwegian government, had in fact tasted the first victory in January 2012.
“The day the Norwegians rejected palm oil and deforestation” – such is the headline act when presented in words, read like this: “The story of palm oil in Norway is the story of David defeating Goliath. Of how a small environmental organisation won the hearts of a nation, and started a chain reaction that swept up supermarket chains, food producers and one of the world’s largest investment funds – ultimately making international palm oil tycoons promise to stop deforestation.”
Undeniably and proudly, Norway funds forest conservation projects worldwide and also supports human rights programmes for forest communities.
For proponents of sustainable practices, the debate is still rumbling on, however.
On 3 December 2018, a reader named D Evans showed his discerning eye for fact and opinion. He shared his views at Transport & Environment, an NGO website campaigning for cleaner transport, with the following thought-provoking insights:
“So, after reading this, I can see that palm oil is bad for pollution and contributes heavily to the deforestation of the rainforests. Yes, this is very bad and I agree something must be done. But instead of saying this thing should be banned, why don't organisations look into a more sustainable way of producing the crop. After all palm trees are exactly that trees that help re-oxygenate the atmosphere by converting carbon dioxide. Palm oil is also a renewable source of fuel for the motor industry and when consumed in its unrefined state along with a balanced diet, it’s proven to be able to lower levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), the “bad” cholesterol. So again, yes, I agree that deforestation is bad but maybe organisations like this (Transport & Environment) could look for a more proactive way to persuade companies to stop deforesting and suggest new areas where the growths could be established, meaning more trees planted to increase oxygen reproduction and generate a renewable fuel source for the motor industry.
The NGO’s job is to research, debate and campaign with the facts available, after all.
Malaysia’s Primary Industries Minister Teresa Kok has definitely urged Norway to review its recent decision to phase out the country's use of biofuels based on palm oil.
Her ministry had also issued a statement, drawing worldwide attention to Malaysia's efforts to foster sustainable palm oil production practices, noting that the country’s initiatives were "not appreciated and largely ignored by Europe, including Norway".
"We view this as unfair and unjust, going against free and fair trade, and is certainly not something we will take it lightly," she spoke out against such unfair treatments.
"Without clear and proper definitions and based on a decision not supported by validated facts, we are concerned that Norway, like some countries in Europe, will generalize and lump together all palm oil producers as drivers of deforestation and therefore deemed as unsustainable," she clarified, citing the move will adversely affect the bilateral trade relations between Malaysia and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) as well as serve as an obstacle to the Malaysia EFTA partnership talks.
"The Malaysia EFTA partnership agreement must provide fair market access to all of the countries involved, including fair treatment of sustainable palm oil, which is produced in Malaysia,” she continued.
"Without this fair market access, it will not be in the interest of Malaysia to pursue what will be a bad deal for the country and its people, particularly our 650,000 oil palm smallholders whose livelihood is at stake," she pointed this out.
While urging Norway to review its discriminatory policy, Kok would like to invite Norway’s lawmakers to come to Malaysia and see for themselves the sustainable practices the country has been championing.
“We want them to have a better understanding of our sustainable practices, which are a hallmark of the Malaysian palm oil industry," she said.
“This misguided ‘trend’ was also the basis for the reason why the Council of Palm Oil Producing Countries that include the major palm oil producers Indonesia and Malaysia, recently declined an invitation to collaborate at the EU workshop on ‘Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC)’ in relation to palm oil production, due to a lack of transparency and credibility with respect to the whole ILUC processes. This sort of action smacks of injustice and discrimination against products from developing countries like Malaysia,” Kok added.
"As a responsible producer of palm oil, we have already set in motion various initiatives to ensure sustainable practices are the norm rather than the exception, throughout the palm oil value chain," she assured.
And of course, on 27 September 2015, Malaysia officially pledged itself to improve the wellbeing of its people and environment, governed by the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 sustainable development goals.
On a commendable note, with a 2018 SDG Index score of 70, Malaysia ranks 55th out of 156 countries, and 2nd within ASEAN behind Singapore (43rd).
The Malaysian government requires both the independent and organised smallholders to be fully certified under the Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) Certification scheme by 31 Dec 2019 to reinforce its sustainable commitment.
