Title: Addressing the Threats to Biodiversity from Oil Palm Agriculture
Author: David S Wilcove and Lian Pin Koh
Biodiversity and Conservation (2010) 19:999-1007
DOI: 10.1007/s10531-009-9760-x
Summary
In this paper, the authors expressed concern that
the rapid pace of deforestation linked to palm oil development in Southeast
Asia, combined with the insufficient demands for certified sustainable palm oil
from the world’s largest purchasers, China and India would threaten and accelerate
the demise of its natural biodiversity. The countries affected will be
Malaysia, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. The authors thus proposed a series of
“pressure points”, ranging from regulation policies to financial incentives/
disincentives to be applied to the palm oil industry (growers, producers,
users/retailers) to address the problem of biodiversity loss. All these
strategies have their strengths and weaknesses. Thus, a mixture of these is
advocated by the authors to help conserve the biodiversity found in the
forests.
Abstract
Oil-palm agriculture is
the greatest immediate threat to biodiversity in Southeast Asia. Despite the
efforts of environmentalists, oil palm continues to expand across the tropics.
Those concerned about the impacts of oil palm on biodiversity must face some
harsh social, economic, and ecological realities: (i) oil palm has been a very
profitable crop; (ii) palm oil is used in so many products that simple, direct
actions, such as boycotts, are unlikely to succeed; (iii) there is currently
insufficient demand for certified sustainable palm oil and inadequate political
clout from environmental groups in two of the biggest markets for palm
oil—China and India—to slow the rate of forest conversion; and (iv) oil-palm
agriculture has improved the lives of poor rural communities in Southeast Asia
(although it has also disenfranchised some indigenous communities). To address
the threats posed by oil-palm agriculture to biodiversity, environmentalists
must change the behavior of the palm oil business through: (i) regulations to
curb undesirable activities (e.g., a ban on converting forests to oil palm);
(ii) financial incentives to promote desirable behavior (e.g., production of
certified, sustainable oil palm); (iii) financial disincentives designed to
discourage undesirable behavior (e.g., consumer pressure on major manufacturers
and retailers to use palm oil that does not come from plantations created at
the expense of forests); and (iv) the promotion of alternative, more biodiversity-friendly
uses of forested land that might otherwise be converted to oil palm. There is
no single best approach for dealing with the oil-palm crisis in Southeast Asia;
a mixture of regulations, incentives, and disincentives targeted at all sectors
of the oil-palm industry is necessary to protect the region’s rapidly
disappearing forests.
Comments / Observations
Overall, there are a few
key contentions in this paper that warrant further focus and elaboration. First
of all, the article did not mention that in Malaysia, forest areas can be designated
as agricultural land or state land for development purposes. These have been
alienated previously under Malaysia’s land use planning but the forested area
may not have been used yet. However, primary forests rich in biodiversity,
including HCV areas are gazetted as totally protected area and fully protected.
Examples are the national parks and animal sanctuaries. Secondly, plantation
companies seeking RSPO certification must undergo a HCV assessment before converting
new areas for planting. This ensures that all new plantings are done on areas
that do not encroach on HCV areas. Finally, conservationists, in their approach
to access the biodiversity threat from oil palm agriculture should also factor
in the value of forest as a natural resource of a country which can play a
significant part in contributing towards its development. Malaysia understands
very well the need for sustainable management of these resources. Thus, the
forest in Malaysia is alienated in a manner that will give it a balance in both
development and conservation. Hence, the best way forward is for conservationists
to work with government bodies and the plantation sector in identifying forests
with high conservation value for protection and those for development, rather than
to lobby for a total ban on forest conversion that would ultimately stun the economic
and social growth of developing nations in Southeast Asia, leaving millions of
people trapped in the web of poverty.