Hiding monoculture
oil palm plantations under a business-friendly “forest” definition
An article published on the
website EUobserver.com (1) informs that “a draft commission
communication offering guidance to EU member states on the use
of biofuels has classified palm oil plantations - the source
of one of the most destructive forms of biofuels - as "forests." Essentially,
the document argues that because palm oil plantations are tall
enough and shady enough, they count as forests.”
The article quotes the document: "Continuously
forested areas are defined as areas where trees have reached,
or can reach, at least heights of five metres, making up a crown
cover of more than 30 percent." "They would normally
include forest, forest plantations and other tree plantations
such as palm oil." "This means, for example, that a
change from forest to oil palm plantation would not per se constitute
a breach of the [sustainability criteria].”
The above is the successful
outcome of the intense lobbying campaign on the EU Commission
carried out by Malaysian producers – through GPlus, the
international lobbying outfit hired by the Malaysian Palm Oil
Council. At the same time, it serves well the purposes of the
EU, that last year passed the EU Renewable Energy Directive,
which requires EU member states to source 10 per cent of transport
fuels from renewable sources, much of which will certainly come
from monoculture oil palm plantations. Defining those plantations
as “forests”
will assist in greenwashing their social and environmental impacts.
Indonesia, the world’s
top producer of palm oil has swiftly seized the opportunity for
defining its destructive oil palm plantations as “forests”.
On 16 February, the Jakarta Post informed that “the Forestry
Ministry is drafting a decree to include oil palm plantations
in the forest sector to comply with international standards in
mitigating climate change.” The head of research and development
at the ministry, Tachrir Fathoni, said that “by definition,
oil palm plantations will be defined as forest”, arguing
that “many countries such as Malaysia, the world’s
second biggest palm oil producer after Indonesia, had included
oil palm plantations in its forest sector.”
Although defining industrial
monocultures of an alien species as “forest”
is scientifically absurd, it makes much economic sense, as Tachrir
Fathoni explains: “By doing so, Malaysia can reap financial
incentives from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
of carbon trade.” He said that the UN only categorized trees
with a certain height as forest trees, without identifying their
species and that this move “is to anticipate the implementation
of the REDD scheme”. Under REDD (Reducing emissions from
deforestation and degradation) countries with extensive
“forest cover” can receive financial benefits by stopping
deforestation. Which means that Indonesia will be financially rewarded
for destroying its tropical forests as long as they substitute
them with oil palm
“forests”!
All this absurd situation serves
at least to strengthen the position of the many organizations
that have for years been challenging the FAO’s definition
of forest, that includes plantations as such. International processes
such as UNFCCC have uncritically accepted the FAO definition,
thus leading to absurd situations such as the one now being exposed.
At the same time, we hope that
the leaked document will lead to organized opposition in Europe
against such definition by the EU, which if adopted will help
to accelerate forest destruction, not only in Indonesia and Malaysia,
but throughout the entire South.
Oil palm plantations are not
forests!
(1) “Palm oil plantations
are now 'forests,' says EU”, by Leigh Phillips, http://euobserver.com/885/29410
