"The Bitter Fruit of Oil Palm"

back to index

Other cases around the tropics: Africa

- Cameroon: Oil palm, people and the environment

As mentioned in chapter 2, oil palm plantations in Cameroon cover more than 80,000 hectares divided in three different sectors: 1) large scale industrial plantations, with some 58,000 hectares; 2) Village plantations comprising 12,000 hectares and 3) "Informal" plantations covering some 10,000 hectares.

Village plantations were promoted by the state for the supply of the large state-owned plantation and processing companies. The former are plantations which are contractually obliged to deliver, at market prices, their entire production to the processing plants of the -now privatised- agroindustries. The "market price" is obviously established by these enterprises, which at the local level constitute absolute monopolies.

The above situation has recently led to an increasing gap between small producers and large estates. The "informal" plantations have increased and deliveries of palm fruit to large processing plants have progressively diminished. Villagers prefer to either process their harvest themselves or sell to smaller processing units, from whom they usually obtain a higher price and cash payments. Until the early 1990's, the price established by the companies was considered to be too low, which led to diverting small-scale production to other buyers. Once it became evident that the agroindustries' own production was insufficient to cover their processing needs, they were forced to increase the price offered to outgrowers (from 26-31 francs CFA to 40-50 francs), in order to ensure raw material supply to the processing plants.

It is thus obvious that the complementarity between village plantations and the agroindustries has not been successful and that their relationship has been more based on competition than on complementarity. The sole fact that village planters refuse to even communicate their exact plantation areas to the companies is self-explanatory of this relationship.

Additionally, it is important to stress that the establishment of large-scale plantations has often been preceded by the expropriation of land of the neighbouring villages, without adequate compensation. According to the Cameroonian law, peasants do not own the land by customary right, and thus expropriation does not require compensation on the part of the State. This land property formula was already used in the times of colonization for expropriating the land of peasants and then transferring it, without cost, to new settlers, who could then grow their crops. After national independence, this practice continued in force, now for the benefit of local elites.

The establishment of large private palm plantations -normally located in the surroundings of villages- requires considerable extensions of land, and several cases have already been reported of conflict arising with local communities living in the area from the modality and conditions of land acquisition by outsiders, who, with the support of the government, obtain lands over which they had no previous customary right. However, by cultivating an evergreen plant, like oil palm, they are entitled to permanent customary rights, which guarantee their rights in detriment of the local population.

In addition, oil palm plantations have resulted in a number of environmental impacts, among which deforestation, biodiversity loss and pollution due to extensive use of agrochemicals. All those impacts result in loss of livelihoods for local people and the deterioration of the environment in which they live.

It is important to highlight that no food crops are allowed within plantations, even at the early establishment phase of plantations, where local people could be allowed to cultivate food crops until palms start interlocking canopies. The socio-economic and environmental impacts of these plantations on adjoining towns and villages need to be investigated to reflect issues related to:

- Availability of local food staples (food more expensive in Limbe), forest foods supportive system (non timber forest products are expensive and need to be imported from other parts of the country), availability of local craft items and alternative income opportunities (income of plantation workers is very low).

- Impacts associated to deforestation, as various hazardous floods are now common in the zone (Limbe and Ekondo-Titi cases in 2001 and 1998 respectively).

- Impacts of pollution from agrochemicals, as there are claims that chemicals banned in industrialized countries are still being used by these corporations on the grounds of reduced cost, lack of supervision by the State.

- Impacts on human health, as plantations are located close to human habitations, and aircraft sprays drift to towns from sister banana plantations.

- Impacts associated to pest infestation and infectious diseases due to plantations.

- The enclavement of towns as there are no opportunities for expansion and hill settlement has become a common phenomenon, with implications for upstream and downstream conflicts emanating.

- Impacts on soil chemical/physical/biological properties from palm oil production effluents discharged into open land during processing, which render the land useless for any agricultural purposes. In spite of the existence of opportunities for converting the effluents into useful products, they continue being discharged untreated into the environment.

With the above impact assessment carried out, alternative positions to monocultural plantations can be suggested to reflect more environmentally-friendly approaches to land use patterns in the sub-region.

In March this year, planters at Cote d'Ivoire's Ehania agro-industrial oil palm plantation unit embarked on an "unlimited strike action" to press for an increase in the price of palm oil. The strike paralysed the activities of three factories that collect and transform palm oil. The Ehania planters, grouped in an agricultural cooperative called Palm-Ehania, were protesting against a drop in the purchase price of their produce, which had since January 2001 fallen from 23 to 19.07 CFA francs (1 dollar = 700 CFA francs). The cooperative's vice president Ahissi Brou, said "the drop in price may force growers to abandon the plantations." He said they were determined to pursue their strike action until their demands were met, arguing that it was "inconceivable" that palm produce prices drop while those of finished products such as soap or table oil were constantly on the increase.

This is not the first strike of this kind and there have been similar actions taken by outgrowers since the 1997 privatization of the previously state-owned Palmindustrie company. The assets of that company where bought by three large private enterprises: 1) PALMCI (Blohorn-Unilever and SIFCA-Cosmivoire), which acquired two thirds of the production capacity of Palmindustrie, including 9 processing plants and 35,000 hectares of industrial plantations; 2) SIPEF-CI, that bought 2 processing plants and 12,700 hectares of industrial plantations and 3) PALMAFRIQUE, with 3 processing plants and 7,500 hectares of plantations.

The plantations of those three companies constitute however only a third of the plantation area in Cote d'Ivoire, where smallholders have a total of 135,000 hectares of oil palm plantations. This situation is the result of the Plan Palmier launched in 1963, which outlined a program for the establishment of state owned nucleus estates (plantations agroindustrielles) and land belonging to contracted smallholders (plantations villageoises). Funds provided by the World Bank and the European Development Fund played an important role in enabling the implementation of the plan. The state released forest reserves for the new plantations and created a land tenure system whereby anyone working the land could have title to it. By 1984 the estates, operated by the parastatal Palmindustrie, constituted 60.3% of the area devoted to oil palm production and 39.7% was constituted by contracted smallholders. The current situation has drastically changed, with companies holding 30% and smallholders 70% of the plantation area.

Although there are already some examples of small cooperative-operated processing mills, the major companies are the main buyers of the outgrowers' production, which -coupled with the international drop in palm oil prices- are now leading to situations such as the strike at Ehania. In this case, the company involved is PALMCI, whose assets in the area include 11,600 hectares of plantations and three oil processing plants which also process the harvest of some 22,000 hectares of smallholder plantations. The company has more assets throughout the country such as:

- at Toumanguié: a 2,900 hectare plantation and one processing plant, with smallholder plantations totalling 15,000 hectares

- at Irobo: a 5,300 hectare plantation and one processing plant, with smallholder plantations totalling 12,000 hectares

- at Boubo: a 4,400 hectare plantation and one processing plant, with smallholder plantations totalling 10,000 hectares

- at Blidouba: a 3,000 hectare plantation and one processing plant, with smallholder plantations totalling 10,000 hectares

- at Iboke: a 5,700 hectare plantation and one processing plant, with smallholder plantations totalling 10,000 hectares

- at Néka: a 2,700 hectare plantation and one processing plant, with smallholder plantations totalling 12,000 hectares.

Within this context, the Ehania strike can be seen as a symptom of the aspirations of those who now hold the largest part of the plantations vis a vis the three companies that hold the processing facilities and who establish the price for the raw material. Privatization has generated the scenario for this confrontation and the government is not even a neutral observer, being in this case a PALMCI shareholder. The future is difficult to predict, but the most plausible hypothesis appears to be that -unless palm oil prices increase in the international market- conflicts will be on the rise. And, given the widespread promotion of oil palm plantations throughout the tropics, palm oil prices are most unlikely to increase.

By different means the World Bank is one of the major and most influential promoters of the prevailing monoculture tree plantation model. The International Finance Corporation (IFC) -a part of the World Bank Group, whose specific task is the promotion of private sector investment in "poor" countries- has been directly investing in projects linked to tree plantations, for example in Kenya and Brazil.

The IFC has recently signed two agreements to fund two of these initiatives in West Africa. One of them consists of the reopening of a rubber company in Liberia that was shut down during the civil war, while the other is the set up of an oil palm plantation in Cote d'Ivoire.

The Liberian Agricultural Company (LAC) will receive a loan of US$ 3.5 million to develop a rubber plantation in its 120,000 hectares estate. Between 1961 and 1984 the company had planted rubber there in an area of 10,500 hectares, which was abandoned because of the civil war. According to its promoters, the project will create jobs, provide health and education, and improve rural infrastructure, benefiting 800 small holders.

The holding company of Cote d'Ivoire's leading producer of rubber -Societe des Caoutchoucs de Grand Bereby (SOGB)- will receive a US$ 6 million IFC loan to establish an oil palm plantation in that country. The plantation will occupy 5,000 hectares and in a second phase of the project the company will build a crude palm oil factory to process its production. It has been underscored that the new plantations will avoid areas of secondary rainforest, which SOGB has guaranteed to protect. SOGB already operates a 15,000 hectare rubber plantation and processes rubber, mainly for export.

The globalization of the plantation model is a reality, also regarding rubber and oil palm production. The Compagnie Internationale de Cultures (Intercultures), an affiliate of Societe Financiere des Caoutchoucs (SOCFINAL S.A.), owns 75% of the Liberian Agricultural Company. SOCFINAL is a Luxembourg holding company with agricultural, real estate, banking, and financial interests, and major holdings in oil palm and rubber not only in Liberia and Cote d'Ivoire, but also in Indonesia, Malaysia, Cameroon and Nigeria. In the rubber production project in Liberia also participates PROPARCO, the private sector lending arm of the French development agency Agence Francaise de Developpement. At the same time both Intercultures and PROPARCO are shareholders in SOGB.

Mr. Tei Mante, Director of IFC's Agribusiness Department, said that both agreements would lead to more employment and higher living standards, that they will promote exports that will earn foreign currency, while supporting agricultural production with maximum sensitivity to the environment. Everything sounds incredibly nice . . . but the problem is that reality shows a completely different situation. Promises of a higher quality of life for local dwellers, an improvement of poor countries' economies, the respect for the environment, etc. are in blatant contradiction with the negative consequences on people and the environment that similar projects based on vast tree monocultures bring about with them. The few and poor quality jobs that such projects create seldom improve local peoples' quality of life and the environmental impacts that large-scale tree monocultures entail result in further impoverishment of local populations. If the World Bank is really willing to fulfil its mandate of poverty alleviation, then it should begin to reorient its loans to investments which create better employment opportunities than those generated by this type of plantations.

More than 125,000 hectares of land are under oil palm cultivation in Ghana, mostly under the nucleus estate model, which implies a large plantation surrounded by smaller plantations established in local farmers' lands.

The large scale plantations were implemented by the State at the expense of local peoples lands, with little or no compensation for the cottages, camps, and farms lost, together with various land-use or proprietary rights. As could have been expected, this resulted in social resistance, as in the case of the dramatic refusal of the migrant Ningo farmers of Atobriso and Okaikrom to grant government and Ghana Oil Palm Development Company officials entry into their acquired land. The peasants' resistance has also included pilfering of palm fruit from the plantations as well as acts of sabotage, which resulted in the tightening of security at considerable cost to the plantation companies.

But, according to Ghanaian researcher Edwin A. Gyasi, "perhaps the most serious adverse effect has been the rapid transformation of the forest ecosystem and its resilient diversified ecologically based traditional economy into a vulnerable artificial monocultural system. Instability, risks, or uncertainties are inherent features of the natural environment, which the peasant farmers recognize. Traditionally, the peasants try to minimize these environmental risks, combat soil erosion, optimize utilization of the different soil nutrients, and enhance food security by intermixing crops of varying degrees of environmental sensitivity and different nutritional value, and by other forms of agricultural diversification and risk minimization. The resilient, diversified indigenous agriculture, modelled on the forest ecosystem and based on eco-farming principles borne out of the peasants' intimate knowledge of the natural environment, is being replaced by the risk-prone monocultural system, with devastating consequences for the forest ecosystem."

Among the major impacts, the following have been recorded:

- shortages of local staple foods

- the vulnerability of the monocultural palm farms to insect pests and diseases, which have experienced unusually massive and destructive insect invasions

- the difficulty of marketing palm fruit and oil associated with poor marketing facilities for the increased output

- the high cost, erratic supplies, and polluting effect of the agrochemicals used to boost palm yields and to control pests and weeds, especially in the large plantations

- environmental pollution by the palm fruit and palm oil effluents.

Oil palm is indigenous to the Nigerian coastal plain, having migrated inland as a staple crop. In the case of Nigeria, oil palm cultivation is part of the way of life -indeed it is the culture- of millions of people. However, during the past decades the country has become a net importer of palm oil. While in the early 1960s, Nigeria's palm oil production accounted for 43% of the world production, nowadays it only accounts for 7% of total global output.

Contrary to the situation of the oil palm heavyweights Malaysia and Indonesia -whose production is based on large-scale monocultures- in Nigeria 80% of production comes from dispersed smallholders who harvest semi-wild plants and use manual processing techniques. Several million smallholders are spread over an estimated area of 1.65 million hectares in the southern part of Nigeria. Oil palm is inter-cropped with food crops such as cassava, yam and maize.

In an attempt to emulate the "success stories" of the two above mentioned countries, Nigeria tried to implement large-scale plantations, which resulted in complete failures. Such were the cases of the 1960's Cross River State project and of the European Union-funded "Oil palm belt rural development programme" in the 1990's. This project included the plantation of 6,750 hectares of oil palm within an area thought to be one of the largest remnants of tropical rainforest in Nigeria. In spite of local opposition, the project moved forward and EU funding was only discontinued in 1995, seven years after its approval.

The project was implemented by a company called Risonplan Ltd., partly owned by the government. The company appropriated land owned by local communities without their consent and with minimal compensation. Once land had been secured, Risonpalm constructed a huge dyke and bulldozed many thousands of hectares of the project area for cultivation. Local peoples' forests, farms and grave sites were destroyed, fish ponds were poisoned, pesticides banned in Europe were used, and land tenure problems arose. The dyke and drains have considerably altered the hydrology of the area which has already led to the death of trees. The proliferation of roads led to an increase in logging and hunting, and it is expected that all of the area's mature timber trees will be felled in the near future. As revealed in the Commission's own mid-term review, the use of heavy machinery caused compaction of soils. Local peoples conducted strikes and tried to obstruct the project, which consultants to the Commission conceded was the "only effective means to express their discontent".

Other large scale projects have resulted in similar impacts and have also resulted in major failures. The situation thus appears to be at a standpoint, where neither monocultures nor smallholdings seem able to provide answers to the problem of the scarcity of palm oil in one of the countries where the oil palm is native. However -according to experienced local people- the solution to the problem should not be impossible to achieve if adequate policies were put in place and implemented, along with certain guidelines such as:

- Large scale monocultures should not be implemented because they involve soil -and in many places water- mining, they damage ecosystems, undermine human society and they are an inefficient way of producing resources

- Investments should be made in terms of processing capacity and technology. The capacity of traditional presses is very low. The efficiency of these methods is lower than modern mills and oil extraction rates range from 20% to 50% compared with 90% in Malaysia

- The investments however, need to be directed towards the small farmer and farmer co-operatives where oil palm cultivation continues as a manipulation of "wild" groves, as part of mixed farming and as small plantations of one or two hectares

- Production of existing plantations should be maximised -so that new ones are not required- and returned to the original landowners as smallholder blocks that will inevitably be converted into a more mixed and more viable agricultural ecosystem

The above approach is essential for poverty elimination and for the economic empowerment of local people, whilst at the same time serving the country's interests as a whole.

Malaysia is the world's top producer and exporter of palm oil, generating fifty percent of the global output, of which 85% is exported. Within the African continent, Nigeria is the country having the more extensive oil palm plantations, with at least 350,000 hectares planted to this crop. According to recent news, a Malaysian corporation will begin to invest in Nigeria's palm oil sector, with government support from both countries.

Sime Darby Plantations -the largest oil palm producing company in Malaysia- will soon establish an oil palm processing refinery in Nigeria's Cross River State. This is the result of the five days visit to Cross River State by a delegation from Malaysia, which was a follow up to that by the state governor to that country some months ago.

The leader of the Malaysian delegation announced the intention to establish an oil palm processing refinery shortly after inspecting oil palm plantations in various parts of Cross River State. He revealed that it was the intention of Sime Darby Plantations to bring some of the new technological know-how in oil palm processing to the state and regretted the state of obsolete equipment in some of the oil estates visited.

He commended the Cross River State government for promoting and providing the enabling environment for business transactions in the state. The delegation visited the Export Processing Zone (EPZ), where its general manager assured the team of free imports and exports. They also visited the Calabar seaport.

So everything seems to be set for this investment. There are however two questions that need to be posed. The first one is related to the Malaysian firm itself: what is Sime Darby's business? According to the company's own web page, it is "Malaysia's largest and oldest conglomerate" and "owns or has interests in more than 270 companies, primarily in Asia. Its core business activities include the distribution of autos (BMW, Ford, Land Rover) and heavy equipment (Caterpillar); the manufacture of finished rubber products (mainly tires); plantations (oil palm, rubber, cocoa, and fruit crops); property development; and trading. Sime Darby is also acquiring generation assets."

In relation with oil palm, the following is revealing: "The company is trusting that the diversity of its holdings will secure growth. While palm oil prices are falling, hurting the plantation business, there is increasing demand for Sime Darby-supplied automobiles and heavy equipment." The Nigerian government should take that into account before subsidising the company with "free imports and exports." If palm oil prices fall, Sime Darby will earn money through its other activities, but what about Nigeria?

The second question is related to oil palm itself. Oil palm plantations are spreading throughout the tropics and in all cases where large scale plantations of this crop are implemented there are reports of important social and environmental impacts. The jobs they generate are few, seasonal, badly paid and in bad working conditions. Local peoples are deprived of their livelihoods and the overall employment tends to decrease at the local level. Impacts on water, soils and biodiversity are widespread and in many cases lead to high deforestation rates. Can this be called development?

On 13 June this year, Amnesty International released a report on Burma titled "Myanmar. Ethnic minorities: targets of repression." The report states that for the last 13 years this organization has documented "the widespread use of forced labour of ethnic minorities by the Myanmar military" and adds that "perhaps the most common human rights violation of ethnic minorities is forced labour of civilians, who are much more likely to be seized by the army than the majority Burman group."

According to Amnesty International, "there are two broad types of forced labour: the first is portering, which entails carrying heavy loads for the military over rough terrain for days or weeks at a time. The second type involves work on construction projects such as roads, railways, and dams. Men, women, and children are all taken for labour duties, and almost never paid for their work."

Organizations such as the Karen National Union and Free Burma Coalition have identified oil palm plantations among the many types of activities being carried out forcibly by local people. In February 1999, the Vice Chairman of the State Peace and Development Council (Burma's military regime) General Maung Aye was accompanied by national entrepreneurs on a field trip to reclaim "vacant, virgin and fallow lands" for cultivation of crops in Taninthayi Division. Gen. Maung Aye said that "the land between Kauthaung and Myeik is appropriate for cultivation of edible oil palm on commercial scale, and should local entrepreneurs establish edible oil palm plantations on thousands of acres, it is sure that Taninthayi Division would become the "edible oil pot" of the country like Magway Division". He assured that the government would provide support for success of local entrepreneurs implementing the projects in accord with the economic objectives of the State. Local entrepreneurs also explained the tentative plan to cultivate oil palm on 400,000 acres in the division and the chosen sites.

The Vice Chairman has certainly kept his promise of "providing support". On 27 July 2000, SPDC's troops ordered villagers from Thagyet and Kyeinchaung villages to work for a military oil palm plantation at Kyeinchaung area. 70 persons from Thagyet, 50 from Nyaungbingwin, 30 from Thebotleik, 50 from Kamukru, 30 from Kyauktalone villages were demanded to go and work in turn. The oil palm plantation has a 55,500 acre extension.

Since January 2001, SPDC have started another oil palm plantation plan in Tanawthiri township (Taninthayi) in Mergui district, Tenasserim division. The planned area to clear are in the surroundings of Thaboleik, Leikpu, Htihpo-awmay, Kabawplaw villages in the east of Taninthayi town and the villagers from those related villages were ordered to clear the plantation site. The area of plantation was not known yet. SPDC authorities are working for Yan Naing Myint Co.and have ordered their local militia to take responsibility for the operation. SPDC had ordered all the local village tracts nearby to plant the oil palm saplings when the site was ready. Every household must go and plant the sapling from the beginning to the end.

This is clearly the most extreme case of exploitation and human rights violations related to oil palm plantations and the international community needs to be made aware of the situation. Organizations campaigning against large-scale oil palm monocultures should take the Burmese case on board to provide support for those communities facing such abuses.

- Oil Palm Plantation in Cambodia
By Chris Lang

In early 1999, the Phnom Penh Municipal Authority moved 99 families from a squat behind the Russian embassy in Phnom Penh to Monorom 1, a newly constructed village 150 kilometres away. With the promise of work on an oil palm plantation, new houses and two hectares of palm plantation each many of the squatters were willing to move. A billboard put up by the Phnom Penh authorities announcing that part of the squatters' area was to be made into a park further encouraged people to move.

Monorom 1 consists of 99 wooden houses built in rows, half with blue roofs and half with red roofs, each on its own small plot of land. The Phnom Penh authorities also constructed a market and a school.

The company that established the plantation, Mong Reththy Investment Cambodia Oil Palm Co. Ltd., is a joint venture between Mong Reththy and three foreign partners. Mong Reththy, one of Cambodia's richest businessmen, holds 60 per cent of the company, while the rest is shared between Borim Universal Co. Ltd. (South Korea, 20%), Kim Tat Send Group Pte. Ltd. (Singapore, 10%) and Lavanaland Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia, 10%).

The US$ 12 million investment consists of 3,800 hectares of oil palm plantation and a processing factory due to be completed by 2002. Seventy per cent of the factory's output will be for export, largely to China and South Korea, with the remainder going to local soap manufacturers.

In February this year Mong Reththy told Reuters that the plantation would employ 3,000 workers. The people relocated from Phnom Penh to work on the plantation tell a different story.

Long Saran, one of the villagers who moved to the new village was laid off in April this year. He said, "When the 99 families moved from Phnom Penh about 50 people got jobs with the company. The Government had told us we would all work for the company." Now less than ten people from Monorom 1 work on the plantation according to another villager.

None of the villagers have received the promised two hectare palm oil plots. In any case the company would not have given the two hectare plots freely. Instead they provided the company with a means to chain villagers to the company. Villagers began life in Monorom 1 with a debt to the company of US$ 4,430. According to the Mong Reththy company, the company would keep 30 per cent of the income from villagers' two hectare oil palm plots until this debt was repaid.

In October 1998, before the villagers were relocated, Pho Vuthy the plantation manager told the Phnom Penh Post that crops like rice, beans and corn could be grown between the rows of oil palm to supplement villagers' income in the first three years. In fact after one year the company prohibited this on the grounds that it could lead to fires in the plantations.

The villagers want Chea Sophara, the Phnom Penh Governor, and Prime Minister Hun Sen to visit Monorom 1 and learn about their problems. "The Government should practise its policy and provide jobs as it promised. Solutions can be found through debate with the people here. If there is no resolution, villagers will make a complaint to the Government to resolve the problem," said Long Saran.

The Mong Reththy company established its oil palm plantation on land that was either forest or already in use by people living in one of the four villages in the area. For example, almost all the 300 families in Tanei village lost land to the company's plantations. The village has now moved to an area adjacent to Highway 4, the main road between Phnom Penh and Sihanoukville, and many of the people try to earn a living from selling drinks and fruit from the small shops lining the road.

Many villagers feel tricked by the company into giving up their land. One villager who lost his land to the company and has never received any compensation explained, "The chief of the commune asked us to give our thumb prints on a statement, but so far we haven't received anything. The government has given money to the company, but every month the company tells us it will pay us next month. Now one year has passed." Other villagers from Tanei that did receive compensation only received money for land, and nothing for the trees they had planted on the land.

In July, Mong Reththy told the Phnom Penh Post that his company still intended to provide land for the villagers. "We will provide land for them when they have money to buy seed to grow crops. We will give land to whoever wants to grow crops and has the money to plant," he said.

Meanwhile, most of the families in Monorom 1 are unemployed and are either collecting firewood from the nearby forests to sell in Phnom Penh, or are moving back to Phnom Penh to look for work there.

- Cambodia: The unfulfilled promises of an oil palm plantation
By Chris Lang

Six months later to Mong Reththy declarations to Phnom Penh Post, he wrote to Watershed magazine, explaining, "The promise of two hectares of planted palm oil plantation is still on the Company top priority agenda. The company is sourcing every possible way to secure a loan from local and international banks." Mong Reththy claimed that this was proof that his company is "more than willing to commit".

After more than two years, the villagers are still waiting for the promised two hectare plots. In June 2001, Bok Chhiv Tor, Project Coordinator for Mong Reththy, dismissed the problem, saying "The villagers can freely do whatever they please to earn their living. If they choose to work for the company we will give them employment." He added, "We really don't know how many of the villagers are currently employed by the company."

The land used for the oil palm plantation was either forest or farmland according to villagers in the area. In Tanei village, almost all the 300 families lost land to the company's plantations. Many have received no compensation from the company. Bok Chhiv Tor claims that before the company arrived, the land was "empty land, and it was a concession granted by the Royal Government."

In February 2001, more than 6,500 oil palm trees on Mong Reththy's plantation burned down. Mong Reththy told the Cambodian newspaper, Rasmey Kampuchea, that the fire was deliberately started, arguing that the fire started simultaneously in two different places. The oil palm trees burnt were planted in 1997, and were beginning to fruit. The company estimated the cost of the damage at around US$ 70,000.

So far, the oil palm venture doesn't even make a profit. The first fruits have begun to be harvested, but without a factory to process the kernels, the first year's harvest was simply left to rot.

The US$ 5 million factory is due to be completed in 2002 but it is not clear where the money will come from. Mong Reththy is currently negotiating with the government in an attempt to gain help in funding the factory. In May 2001, Mong Reththy told the Cambodia Daily, "If there is no factory, I will lose another US$ 1.5 million in 2002." He said so far the plantation project has cost US$ 10 million in overheads, and this year it lost US$ 1 million.

In March 2001, the Rasmey Kampuchea newspaper reported that the Ministry of Agriculture did not encourage the oil palm plantations project, on the grounds that "it would not give a positive result". In the meantime, Mong Reththy is focussing on his 1,800-hectare cassava plantation.

The company has failed to benefit either the local population or the people moved from Phnom Penh. People living in the area of the plantations have lost their land and forests to the company, without compensation. Of the people moved from Phnom Penh, supposedly to work for the company, few have received jobs and none have received the land the company promised them. They have even lost the precarious livelihoods they had in Phnom Penh. Who will compensate all of these people? Will the company be "more than willing to commit" to this?

Jambi province, Sumatra, is one of a number of areas where the newly empowered regional government is pushing for major expansion in oil palm plantations. The provincial governor has announced plans to develop a million hectares of oil palm in the province by the year 2005. Last year, the provincial authorities threatened to cancel the licences of 49 plantation companies which had been allocated over 700,000 hectares in Jambi but had not yet planted it with oil palm. In December, Malaysia's ambassador to Indonesia announced that Malaysian companies were ready to take over around 356,300 hectares of oil palm plantations in the province that current lease-holders had failed to develop.

Jambi currently has around 265,000 hectares of oil palm plantations, of which 200,000 hectares were in production last year. About 320,000 tonnes of crude palm oil was produced by 13 processing plants with a total capacity of 640 tonnes per hour.

In January governor Zulkifli signed a Memorandum of Understanding with a US-British-Swiss venture capital consortium, Asian Jade Venture Ltd, based in Johor Baru, Malaysia. The agreement covered investments of US$ 500 million for oil palm plantations, downstream processing industries, a port, a new town and for the tourism and fisheries sectors.

The local environmental NGO, WALHI Jambi, has issued a statement rejecting the million hectare oil palm programme, arguing that it would destroy forests, and wipe out the sustainable livelihoods of communities living near the forests. WALHI has also accused the authorities of failing to indicate where the new plantations will be developed and argues there isn't enough available land to develop such a large area. WALHI says that the focus should be on improving conditions and resolving conflicts between farmers and plantation owners at existing oil palm plantations.

WALHI's press statements -and the apparent second thoughts of Asian Jade Ventures Ltd- have provoked a furious response from governor Zulkifli. He has accused the NGO of being anti-investment, anti-progress and anti-regional autonomy. The governor and his supporters are believed to be behind a campaign of intimidation, launched by suspect 'NGOs' calling for WALHI to be shut down. This has involved trucking 300 protesters to demonstrate at WALHI's office, and issuing statements of support for the governor's programme.

For years, the Dayak indigenous peoples of Sarawak have been defending their forests and livelihoods from the depredatory activities of logging, oil palm and eucalyptus plantations promoted by the Malaysian and the Sarawak state governments. In an unequal struggle, local communities -supported by Malaysian and international social and environmental NGOs- have been resisting the destruction of their forests and the installation of plantations. The issue of land tenure and the recognition of their Native Customary Rights is in the background of this dispute, and local villagers have frequently suffered pressure and brutality from the government's forces while defending their rights.

Last April, people belonging to the Dayak Iban longhouses of Rumah Ketip, Rh Lanyau, Rh. Mulok, Rh. Anchih, Rh. Lipo and Rh. Madak carried out a direct action of protest against logging operations within their native customary rights land in upper Balingian area of Mukah District in Sibu Division, Sarawak, by putting up a human blockade to stop the timber company "Always Yield" from carrying out logging in their lands. The action had been preceded by several requests to government authorities and the police to stop the trespassers' activities, which proved useless.

Additionally, the longhouses of the area are resisting the establishment of oil palm plantations within their native customary rights land by the company Novelpac. Malaysia is the world's largest palm oil producer and the invasion of oil palm plantations has a long history of negative social and environmental impacts, starting with the appropriation of local peoples' lands. Although plantations appear to constitute a more positive activity when compared with logging, they are in fact worse, because land appropriation becomes permanent.

In the disputes between oil palm companies and local peoples, the government takes sides with the former, thereby forcing communities to resort to different forms of resistance. Many of such actions later result in court proceedings. One of such cases is that of a group of 30 Iban from several villages in the Bakong area in Baram. In 1997 they blockaded the oil palm plantation company Empressa and its contractor Segarakam from trespassing their customary lands, on which the company intended to destroy their crops and set up an oil palm plantation. After failing to get any response or assistance from the authorities, the Ibans had no choice but to exercise their right of private defence to protect their lands and crops thereon by detaining three bulldozers of the company.

The Company lodged a complaint with the police accusing the Ibans of gang robbery of the bulldozers. The police went to the Iban village wanting to arrest the village chief for the said offence and to retrieve the bulldozers. The Ibans resisted the arrest on the ground that it was the company which trespassed on their customary lands and which destroyed their crops. In the scuffle, the police fired several shots at the Ibans. Three of them were shot and one who was shot with a pistol on the head died on the spot.

Not content with having the police on their side, the companies hire thugs to intimidate local peoples. This policy has resulted in increased violence and further court proceedings. Now 19 Ibans from Ulu Niah are being charged with the murder of four Chinese gangsters whom a plantation company paid to intimidate and harass the Ibans for opposing its oil palm plantation activities in their traditional lands.

Malaysia is the world's number one producer and exporter of palm oil. However, the development of this sector has not only not benefited the local people but, on the contrary, has resulted in serious adverse effects, particularly in the state of Sarawak. This crop, which generates huge profits for a few large companies linked to the government and local elites, leads to serious negative social and environmental impacts that affect the majority of the population, giving rise to social conflicts that nearly always resulting in human rights violations.

Logging companies have been destroying forests through large-scale unsustainable logging, causing irreparable damages. However, their activity has only been the prologue for something even worse. When wood resources began to decrease and world demand for palm oil increased, many logging companies opted to redirect their activities to oil palm plantation. For local peoples, this means the final appropriation of their traditional territories by the companies. As a local person said: "Logging companies destroy our forest and leave. Plantation companies destroy our forest and stay!"

Most of these plantations are being implemented in indigenous traditional territories, thus depriving local peoples of their livelihood and vital resources. In Sarawak, the government has granted licenses to oil palm companies in lands used by the local peoples to cultivate their basic food, such as rice, fruit trees, vegetables, pepper, etc. Moreover, the destruction of forests determines the disappearance of a wide range of products, traditionally used by local communities. Deprived of their resources, local peoples are gradually forced to hand over all their rights to their lands, and to turn into salaried workers of the companies, in seasonal, low-paid jobs and under bad working conditions.

The increasing occupation of lands by oil palm plantation companies has unleashed an unequal fight, in which local communities resist against forest destruction, the deprivation of their lands and the disregard for their traditional rights. They then become victims of repression and harassment from the government, which protects the interests of the companies.

Oil palm companies and the government are thus responsible for promoting deforestation and for violating the human rights of the local peoples that fight for forest conservation. It is important to highlight this situation, given that many of those companies are expanding their activities to other tropical countries, where they will surely repeat the same behaviour pattern. Malaysian government and corporate representatives have visited a number of countries such as Indonesia, Philippines, India, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Nigeria, Guyana, Honduras and others, promoting this palm monoculture system. Of course they never mention the serious adverse social and environmental impacts this system is generating in their own country. And that is precisely what people must know, and they should ask themselves: ¿What can we expect of companies that, in their own country, act against local communities and the environment? ¿Will they behave better in foreign countries? Very unlikely. The same as at home, they will probably act in the name of "development", but their profitability will be obtained at the expense of the destruction of the environment and the use of cheap labour. That is the hypothesis which local people of the countries where these companies intend to expand their activity should adopt, until those same companies modify their behaviour in their own country.

Papua New Guinea still contains one of the major tropical rainforests in the world, hosting high levels of biodiversity. Together with the government's policy regarding forests -which considers them as a mere source of roundwood to be exported- and its collusion with powerful forestry companies, the activities of foreign logging companies constitute a threat to these rich ecosystems and to the people that inhabit them.

Since forests are home of millions of indigenous peoples, it is usually them who face the intruders which, in the name of "development" and generally with the explicit or implicit support of the authorities, try to take over their land and resources. After the clearcut of the forest, monoculture tree plantations are often established. This is also the case in Papua New Guinea.

The Maisin indigenous people are now fighting for a rainforest located inland from the coast of a Pacific Ocean island in the eastern region of the Papua New Guinean archipelago. The Maisin have traditionally cleared patches of forest for their crops and hunted wild animals to get their protein supply within the forest canopy. From the forests they also obtain building materials, medicines, and fresh water. "The forest is our livelihood. It's also our inheritance that our Maisin landowner forefathers have passed on to us," says John Wesley Vaso, a Maisin landowner. Their opponent is a big Malaysian company which claims having a valid lease and permits to clearcut the forest in the area, and immediately after establish an oil palm plantation. The company says that the new activity will mean the creation of many jobs for both logging activities and the planting and maintenance of the oil palm crop.

However, the forest dwellers do not believe in these false promises of economic development and welfare. They prefer to keep their forest standing and their small scale economy, based on traditional agriculture and hunting, and the selling of betel nuts, while at the same time not losing control over their land and livelihoods. Additionally, Malaysian logging companies are well known for their negative performance regarding forest resources and indigenous peoples that inhabit them, not only in their own country -which is the world's largest tropical timber producer- but also abroad. Their depredatory activities in the Brazilian Amazon is perhaps the clearest example of this.

Since under the country's constitution indigenous peoples are legal owners of their traditional lands, the Maisin have started a legal action against the company. They filed a lawsuit that has worked its way up to Papua New Guinea's highest court, and managed to stop until now the company's activities. Even if the final outcome of their lawsuit could be months away and new difficulties will appear since they have almost exhausted the financial resources they raised to pay for the legal process, their successful action has been considered an example that in the future can be followed by other indigenous peoples affected by this kind of abuses against their environmental and human rights.

Papua New Guinea (PNG) at least seventy-five percent of its original forest cover is still standing, occupying vast, biologically rich tracts over 100,000 square miles in all. Its forests provide the habitat for about 200 species of mammals, 20,000 species of plants, 1,500 species of trees and 750 species of birds, half of which are endemic to the island. It has been estimated that between 5 and 7% of the known species in the world live in PNG. Rare plants and animals like the largest orchid, the largest butterfly, the longest lizard, the largest pigeon and the smallest parrot ever registered live in these forests. The forests also constitute the home of the indigenous peoples. But these forests and forest peoples are under threat due to large-scale logging activities and oil palm plantations.

PNG is the world seventh largest palm oil producer and the third largest exporter of palm oil, exporting almost its entire production to Europe. During the last years the oil palm industry has been expanding throughout PNG, mainly in West New Britain Province, which is the leading producer of oil palm in the country, known as "The Oil Palm Province".

Initially, oil palm plantations were implemented by companies in which the government was one of the shareholders. But now the situation has changed with the increasing investment of Chinese, Malaysian and Indonesian companies in oil palm plantations which destroy the forests to give way to this monoculture. This is resulting in the appropriation of local communities' lands and therefore in resistance against this activity. One of such cases is that of the Maisin indigenous people, who inhabit the rainforest of Papua New Guinea. The Maisin filed a lawsuit against a Malaysian company, that found its way to Papua New Guinea's highest Court. The company claimed to own leasing rights to both clear-cut the Maisin's forests and to establish an oil palm plantation. Under the Papua New Guinea constitution, the Maisin are the legal owners of their traditional lands. The Maisin claim they have never signed away their forest lands, and that the Malaysian company possesses an invalid lease with forged signatures. The company denied the charges, but the Papua New Guinea Courts have enjoined the project pending final resolution of the case.

Instead of promoting environmentally sound and socially beneficial activities -such as community forest management- the PNG government is strongly supporting this type of development. In April this year, the Livestock Minister Muki Taranupi announced plans for tax incentives in the oil palm sector designed to encourage growth and boost production. The minister said the government would offer tax credits to oil palm estates and reduce import duty on agricultural imports. The minister added that he had also directed his department to examine the possibility of reducing import duties on imported agricultural equipment and implements including fertilizers.

It is worth noting that an activity such as this, which results in the impoverishment of local peoples -who lose their lands and forests- and in the depletion of biological and water resources receives strong governmental support, while socially and environmentally beneficial activities do not. In the case of PNG, oil palm plantations are not even aimed at the production of edible oil for the local population and almost the entire production is export-oriented. As usual, corporate profits and macroeconomic benefits seem to be more important than local peoples livelihoods and environmental conservation.