Talk:Social and environmental impact of palm oil

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ssoo21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 7 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Auricularia.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

NPOV
The article contains a lot of what Greenpeace and Friends of Earth state. These two NGOs are notably against palm oil in any form. This should be balanced with the views of WWF and Greenwatch who see palm oil as sustainable. The article is currently unbalanced. (Elephant53 (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC))


 * Only five of the 33 refs are from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. Looking at the article purely from these numbers I think the balance is about right for an article on this topic. There is room for an article entitled Palm oil and sustainability or suchlike. Compare with the articles: Energy and society, Energy and the environment, Environmental issues with energy. If there is sufficient info, and with care in avoiding content forking, there is no reason to have an overview article, an article on the good stuff and one on the bad stuff. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I came here looking for unbiased information on palm oil as one of my young friends has started vehemently opposing Fonterra in NZ for their use of Palm Kernel Oil (a by-product of Palm Oil) and was disappointed to only find information subscribing to Greanpeace's school of thought.AnnaNZ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

true sustainability
am i to understand that there aren't any actual arguments claiming this product is unsustainable?

the only argument here is that the producers are irresponsible and there's lax government regulation.

i would certainly appreciate a more thorough article if there are real issues here. 68.162.175.217 (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Alternative text for introduction and Environmental issues
Hello, I have prepared some alternative text for two places in this article where the current text needs improvement. I am reaching out on this discussion page, because I am here on behalf of the Malaysian Palm Oil Council and won't change any details in the article myself.

The first replacement piece of text I have prepared aims to resolve a few issues in the introduction to the article where the last sentence now reads:


 * Palm oil plantations are under increasing scrutiny for their effects on the environment, particularly because rainforests are destroyed, and because people are displaced by unscrupulous palm-oil enterprises.

The replacement I've prepared for this sentence makes clear who is the source of criticism, adds a new reference and removes the one used now that doesn't support the details. The introduction should mention the positive social impact palm oil has, as well as criticisms so I've included a summary of its positive impacts:

Recently, palm oil has been criticized by environmental activists because of the impact palm oil cultivation has on the environment. Still the crop remains important in top producing nations because it provides jobs, improves food security and raises the standard of living.

The second piece of replacement text is for the first part of the Environmental issues section. My prepared text updates information on CO2 emissions, removes references with broken links or that can't be verified and adds new references. There is some wording in this section that appeared to be taken directly, without paraphrasing from the UNEP report. I have paraphrased this. A couple of pieces of information are not accurate according to the reference and I've removed or updated the wording: "it is likely that many protected rainforests will be severely degraded by 2014" is not the correct year, and in the report the mention of illegal hunting and trade relates to Orangutan decline, not decreasing forest size.

Here is what I suggest:

In Indonesia, rising demand for palm oil and timber, have led to the clearing of tropical forest land in Indonesian national parks. According to a 2007 report published by UNEP, at the rate of deforestation at that time, an estimated 98 percent of Indonesian forest would be destroyed by 2022 due to legal and illegal logging, forest fires and the development of palm oil plantations. Neighboring Malaysia, the second largest producer of palm oil, has pledged to conserve a minimum of 50 percent its total land area as preserved forests. As of 2010, 58 percent of Malaysia land was forested. Palm oil cultivation has been criticized for:
 * Greenhouse gas emissions. Deforestation in tropical areas accounts for an estimated 10 percent of manmade CO2 emissions, and is a driver toward dangerous climate change.
 * Habitat destruction, leading to the demise of critically endangered species (e.g. the Sumatran tiger, the Asian rhinoceros, and the Sumatran Orangutan.)
 * Reduced biodiversity, including damage to biodiversity hotspots.
 * Cultivating crops on land that belongs to indigenous people in the Sarawak and Kalimantan states on the island of Borneo and the Malaysian state of Sabah.

It is my hope that another editor will be able to review these requests and substitute this new text for the existing text in the article's introduction and Environmental issues sections. Thanks in advance. YellowOwl (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't integrate the lede the way you wanted it, but I did rewrite it. The other section looked OK so I put it in. Gigs (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

New text for Malaysia and Indonesia and Increasing demand sections
Hello, I have previously made a request here and on related articles on behalf of the Malaysian Palm Oil Council (as you may see above) and while I have been busy recently I again have some suggested improvements for this article. Like before, I will not make any change in the article myself because of my link to the MPOC.

The first I have prepared is for the Indonesia and Malaysia subsection. The following is a replacement for the second paragraph in this section, though I have retained the existing source and some of the current text. The current text refers to a letter in the Wall Street Journal in 2008 regarding Malaysia's awareness about sustainable production, but there is no other information about this or otherwise about palm oil production in the country. With the text below, I have endeavored to provide information about the growth of palm oil in Malaysia and follow up on changes regarding sustainability since the 2008 letter.


 * I consider your version to be quite an improvement over the text that was there, and have installed it. It would be good if some more specific information could be used for "in recent years" (when exactly) and when proportions of total sustainable palm oil are given how much of total palm oil that is. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

As a result of Malaysia's commitment to retain natural forest cover on at least 50 percent of the nation's land, the growth of new palm oil plantations has slowed in recent years. According to Malaysia's Plantation Industries and Commodities Minister Bernard Dompok, significant expansion of palm oil is no longer possible, therefore Malaysian farmers are now focusing on increasing production without expansion. In January 2008, the CEO of the Malaysian Palm Oil Council wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal stating that Malaysia was aware of the need to pursue a sustainable palm oil industry. Since then the Malaysian government, along with palm oil companies, have increased production of Certified Sustainable Palm Oil (CSPO). Malaysia has been recognized by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil as the largest producer of CSPO, producing 50 percent of the world's supply, and accounting for 40% of CSPO growers worldwide. Indonesia produces 35 percent of the world's CSPO.

The second is intended to address an issue in the Increasing demand section. This section currently includes the following sentence:


 * Friends of the Earth concluded that the increase in demand also comes from biofuel, with producers now looking to use palm as a source.

The link in this reference does not work so I have been unable to review it, however I believe the information is out of date (the source is from 2006) and seems misleading. As page 2 of the International Food Policy Research Institute's recent report explains, palm oil is primarily used for food purposes.

I suggest that the sentence be removed and that the following be added to the first paragraph in the section to explain the increase in demand for palm oil:


 * The cited reference is archived here, so I've installed a version that might help explain the difference to someone who's read the older press releases and might think that one or other party is telling an untruth. See what you think. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

A 2012 report by the International Food Policy Research Institute determined the increase in palm oil production is related to food demands, not biofuel demands. Although palm oil is used in the production of biofuels the crop is still used primarily for food.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to review these. I will keep an eye on this page for replies. Thanks. YellowOwl (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you also for your efforts, these pages needed a lot of work. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Sminthopsis84. In response to your comments:
 * The Bloomberg article supporting the slow down in growth of new oil palm plantations is from 2010. Perhaps "recent years" could be replaced with "as of 2010" if you think it necessary?
 * The changes you made to the Increasing demand section look good. Thanks for taking the initiative on that.
 * I'll be posting a new request momentarily to improve the Social issues section you moved into this article from the Palm oil article back in October. I hope you'll be interested in reviewing that as well. YellowOwl (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

New text for Social issues
I would like to share a new request for this article: I have written a revised version of the Social issues section, where the current text needs more detail to be completely clear. As I have mentioned before (and you can see above), I am here on behalf of the Malaysian Palm Oil Council.

I have improved the existing section by locating sources to support the sentence with the "citation needed" tag and making copy edits to improve encyclopedic tone. I have also added more detail to this section, using the existing sources, to be more specific about the locations where the social issues mentioned in this section have been documented. Also, the wording for the example of the indigenous community in Malaysia in the current text is not entirely accurate to the source and I have reworded this to say that there is a dispute over consultation, rather than that proper consultation did not take place.

Below is my suggestion:

Oil palm is a valuable economic crop and provides a major source of employment. It allows many small landholders to participate in the cash economy and often results in the upgrade of the infrastructure (schools, roads, telecommunications) within that area.

However, in some cases, land has been developed by oil palm plantations without consultation or compensation of the indigenous people occupying the land. This has occurred in Papua New Guinea, Colombia, and Indonesia. In the Sarawak state of Malaysian Borneo, there has been debate over whether there was an appropriate level of consultation with the Long Teran Kanan community prior to the development of local land for palm oil plantations. Appropriation of native lands has led to conflict between the plantations and local residents in each of these countries.

According to a 2008 report by NGOs including Friends of the Earth, palm oil companies have also reportedly to used force to acquire land from indigenous communities in Indonesia. Additionally, some Indonesian oil palm plantations are dependent on imported labor or illegal immigrants, which has raised concerns about the working conditions and social impacts of these practices.

I'll respond to any questions here on the talk page and I am hopeful that another editor will make these small changes. Thanks in advance. YellowOwl (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The citations for the first paragraph are in my opinion not very good ones. The first reports a statement from a politician, and whether through the fault of the writer or of the politician, it sounds rather as if it could be paraphrased as the industry needs to change its ways in order to dupe western interests into thinking that something positive is being done (in short, it is rather a weird document). The second doesn't actually state that local people benefit (which is the statement I think you intended to support), but merely that part of the profits flow back to the community; that isn't necessarily the same thing because the loss of use of the land for its traditional purposes needs to be taken into account and the net benefit might be zero or less.
 * The only comment that I have about the remainder of the text is that conflict "in each of these countries" isn't supported by a citation for Indonesia. Nadiatalent (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nadiatalent, your comments are helpful and I've made another try at the Social issues text below, adding in new references for the first paragraph and placing the reference for Indonesia at the end of the second paragraph (an oversight on my part before). In this second try I have also made some changes to the wording of the first paragraph so that it is accurate to the references.


 * The new references for the first paragraph are studies on Malaysia and Indonesia. I'll provide quotes here so that you can see what they say about palm oil production's social impact:


 * 1. Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of Palm Oil Production:
 * "The data showed generally positive financial and socio-economic consequences of oil palm adoption in the immediate surroundings of oil palm estates."
 * "In terms of industry and economic opportunities, OPCs [oil palm communities] feature more wood-based industries, and a higher numbers of shops, minimarkets and hotels."


 * 2, The local impacts of oil palm expansion in Malaysia:
 * "According to respondents, the primary reasons for shifting from traditional livelihood activities to oil palm cultivation were higher returns for oil palm due to perceived high prices (43.3%) and perceived ease of managing oil palm plantations (30%)."
 * "Generally, oil palm has brought positive impacts, such as increased income, secure employment, and improved access to social services. However, involvement in oil palm has also caused many local communities to move away from traditional practices."
 * See also the table of results on page 11 which lists "Increased income", "More steady or reliable income", "Education", "Better access to transport services", "Health facilities", "Accommodation" as survey respondents' perceived benefits of palm oil production.


 * For the point about landholders being able to participate in the cash economy, I think the existing reference works. Here is the quote:


 * "...the authority has set up a number of joint ventures with NCR [native customary rights] landholders. Under these agreements, local title-holders are paid a dividend, ensuring that part of the profits flow back into the community."



Oil palm is a valuable economic crop and provides a source of employment. It allows small landholders to participate in the cash economy and often results in improvements to local infrastructure and greater access to services such as schools and health facilities. In some areas, the cultivation of oil palm has replaced traditional practices, often due to the higher income potential of palm oil.

However, in some cases, land has been developed by oil palm plantations without consultation or compensation of the indigenous people occupying the land. This has occurred in Papua New Guinea, Colombia, and Indonesia. In the Sarawak state of Malaysian Borneo, there has been debate over whether there was an appropriate level of consultation with the Long Teran Kanan community prior to the development of local land for palm oil plantations. Appropriation of native lands has led to conflict between the plantations and local residents in each of these countries.

According to a 2008 report by NGOs including Friends of the Earth, palm oil companies have also reportedly to used force to acquire land from indigenous communities in Indonesia. Additionally, some Indonesian oil palm plantations are dependent on imported labor or illegal immigrants, which has raised concerns about the working conditions and social impacts of these practices.


 * How does this look now as an alternative to the existing section? YellowOwl (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that looks better, and I've made the change. Nadiatalent (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Alternative text for Sustainability
Thank you again to the editors who were so helpful with my previous requests. This next one is longer than the others, but addresses a section of the article that is poorly written and in need of an overhaul: the Sustainability section and the two subsections contained there.

Below I present replacement text for this section, including original wording and references where I've been able to retain these. A brief explanation of my revisions:
 * In the Sustainabilty section the word choice and some of the phrasings were too similar to this article from The Economist. I have made revisions to avoid plagiarism.
 * The reference provided for the criticism from Greenpeace at the beginning of this section was simply a list of Greenpeace publications. I was able to find a new reference, and have revised the criticism so it is appropriate for an encyclopedic entry and is supported by the reference. Additionally, I grouped this information together with other criticism in this section.
 * The current link in the Carbon credit subsection was dead. I have located replacement references, and revised the whole section to better explain the role of carbon credit programs.
 * I have renamed the Persuading users subsection "Use of sustainable oil by corporations", which I believe more accurately summarizes the contents of the section. Originally this section was long, poorly focused and outdated. Additionally, portions of the existing text in this section closely match the same Economist article mentioned above. I have rewritten and condensed what is currently in this section and have removed non-encyclopedic descriptions and information. I have also provided more current figures where possible.
 * I have removed the final paragraph in this section as this information seems unrelated to the topic of companies use of sustainable palm oil.

I understand this revision is substantial, please let me know if you have any concerns with what I have prepared here. Thanks in advance, YellowOwl (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), founded in 2004, works to promote the production of sustainably sourced palm oil through involvement with growers, processors, food companies, investors and NGOs. Beginning in 2008, palm oil that meets RSPO introduced standards has been designated certified sustainable palm oil (CPSO). Within two years of implementation CSPO designated palm oil comprised 7 percent of the global palm oil market. As of October 2012, 12 percent of palm oil has been certified by the RSPO. However, in the first year of CSPO certification only 30 percent of sustainable oil was marketed as CSPO.

In The Economist in 2010, the RSPO was criticized for not setting standards for greenhouse-gas emissions for plantations and because its members account for only 40 percent of palm oil production. In a 2007 report, Greenpeace was critical of RSPO-member food companies saying that they are "dependent on suppliers that are actively engaged in deforestation and the conversion of peatlands".

Following a contribution of $1 billion from Norway, in May, Indonesia announced a two-year suspension on new agreements to clear natural forests and peatlands. Additionally, Indonesia announced plans to create its own organization similar to the RSPO, which, as a government certification system, will introduce mandatory regulation for all Indonesian palm oil producers. In 2011, Malaysia also began developing a national certification, the Malaysia Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) certification, to improve involvement in sustainable palm oil production nationwide.

Oil palm producers are eligible to take part in Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) programs in which developed nations invest in clean energy projects in developing nations to earn carbon credits to offset their own greenhouse gas emissions and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.

According to the South East Asian CDM development company YTL-SV Carbon, investors have been cautious about investing in palm oil biofuel projects because of the impact the expansion of oil palm plantations has had on tropical rain forests, however many CDM projects in the palm oil sector focus on improving use of waste products to reduce gas emissions and do not contribute to the establishment of new oil palm plantations.

The World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) publishes an annual report on the use of sustainable palm oil by major corporations. In the 2011 report, 31 of the 132 companies surveyed received a top score for their use of sustainable palm oil. This represents an increase from 2009, the first year the report was issued, where no companies received top scores.

The WWF reports that 87 companies have committed to using only sustainable palm oil by 2015, including Unilever and Nestlé, both of which committed to exclusively using sustainable palm oil following demonstrations and urgings from environmental organizations in the late 2000s. However, according to the WWF, the overall growth in the use of sustainable palm oil is too slow. Retailers who have made commitments to offering products containing sustainable oil, including Walmart and Carrefour, have attributed the slow rate of growth in the availability of sustainable palm oil to a lack of consumer interest and awareness in products made with sustainable palm oil. These companies have expressed concern about the potential impact of low consumer demand on the cost and future availability of sustainable palm oil.


 * I've installed the changes, with some adjustments that retrieve a bit more of the original material. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Final requests: new text for Greenhouse gas emissions and Biodiesel
Thank you for the help with the previous request. I have two short final requests that I would like reviewed.

The first request is a sentence of new text to add to Greenhouse gas emissions section. My intent here is to add balance by presenting an opposing view. I have written the following to be added to the end of the second paragraph in this section:


 * However, according to the Tropical Peat Research Laboratory oil palm plantations are carbon sinks because oil palms convert carbon dioxide into oxygen just as other trees do, and, as reported in Malaysia's Second National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, oil palm plantations contribute to Malaysia's net carbon sink.

For the second request I have revised the Biodiesel section. I am concerned about the information in this section regarding jatropha. I have removed this information because it has no reference and comparing palm oil to jatropha oil does not provide any useful information about palm oil, this information seems more relevant to the article on jatropha or a general article on biodiesel. In addition to removing this information, I have revised the description of Greenpeace's claims regarding greenhouse gas to provide more context and remove "first generation", as this wording does not appear in the reference. The new text also includes information about palm biodiesel certification programs.

Biodiesel
Biodiesel made from palm oil grown on sustainable non-forest land and from established plantations effectively reduces greenhouse gas emissions. According to Greenpeace, clearing peatland to plant oil palms releases large amounts of greenhouse gasses, and that biodiesel produced from oil palms grown on this land may not result in a net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. However, research by Malaysia's Tropical Peat Research Unit has found that oil palm plantations developed on peatland produce lower carbon dioxide emissions than forest peat swamp.

In 2011, eight of Malaysia's Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA) plantations were certified under the International Sustainability and Carbon Certification System (ISCC), becoming part of Asia's first ISCC certified supply and production chain for palm biodiesel. This certification system complies with the European Union's Renewable Energy Directive (RED). In 2012, the European Commission approved the RSPO's biofuel certification scheme allowing certified sustainable palm oil biofuel to be sold in Europe.

I have a great deal of appreciation for all the help I have received on this page and I'm hopeful that it will be possible to complete these two final requests. As always, please let me know if you have any questions about what I've requested here. Thanks. YellowOwl (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg I've added in the suggestions. They appear to be neutral enough, as the only opposing voice that ws originally in the sections anyways was greenpeace and that opinion was retained in the revised info. Silver  seren C 04:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

One small correction
Thank you again to the editors who have helped me with the revisions to this article. There is one remaining inaccuracy in the article that has come to my attention: in the final paragraph, Persuading governments, The Nature Conservancy is mentioned as an organization that has presented the idea of using protectionist legislation for products including palm oil to prevent tropical deforestation. However, as this article explains, The Nature Conservancy is one of several organizations that has expressed concerns about protectionism and does not support this tactic. Can someone please correct this in the article? Thanks. YellowOwl (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: this has been done by Silverseren. YellowOwl (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Comparison with other palm crops?
I'd be interested to see a comparison with other palm tree crops, like dates or coconuts...

It seems to me like ultimately the issue is more one of the need to set aside areas of forest for conservation, rather than one of palm oil in particular.

And if people were to suddenly stop consuming palm oil, it's not like the land would go back to being jungle - they'd just grow some other crop there, like date palms or coconut trees.

-2003:CA:874E:476C:4C57:3F4D:8EE4:4ACE (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)