EU CAN ENGAGE PALM OIL PRODUCERS
WE are all interested in sustainability, not just environmental groups. We want the best for our future generations. In the European Union palm oil ban controversy, those who support palm oil have been labelled as anti-sustainability. What a joke.
This goes to show that some environmental groups have no understanding of the meaning of sustainability.
All they care about is the environment, forgetting two other pillars of sustainability: people and prosperity.
Whereas, in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the primary concerns are the wellbeing of people and society.
This means people take precedence over others.
Figures for last year show that the number of wealthy individuals who owned the equivalent wealth of half the world population could fit into a minivan.
They fitted into a bus the year before. What is the use of having a tropical forest teeming with biodiversity when people living in its vicinity are poor and hungry? This is the narrative we are seeing in the EU’s palm oil ban.
In its haste to satisfy the greed of environmentalists, it has forgotten the people behind palm oil.
If EU is serious about promoting sustainability in the palm oil industry, banning palm oil import is not the answer.
There is a better way. We must remember that sustainability is a journey. It is about changing behaviours.
And, psychologists have theorised that punitive measures are not the best way to change people’s habits. Rewarding positive behavioural change works better.
One way to do this is to provide premium pricing for sustainable palm oil. This was promised at the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil here, but it did not materialise.
If one were to use punishment to move the sustainability agenda, why is it that the biggest polluter in the world is not handed the same treatment?
Why is there no similar response when President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris climate accord? Why is there no ban of US products in EU?
Instead of banning palm oil, EU must engage the palm oil producers here, especially smallholders.
There must be guidance undertaken jointly by both countries.
The EU proposal of having one certification scheme is worth exploring. But it must be jointly developed by the governments.
We should not leave the operations and ownership of certification to non-governmental organisations.
They can participate in developing the scheme, where other stakeholders, including buyers and sellers, are also invited.
But once the scheme is agreed on, it should be managed by both governments.
This is because governments are more responsible towards the people. In other words, the three Ps — people, prosperity and planet — are better taken care of.
We can take a cue from the experiences we have had with imposing sanctions. None has solved any issue. Instead, they made things worse.
They created enmity between nations. They were, therefore, unproductive.
The EU ban on palm oil is no different. The impact will prove to be negative for both sides. It is time for EU to rethink the decision.
It would be more productive to engage and negotiate a win-win deal to pursue the sustainability agenda.
PROFESSOR DATUK DR AHMAD IBRAHIM
Fellow Academy of Sciences Malaysia, UCSI University