- Orangutan Land Trust (OLT), a conservation NGO, underlines that palm boycotts don’t work;
- The OLT’s position is similar to many of the world’s leading conservation organisations such as WWF and Conservation International.
Orangutan Land Trust (OLT), one of the region’s most influential orangutan conservation organisations has sparked minor controversy in the NGO world by recently asserting that palm oil bans and boycotts are ineffective measures for reducing deforestation.
This anti-boycott position is surprisingly very common among NGOs. WWF, Conservation International, the Jane Goodall Institute Australia and multiple zoos across the global consider bans and boycotts to be counterproductive.
Why is this the case? There are several reasons for this.
Demand for palm oil is demand for vegetable oil more broadly. That demand must go to other oils. Switching to other oils – such as soybean, coconut, or sunflower oil – means that significantly more land is required to produce the same amount of oil. This increased land use can lead to even more deforestation, potentially exacerbating the deforestation problem the boycott aimed to solve.
Farmers in countries such as Indonesia deforest to support their livelihoods. They will generally choose the crop that will provide the highest rate of return. A ban on palm would have two impacts. It would immediately threaten the livelihoods of the farmers, but it would then mean they would find a replacement crop, which then may necessitate greater deforestation to make up for lost income.
A palm oil ban by countries would likely be limited to Western countries, which would mean a split market for palm oil. The palm oil market is already split between those demanding certified sustainable palm oil and those without such requirements. Around 18 per cent of the world’s palm oil is sold under RSPO certification. This goes almost entirely to European markets. Non-European markets – specifically China and India – are almost entirely concerned with price, not sustainability. This would mean a lower price and higher competitiveness in those non-palm markets, meaning demand for palm would stay roughly equal.
A palm oil ban by certain companies would mean a loss of leverage. Just as with country-level bans, responsible companies withdrawing from the palm oil market would mean a loss of ability to influence industry practices. This could mean there would be some operators with no environmental regard at all selling at greater volumes into the global market.
So what are NGOs looking for?
NGOs like the OLT argue that focusing on palm oil bans diverts attention and resources from more effective strategies, such as strengthening and enforcing forest protection laws, supporting sustainable agriculture practices, and addressing the root causes of deforestation.
They advocate for supporting and incentivizing sustainable palm oil production. This approach aims to maintain the economic benefits of palm oil while minimizing its environmental impact.
What the OLT highlights is the complexity of environmental issues and the need for nuanced, evidence-based approaches. While the intention behind palm oil boycotts – to end deforestation — is commendable, it is a simple and ineffective solution to a complex problem that has its roots just as much in the social and economic spheres as it does in the environment.
Indonesia’s national certification scheme, ISPO (Indonesia Sustainable Palm Oil), is one such sustainable solution. It is mandatory and requires that operators adhere to national laws and regulations on forests – these laws have seen Indonesia now post its lowest deforestation on record. Moreover, ISPO has been developed with the livelihoods of farmers in mind.
It’s only through ground-level solutions such as ISPO that deforestation can really be tackled.