Palm sustainability toughens up?

The recent suspension of an RSPO grower member over non submission of NPP is unusual in that there are many others in the same position. Will they all come to be reprimanded and suspended too, in order to regularise the NPP situation or is this a showcase to remind all about proper implementation? The company reports no material impact from this suspension.

 

TFT vs RSPO? RSPO calls for greater collaboration on zero deforestation commitments (05/27/2014) The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) today called for greater collaboration between it and the leading implementer of zero deforestation policies, The Forest Trust (TFT). " TFT very publicly resigned from the RSPO in 2012 over what it perceived as weak criteria for limiting deforestation and peatlands conversion for oil palm plantations. TFT has since brokered a number of "zero deforestation" commitments from major palm oil producers, traders, and buyers, including Neste Oil, Ferrero, Reckitt Benckiser, Wilmar, New Britain Palm Oil, Cerelia, Vandemoortele, Mars, Florin, and Delhaize Group, among others. Those agreements were modeled after policies TFT established with Nestle and Golden-Agri Resources. TFT is also implementing Asia Pulp & Paper's forest conservation policy....," http://news.mongabay.com/2014/0527-rspo-tft.html#o0AGhAfxPfBssMZd.99.

 

Other topics to look out for:

- financiers set the bar higher, example HSBC; Deutsche Bank sells Bumitama stake reports Friends of the Earth amidst allegations http://www.foei.org/news/deutsche-bank-divests-from-bumitama/.

- Timber: "WWF accuses APRIL of breaking sustainability commitment by logging rainforest in Borneo.  (05/23/2014) Environmental group WWF has accused Singapore-based pulp and paper giant Asia Pacific Resources International Limited (APRIL) of breaking its recent conservation commitment by destroying rainforest in Indonesian Borneo. APRIL has denied the charges...."http://news.mongabay.com/2014/0523-april-north-kalimantan.html?n3ws1ttr  

 

 

Khor Reports comments:

 

The escalation and new support from the top plantation companies of new programs is starting to play out. It may get a bit rougher for all as the transition to wider and deeper NGO-led standards pushes on. We hear that NGOs may feel quite encouraged to move harder. Also, their remote sensing systems getting in place to pin point company behaviour. There are more  company reports on the big companies to verify implementation and what they have done in recent years. Thus, the question is whether the new programs will garner them the 2 year or so breathing space that GAR/ Sinar Mas achieved with NGOs, post boycott. Inter and intra NGO competition is rife and also noted in other sectors including soy.

 

Another important development is the apparent growing rift (between TFT and RSPO as they duke it out for market share. TFT is apparently offering a non-certification and focused sustainability program. Crucially, there is expected to be overall fewer but higher obligations on hot button issues (source: industry expert interviewed May 2014).

Note: TFT is associated with Greenpeace on palm sustainability issues. RSPO offers a popular certification program for traditional non-fuel usages while ISCC is popular for certification for biofuel usages. 

 

 

 

 

Politicians worry about WWF roundtables?

More worries over trade control tilting against primary producers from Down Under...

IN SENATOR Ron Boswell's last big Senate speech before his retirement next month, he takes a massive - if predictable - swipe at the World Wildlife Fund (WWF)....  "WWF: 'privatisating' production - SENATOR RON BOSWELL," 15 May, 2014 07:45 PM; http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/general/opinion/wwf-privatisating-production/2698613.aspx; "There is a co-ordinated campaign by WWF and others to coerce industries into certification schemes... Time for producers to take control... Apart from my farewell next month, this is the last substantial speech I shall make in the Senate. I have thought long and hard about what I should say. What I want to do is leave all Australian primary producers with a warning: take action now to maintain producer control over the production and marketing of your product. I have been in the Senate for 31 years. All that time, I have defended and promoted primary producers. They are wonderful people, feeding and clothing our nation and many more people overseas, generating vital wealth for the benefit of all Australians. However, they are under threat. That threat comes in the form of a long-term strategy by a powerful and sophisticated combination of environmental zealots and major corporations that would effectively control primary production practices worldwide......"


Other Australia worries about its primary producers versus NGOs here: /khorreports-palmoil/2014/04/australia-resource-industries-seek-ban.html

Saturated fats fears but carbs the real culprit?

How wrong science could have set wrong nutrition dogma?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303678404579533760760481486.html?mod=djemWMP_h

CIMB survey, WWF soy report

CIMB recently issued a report on its survey of 3,000 or so of its staff on their cooking oil preferences. The main finding was on health nutrition perception. Do check it out: "Plantations (N) - Opting for healthier cooking oils" noting that "We were slightly surprised that only 43% of respondents in our recent survey picked palm oil as their preferred cooking oil. This could be due to the rising affluence of Malaysian consumers as well as a lack of awareness of the health benefits of palm oil as cooking oil producers may have shifted their marketing activities to other edible oils over the years given that palm-olein-based cooking oil is regulated. The survey reveals that more work may be needed to educate consumers of the health benefits of palm oil. Maintain Neutral on the sector with First Resources as our top pick."

I've downloaded and will be reading with interest WWF's "Soy Report Card - Assessing the use of responsible soy for animal feed in Europe," The broad finding on 88 European retailers, food service companies, CGMs and dairy, meat, egg and feed companies sourcing of soy for animal feed or animal products: "The picture is disappointing. Some frontrunner companies have made strong
commitments to stop sourcing irresponsible soy from recently cleared forests, savannahs and grasslands. They have also started buying “better soy” from producers who adhere to robust responsible production guidelines.... The majority, however, are lagging behind in commitments – and even more in concrete actions such as buying responsible soy. This leaves producers with little incentive to certify their soy as responsible and risks the integrity of some of the world’s most valuable ecosystems, like the Amazon, Cerrado and Chaco."

 

source: WWF Soy Report Card 2014

WWF says: "It’s not only about forests — grasslands and savannahs can also be negatively impacted by irresponsible soy production." It talks about "responsible substitution" or the substitution of imported soy to "build high quality European protein supplies customized for the requirements of the European market and, in some cases, to address the demand from some European consumers for GM-free soybeans and soy protein feed. Examples of such initiatives include Danube Soya...."

Australia resource industries seek ban of market boycotts (update 1)

3 May 2014:

Ben & Jerry's referred to consumer watchdog over save-the-reef campaign; theguardian.com, Friday 2 May 2014 06.58 BST; http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/02/ben-jerrys-referred-to-consumer-watchdog-over-save-the-reef-campaign; Ice-cream company’s ‘mistruths could cost jobs’, says Queensland LNP senator elect who has written to the ACCC; "Queensland LNP senator elect Matthew Canavan said he wrote to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) on Tuesday to consider the company’s conduct... “Australia has strict laws to protect consumers against misleading and deceptive behaviour,” he said. “These mistruths could cost jobs and development in regional Queensland. It’s irresponsible behaviour from a company that should know better.”.. The Queensland premier Campbell Newman also said on Thursday: “The World Wildlife Fund can make such false assertions, so be it. But a company is bound by consumer law and can’t make false and misleading statements and they are making false and misleading statements when it comes to this.”...


3 April 2014

Australian government may ban environmental boycotts; Guardian Australia: Parliamentary secretary says there is 'an appetite' for removing environmental groups' exemption from secondary boycotts ban; Thursday 3 April 2014; http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/02/coalition-review-of-consumer-laws-may-ban-environmental-boycotts: "Coalition MPs and industry groups are using a review of competition laws to push for a ban on campaigns against companies on the grounds that they are selling products that damage the environment, for example by using old-growth timber or overfished seafood....  Groups including the Australian Forest Products Association and parts of the seafood industry are also preparing submissions to the review arguing that environmental campaigns against companies selling products made from native timbers or “unsustainable” fishing amount to a “secondary boycott” and should be unlawful....  But the new state Liberal government intends to undo the forest “peace deal”, expand sawlog production and stop environmental campaigns through tough new state laws aimed at protesters. It is also lobbying the federal government for a change to competition laws to stop market-based campaigns.... Colbeck said he would be suggesting a further change to competition law to increase the power of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to police general claims made by environmental groups about particular types of products “to ensure that they are truthful”.... “They can say what they like, they can campaign about what they like, they can have a point of view, but they should not be able to run a specific business-focused or market-focused campaign, and they should not be able to say things that are not true,” he said.... Groups like GetUp! and Markets for Change are currently exempt from section 45D of the Consumer and Competition Act which prohibits actions that stop a third person buying goods from another....

Tasmanian forests set for logging as Liberals push ahead with repeal; State government unveils plan to tear up historic deal between industry and greens protecting 400,000 hectares of forest; Australian Associated Press; theguardian.com, Tuesday 8 April 2014; http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/08/tasmanian-forests-logging-liberals-repeal

Khor Reports comment: Interesting to see a possible push back from Australia industry, state and federal government over market boycott campaigns by domestic NGOs. In contrast, palm oil has been facing significant market campaigns, but at a transnational level. Actions have been taken by palm oil producers in the French trade tribunal, for instance, but negative market actions continued and the number of products affected continued to rise. Also interesting that this is the second time in as many months that we read of a competition act possibly used in relation to the sustainability issue.