Wilmar International: Suppliers and Deforestation

Various NGOs have investigated and challenged the inclusion of mill suppliers who deforest; and there is controversy over suspending or engaging with errant suppliers. Wilmar says to avoid suspension contributing to “a growing leakage market” or negatively impacting oil palm smallholders, post-suspension engagement is crucial... to assist suppliers in bringing their operations to compliance.” Its “Suspend then Engage” grievance approach took effect in January 2019.

For human rights complaints, a supplier must take steps “to address the grievance with regard to the development and implementation of the time bound action plan which includes corrective actions, remediation actions and actions to demonstrate systemic and group-wide change.”

Under its “Re-engagement Protocol”, Wilmar may resume sourcing from suppliers suspended for deforestation and/or peatland development if re-entry criteria (specifying minimum terms and conditions) are met. An example is the so-called GAMA Group, apparently consolidated under KPN Plantation (and associated with Martua Sitorus, a Wilmar founder). Its recovery plan interventions centers on "social recovery, specifically supporting the development of hutan desa (community social forestry) programmes in the area to support community empowerment and improving livelihoods. The recovery plans also consider landscape recovery where feasible, such as creating wildlife corridors."

According to ‘Wilmar’s Supplier Monitoring Programme’ of Sep 2018 (the latest report, accessed 10 Dec 2020):

1. Suppliers report their current compliance to Wilmar’s NDPE policy via Its online self-reporting system and there is follow-up verification for 10% of mills. The verification programme included satellite monitoring of 11 million hectares and 500 mills by Sep 2018.

2. “16 suppliers (were suspended) at a group level, as they failed to convincingly improve their policies and/or actions, supply chain exclusion at a group level has been imposed,” and for Indonesia a million tonnes worth of supply has been suspended while about 1.2 million tonnes was under ongoing engagement. The total under complaint (suspension and engagement status) was 3 million tonnes of supply (including Malaysia and rest of the world). This tonnage under complaint is about 12% of Wilmar’s 25 million annual tonnes of palm products handled in 2019.  The Indonesia complaints seen by Wilmar relate to about 5% of Indonesia’s palm oil production of about 43 million tonnes per year; and they likely appear as complaints for other Indonesia-based trader-processors too. 

Editor’s note: Interestingly, Wilmar exited from the High Carbon Stock Approach in April 2020, citing governance and financial issues. The company, however, insisted that it “firmly committed to the adoption and implementation of the HCSA toolkit”. Wilmar’s press statement on its exit can be read here.

Aquaculture: Common Questions

What do tilapia, shrimp and cockles have in common?

They are all key products of the aquaculture industry in Malaysia (FAO, 2020a). But what exactly is aquaculture? Aquaculture is farming, but with fish or other delectable aquatic organisms intended for human consumption. This practice has become increasingly common globally, and now makes up about 54% of the world’s fishery production (FAO, 2018). In Malaysia, aquaculture makes up a substantial 21% of our fishery production (DOSM, 2019). When it comes to aquaculture here, it is commonly split into two types; freshwater and brackishwater aquaculture. Freshwater aquaculture, as the name suggests, is the breeding and raising of aquatic animals such as tilapia, catfish and carp in freshwater lakes, ponds, rivers or even reservoirs for economic purposes (Li and Liu, 2019). Brackishwater aquaculture, on the other hand, is the dominant aquaculture in Malaysia, making up about 70% of our aquaculture production, where it is the breeding of mainly bivalve molluscs like cockles and clams in waters that have a salinity fluctuating between 0.5% to full strength salinity (FAO, 2020b). These conditions can be commonly found in estuaries, bays and lagoons.

Now that we have the introduction out of the way, lets address some common questions people might have when it comes to aquaculture.

Is wild caught fish really better than farmed fish?

This is a question that stems from what I have heard come up countless times in conversations about wild vs farmed fish among family and friends, as well as in studies (Verbeke et al., 2007). There is this assumption by the general public that wild fish seem to have the edge over farmed fish when it comes to quality. Well luckily for you, I'm here to do the research and answer this question once and for all.

The answer: There really isn’t much difference from a nutritional standpoint. In fact, farmed fish has the potential to be more beneficial than wild fish. Some studies have shown that because farmed fish can be controlled in terms of diet and water quality, this could result in fish with lower levels of potentially toxic heavy metals, compared to their wild counterparts (Cahu et al, 2004). While it is true that farmed fish in some cases can have higher fat content than wild fish, this can be easily tweaked through the composition of the fish feed used, as well as the size of the fish enclosures (Nettleton and Exler, 1992; Cahu et al, 2004). 

But what about the antibiotics?

Another common question involving farmed fish is the fear of antibiotics and other artificial substances that may be used on farmed fish affecting us human beings. 

The answer: Yes, this is a potential issue with some farmed fish. The issue stems from the risk of antibiotic resistance. For those who aren’t familiar with this term, antibiotic resistance is when bacteria start to develop resistances to the antibiotics used to destroy them. Antibiotics are commonly used in aquaculture to fight bacterial infections and keep the fish healthy. While fine to use moderately, antibiotics are sometimes overused by the farmers, which then leads to antibiotic resistance issues. Residues of the antibiotics tend to stay in the fish when overused, which is then passed on to us humans when we then eat the fish (Miranda et al., 2018). This could then result in bacteria in our body developing resistances to antibiotics. It is important to note however, that this is still a relatively new field of research. There are limited studies done on the long term effects of antibiotic residues, as well as just how impactful it is on human health (Chen et al., 2020). It can only get better over the next few decades, as it will take time for more scientific studies to be carried out to determine the right doses of antibiotics and alternative methods to combating bacterial infection in aquaculture (Chen et al., 2020).

Does aquaculture hurt the fish or have any negative effects regarding welfare?

Where are the animal rights activists at? This is also a pretty common question when it comes to aquaculture, where people question whether the welfare of the fish is taken care of.

The answer: It would probably be no surprise to you that aquaculture does have negative effects on fish welfare, given that they are commonly reared in enclosures that are smaller than the size of an ocean or river. Generally, issues such as the handling and manipulation of fish, malformation and inducing reproduction all commonly affect aquaculture fish (Saraiva et al., 2019). However, most studies on fish welfare are usually limited to several popular aquaculture species, and a lot more research needs to be done in order to better understand both the physiological and behavioural measures we have to account for to maintain good fish welfare in the farms (Ashley, 2007).

Why support aquaculture?

So you’re telling me that I should buy farmed fish and support aquaculture even when you have just pointed out some of its issues?

Well, like any food source, there will always be pros and cons. I could also write an article on how wild caught fish could potentially be just as harmful, if not more harmful to our health (maybe I will). Arguably, the welfare of wild fish isn’t doing so well either, with severe overfishing plaguing the high seas. The reasons why aquaculture has been painted in this slightly negative light mainly stem from media portrayal, as well as a lack of knowledge among the public on aquaculture (Froehlich et al., 2017). Furthermore, a relatively new technique of procuring fish, when compared to the practice of catching wild fish for thousands of years is bound to have some initial wrinkles that need to be ironed out. Only through continuing to support the transition to more aquaculture based fish production can we move forwards. 

Let’s not forget the main reason aquaculture is being pushed in the first place. Overfishing has left global wild fish stocks dangerously low, and we need alternative food supplies. This is not an environmentalist push to protect wild fish stocks for the sake of preserving nature. The world population is growing every day. With about three billion people in communities around the world reliant on seafood as the main source of food, dwindling fish stocks are a pressing food security issue (WWF, 2020). Aquaculture is looking to be the perfect solution to the problem, we just need to refine it.

Aquaculture production has surpassed wild catch since 2012, with an average person now consuming almost double the amount of seafood compared to the past 50 years (Ritchie, 2019).

I hope this article has given you some insight into the aquaculture scene, and gotten you hooked! Stay tuned for the next article on the environmental impacts of aquaculture, and how they compare to the impacts of conventional fishing.

By Robin GOON, Segi Enam intern, 10 Dec 2020 | LinkedIn

Edited by Nadirah SHARIF