- A large group of conservation NGOs have come out against a new Hollywood take on palm oil, “Ozi: Voice of the Forest”
- Malaysia ups its objections to the EUDR on the back of smallholder exclusion
Why Don’t NGOs Like Hollywood’s Take on Palm Oil?
A large group of conservation NGOs have come out against a new Hollywood take on palm oil, “Ozi: Voice of the Forest”. The NGOs include Orangutan Land Trust, SOS, Chester Zoo, Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE), Borneo Futures and Hutan.
Anyone observing palm and conservation over the past decade or more will be aware that these are some of the most vocal figures on orangutan conservation, and also among the most technically accomplished.
The film itself is about an orangutan, Ozi, whose family and habitat are threatened by a plantation company – in other words, palm oil.
In a website post, the NGOs state:
Although the film captures the beauty of these important ecosystems and stresses the urgency of protecting rainforests, we the undersigned are concerned about palm oil being characterised as the ‘villain’ in the story.
The vast majority of conservation organisations and experts do not agree with a blanket boycott of palm oil, and we are concerned that children and families watching this film will be left with the impression that this is the right action to take. We believe that one of the most effective ways to tackle forest loss and help orangutans like Ozi is to support sustainable palm oil, instead of boycotting it altogether.
Palm oil does not need to be produced at the expense of biodiverse forests or other vulnerable natural habitats – and the palm oil industry, especially in Indonesia and Malaysia, has taken great strides over the last 20 years to reduce its environmental footprint.
In other words, the key objection is that the film oversimplifies the arguments against palm oil, pitting it as a villain against orangutans.
This is something that just about every professional working in either conservation or agriculture in Malaysia and Indonesia has been working against for the past decade or more.
Those on the ground are acutely aware that this type of characterisation – and the promotion of boycotts — is completely unproductive for both conservation and for palm oil.
The question is how this project managed to get this far without actually using experts on the matter – there don’t appear to be credits for any consultants on the subject of the film.
This indicates – more than anything else – carelessness and insensitivity towards Southeast Asia and its people and its environment. The film subsequently reeks of a superior, patronising attitude from wealthy Westerners towards those in developing countries.
But should we expect anything else from Hollywood? Once again, it’s very easy for Hollywood to point the finger without having any experience of the complexity on the ground.
And, given that the film doesn’t appear to be donating anything significant to actual conservation programs, it reads like an exploitative money-making exercise.
Malaysia Ups EUDR Objections, Citing Smallholders
Malaysia appears to have upped its objections to EUDR implementation over the past month. The apparent change in heart has come after a lengthy period of the country hedging its bets on the regulation.
Malaysia has been pushing the Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) system as a means of compliance with the EUDR.
However, the EU has said quite clearly that certification systems won’t be a ‘green light’ for compliance, even if they are national systems developed and endorsed by governments. It has instead said they may be a ‘tool’ as part of demonstration of compliance.
This has clearly irritated Putrajaya; Malaysia has put considerable resources into lifting MSPO to a level where it adheres to international norms on standard-setting and accreditation, has a zero-deforestation rule, and also has high levels of traceability.
But the clear and major irritant is the impact it will have on smallholders. Last week, Malaysian Palm Oil council chief Belvinder Sron said:
“The EUDR is a non-tariff barrier imposed by the European Union (EU). It discriminates against Malaysia’s four major commodities—palm oil, rubber, timber and cocoa—by restricting open market access.
“The regulation’s stringent requirements on traceability and geolocation would impose—I’m not using the word ‘could,’ it would impose—additional financial and technical burdens on Malaysian companies, particularly smallholders, potentially excluding them from the EU supply chain.”
Sron went as far as to suggest that Malaysia would alter some of its export patterns away from the EU. This is a scenario that has been echoed by other countries and sectors, particularly pulp and paper.