Tag Archives: greenpeace
Palm Oil Industry Key Culprit Behind Deforestation, Haze In Indonesia
New report by Greenpeace details the failure of RSPO in halting deforestation, and highlights Wilmar, Genting and Surya Dumai as firms with concessions behind the recent haze crisis in Singapore and Malaysia The palm oil industry is destroying Indonesia’s forests, said Greenpeace International in a new report on Tuesday, as the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) is set to meet for its first European Summit in Berlin. In the investigative paper, “Certifying Destruction”, Greenpeace higlighted the failure of the sustainable palm oil and certification body in halting deforestation. RSPO concessions accounted for as much as 39 per cent of the fire hotspots on palm oil concessions in Riau during January to June 2013, when the most severe haze outbreak in history affected neighbouring Singapore and Malaysia. The report, which gives a mapping anaylsis of the concessions, charged that RSPO standards are severely lacking, leaving members “free to destroy forests” that contribute to more greenhouse gas emissions, human rights violations, loss of endangered species such as the Sumatran tiger and orang-utan and the Borneo orang-utan, and the yearly regional haze. RSPO members account for about 40 per cent of global palm oil production. With the launch of the report, Greenpeace is calling for the industry, especially those gathering at the summit, where the future of palm oil sustainability will be discussed, to take action against deforestation. Bustar Maitar, Greenpeace International’s head for the Indonesia Forest Campaign, told Eco-Business: “We want to see the companies, palm oil producers and the buyers to act more to stop deforestation … We want to see the customers make sure that their product is not associated with deforestation. Customers can’t just say that because they are buying from RSPO companies then they have no relation with deforestation and peat land destruction…” According to Indonesia’s Ministry of Forestry maps, the country has lost 1.24 million hectares of forest from 2009 to 2011. In the same period, about 300,000 hectares or a quarter of this total forest loss was due to identified palm oil concessions, said Greenpeace, making the palm oil sector the largest driver of forest destruction in Indonesia. Illegal land clearing and unsustainable sourcing “ Even among the RSPO’s own members, dirty palm oil remains the common currency – RSPO standards are inadequate, poorly enforced and offer palm oil consumers no guarantee that the oil they buy has been produced responsibly Greenpeace International “Year after year, Indonesia’s forest fires and haze wreak havoc on the region, and the palm oil sector is a main culprit,” said Maitar. He added, “While RSPO members might have no-fire policies, the peat land they have cleared and drained is like a tinderbox – one spark is all it takes.” According to anaylsis by Greenpeace, Singapore-based Wilmar International, the world’s largest palm oil trader, along with Genting and Surya Dumai, are “the three privately-owned RSPO members with the largest areas of identified deforestation”. Wilmar prohibits burning on its own plantations, but it sources more than 90 per cent of its crude palm oil from third-party suppliers. Some of palm oil products it has received come from illegal plantations inside the Tesso Nilo National Park in Riau as recently as 2012, according to a WWF investigation, cited the Greenpeace report. While the agribusiness firm denied this and mentioned of procedures stopping such practices, the lax criteria on third-party supply does not promote the strict use of clean palm oil into global supplies, said Greenpeace. This fresh fruit bunch (FFB) or palm oil products sourced from third-party suppliers could have been produced through illegal land clearing, they added. Inadequacies of RSPO The RSPO lacks standards encouraging transparency in sourcing or mechanisms that offer traceability throughout the entire palm oil supply chain, from plantation to the end consumer product sold on supermarkets and other retail stores. The report showed a visual flowchart of the RSPO supply chain illustrating three different supply systems – segregated supply, mass balance, and book and claim – that translate to different palm oil products, as well as different claims of palm oil certification. “Even among the RSPO’s own members, dirty palm oil remains the common currency – RSPO standards are inadequate, poorly enforced and offer palm oil consumers no guarantee that the oil they buy has been produced responsibly,” said Greenpeace. In fact, of the 250 palm oil consumer companies interviewed by the environmental group , those who replied stated they still rely on RSPO’s sustainability measures. Procter and Gamble, one of the respondents, said, “By 2015, 100 per cent of our palm oil purchases will be confirmed to have originated from responsible and sustainable sources… [We are] aiming to source certified sustainable palm oil and PKO (palm kernel oil) via the RSPO Mass Balanced Supply Chain model, but will also be source via the Book and Claim model.” However, Greenpeace emphasised that the RSPO is “not fit for this purpose”. The report outlines how the RSPO faces criticism from consumer companies and non-government organisations, despite having recently revised its principles and criteria and having the support of the Consumer Goods Forum and the Sustainable Palm Oil Investor Working Group. Kellogg, the company behind well-known cereals and energy bars, recently received backlash from consumer activist group Sum of Us due to its joint venture with Wilmar International. Campaign director Rob Wohl, in an article with trade website Bakery and Snacks, said, “Sourcing RSPO-certified palm oil is nice, but Kellogg’s (and really, all global corporations) need to be doing everything in their power to stop deforestation. Ideally, Kellogg should follow Nestlé’s lead by adopting strong deforestation-free principles and allow independent oversight of its supply chain.” Going beyond the RSPO Greenpeace likewise named the Swiss multinational company as an example of a consumer goods firm that has taken palm oil sustainability seriously. The environmental NGO, back in 2010, lambasted the firm’s use of unsustainable palm oil from Indonesian supplier Sinar Mas for its Kit Kat chocolate bar. Since then, Nestlé has addressed its sourcing, even including a goal on the use of sustainable palm oil by end of the year on its list of published environmental targets for 2020. Golden Agri-Resources, New Britain Palm Oil and Agropalma are the other exemplary companies cited by Greenpeace in the report. According to Areeba Hamid, the NGO’s forest campaigner, “The only solution for palm oil consumers and producers is to go beyond the RSPO – as some members are doing already. This is the challenge we set to the industry.” The Palm Oil Innovation Group, an initiative by some palm oil firms and NGOs including Greenpeace, is an example of industry efforts outside the RSPO. The group is for the conservation of high carbon stock forests and also secondary forests, which the RSPO does not protect in its stipulated forest clearance ban. Greenpeace, in the report, recommended what other actions the RSPO should take to improve its standards. They also listed their solutions and demands for palm oil consumer companies, traders and processors, and producers. Hamid said, “Brands must find out where their palm oil comes from, and guarantee consumers around the world that forest destruction is not making its way into our products.” Wilmar, as well as Golden Agri and Kuala Lumpur Kepong Bhd (KLK), showed that having questionable business operations has repercussions. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, the richest in the world at US$737 billion, sold its investments in the palm oil producers last 2012, citing concerns on deforestation. Continue reading
Biomass Loopholes ‘Big Enough To Drive A Logging Truck Through’
Posted on 27 August 2013 by Tom Grimwood Green campaigners have attacked the revised sustainability criteria for the UK’s burgeoning biomass electricity industry. The Department of Energy and Climate and Change (DECC) says its “tough” new demands will mean biomass-fuelled generators must hit targets on how much carbon is emitted and whether enough trees have been replanted, with rules kicking in from April 2015. But the new rules have taken flak from several environmental groups. Biofuelwatch claimed most of the carbon emissions from biomass will be ignored because DECC’s sustainability criteria exclude things like ‘substiution’ emissions – the carbon cost of burning biomass which could have had other uses. The group said DECC relies on a number of “dubious” schemes to certify sustainability and described the Ofgem carbon calculator they use to tot up greenhouse emissions as “deeply flawed”. A spokesman for Biofuelwatch, Duncan Law said: “DECC is more concerned with ‘keeping the lights on’ using existing technology than with real carbon savings and environmental impact. It is heavily lobbied by the energy companies who stand to make hundreds of millions from burning hundreds of millions of tonnes of imported wood.” Greenpeace also attacked DECC’s failure to mention ‘carbon debt’. They quoted a report by the European Environment Agency which found that burning biomass can be actually be a high carbon source of energy if forests aren’t re-grown to pay the ‘carbon debt’ back. Dr Doug Parr, the Chief Scientist at Greepeace said: “The loopholes in these sustainability standards are big enough to drive a logging truck through. Having learnt nothing from the biofuels debacle, the Government has ignored the latest scientific research and produced standards that will take a potentially sustainable industry and transform it into one more way to greenwash environmental destruction.” But the Renewable Energy Association (REA) said these arguments are based on worst-case scenarios involving the burning of whole trees and unsustainable forest management, when the industry mainly relies on cheaper leftovers. REA Chief Executive Dr Nina Skorupska said: “These sustainability criteria ensure that the UK can reap the benefits of biomass, safe in the knowledge that it is making a real dent in our carbon emissions and that ecologically sensitive land is being protected.” Continue reading
New Regulations Create Fresh Row Over Biomass Power
Government guidelines could allow destructive forms of biomass and fail to satisfy industry of future financial support Fiona Harvey , environment correspondent theguardian.com , Thursday 22 August 2013 15.34 BST The travails of the industry were highlighted in July with the shelving of plans to turn the Tilbury power station into a biomass-burning plant. Photograph: Alamy[/color] New regulations to ensure energy generated from forests, crops and waste is sustainable provoked a fresh row on Thursday over biomass power, with the government plans failing to reassure the industry of future financial support. Green campaigners said the new rules would allow the use of destructive forms of biomass, which have been linked to deforestation in other countries. The biomass industry denied this, but will still face a major task to attract investment into the sector, because the government has put strict limits on how biomass plants will be supported under its new regime for the electricity market. Under the current proposals, biomass will be at a disadvantage relative to other forms of generation, because some forms of new biomass power plants will be effectively excluded from the new long-term “contracts for difference” that are the basis of the new system. That may rattle investors. The travails of the industry were highlighted in July with the shelving of plans to turn the Tilbury power station, in Essex, into a biomass-burning plant. Greg Barker, minister for energy and climate change, said biomass – now an industry worth £1bn in the UK and supporting 3,000 jobs – had “an important role” in UK energy generation. “The new criteria will provide the necessary investor certainty and ensure that the biomass is delivered in a transparent and sustainable way.” The new sustainability rules cover issues such as harvesting rates, to ensure trees can regrow, as well as ensuring wood comes from forests where the biodiversity is not harmed by the harvesting, and where the rights of indigenous people are respected. The government promised there would be no changes to the criteria before 2027, and that the operators of plants who complied with the guidelines would continue to receive subsidies under the Renewable Obligation. Dr Nina Skorupska, chief executive of the Renewable Energy Association, which represents the industry, said: “These sustainability criteria ensure that the UK can reap the benefits of biomass, safe in the knowledge that it is making a real dent in our carbon emissions and that ecologically sensitive land is being protected.” Tensions between green groups and the biomass industry have been running high for months, as environmental groups have published studies and claims that some forms of biomass, such as imported wood, do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions because they encourage the chopping down of large swaths of forest. Biomass proponents have responded that some of the scientific research has been misinterpreted , and unrealistic worst case scenarios wrongly presented as the norm. At least one academic involved with the research has contested the green groups’ claims. However, the government’s new guidelines, far from defusing the row, have inflamed it further. Dr Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace UK, said: “The loopholes in these sustainability standards are big enough to drive a logging truck through. The government has ignored the latest scientific research and produced standards that will take a potentially sustainable industry and transform it into one more way to greenwash environmental destruction. The climate isn’t going to fall for creative accounting and neither should the public.” The government also failed to satisfy the biomass industry with Thursday’s announcement. Under electricity market reform, new biomass-burning power stations will only qualify for the new contracts if the heat they produce is captured and reused, a process known as combined heat and power (CHP). But some biomass companies are worried because CHP technology is an extra cost at the outset, and because it is only suitable where there are buildings – either dwellings, industrial estates or large public buildings – near enough for the heat to be piped from the plant. Given the UK’s planning laws, it may be hard to get permission for a site, which could put some potential projects in a “catch-22” situation. CHP will also only be economically viable if nearby property owners are prepared to pay for the heat. Skorupska said biomass was a good option because it could reduce carbon, but is not intermittent like other renewables such as wind. But she warned that the CHP stipulation risked harming investment. “CHP is an excellent use of the resource, but it is not feasible in sites where there is no user for the heatload. The government will have serious regrets down the line if it excludes the construction of dedicated biomass power plants from the new regime.”[/font][/color] Continue reading
