by Jason C. Parke (Mr. Parke is an American retiree who worked for several palm oil companies as technical adviser from 1999 to 2004. He shuttles from Hawaii to Cagayan de Oro City, where his wife, Gingging, lives.) “That some are willing to advance potentially devastating positions so casually — especially when their implementation would likely cripple one of the main industries able to demonstrably reduce poverty and raise living standards — calls into question their morals.” The quote is attributed to World Growth chairman Alan Oxley, commenting on the recent campaigns by Western environmental groups against palm oil produced in developing countries. That quote also speaks a lot of the Philippine banana industry today, as it grapples with the attempt to put its stakeholders in a trial by publicity instigated by environmental hardliners. Masquerading themselves as health advocates, these NGOs are either too extremist on their stand not to see the impact on the poor if the industry teeters into dissolution, or are imbued with personal interests in advancing a cause that they believe is a zero-sum game — no compromise, no win-win solution, no middle ground where all parties can talk and walk away satisfied. The same pattern of intransigence is seen in NGOs seeking to destroy the palm oil industry. Never mind that the production of palm oil — an ancient product, sustainable vegetable oil and essential food staple — raises living standards and reduces poverty in developing countries. Never mind that in Malaysia alone, palm oil plantations are already directly providing more than 570,000 jobs, and will support another 180,000 workers by 2010. Never mind that, seeing its undeniable sustainability, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) is funding a project in Uganda to trial the effectiveness of palm oil as a poverty eradication tool. All the NGOs could say is “No, no, no.” All they can do is “destroy, destroy, destroy!” All they can do is rake the palm oil stakeholders before the public with their malicious, misleading claims and unscientific claims. They do not think for one moment that what their bogus propaganda is not only highly objectionable, but potentially devastating for millions of poor in the developing regions of the world. It boggles the mind that most often, the agribusiness industry in developing nations such as Malaysia and the Philippines fall victim to this type of attacks. Are the NGOs behind the anti-palm oil and banana campaigns being unwittingly used by multinationals that stand to benefit with the demise of both sectors? For World Growth, Mr. Oxley says this possibility cannot be ignored, noting that the “harsh claims against palm oil and reveals that, at best, they’re a misunderstandings of facts and economics and, at worst, intentional distortion of the truth…” Meanwhile, NGOs seeking to destroy both agri-industries are spreading venom in the public minds. For example, one repeated bogus claim by anti-palm oil advocates is that palm oil plantations are the leading cause of deforestation and loss of orang-utang habitat. However, development and forestry experts have shown two-thirds of forest clearance is driven by low income people in poor countries searching for land, habitation and food production. For advocates of anti-aerial spraying, one persistent demand is the end-all and be-all approach to stop it as a valid and tested agricultural practice. This approach follows the logic that if the house is infested with rodents, you have to burn it down — even including the occupants. (Therefore, let’s stop aerial spraying even if it means the literal death of the industry and those who depend on it, who are mostly poor workers and average-income farmers.) Of course such a demand is the most ultimate of its kind, and way too unrealistic. In all advanced countries in the world, they don’t stop aerial spraying as a method to control pests and other organisms when somebody complains. They just regulate it, and then they impose penalties and set up inspection mechanisms to ensure compliance. Banning a proven agricultural practice is just too radical whose negative impact far outweighs the envisioned benefits.
