MALAYSIA's palm oil, which has gained acceptance in the food processing
industry in the US after a long-drawn battle with soyabean oil, is now up
against environmentalists in the European Union (EU).
Environmentalists are accusing Malaysia, which is the world's largest
producer and exporter of palm oil, of upsetting biodiversity as it brings
more land into oil palm cultivation.
Plantation Industries and Commodities Minister Datuk Peter Chin has
embarked on a week-long troubleshooting mission with senior officials and
industry players to counter what the Malaysian Government terms as unfair
lobbying led by environmental non-government organisations (NGOs).
The mission is of significance to Malaysia as the EU is Malaysia's second
largest importer of palm oil, representing 17.9 per cent, or 2.58 million
tonnes, last year as higher demand for palm oil came from both the edible
and non-edible sectors.
"These European sceptics seem to think that oil palm is widely grown in
Malaysia at the expense of the environment and is a significant
contributor of carbon dioxide emissions globally," Chin told Business
Times in an interview.
Describing palm oil as the first tropical plantation commodity to address
global concerns by specifying principles and criteria for sustainable
production, Chin said the adverse publicity has intensified in the last
six months.
"The NGOs are starting to distribute pamphlets on anti-palm oil through
posters and so on to pressurise major stores like Tesco and Sainsbury's,
to discourage them from buying or selling palm oil that in itself will
have a major impact on the consumption pattern of European consumers," he
said.
Allegations include environmental damage, deforestation, climate change
and destruction of the natural habitat of the Orang Utan.
Chin, who did a similar trip to Europe last year to counter claims against
Malaysian timber, said this time there are unfounded claims that biodiesel
demand in the EU will lead to indiscriminate expansion of plantations in
Malaysia.
Most of Europe's biodiesel fuel is sourced mostly from rapeseed oil now,
which is unable to meet the surge in demand as Europe's bio-fuel policy
targets a 5.75 per cent biofuel use by 2010.
Chin said he is determined to challenge these false claims at every level
- from NGOs to legislators in all three EU countries he will be visiting -
the Netherlands, Belgium and the UK.
Chin will be meeting Dutch Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer,
Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality Minister Gerda Verburg as well as
other Members of Parliament (MPs) today.
He is to meet with EU MPs in a dialogue session in Brussels tomorrow.
There will be a symposium on sustainable resource development on
Wednesday.
His 25-member team includes Malaysian Palm Oil Board chairman Datuk Sabri
Ahmad, who is also the chief executive officer (CEO) of Golden Hope
Plantations Bhd, Malaysian Palm Oil Council (MPOC) chairman Datuk Seri Lee
Oi Hian, who is also the CEO of KL Kepong Bhd, MPOC CEO Tan Sri Dr Yusof
Basiron and Malaysian Palm Oil Association CEO Datuk Mamat Salleh.
Malaysia and Indonesia, also a large palm oil producer in the world,
recently teamed up to combat palm oil smear campaigns.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
JICA Alumni Society Of Malaysia
From The Star 25 August 2007
The Look East policy has played an important role in the country’s economic development and Malaysia highly appreciated Japan’s cooperation, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said in a joint statement with Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe in Putrajaya on Friday.
PUTRAJAYA: Malaysia will continue with the Look East policy, which has proven to be a success since it started 25 years ago, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
The policy has played an important role in the country’s economic development and Malaysia highly appreciated Japan’s cooperation, he said in a joint statement with Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe here yesterday.
Abe arrived here on Thursday night for a three-day visit in conjunction with the 50th anniversary of the two countries’ diplomatic relations.
It is his first official visit to Malaysia and part of an Asian tour that earlier took him to Indonesia and India.
Red-carpet welcome: Abdullah accompanying Abe at Dataran Perdana Friday. Behind them are their wives, Datin Seri Jeanne and Akie. — ROHAIZAT MD DARUS / The Star
Abe was accorded an official welcome at Dataran Perdana before calling on Abdullah at the Prime Minister’s office, where they later adjourned for a Malaysia-Japan delegation meeting.
This was followed by the signing of the joint statement.
Abe congratulated Malaysia on the 25 years of the Look East policy and expressed his respect for the country sending 11,000 students and trainees to Japan since 1982.
Speaking to reporters later, Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said issues in the joint statement serve as a plan for Malaysia and Japan to improve economic, trade and investment ties between them.
He said Abdullah encouraged Japanese companies to invest in the Iskandar Development Region as well as in the other development corridors in the northern and eastern regions of the peninsula and in Sabah and Sarawak.
The joint statement also contained Malaysia’s support for Japan’s initiative to halve global emissions by 2050, as proposed in Abe’s Cool Earth 50 plan, which he unveiled in May.
The plan is to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and calls for a framework for addressing climate change beyond 2012.
Abdullah and Abe also agreed that it was important to conserve biodiversity and promote sustainable forest management in Malaysia, and to preserved the country’s world-class tropical forest and biodiversity.
Abe appreciated Malaysia’s role in countering terrorism as reflected in the agreement to co-host the second Asean-Japan Counter Terrorism Dialogue, scheduled to be held here next month.
The Look East policy has played an important role in the country’s economic development and Malaysia highly appreciated Japan’s cooperation, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said in a joint statement with Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe in Putrajaya on Friday.
PUTRAJAYA: Malaysia will continue with the Look East policy, which has proven to be a success since it started 25 years ago, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
The policy has played an important role in the country’s economic development and Malaysia highly appreciated Japan’s cooperation, he said in a joint statement with Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe here yesterday.
Abe arrived here on Thursday night for a three-day visit in conjunction with the 50th anniversary of the two countries’ diplomatic relations.
It is his first official visit to Malaysia and part of an Asian tour that earlier took him to Indonesia and India.
Red-carpet welcome: Abdullah accompanying Abe at Dataran Perdana Friday. Behind them are their wives, Datin Seri Jeanne and Akie. — ROHAIZAT MD DARUS / The Star
Abe was accorded an official welcome at Dataran Perdana before calling on Abdullah at the Prime Minister’s office, where they later adjourned for a Malaysia-Japan delegation meeting.
This was followed by the signing of the joint statement.
Abe congratulated Malaysia on the 25 years of the Look East policy and expressed his respect for the country sending 11,000 students and trainees to Japan since 1982.
Speaking to reporters later, Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said issues in the joint statement serve as a plan for Malaysia and Japan to improve economic, trade and investment ties between them.
He said Abdullah encouraged Japanese companies to invest in the Iskandar Development Region as well as in the other development corridors in the northern and eastern regions of the peninsula and in Sabah and Sarawak.
The joint statement also contained Malaysia’s support for Japan’s initiative to halve global emissions by 2050, as proposed in Abe’s Cool Earth 50 plan, which he unveiled in May.
The plan is to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and calls for a framework for addressing climate change beyond 2012.
Abdullah and Abe also agreed that it was important to conserve biodiversity and promote sustainable forest management in Malaysia, and to preserved the country’s world-class tropical forest and biodiversity.
Abe appreciated Malaysia’s role in countering terrorism as reflected in the agreement to co-host the second Asean-Japan Counter Terrorism Dialogue, scheduled to be held here next month.
3 new lemurs named in Madagascar
To recognize an internationally renowned primatologist and champion of Madagascar’s unique biodiversity, scientists who discovered three new species of mouse lemur on the island nation have named one in honor of Russell A. Mittermeier, the president of Conservation International.
Mittermeier, the longtime chair of the IUCN Primate Special Group, is an expert on Madagascar and its lemurs, the distinctive primates found nowhere else on Earth. He is the lead author of “Lemurs of Madagascar,” a comprehensive field guide on the country’s flagship species.
His efforts inspired researcher Mireya Mayor to shift her scientific focus to Madagascar, and she was part of the team that discovered the three new mouse lemurs that were officially named in a paper published in June by the International Journal of Primatology. One of the new species is named Microcebus mittermeieri, or Mittermeier’s Mouse Lemur.
The other two named in the paper are Microcebus jollyae (Jolly’s Mouse Lemur), for Alison Jolly, a pioneering lemur researcher from Princeton University, and Microcebus simmonsi (Simmons’ Mouse Lemur), for Dr. Lee Simmons, director of the Omaha Henry Doorly Zoo in Nebraska.
Mireya Mayor with a mouse lemur. Photo Credit: Mark Thiessen/National Geographic Society.
A newly described species of mouse lemur (Microcebus mittermeieri). Photo Credit: Mark Thiessen/National Geographic Society.
New lemur species named after British comedian Researchers from the University of Zurich have named a newly discovered species of lemur after British comedian John Cleese (of Monty Python) in honor of his work with the primates from Madagascar. According to the university, the lemur's name is a tribute to Cleese's promotion of the plight of lemurs in the movie "Fierce Creatures" and documentary "Operation Lemur with John Cleese."
Two tiny lemur species discovered in Madagascar German and Malagasy primatologists have discovered two new species of lemurs, naming one of them after Steve Goodman, a Field Museum scientist who has devoted nearly two decades to studying the animals of Madagascar.
In search of Bigfoot, scientists may uncover unknown biodiversity in Malaysia Malaysian scientists are scouring the rainforests of Johor state in search of the legendary ape-man Bigfoot, supposedly sighted late last year. But they are more likely to encounter some less fantastic but unique creatures that dwell in these still unexplored ecosystems.
Pictures of newly discovered species in New GuineaA team of scientists led by Conservation International (CI) found dozens of new species in a survey of New Guinea's Foja Mountains. The December 2005 trip by a team of U.S., Indonesian, and Australian scientists discovered new species of frogs, butterflies, plants, and an orange-faced honeyeater, the first new bird from the island of New Guinea in more than 60 years.
Mayor’s first research grant came from Mittermeier, and the discoveries by Mayor, Dr. Edward Louis and their Malagasy team occurred shortly before Madagascar President Marc Ravalomanana declared his visionary conservation policy in 2003 to triple Madagascar’s protected areas – including vital lemur habitat.
“I consider it a great honor to have a primate species named after me, and, given my life-long interest in Madagascar, I am especially pleased that it is a lemur. Other scientific discoveries come and go, but a new species becomes a permanent part of the scientific record, and will be with us forever,” Mittermeier said. “I am also delighted that this species is found in one of the highest priority areas for conservation in Madagascar, and that its discovery provides yet another justification for protecting the important Anjanaharibe-Sud Reserve.”
Mayor, a Fulbright scholar, National Geographic correspondent and former Miami Dolphins cheerleader, went to Madagascar after reading an article in a magazine about Mittermeier and his work with lemurs. The lemur that now bears Mittermeier’s name was discovered by Mayor and her colleagues on an expedition to study another lemur, the Critically Endangered silky sifaka.
Mouse lemurs are the smallest primates in the world, and the newest discoveries join the family of primates that represent Madagascar internationally.
“Finding an entirely new species of lemur living in the wild in the 21st Century shows how little we know about our natural world, and how important it is to protect it,” Mayor said. “This tiny creature has become a huge ambassador for all things wild in Madagascar, and that is truly remarkable.”
Both Mittermeier and Mayor are attending the CI Global Symposium from June 20-24 in Antananarivo, the capital of Madagascar. More than 300 participants at the conference are examining how Africa’s unmatched biodiversity can help alleviate poverty and promote sustainable development to benefit hundreds of millions of people across the continent.
The CI Global Symposium
Speakers will include Madagascar President Marc Ravalomanana; Jeffrey D. Sachs, director of the U.N. Millennium Project; and environmental leaders from around the world. Participants will discuss ways that sustainable management of ecosystems can help reduce poverty and hunger in many African countries.
The symposium includes five plenary sessions addressing different aspects of "green economic development," and demonstrating how struggling countries can become tomorrow's providers of ecosystem goods and services like fresh air, clean water, food, medicines, energy, climate regulation, flood control, pollination, disease prevention, and other of nature's benefits necessary for economic prosperity and human survival.
Mittermeier, the longtime chair of the IUCN Primate Special Group, is an expert on Madagascar and its lemurs, the distinctive primates found nowhere else on Earth. He is the lead author of “Lemurs of Madagascar,” a comprehensive field guide on the country’s flagship species.
His efforts inspired researcher Mireya Mayor to shift her scientific focus to Madagascar, and she was part of the team that discovered the three new mouse lemurs that were officially named in a paper published in June by the International Journal of Primatology. One of the new species is named Microcebus mittermeieri, or Mittermeier’s Mouse Lemur.
The other two named in the paper are Microcebus jollyae (Jolly’s Mouse Lemur), for Alison Jolly, a pioneering lemur researcher from Princeton University, and Microcebus simmonsi (Simmons’ Mouse Lemur), for Dr. Lee Simmons, director of the Omaha Henry Doorly Zoo in Nebraska.
Mireya Mayor with a mouse lemur. Photo Credit: Mark Thiessen/National Geographic Society.
A newly described species of mouse lemur (Microcebus mittermeieri). Photo Credit: Mark Thiessen/National Geographic Society.
New lemur species named after British comedian Researchers from the University of Zurich have named a newly discovered species of lemur after British comedian John Cleese (of Monty Python) in honor of his work with the primates from Madagascar. According to the university, the lemur's name is a tribute to Cleese's promotion of the plight of lemurs in the movie "Fierce Creatures" and documentary "Operation Lemur with John Cleese."
Two tiny lemur species discovered in Madagascar German and Malagasy primatologists have discovered two new species of lemurs, naming one of them after Steve Goodman, a Field Museum scientist who has devoted nearly two decades to studying the animals of Madagascar.
In search of Bigfoot, scientists may uncover unknown biodiversity in Malaysia Malaysian scientists are scouring the rainforests of Johor state in search of the legendary ape-man Bigfoot, supposedly sighted late last year. But they are more likely to encounter some less fantastic but unique creatures that dwell in these still unexplored ecosystems.
Pictures of newly discovered species in New GuineaA team of scientists led by Conservation International (CI) found dozens of new species in a survey of New Guinea's Foja Mountains. The December 2005 trip by a team of U.S., Indonesian, and Australian scientists discovered new species of frogs, butterflies, plants, and an orange-faced honeyeater, the first new bird from the island of New Guinea in more than 60 years.
Mayor’s first research grant came from Mittermeier, and the discoveries by Mayor, Dr. Edward Louis and their Malagasy team occurred shortly before Madagascar President Marc Ravalomanana declared his visionary conservation policy in 2003 to triple Madagascar’s protected areas – including vital lemur habitat.
“I consider it a great honor to have a primate species named after me, and, given my life-long interest in Madagascar, I am especially pleased that it is a lemur. Other scientific discoveries come and go, but a new species becomes a permanent part of the scientific record, and will be with us forever,” Mittermeier said. “I am also delighted that this species is found in one of the highest priority areas for conservation in Madagascar, and that its discovery provides yet another justification for protecting the important Anjanaharibe-Sud Reserve.”
Mayor, a Fulbright scholar, National Geographic correspondent and former Miami Dolphins cheerleader, went to Madagascar after reading an article in a magazine about Mittermeier and his work with lemurs. The lemur that now bears Mittermeier’s name was discovered by Mayor and her colleagues on an expedition to study another lemur, the Critically Endangered silky sifaka.
Mouse lemurs are the smallest primates in the world, and the newest discoveries join the family of primates that represent Madagascar internationally.
“Finding an entirely new species of lemur living in the wild in the 21st Century shows how little we know about our natural world, and how important it is to protect it,” Mayor said. “This tiny creature has become a huge ambassador for all things wild in Madagascar, and that is truly remarkable.”
Both Mittermeier and Mayor are attending the CI Global Symposium from June 20-24 in Antananarivo, the capital of Madagascar. More than 300 participants at the conference are examining how Africa’s unmatched biodiversity can help alleviate poverty and promote sustainable development to benefit hundreds of millions of people across the continent.
The CI Global Symposium
Speakers will include Madagascar President Marc Ravalomanana; Jeffrey D. Sachs, director of the U.N. Millennium Project; and environmental leaders from around the world. Participants will discuss ways that sustainable management of ecosystems can help reduce poverty and hunger in many African countries.
The symposium includes five plenary sessions addressing different aspects of "green economic development," and demonstrating how struggling countries can become tomorrow's providers of ecosystem goods and services like fresh air, clean water, food, medicines, energy, climate regulation, flood control, pollination, disease prevention, and other of nature's benefits necessary for economic prosperity and human survival.
MALAYSIA - International journalists recognized during the International Media & Environment Summit
Kuching, Malaysia, December 1, 2005 - The winners of the Biodiversity Reporting Award 2005 (BDRA) were recognized today during the International Media & Environment Summit. News World International invited the journalists to participate in the event, held in Kuching, Malaysia, from November 30 to December 2, 2005.
Ong Keng Young, General Secretary of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), was one of three dignitaries awarding commemorative plaques to each winner at a ceremony in the Kuching Hilton Hotel.
The honorees - Francisco Javier Méndez from Bolivia, José Raimundo de Oliveira and Reinaldo José Lopes from Brazil, Juan Fernández from Colombia, Nikolai Johann Earle from Guyana, Océane Randrianantoandro from Madagascar, Karina Cecilia Garay from Perú and Carla Candia from Venezuela - were also paid tribute by Alexander Thomson from News World Intermational, Haroldo Castro from Conservation International and Mónica Pérez de las Heras from the Biodiversity Foundation of Spain. Ecuador's winner, Paul Tufino, was unable to attend the ceremony.
"This award is an important tool for promoting biodiversity conservation and environmental protection, " said Haroldo Castro, Vice President of Global Communications at Conservation International and Award executive director. "The contest grows each year, and we plan to expand to at least one new country in 2006."
During the event, Ong Keng Young also announced the winners of the BDRA's Andean category. The first-prize winner, Juan Fernandez of Colombia's The Spectator, was selected among the winners of the five Andean countries (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela). The second place Andean award was given to Alexander Ayala Ugarte, from La Razón in Bolivia. Ayala was selected from among the second place winners in the region.
The Biodiversity Foundation invited both winners to Madrid, where the Spanish Ministry of the Environment will recognize them with trophies and cash awards of 2,000 and 1,000 Euros, respectively.
"It is an honor for the Biodiversity Foundation to welcome these winners to Spain. This award is an example of international cooperation between Spanish and Latin-American journalists, " explained Mónica Pérez de las Heras, the Biodiversity Foundation's Communications and Awareness Director.
The Award is a partnership between Conservation International, the Biodiversity Foundation of Spain's Ministry of the Environment, the International Center for Journalists and the International Federation of Environmental Journalists.
For the 2005 Award, 218 journalists submitted 376 articles published by 107 media houses. This year Brazil also celebrated its second BDRA Television Award with more than 33 video entries
Ong Keng Young, General Secretary of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), was one of three dignitaries awarding commemorative plaques to each winner at a ceremony in the Kuching Hilton Hotel.
The honorees - Francisco Javier Méndez from Bolivia, José Raimundo de Oliveira and Reinaldo José Lopes from Brazil, Juan Fernández from Colombia, Nikolai Johann Earle from Guyana, Océane Randrianantoandro from Madagascar, Karina Cecilia Garay from Perú and Carla Candia from Venezuela - were also paid tribute by Alexander Thomson from News World Intermational, Haroldo Castro from Conservation International and Mónica Pérez de las Heras from the Biodiversity Foundation of Spain. Ecuador's winner, Paul Tufino, was unable to attend the ceremony.
"This award is an important tool for promoting biodiversity conservation and environmental protection, " said Haroldo Castro, Vice President of Global Communications at Conservation International and Award executive director. "The contest grows each year, and we plan to expand to at least one new country in 2006."
During the event, Ong Keng Young also announced the winners of the BDRA's Andean category. The first-prize winner, Juan Fernandez of Colombia's The Spectator, was selected among the winners of the five Andean countries (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela). The second place Andean award was given to Alexander Ayala Ugarte, from La Razón in Bolivia. Ayala was selected from among the second place winners in the region.
The Biodiversity Foundation invited both winners to Madrid, where the Spanish Ministry of the Environment will recognize them with trophies and cash awards of 2,000 and 1,000 Euros, respectively.
"It is an honor for the Biodiversity Foundation to welcome these winners to Spain. This award is an example of international cooperation between Spanish and Latin-American journalists, " explained Mónica Pérez de las Heras, the Biodiversity Foundation's Communications and Awareness Director.
The Award is a partnership between Conservation International, the Biodiversity Foundation of Spain's Ministry of the Environment, the International Center for Journalists and the International Federation of Environmental Journalists.
For the 2005 Award, 218 journalists submitted 376 articles published by 107 media houses. This year Brazil also celebrated its second BDRA Television Award with more than 33 video entries
Malaysia's new model of conservation
The Malaysian state of Sarawak, on the island of Borneo, is pushing forward with a unique conservation project. On a piece of land nearly twice the size of Luxembourg, it is going to juxtapose three strikingly different uses for land: plantations of acacia, a pulp-producing, non-native monoculture tree, for logging; a natural forest for local indigenous groups to cut and farm; and a biodiversity conservation zone. The biologists in charge of the conservation zone are optimistically thinking that even the plantation zone, if designed and logged systematically, could play a role in supporting species (see page 608).
For many long-time observers of conservation issues, the initial response to such a project may be to roll their eyes and think: "Here we go again." There have, after all, been many timber companies — particularly ones operating in Indonesia, which takes up most of the rest of Borneo — that claimed to be logging 'sustainably' when in fact they were destroying natural forests.
Such scepticism is understandable, but it doesn't make the Sarawak project unworthy of support. Indeed its design gives some grounds for optimism. The conservation biologists involved in it have some economic leverage, as timber companies are subject to increasing pressure from buyers to supply timber that is grown and logged in ways that minimize environmental impact. This was probably the government's central motivation in 'going green' with the planted forest project in the first place.
Even so, the conservation project's organizers have a tough job. If the loggers or timber companies do not seem to be playing by the rules — for example, failing to protect conservation zones as promised, or not using low-impact logging techniques — they need to cry foul to the media or the appropriate government agency. This is the only way to ensure that the project pays more than lip service to its environmental goals. But given the delicate balance of conservation politics and economic goals in Sarawak, it will be difficult to do.
There are other ways to help keep the project on the right path. The conservation aspect depends on proving that there are species worth saving and finding ways to protect them. Ecologists and taxonomists from around the world can help by studying habitat, taking specimens and reporting back. Rather than popping in just to get samples for their collections, they should commit to periodic visits so that changes in both the natural forest and the plantation can be monitored systematically over time in different seasons. Many researchers have already started doing this, but more participation is needed to document the flora and fauna at stake.
One of the most creative proposals to make the most of the experiment in Sarawak concerns the tapir, a large-bodied, short-legged herbivore with splayed feet and a prehensile snout. There is archaeological evidence that Malayan tapirs (Tapirus indicus) were present on the island as recently as 60 years ago, and some researchers have argued that the conservation zone would be a perfect opportunity to bring them back. The mammal's significance in ecological terms might be small, but its restoration to its natural habitat could have considerable symbolic impact. Such reintroductions of large mammals are rare. Globally the Malayan tapir alternates between vulnerable and endangered on conservation lists. Its disappearance from Borneo was probably due to a loss of habitat following uncontrolled logging. What better way to show that logging is now controlled and its habitat protected?
Sadly, Sarawak's biodiversity programme will probably not be able to provide habitat for many other species that need it. Some will be lost. This is an inevitable outcome of a simple reality: to governments such as Sarawak's, as well as to the people who live in and around the forests, the use of the forest is a crucial part of their livelihoods.
The current project is ambitious and, as its organizers will readily admit, success is by no means assured. They haven't even agreed how success should be measured. But subject to these caveats, the project holds considerable promise as a model for biodiversity conservation in a southeast-Asian timber industry that badly needs one.
For many long-time observers of conservation issues, the initial response to such a project may be to roll their eyes and think: "Here we go again." There have, after all, been many timber companies — particularly ones operating in Indonesia, which takes up most of the rest of Borneo — that claimed to be logging 'sustainably' when in fact they were destroying natural forests.
Such scepticism is understandable, but it doesn't make the Sarawak project unworthy of support. Indeed its design gives some grounds for optimism. The conservation biologists involved in it have some economic leverage, as timber companies are subject to increasing pressure from buyers to supply timber that is grown and logged in ways that minimize environmental impact. This was probably the government's central motivation in 'going green' with the planted forest project in the first place.
Even so, the conservation project's organizers have a tough job. If the loggers or timber companies do not seem to be playing by the rules — for example, failing to protect conservation zones as promised, or not using low-impact logging techniques — they need to cry foul to the media or the appropriate government agency. This is the only way to ensure that the project pays more than lip service to its environmental goals. But given the delicate balance of conservation politics and economic goals in Sarawak, it will be difficult to do.
There are other ways to help keep the project on the right path. The conservation aspect depends on proving that there are species worth saving and finding ways to protect them. Ecologists and taxonomists from around the world can help by studying habitat, taking specimens and reporting back. Rather than popping in just to get samples for their collections, they should commit to periodic visits so that changes in both the natural forest and the plantation can be monitored systematically over time in different seasons. Many researchers have already started doing this, but more participation is needed to document the flora and fauna at stake.
One of the most creative proposals to make the most of the experiment in Sarawak concerns the tapir, a large-bodied, short-legged herbivore with splayed feet and a prehensile snout. There is archaeological evidence that Malayan tapirs (Tapirus indicus) were present on the island as recently as 60 years ago, and some researchers have argued that the conservation zone would be a perfect opportunity to bring them back. The mammal's significance in ecological terms might be small, but its restoration to its natural habitat could have considerable symbolic impact. Such reintroductions of large mammals are rare. Globally the Malayan tapir alternates between vulnerable and endangered on conservation lists. Its disappearance from Borneo was probably due to a loss of habitat following uncontrolled logging. What better way to show that logging is now controlled and its habitat protected?
Sadly, Sarawak's biodiversity programme will probably not be able to provide habitat for many other species that need it. Some will be lost. This is an inevitable outcome of a simple reality: to governments such as Sarawak's, as well as to the people who live in and around the forests, the use of the forest is a crucial part of their livelihoods.
The current project is ambitious and, as its organizers will readily admit, success is by no means assured. They haven't even agreed how success should be measured. But subject to these caveats, the project holds considerable promise as a model for biodiversity conservation in a southeast-Asian timber industry that badly needs one.
Cashing in palm oil for conservation
Tropical forests in southeast Asia are under threat from oil-palm growers. This is an opportunity to combine sustainable economic growth with biodiversity conservation, argue Lian Pin Koh and David S. Wilcove.
L. P. KOH
Rich pickings: crude palm oil is extracted from the yellow parts of oil palm fruit.
Southeast Asia harbours 11% of the world's remaining tropical forests1, which in recent years have been under threat from the unprecedented and explosive growth in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) agriculture. The increasing global demand for products derived from palm oil, particularly in China and India, can be attributed to the oil's diverse uses. It can be used as a cooking oil, a food additive, and in cosmetics, industrial lubricants and biofuels2. In some Western countries greater use of palm oil in food products is being driven by a switch away from unhealthy trans-fats. Between 1980 and 2000, the global production of palm oil increased 4.6-fold from 4.5 million to 20.9 million tonnes per year, and is projected to increase to 30.4 million tonnes per year by 20102. The rapid expansion of oil-palm crops in equatorial regions has raised concerns about its potential detrimental effects on southeast Asia's biodiversity, leading to intense media debates between environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the oil-palm industry.
NGOs contend that expansion of oil-palm agriculture in southeast Asia destroys huge tracts of tropical forests and threatens the survival of many native species, including the orang-utan (Pongo pygmaeus). They have launched aggressive media campaigns that lobby for the boycott of oil-palm products (see for example http://www.cspinet.org/palm/). In response, palm oil producers have accused Western NGOs of unfairly targeting southeast Asia's oil-palm industry while ignoring agricultural activities in other regions that also harm biodiversity, such as soya bean cultivation in South America. They also argue that oil-palm cultivation is not a threat to biodiversity because disturbed forests or existing croplands are converted to plantations with minimal disturbance to pristine habitats.
We think that this debate has been fuelled, on the one hand, by the NGOs' lack of awareness of the socioeconomic realities in countries that produce palm oil, and, on the other, by the crop growers' failure to appreciate both the threat to southeast Asia's unique biodiversity, and the conservation potential of non-pristine habitats. To break this agriculture–biodiversity deadlock, we suggest a new strategy of using revenue from oil-palm agriculture to fund the acquisition of land for the establishment of private nature reserves.
The oil palm is one of the most economically important crops in southeast Asia (see graphic below). Malaysia and Indonesia are the two largest producers of palm oil in the world, accounting for 80.5% of global production and 56.1% — 6.7 million hectares — of the oil palm-cultivated area worldwide3. In 2004, the export value of palm oil amounted to US$6.3 billion for Malaysia and $4.1 billion for Indonesia3, contributing to 5.6% and 1.7% of their gross national incomes respectively4. The two largest importers of palm oil in 2004 were China with 20.2 million tonnes, and India with 16.5 million tonnes3, most of which is used as cooking oil. If the current economic boom in China and India continues, it will be almost impossible to halt further expansion of the oil-palm industry in southeast Asia.
FAOSTAT
Many oil-palm plantations are effectively self-sufficient villages, providing not only employment, but also housing, basic amenities such as water and electricity, and infrastructure including roads, medical care and schools for the families of their employees5. As such, many communities, particularly those in rural areas, rely on oil-palm agriculture for their livelihood. According to the Malaysian Palm Oil Board in Kuala Lumpur, the country's oil-palm plantations provide direct employment for over half a million people from both the local population and neighbouring countries. Any major disruption to the palm-oil industry in southeast Asia is likely to have widespread and dire socioeconomic consequences throughout the region.
Unique biodiversity
Parts of Malaysia and Indonesia are located within two hotspots of biodiversity — Sundaland and the islands of Wallacea. These areas, which are undergoing rapid deforestation, are considered biodiversity hotspots because they contain high concentrations of species found only in these regions. For example, 89 species (44.5%) of amphibians in Malaysia and 17,500 species (59.6%) of vascular plants in Indonesia do not occur anywhere else in the world6. To date, four vascular plants (Dipterocarpus cinereus, Mangifera casturi, M. rubropetala and Shorea cuspidata), one bird (Argusianus bipunctatus) and three mammal species (Papagomys theodorverhoeveni, Paulamys naso and Spelaeomys florensis) in Malaysia and Indonesia have been listed as 'extinct' or 'extinct in the wild' on the World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List7.
Although the number of extinct species in these regions is fairly low at this point, there are many more species facing serious threats to their survival. For example, 47 species (23.5%) of amphibians in Malaysia and 146 species (21.9%) of mammals in Indonesia are listed as threatened on the IUCN Red List7. Because almost all these species are unique to the region, their loss would represent global extinction.
Over the periods of 1990–2000 and 2000–2005, deforestation rates in Indonesia climbed from 2.3% to 2.7% per year for its primary (undisturbed) forests and from 1.2% to 1.3% per year for its secondary (naturally regenerated) forests8. The area of Malaysia's primary forests has remained unchanged at 3.8 million hectares since 1990 but the rate of loss of the country's secondary forests has increased from 0.3% per year during 1990–2000 to 0.8% per year in 2000–2005. Compared with the estimated extent of primary forests 8,000 years ago, before large-scale human disturbance, relatively little remains intact in Indonesia (25.6%) and Malaysia (11.6%)9.
A sustainable solution
Because Indonesia contains some three-quarters of southeast Asia's remaining primary forests, or 49 million hectares, the continuing loss of its primary forests would be disastrous for the region's biodiversity. The decline of secondary forests is also worrying. Secondary forests protected from human disturbance would eventually develop into old growth forests, which could complement the remaining primary forests in ensuring the survival of forest-dependent species. Therefore, oil-palm growers in southeast Asia need to realize that to conserve the region's unique biodiversity, it is crucial not only to protect the remaining primary forests but also to rehabilitate and preserve disturbed habitats, including logged forests and abandoned agricultural land.
Currently, less than 10% (1.5 million hectares) of the remaining tropical forests in Malaysia and just over 20% of those in Indonesia are under some form of protection by their national governments (IUCN protection categories I-VI)1. Unfortunately, this situation is unlikely to improve much in the near future because of the overwhelming emphasis in these countries on short-term economic growth over long-term natural resource conservation. An alternative conservation strategy adopted by some developing countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America is the establishment of private nature reserves10.
L. T. GAN
Housing benefit: many oil-palm plantation companies provide housing for workers and their families.
Private reserves are flexible and substantial complements to traditional government-funded conservation initiatives, and have been shown to be successful not only in protecting endangered species but also in providing employment for local communities10. But, owing to the scarcity of local conservation resources in developing countries, the success of this approach typically hinges on the participation of external stakeholders and donors, such as the Global Conservation Fund of Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia.
In our view, because the oil palm is such a high yielding and lucrative crop, a unique opportunity exists for NGOs to acquire relatively small tracts of existing oil-palm plantations in Malaysia and Indonesia and use the revenue generated to establish a network of privately owned nature reserves for biodiversity conservation. For example, a typical mature oil-palm plantation in Sabah, Malaysia, generates an annual net profit of roughly $2,000 per hectare (see 'Supplementary information'). Based on the current price of $12,500 per hectare for oil palm-cultivated land, the capital investment could be recovered in just 6 years. After this initial period, a 5,000-hectare oil palm plantation could generate annual profits amounting to some $10 million, which could be used to acquire 1,800 hectares of forested land annually to be set aside as private nature reserves.
NGOs would need to collaborate with large conservation donor groups to fund the initial investments and with local oil-palm companies for their expertise in running the plantations. This could be a win–win partnership between NGOs and oil-palm companies, because NGOs would be able to protect forests using the oil-palm revenue and the companies would be able to enhance their corporate image to satisfy environmentally-conscious consumers. And, because the companies know how to acquire land, and to create and manage plantations, the NGOs would not be faced with the daunting task of starting up their own oil-palm businesses. The governments of Malaysia and Indonesia could also offer their support — for example, by leasing government-owned plantation land to these NGOs, which would facilitate the NGO's acquisition of oil-palm plantations in an increasingly competitive market.
NGOs could generate funds to preserve land and improve the livelihoods of local communities.
Through such joint ventures, NGOs could both generate the funds needed for land preservation and improve the livelihoods of local communities in southeast Asia. Furthermore, because such oil-palm plantations would be motivated mainly by conservation objectives, they could provide the industry with leadership for the sustainable production of palm oil through environmentally-friendly management practices5. This could also drive the development of a premium market for sustainable oil-palm products and thereby generate economic incentives for more palm-oil producers to adopt sustainable practices. Through this and other novel approaches, NGOs and oil palm producers could work together to break the agriculture–biodiversity deadlock to preserve southeast Asia's last remaining tracts of tropical forests and biodiversity for future generations.
L. P. KOH
Rich pickings: crude palm oil is extracted from the yellow parts of oil palm fruit.
Southeast Asia harbours 11% of the world's remaining tropical forests1, which in recent years have been under threat from the unprecedented and explosive growth in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) agriculture. The increasing global demand for products derived from palm oil, particularly in China and India, can be attributed to the oil's diverse uses. It can be used as a cooking oil, a food additive, and in cosmetics, industrial lubricants and biofuels2. In some Western countries greater use of palm oil in food products is being driven by a switch away from unhealthy trans-fats. Between 1980 and 2000, the global production of palm oil increased 4.6-fold from 4.5 million to 20.9 million tonnes per year, and is projected to increase to 30.4 million tonnes per year by 20102. The rapid expansion of oil-palm crops in equatorial regions has raised concerns about its potential detrimental effects on southeast Asia's biodiversity, leading to intense media debates between environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the oil-palm industry.
NGOs contend that expansion of oil-palm agriculture in southeast Asia destroys huge tracts of tropical forests and threatens the survival of many native species, including the orang-utan (Pongo pygmaeus). They have launched aggressive media campaigns that lobby for the boycott of oil-palm products (see for example http://www.cspinet.org/palm/). In response, palm oil producers have accused Western NGOs of unfairly targeting southeast Asia's oil-palm industry while ignoring agricultural activities in other regions that also harm biodiversity, such as soya bean cultivation in South America. They also argue that oil-palm cultivation is not a threat to biodiversity because disturbed forests or existing croplands are converted to plantations with minimal disturbance to pristine habitats.
We think that this debate has been fuelled, on the one hand, by the NGOs' lack of awareness of the socioeconomic realities in countries that produce palm oil, and, on the other, by the crop growers' failure to appreciate both the threat to southeast Asia's unique biodiversity, and the conservation potential of non-pristine habitats. To break this agriculture–biodiversity deadlock, we suggest a new strategy of using revenue from oil-palm agriculture to fund the acquisition of land for the establishment of private nature reserves.
The oil palm is one of the most economically important crops in southeast Asia (see graphic below). Malaysia and Indonesia are the two largest producers of palm oil in the world, accounting for 80.5% of global production and 56.1% — 6.7 million hectares — of the oil palm-cultivated area worldwide3. In 2004, the export value of palm oil amounted to US$6.3 billion for Malaysia and $4.1 billion for Indonesia3, contributing to 5.6% and 1.7% of their gross national incomes respectively4. The two largest importers of palm oil in 2004 were China with 20.2 million tonnes, and India with 16.5 million tonnes3, most of which is used as cooking oil. If the current economic boom in China and India continues, it will be almost impossible to halt further expansion of the oil-palm industry in southeast Asia.
FAOSTAT
Many oil-palm plantations are effectively self-sufficient villages, providing not only employment, but also housing, basic amenities such as water and electricity, and infrastructure including roads, medical care and schools for the families of their employees5. As such, many communities, particularly those in rural areas, rely on oil-palm agriculture for their livelihood. According to the Malaysian Palm Oil Board in Kuala Lumpur, the country's oil-palm plantations provide direct employment for over half a million people from both the local population and neighbouring countries. Any major disruption to the palm-oil industry in southeast Asia is likely to have widespread and dire socioeconomic consequences throughout the region.
Unique biodiversity
Parts of Malaysia and Indonesia are located within two hotspots of biodiversity — Sundaland and the islands of Wallacea. These areas, which are undergoing rapid deforestation, are considered biodiversity hotspots because they contain high concentrations of species found only in these regions. For example, 89 species (44.5%) of amphibians in Malaysia and 17,500 species (59.6%) of vascular plants in Indonesia do not occur anywhere else in the world6. To date, four vascular plants (Dipterocarpus cinereus, Mangifera casturi, M. rubropetala and Shorea cuspidata), one bird (Argusianus bipunctatus) and three mammal species (Papagomys theodorverhoeveni, Paulamys naso and Spelaeomys florensis) in Malaysia and Indonesia have been listed as 'extinct' or 'extinct in the wild' on the World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List7.
Although the number of extinct species in these regions is fairly low at this point, there are many more species facing serious threats to their survival. For example, 47 species (23.5%) of amphibians in Malaysia and 146 species (21.9%) of mammals in Indonesia are listed as threatened on the IUCN Red List7. Because almost all these species are unique to the region, their loss would represent global extinction.
Over the periods of 1990–2000 and 2000–2005, deforestation rates in Indonesia climbed from 2.3% to 2.7% per year for its primary (undisturbed) forests and from 1.2% to 1.3% per year for its secondary (naturally regenerated) forests8. The area of Malaysia's primary forests has remained unchanged at 3.8 million hectares since 1990 but the rate of loss of the country's secondary forests has increased from 0.3% per year during 1990–2000 to 0.8% per year in 2000–2005. Compared with the estimated extent of primary forests 8,000 years ago, before large-scale human disturbance, relatively little remains intact in Indonesia (25.6%) and Malaysia (11.6%)9.
A sustainable solution
Because Indonesia contains some three-quarters of southeast Asia's remaining primary forests, or 49 million hectares, the continuing loss of its primary forests would be disastrous for the region's biodiversity. The decline of secondary forests is also worrying. Secondary forests protected from human disturbance would eventually develop into old growth forests, which could complement the remaining primary forests in ensuring the survival of forest-dependent species. Therefore, oil-palm growers in southeast Asia need to realize that to conserve the region's unique biodiversity, it is crucial not only to protect the remaining primary forests but also to rehabilitate and preserve disturbed habitats, including logged forests and abandoned agricultural land.
Currently, less than 10% (1.5 million hectares) of the remaining tropical forests in Malaysia and just over 20% of those in Indonesia are under some form of protection by their national governments (IUCN protection categories I-VI)1. Unfortunately, this situation is unlikely to improve much in the near future because of the overwhelming emphasis in these countries on short-term economic growth over long-term natural resource conservation. An alternative conservation strategy adopted by some developing countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America is the establishment of private nature reserves10.
L. T. GAN
Housing benefit: many oil-palm plantation companies provide housing for workers and their families.
Private reserves are flexible and substantial complements to traditional government-funded conservation initiatives, and have been shown to be successful not only in protecting endangered species but also in providing employment for local communities10. But, owing to the scarcity of local conservation resources in developing countries, the success of this approach typically hinges on the participation of external stakeholders and donors, such as the Global Conservation Fund of Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia.
In our view, because the oil palm is such a high yielding and lucrative crop, a unique opportunity exists for NGOs to acquire relatively small tracts of existing oil-palm plantations in Malaysia and Indonesia and use the revenue generated to establish a network of privately owned nature reserves for biodiversity conservation. For example, a typical mature oil-palm plantation in Sabah, Malaysia, generates an annual net profit of roughly $2,000 per hectare (see 'Supplementary information'). Based on the current price of $12,500 per hectare for oil palm-cultivated land, the capital investment could be recovered in just 6 years. After this initial period, a 5,000-hectare oil palm plantation could generate annual profits amounting to some $10 million, which could be used to acquire 1,800 hectares of forested land annually to be set aside as private nature reserves.
NGOs would need to collaborate with large conservation donor groups to fund the initial investments and with local oil-palm companies for their expertise in running the plantations. This could be a win–win partnership between NGOs and oil-palm companies, because NGOs would be able to protect forests using the oil-palm revenue and the companies would be able to enhance their corporate image to satisfy environmentally-conscious consumers. And, because the companies know how to acquire land, and to create and manage plantations, the NGOs would not be faced with the daunting task of starting up their own oil-palm businesses. The governments of Malaysia and Indonesia could also offer their support — for example, by leasing government-owned plantation land to these NGOs, which would facilitate the NGO's acquisition of oil-palm plantations in an increasingly competitive market.
NGOs could generate funds to preserve land and improve the livelihoods of local communities.
Through such joint ventures, NGOs could both generate the funds needed for land preservation and improve the livelihoods of local communities in southeast Asia. Furthermore, because such oil-palm plantations would be motivated mainly by conservation objectives, they could provide the industry with leadership for the sustainable production of palm oil through environmentally-friendly management practices5. This could also drive the development of a premium market for sustainable oil-palm products and thereby generate economic incentives for more palm-oil producers to adopt sustainable practices. Through this and other novel approaches, NGOs and oil palm producers could work together to break the agriculture–biodiversity deadlock to preserve southeast Asia's last remaining tracts of tropical forests and biodiversity for future generations.
Japan digs its claws into biodiversity through FTAs
Japan is increasingly using free trade agreements (FTAs) to tighten corporate control over seeds and other forms of biodiversity that are crucial to food, agriculture and medicine. Two such deals, sealed this month with the Chilean and Indonesian governments, put Japan in the big league of nations using bilateral trade deals to make seed-saving on the farm a thing of the past.
Over the past few years the Japanese government has been increasingly turning to free trade agreements to boost market opportunities for Japanese corporations and to protect the country's food and energy security interests, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. (See Table 1.) Privatisation of biological diversity is part of that agenda.
Through its FTAs, which are drawn up through closed-door negotiations, the Japanese government has been cajoling other countries to change their laws so that they provide corporations with greater freedom to operate and stronger control over their assets. One of the tactics Japan has been increasingly using is to put pressure on its trading partners to accept patents on life and to toughen up laws that enable corporations to claim ownership over seeds and thus force farmers to pay royalties. Since Japan already has a bad name for 'biopiracy', as in the famed Shiseido and Cupuaçu cases, the government's drive to make it easier for Japanese biotech companies to secure legal rights over biodiversity abroad should come as no surprise.1
It is evident that Japan has been stepping up its demands. In its first FTAs, signed with Singapore (2002) and Mexico (2004), Japan didn't even touch on the question of intellectual property rights over life. But soon after, in the FTAs negotiated with Malaysia and the Philippines, the issue began creeping on to the negotiating table. In the case of Malaysia, which inked a deal with Japan at the end of 2005, Tokyo tried to get the government to commit to the UPOV system of plant variety protection, but the Malaysians said no.2 In fact, against the overall thrust of the FTA, which gives Japanese investors equal rights to exploit Malaysian resources, Malaysia inserted a 'carve out' clause which exempts biodiversity policy-making from Japan's interference.3 But at the same time, the government did accept some abstract wording about protecting private monopoly rights over seeds "in a manner consistent with internationally harmonised system". In practice, this means UPOV. The text just doesn't say so.4
In the case of the Philippines, a joint committee made recommendations for a possible Japan-Philippines FTA back in 2003. The Japanese said any such agreement should promote plant breeders' rights. The Filipinos said it should promote farmers' rights. Japan retorted that any kind of farmers' rights would have to be consistent with UPOV. In the end, the deal they signed in September 2006 says little about any of this.5 It only pins Manila down to providing some kind of system of plant variety rights and extending it to as many species as possible, taking into account Japan's corporate interests. Not too harmful, but not harmless either.
Breaking the UPOV barrier
All this changed in 2007. Japan is now explicitly pulling developing countries into UPOV with its FTA claws and even trying to change the scope of other countries' patent laws to get stronger rights for Japanese corporations over biodiversity.
In Thailand earlier this year, the military government’s decision to sign an FTA with Japan led to a heated public debate.6 The Thai-Japan agreement had been negotiated during the Thaksin regime, but when the military staged a coup in September 2006 all Thai FTA negotiations came to a halt, largely because no foreign government wanted to be seen as accepting military rule. However, under pressure from Japanese companies through their Chamber of Commerce, and probably to show that martial law was not really a bad thing, the Thai military opted to pick up where Thaksin had left off and to sign the Japan deal themselves. In the beginning, the public protested about numerous aspects of the agreement but by the end public disquiet focused on two central issues, one of which was the patenting of microorganisms. The deal dictates that Thailand not be allowed to reject any patent application just because it involves a "naturally occurring" microorganism.7 In a world where national sovereignty over biological resources is enshrined in international law and where Japan has been accused on several occasions of 'biopiracy', this provision upset many Thai groups, all the way up to the Human Rights Commission. The generals were unmoved, however. Through the FTA, which was signed in early April, they additionally committed Thailand to honouring "international standards" of plant variety protection. Again, this is code-speak for UPOV, even though Thailand's PVP law does not match UPOV standards.
A few months later, in mid-August 2007, Chilean President Bachelet signed a similar Japan-Chile FTA. This was the first Japanese free trade agreement specifically to impose UPOV on its trading partner. While Chile has been a member of UPOV since 1996, this FTA commits the government to upgrade its domestic plant variety law to UPOV's 1991 standards, the latest version of the Convention. UPOV 1991 does not allow farmers to save and exchange seeds harvested from plants that are subject to PVP. While it is true that Chile has signed similar deals with the US and the European Free Trade Association, this is the first time that Japan has managed to bulldoze another country into joining the anti-farmer, anti-seed-saving UPOV.8
Before the ink could dry on the Chile deal, Japan's Prime Minister Abe and Indonesia's President Yudhoyono jointly signed their own bilateral FTA in Jakarta. Now Indonesia, as well as Chile, has agreed to comply with UPOV and make its best efforts to join the Union. If this happens, 165 million Indonesian farmers will be increasingly obliged to source their seed from the market – which is, of course, the entire point. The privatisation of biodiversity through these FTAs, with their strong intellectual property rules, is meant to turn as many farmers as possible into captive clients of a corporate controlled seed supply. Worse, violations – such as sharing seeds that are saved or selected from "protected" varieties without a licence – lead to criminal prosecution.
The bigger picture
The US and Europe are no longer the only 'bad guys' pushing farmers into a bleak new landscape where huge corporations control the seeds, incessant royalties have to be paid, and rural autonomy and culture are buried.9 Japan, host to one of the top ten seed conglomerates in the world, has now joined that league. (See Table 2.) The Abe government is in a frenzy to sign more FTAs with India, Vietnam and ASEAN as whole in the coming months. As precedents have now been set in Jakarta and Santiago, Japanese pressure on these countries to join UPOV should be expected.
Still, this is not only about Japanese interests. The old world view where 'the North' is the villain and 'the South' is the victim hardly makes sense anymore. It's even increasingly impossible to distinguish between state and corporate interests in all this free-trade wheeling and dealing. Malaysian plantation barons, like Sime Darby, or fast expanding Thai agribusiness groups, like Charoen Pokphand (CP), surely weren't crying over their governments' FTAs with Japan. As Witoon Lianchamroon, director of Biothai, puts it, "It's clear that CP needs the UPOV system, same as Japan. CP tried to push UPOV for years before the JTEPA [Japan-Thailand Economic Partnership Agreement] negotiations began. We even faced difficulty with the Thai negotiators handling JTEPA, because they often preferred to use CP's position rather than that of the Thai farmers."10 In Indonesia, companies like PT Fitotek and East West Seed have long been lobbying the government to adopt strong plant monopoly laws such as UPOV.11 Like other Asian and Latin American transnational corporations, they too have plenty to gain from the privatisation of biodiversity through these trade deals. After all, some 70% of the world's farmers still save their seeds year to year. That's a lot of people to convert into paying customers.
The tightening up of intellectual property ropes around seeds, medicinal plants, micro-organisms and even traditional knowledge will only boost the profits of large firms which control the world's commodity trade. It is not farmers who should be criminalised for saving seeds, but these corporations for forcing through such terrible laws.
Over the past few years the Japanese government has been increasingly turning to free trade agreements to boost market opportunities for Japanese corporations and to protect the country's food and energy security interests, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. (See Table 1.) Privatisation of biological diversity is part of that agenda.
Through its FTAs, which are drawn up through closed-door negotiations, the Japanese government has been cajoling other countries to change their laws so that they provide corporations with greater freedom to operate and stronger control over their assets. One of the tactics Japan has been increasingly using is to put pressure on its trading partners to accept patents on life and to toughen up laws that enable corporations to claim ownership over seeds and thus force farmers to pay royalties. Since Japan already has a bad name for 'biopiracy', as in the famed Shiseido and Cupuaçu cases, the government's drive to make it easier for Japanese biotech companies to secure legal rights over biodiversity abroad should come as no surprise.1
It is evident that Japan has been stepping up its demands. In its first FTAs, signed with Singapore (2002) and Mexico (2004), Japan didn't even touch on the question of intellectual property rights over life. But soon after, in the FTAs negotiated with Malaysia and the Philippines, the issue began creeping on to the negotiating table. In the case of Malaysia, which inked a deal with Japan at the end of 2005, Tokyo tried to get the government to commit to the UPOV system of plant variety protection, but the Malaysians said no.2 In fact, against the overall thrust of the FTA, which gives Japanese investors equal rights to exploit Malaysian resources, Malaysia inserted a 'carve out' clause which exempts biodiversity policy-making from Japan's interference.3 But at the same time, the government did accept some abstract wording about protecting private monopoly rights over seeds "in a manner consistent with internationally harmonised system". In practice, this means UPOV. The text just doesn't say so.4
In the case of the Philippines, a joint committee made recommendations for a possible Japan-Philippines FTA back in 2003. The Japanese said any such agreement should promote plant breeders' rights. The Filipinos said it should promote farmers' rights. Japan retorted that any kind of farmers' rights would have to be consistent with UPOV. In the end, the deal they signed in September 2006 says little about any of this.5 It only pins Manila down to providing some kind of system of plant variety rights and extending it to as many species as possible, taking into account Japan's corporate interests. Not too harmful, but not harmless either.
Breaking the UPOV barrier
All this changed in 2007. Japan is now explicitly pulling developing countries into UPOV with its FTA claws and even trying to change the scope of other countries' patent laws to get stronger rights for Japanese corporations over biodiversity.
In Thailand earlier this year, the military government’s decision to sign an FTA with Japan led to a heated public debate.6 The Thai-Japan agreement had been negotiated during the Thaksin regime, but when the military staged a coup in September 2006 all Thai FTA negotiations came to a halt, largely because no foreign government wanted to be seen as accepting military rule. However, under pressure from Japanese companies through their Chamber of Commerce, and probably to show that martial law was not really a bad thing, the Thai military opted to pick up where Thaksin had left off and to sign the Japan deal themselves. In the beginning, the public protested about numerous aspects of the agreement but by the end public disquiet focused on two central issues, one of which was the patenting of microorganisms. The deal dictates that Thailand not be allowed to reject any patent application just because it involves a "naturally occurring" microorganism.7 In a world where national sovereignty over biological resources is enshrined in international law and where Japan has been accused on several occasions of 'biopiracy', this provision upset many Thai groups, all the way up to the Human Rights Commission. The generals were unmoved, however. Through the FTA, which was signed in early April, they additionally committed Thailand to honouring "international standards" of plant variety protection. Again, this is code-speak for UPOV, even though Thailand's PVP law does not match UPOV standards.
A few months later, in mid-August 2007, Chilean President Bachelet signed a similar Japan-Chile FTA. This was the first Japanese free trade agreement specifically to impose UPOV on its trading partner. While Chile has been a member of UPOV since 1996, this FTA commits the government to upgrade its domestic plant variety law to UPOV's 1991 standards, the latest version of the Convention. UPOV 1991 does not allow farmers to save and exchange seeds harvested from plants that are subject to PVP. While it is true that Chile has signed similar deals with the US and the European Free Trade Association, this is the first time that Japan has managed to bulldoze another country into joining the anti-farmer, anti-seed-saving UPOV.8
Before the ink could dry on the Chile deal, Japan's Prime Minister Abe and Indonesia's President Yudhoyono jointly signed their own bilateral FTA in Jakarta. Now Indonesia, as well as Chile, has agreed to comply with UPOV and make its best efforts to join the Union. If this happens, 165 million Indonesian farmers will be increasingly obliged to source their seed from the market – which is, of course, the entire point. The privatisation of biodiversity through these FTAs, with their strong intellectual property rules, is meant to turn as many farmers as possible into captive clients of a corporate controlled seed supply. Worse, violations – such as sharing seeds that are saved or selected from "protected" varieties without a licence – lead to criminal prosecution.
The bigger picture
The US and Europe are no longer the only 'bad guys' pushing farmers into a bleak new landscape where huge corporations control the seeds, incessant royalties have to be paid, and rural autonomy and culture are buried.9 Japan, host to one of the top ten seed conglomerates in the world, has now joined that league. (See Table 2.) The Abe government is in a frenzy to sign more FTAs with India, Vietnam and ASEAN as whole in the coming months. As precedents have now been set in Jakarta and Santiago, Japanese pressure on these countries to join UPOV should be expected.
Still, this is not only about Japanese interests. The old world view where 'the North' is the villain and 'the South' is the victim hardly makes sense anymore. It's even increasingly impossible to distinguish between state and corporate interests in all this free-trade wheeling and dealing. Malaysian plantation barons, like Sime Darby, or fast expanding Thai agribusiness groups, like Charoen Pokphand (CP), surely weren't crying over their governments' FTAs with Japan. As Witoon Lianchamroon, director of Biothai, puts it, "It's clear that CP needs the UPOV system, same as Japan. CP tried to push UPOV for years before the JTEPA [Japan-Thailand Economic Partnership Agreement] negotiations began. We even faced difficulty with the Thai negotiators handling JTEPA, because they often preferred to use CP's position rather than that of the Thai farmers."10 In Indonesia, companies like PT Fitotek and East West Seed have long been lobbying the government to adopt strong plant monopoly laws such as UPOV.11 Like other Asian and Latin American transnational corporations, they too have plenty to gain from the privatisation of biodiversity through these trade deals. After all, some 70% of the world's farmers still save their seeds year to year. That's a lot of people to convert into paying customers.
The tightening up of intellectual property ropes around seeds, medicinal plants, micro-organisms and even traditional knowledge will only boost the profits of large firms which control the world's commodity trade. It is not farmers who should be criminalised for saving seeds, but these corporations for forcing through such terrible laws.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)