Comments on: Malaysian Prime Minister: No clearing of forests for oil palm plantations http://redapes.org/news-updates/malaysian-prime-minister-no-clearing-of-forests-for-oil-palm-plantations/ Reach out and save the orangutans! Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:28:51 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: bunga raya http://redapes.org/news-updates/malaysian-prime-minister-no-clearing-of-forests-for-oil-palm-plantations/comment-page-1/#comment-6219 bunga raya Wed, 02 Jul 2008 01:48:12 +0000 http://redapes.org/?p=1671#comment-6219 The PM's statement is meaningless: A) Malaysia's PM doesn't control the State Governments over these issues. CM Taib from Sarawak already said that the PM statement is a non-issue in Sarawak. Done! B) The new "policy" applies to "new" plantation developments only but vast tracts of forest (millions of hectares) have already been allocated for plantation development in the past years. Plantation companies are busily clearing away forests to fulfill the governmental plantation targets and deforestation will go on in Malaysia. C) It's easy for the State Governments to turn a forest into "non-forest": the State Ex Com can de-gazette Permanent Forest Reserves overnight, declare it land for agricultural development and the bulldozers will move in the next day to day away with what ever forest is left after decades of unsustainable logging. States are now expected to consult the National Forestry Council over degazettement of forest reserves, but the NFC is a non-transparent body that is ultimately incapable of stopping the States. D) After the tsunami in 2004, the PM said that all mangrove forests would be spared from development and be restored. But fish and shrimp ponds and other businesses keep clearing the mangroves all the same. Just like the “Save the Mangroves” policy, the PM statement on oil palm is not, and is unlikely to be translated in binding laws. E) The statement doesn't apply to Malaysian companies operating outside of Malaysia... F) Key data on deforestation and oil palm expansion in Malaysia are treated as though they are part of the Official Secrets Act. The government is the only supplier of such data to international institutions, such as FAO and the Malaysian data supplied are notoriously unreliable. For example, Malaysia reported to FAO that it had not lost any primary forest between 1990 and 2005. If that was true, then where did the million of tonnes of timber exported by Malaysia during those years come from? From deforestation for oil palm projects? No, Malaysia has never cleared tropical forests for oil palm Malaysians have been told time and time again. Did the timber come from illegal imports from Indonesia? No, that problem doesn't exist either… "We have proof" says the PM. Where is the proof? The PM’s statement is meaningless:

A) Malaysia’s PM doesn’t control the State Governments over these issues. CM Taib from Sarawak already said that the PM statement is a non-issue in Sarawak. Done!

B) The new “policy” applies to “new” plantation developments only but vast tracts of forest (millions of hectares) have already been allocated for plantation development in the past years. Plantation companies are busily clearing away forests to fulfill the governmental plantation targets and deforestation will go on in Malaysia.

C) It’s easy for the State Governments to turn a forest into “non-forest”: the State Ex Com can de-gazette Permanent Forest Reserves overnight, declare it land for agricultural development and the bulldozers will move in the next day to day away with what ever forest is left after decades of unsustainable logging. States are now expected to consult the National Forestry Council over degazettement of forest reserves, but the NFC is a non-transparent body that is ultimately incapable of stopping the States.

D) After the tsunami in 2004, the PM said that all mangrove forests would be spared from development and be restored. But fish and shrimp ponds and other businesses keep clearing the mangroves all the same. Just like the “Save the Mangroves” policy, the PM statement on oil palm is not, and is unlikely to be translated in binding laws.

E) The statement doesn’t apply to Malaysian companies operating outside of Malaysia…

F) Key data on deforestation and oil palm expansion in Malaysia are treated as though they are part of the Official Secrets Act. The government is the only supplier of such data to international institutions, such as FAO and the Malaysian data supplied are notoriously unreliable. For example, Malaysia reported to FAO that it had not lost any primary forest between 1990 and 2005.

If that was true, then where did the million of tonnes of timber exported by Malaysia during those years come from? From deforestation for oil palm projects? No, Malaysia has never cleared tropical forests for oil palm Malaysians have been told time and time again. Did the timber come from illegal imports from Indonesia? No, that problem doesn’t exist either…

“We have proof” says the PM. Where is the proof?

]]>