EU’s RED Driven by ‘Emotion’

Protectionism behind policy decisions

There is incontrovertible proof that Malaysian palm oil is both beneficial and sustainable. Why, then, would EU leaders try so hard to fix the RED process against palm oil? The simple answer: protectionism.

Ms Donnelly was correct in admitting that the RED is not based on science – however, her assertion that ‘emotive’ factors drive EU policy is misleading. What drives EU policy is the fact that palm oil is taking market share from less efficient, less competitive crops such as Europe-grown rapeseed.

Protecting uncompetitive domestic rapeseed is why the EU previously attempted to introduce Indirect Land-use Change criteria that would have harmed palm oil. It is also why some MEPs tried to remove palm oil from ‘approved’ biomass lists, without evidence – while the position of other crops on the list was never questioned.

And it is the reason that new campaigns against palm oil (see p.36) have kicked off ahead of the revision of the RED in 2017.

The campaign is about discrimination, pure and simple. In June 2014, Indonesia filed a case in the World Trade Organisation on an unrelated issue of EU discrimination against palm oil imports. The EC appears to be inviting more such cases if it continues to ignore facts and science in favour of discrimination against imports under the RED.

The EC’s admission that protectionism and anti-science views will be promoted and accepted as part of the policy-making process is a warning.

The next 12 months of biofuel negotiations will be difficult – and the market share of Malaysian palm oil is clearly under threat. EU claims about ‘emotion’ or ‘public opinion’ must be rejected: what is involved is discrimination for protectionist reasons, and should be treated as such.

MPOC