I

ndonesia could understandably be suspicious of the motives behind the American Environmental Protection Agency’s policy decision late last month to exclude palm oil-based biodiesel from its renewable fuel program because the commodity fails to meet the minimum 20 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emission as required by US law.

After all, Indonesia is the world’s largest palm oil producer, with a total output of almost 24 million tons last year, and the country, together with Malaysia, controls more than 90 percent of global palm oil production.

But it would be futile for the Indonesian government and the Indonesian Palm Oil Producers Association (Gapki) to argue that the American EPA move was a subterfuge to protect the US vegetable oil industry because EPA approved corn-based biodiesel and allowed other fuels made from soybean, animal fat and recycled cooking grease to be used as biodiesel sources.

It would also be misguided for the government and Gapki to ignore the American environmental policy, arguing that the US only buys a negligible amount of our palm oil (less than 100,000 tons). The US move would be followed by other governments and consumer organizations in other countries.

Whatever counterargument the government and the industry association will file to rebut the American EPA’s decision before the Feb. 27 deadline, it should be supported with scientifically proven data and facts to prove that our palm oil meets the minimum greenhouse gas emission reduction set by EPA.

The American EPA policy decision could inflict devastating damage to the reputation of Indonesian palm oil in the international market because it affects our whole palm oil industry. It is different from the boycott of Indonesian palm oil imposed by several giant consumer product companies like Unilever and Nestlé in 2009 and 2010, which was limited to several Indonesian suppliers alleged to have damaged natural forests.

We should magnanimously acknowledge that insofar as sustainable palm oil production principles are concerned, Indonesia’s reputation is still rather notorious as a result of years of reckless oil-palm expansion at the expense of sustainable forestry management.

Our palm oil business expansion has been associated with massive deforestation. Faced with tougher scrutiny from environmental NGOs, Gapki quit the Kuala Lumpur-based global organization Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) in 2010. The government supported that misguided move by establishing its own sustainability standards under the Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) program last year.

The principles of sustainable management promoted and assessed by the RSPO and the ISPO for its green certification process are by and large similar: transparency, legal and regulatory compliance, best production practices, environmental responsibility and commitments to local community development, human rights, land rights, etc. They promote best practices of agricultural development.

The biggest difference is credibility and reputation.

RSPO is internationally perceived as more credible and reliable, given the reputation of its management and its 650 member organizations from 50 countries including such giant companies and organizations as Unilever, Walmart, Carrefour, Nestlé, Hershey, Citibank, World Bank, WWF, SawitWatch, Greenpeace and all the largest palm oil producers from Malaysia and Indonesia.

While the ISPO is managed only by the Indonesian government, it is still perceived internationally as one of the most corrupt programs in the world.