Will these ambitions be possible? The answer is that it is almost impossible for two reasons.

First, the EU’s global trade partners reject the proposals. The carbon border tax for example, has been criticized by the United States, which is the EU’s biggest trading partner.

Second, within its member states, especially France and Germany, finding 30 percent of land to protect will not be possible as the powerful agricultural sectors in these countries are not likely to give up their farms for the sake of biodiversity. As it stands, 41.1 percent of the total area in the EU is occupied by agriculture with a further 32.6 percent occupied by forestry.

The French report in early March that revealed that 187 species of flora and fauna had completely disappeared from mainland and overseas France in the last 13 years was particularly disturbing to say the least. Excessive use of pesticides has been touted as one of the main suspects. Many other countries in Europe have no better record.

In reclaiming the narratives of sustainability, Indonesia has consistently called for measuring land degradation, as well as water and air pollution due to application of pesticides and fertilizer in the vegetable oils sector. It is not a secret that rapeseed and sunflower are notoriously dependent on pesticides and fertilizer compared with palm oil.

Equally outrageous is how Australian canola still qualifies under the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive (RED) ll definitions when Australia ranks among the worst countries in the world for deforestation. Similarly, Canadian rapeseed, or canola as its genetically modified version is widely known, qualifies as a feedstock for renewable energy despite the recent report confirming that the Great Lakes are becoming a dead zone as they are “surrounded by 28 million acres of soybean, corn and hay fields.”

The free passes given by the EU to other vegetable oils from countries with worse environmental records than palm oil-producing countries cannot escape the attention of the second meeting of the EU-ASEAN Joint Working Group (JWG) later this month.

The pseudo science of Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) that the EU has used as an excuse to ban palm oil from biofuels must be removed. Deputy executive director of the Council of Palm Oil Producing Countries. The significant falling rates of deforestation in Indonesia show the commitment of the government and other stakeholders toward sustainable development.

Indonesia has made enormous gains in reducing poverty by cutting the poverty rate by more than half since 1999. It is undeniable that palm oil industries in Indonesia have been a critical component in empowering rural communities.

The expansion of palm oil-planted areas into remote areas has brought impoverished rural communities to the 21^st century where no one is left destitute. This goal is being achieved as evidenced by the key indicators of falling rates of maternal and infant mortalities and longer lifespans in palm oil-producing countries.

Studies have revealed that palm oil industries indeed have made concrete contributions to the attainment of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 2030 way ahead of other vegetable oils.

Would an increased demand for palm oil-based biofuels by the EU drive uncontrolled deforestation as the ILUC theory suggests? This is highly unlikely for two main reasons.

First, there is an enormous source of palm oil supply being wasted in planted areas. As the palm oil industries connect with rural communities, the results of Indonesia’s mandated plasma program show a wide discrepancy between the potential yields of properly managed plantations and that of smallholders. With several million hectares in Indonesia underperforming, it is entirely possible that with the financial support of preferred customers like the EU, that these underperforming smallholder farms could deliver a source of biofuels without increasing planted areas. The ongoing replanting program with a target of 185,000 hectares this year has the sole purpose of improving productivity of smallholders without land expansion.

Second, unlike developed countries whose citizens for the most part enjoy the benefits of a modern society where development has already maxed out land use, palm oil-producing countries are still trying to find a sustainable balance between the needs of their citizens in urban areas and those of their citizens in rural areas. Those ideals are embodied in the UN’s SDGs, which should be the parameters of sustainability for all vegetable oils without exception.

In consideration of all these facts, should the EU continue to stigmatize palm oil while claiming a leadership role for a sustainable earth? Its policies have been exposed to be preferential and discriminatory, which goes against what the EU claims to stand for. In that context, any effort to reduce the EU-ASEAN JWG only to palm oil is not only unethical but also in contravention of the commitment made.

One can only hope for the sake of global sustainability, that the EU-ASEAN JWG on vegetable oils will serve as an example of how the EU should view the needs and demands of other countries as it positions itself as “a leader” in global sustainability.

As for Indonesia, in the words of Deputy Foreign Minister Mahendra Siregar, “We are not the problem we are part of the solution. And we certainly lead by example.”

That is also what is expected from the EU. Nothing less.

***

The writer is deputy executive director of the Council of Palm Oil Producing Countries. The views expressed are his own