Edited by Arild Underdal, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, and approved August 5, 2019 (received for review March 2, 2019)
The rapid expansion of oil palm in Malaysia and Indonesia (M&I) has contributed to record levels of deforestation, carbon emissions, and biodiversity loss. Sustainability certification schemes seeking to address this problem have fallen short of their stated goals, leading to calls for more aggressive measures. Here we explore 3 alternative conservation policies within a global economic framework and find that market-mediated responses confound the efficacy and distributional impacts of these policies. We suggest that simply limiting palm oil production or consumption is unlikely to halt deforestation in M&I in the absence of active forest conservation incentives. We also find that M&I would benefit economically by taking domestic action rather than waiting for others to act.
The global demand for palm oil has grown rapidly over the past several decades. Much of the output expansion has occurred in carbon- and biodiversity-rich forest lands of Malaysia and Indonesia (M&I), contributing to record levels of terrestrial carbon emissions and biodiversity loss. This has led to a variety of voluntary and mandatory regulatory actions, as well as calls for limits on palm oil imports from M&I. This paper offers a comprehensive, global assessment of the economic and environmental consequences of alternative policies aimed at limiting deforestation from oil palm expansion in M&I. It highlights the challenges of limiting forest and biodiversity loss in the presence of market-mediated spillovers into related oilseed and agricultural commodity and factor markets, both in M&I and overseas. Indeed, limiting palm oil production or consumption is unlikely to halt deforestation in M&I in the absence of active forest conservation incentives. Policies aimed at restricting palm oil production in M&I also have broader consequences for the economy, including significant impacts on consumer prices, real wages, and welfare, that vary among different global regions. A crucial distinction is whether the initiative is undertaken domestically, in which case the M&I region could benefit, or by major palm oil importers, in which case M&I loses income. Nonetheless, all policies considered here pass the social welfare test of global carbon dioxide mitigation benefits exceeding their costs.
↵1In 2016, the value of oil plus meal for Malaysian oil palm and the value of US soybeans per hectare per growing day were approximately $8.15 and $6.35, respectively. Expressed in this way, the gap is smaller than the oft-cited figure of 5- to 8-fold higher oil palm yields compared with yields of competing oil crops.
↵2The EF-AEZ model calculates emissions from changes in land cover and emissions due to changes in crop biomass. The figures reported herein include the sum of these 2 items. For TAX with 0% palm on peat, the saving in emissions due to preserving forest is positive but small compared with the loss in biomass of oil palm trees vs. the biomass of other crops.
Author contributions: F.T., T.W.H., and N.R. designed research; F.T. performed research; F.T., T.W.H., and N.R. analyzed data; and F.T., T.W.H., and N.R. wrote the paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1903476116/-/DCSupplemental.
This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND).
