PALMOILMAGAZINE, JAKARTA — The palm oil industry seems perpetually entangled in negative accusations. From deforestation and flooding to claims of excessive water consumption, oil palm is frequently cast as the main culprit behind environmental problems. The real question is how accurate these allegations are—and where government policy stands in addressing the issue fairly.
It cannot be denied that certain actors within the palm oil sector have cleared land in ways that damage forests. However, attributing the actions of a few to the entire industry—including millions of smallholders—is clearly unjust. Palm oil has proven to be a high-value commodity and remains a key pillar of livelihood for millions of Indonesian farmers.
From an ecological standpoint, oil palm plantations are often unfavorably compared with natural forests. Yet a closer examination shows that their environmental functions are not entirely contradictory. In terms of oxygen (O₂) production, oil palm plantations can even outperform forests, although total carbon dioxide (CO₂) respiration in forests is indeed higher. This suggests that, at a basic ecological level, palm oil and forests play relatively comparable roles.
Also Read:
On the ground, modern oil palm plantations also apply various soil and water conservation practices. The construction of silt pits, embankments, drainage channels, and frond stacking rows is common, all aimed at retaining water and preventing erosion. Oil palm root systems, which spread laterally over many meters, help strengthen soil structure and reduce the risk of landslides and erosion.
Despite this, palm oil continues to be blamed for flooding. Scientifically, this claim is relatively easy to challenge. Hydrologically, evapotranspiration rates in oil palm plantations and forests are similar, averaging around 4–5 millimeters per day. Rainfall is also intercepted by the leaf canopy before reaching the soil surface, meaning surface runoff is slowed rather than accelerated.
In properly managed land clearing for oil palm, the planting of legume cover crops is mandatory. These plants help retain water, enrich soil nitrogen, and reduce surface runoff. Problems arise not from oil palm itself, but from practices that violate technical standards and suffer from weak oversight.
Ironically, regulatory scrutiny often falls more heavily on smallholder plantations, while large estates—including foreign-owned ones—escape strict control. The government has also yet to optimally implement production-sharing or profit-sharing schemes for large-scale plantation use of land and water resources. When environmental damage occurs, responsibility should not rest solely on small farmers.
Another frequently cited accusation is that oil palm is “water-greedy.” In reality, its daily water requirement remains within the same 4–5 millimeter range as many other perennial crops. Oil palm’s advantage lies in its deeper root system, which makes it more resilient to water deficits than food crops such as maize or vegetables. During extreme droughts, oil palm yields may decline, but the trees do not simply die off.
Concerns about wildlife habitat disruption—particularly involving elephants and orangutans—also surface regularly. These concerns are valid when land clearing is conducted without proper planning. However, with sound spatial planning, including wildlife corridors and conservation enclaves, human–wildlife conflict can be significantly reduced.
Regionally, Indonesia’s oil palm plantation area accounts for less than one percent of the country’s total land area. By comparison, Malaysia’s oil palm plantations cover more than 17 percent of its territory, yet its forest area is roughly twice that of Indonesia. This comparison suggests that narratives portraying palm oil as the primary driver of deforestation in Indonesia are often exaggerated and not entirely accurate.
What deserves greater attention is Indonesia’s relatively low palm oil productivity compared with Malaysia. With yields of around 3.05 tons per hectare, Indonesia lags behind Malaysia’s 3.41 tons per hectare. This points to serious issues in management, maintenance, and fertilization—rather than land availability.
Also Read: Indonesia Moves to Collect Trillions in Fines from Illegal Palm Oil and Mining Companies
Unfortunately, government policy has not been sufficiently oriented toward boosting productivity. Instead, the state appears more focused on collecting taxes, export duties, and levies amounting to around 25 percent of selling prices. Ironically, smallholders and state-owned plantation companies are also required to shoulder biodiesel subsidy costs, while foreign private plantations benefit disproportionately.
As President Prabowo promotes the B100 biodiesel program as part of national energy security, a significant increase in palm oil productivity—at least 60 percent—has become unavoidable. Yet concrete government measures remain unclear. Inter-agency coordination is weak, and responsibilities are often passed from one institution to another.
Amid persistent black campaigns against palm oil, what Indonesia needs is not merely a defensive narrative, but fair policies, firm oversight, and genuine support for farmers. Without these, palm oil will continue to be an easy target for global criticism, while its vast potential for the national economy and energy security remains constrained by misguided policies. (*)
Author: Memet Hakim / Social Observer and Advisory Council Member of APIB
Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author and is solely his responsibility.
