Indonesia vs. European Union: Palm Oil and Biofuels Dispute at WTO Panels

The ongoing trade dispute between Indonesia and the European Union (EU) over palm oil and biofuels is one of the most significant cases in international trade law, with far-reaching implications for the global biofuels market and environmental sustainability. The conflict revolves around the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive II (RED II) and the Delegated Regulation that categorizes palm oil as a high-risk commodity for deforestation and unsustainable land use. This classification, according to Indonesia, constitutes a discriminatory trade barrier that undermines its economic interests and the livelihoods of millions of palm oil farmers. At the core of this dispute are questions of sustainability, environmental protection, and the right balance between trade liberalization and the global environmental agenda. The case, brought before the World Trade Organization (WTO), has highlighted the tension between economic development in producer countries like Indonesia and the environmental policies adopted by wealthier nations like those in the EU.

This article will explore the intricacies of the Indonesia-EU trade dispute at the WTO over palm oil and biofuels, focusing particularly on sustainability concerns. The arguments presented by both sides will be reviewed, along with the WTO’s role in mediating such disputes, and the broader implications of the case for global environmental governance and trade relations.

Palm oil is one of Indonesia’s most crucial agricultural exports, contributing significantly to the nation’s economy. According to the Indonesian Ministry of Trade, palm oil exports amounted to approximately $20.7 billion in 2020, making it one of the country’s top export commodities (Ministry of Trade of Indonesia, 2020). The European Union, however, has become increasingly concerned about the environmental impact of palm oil production, which has been linked to deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and the emission of greenhouse gases (European Commission, 2020).

In response to these concerns, the EU introduced the Renewable Energy Directive II (RED II) in 2018, which aims to promote the use of renewable energy sources and reduce carbon emissions by 32% by 2030. The Directive classifies biofuels made from crops associated with high levels of deforestation, including palm oil, as unsustainable. In the Delegated Regulation, the EU identified palm oil as a high-risk commodity, effectively banning its use in biofuels by 2030 (European Commission, 2018).

Indonesia, which is the world’s largest producer of palm oil, has strongly opposed these measures. In 2019, the country filed a complaint with the WTO, arguing that the EU’s policies violate WTO rules by discriminating against palm oil in favor of other biofuels such as rapeseed and soy, which are primarily produced in Europe (WTO, 2019). According to Indonesia, the EU’s restrictions are not based on sound scientific evidence and unfairly target developing countries (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, 2019).

From Indonesia’s perspective, the EU’s policies on palm oil constitute an unfair trade practice that disproportionately affects developing countries that rely on palm oil production. Palm oil is a major source of livelihood for millions of smallholder farmers in Indonesia, many of whom live in rural areas with limited access to alternative income opportunities (Sawit Watch, 2019). Indonesia argues that the EU’s restrictions will have a devastating impact on the country’s economy and exacerbate poverty in palm oil-producing regions.

Indonesia also contends that palm oil is being unfairly singled out as a high-risk commodity, while other crops used for biofuels, such as rapeseed and soy, which are largely produced in Europe and North America, have not been subjected to the same level of scrutiny. In its submission to the WTO, Indonesia claimed that the EU’s policies violate several provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) by discriminating against palm oil in favor of domestic crops (WTO, 2019).

Furthermore, Indonesia has argued that it has taken significant steps to address the environmental concerns associated with palm oil production. The government has implemented a range of sustainability measures, including a moratorium on new palm oil plantations, stricter land-use regulations, and certification schemes such as the Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) standard (Ministry of Agriculture of Indonesia, 2020). Indonesia maintains that these measures demonstrate its commitment to sustainable palm oil production and that the EU’s blanket ban on palm oil in biofuels is unjustified.

The European Union has defended its policies on palm oil and biofuels by emphasizing the need to address the environmental and social impacts of palm oil production. According to the European Commission, palm oil cultivation is one of the primary drivers of deforestation in tropical regions, particularly in Southeast Asia. The conversion of forests into palm oil plantations has led to the destruction of critical habitats for endangered species such as orangutans, tigers, and rhinos (European Commission, 2020).

In addition to deforestation, palm oil production has been linked to other environmental issues, including soil degradation, water pollution, and the release of carbon emissions through slash-and-burn techniques used to clear land for plantations. These practices contribute significantly to global climate change, and the EU argues that its policies are aimed at reducing the carbon footprint of biofuels and promoting the use of more sustainable alternatives (European Commission, 2018).

The EU has also emphasized that its policies are consistent with international environmental commitments, including the Paris Agreement on climate change and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). By phasing out the use of palm oil in biofuels, the EU aims to reduce the environmental impact of its energy consumption and promote the transition to a more sustainable and low-carbon economy (European Commission, 2020).

Furthermore, the EU has argued that its measures are based on sound scientific evidence and comply with WTO rules. According to the European Commission, the classification of palm oil as a high-risk commodity is supported by studies conducted by independent experts, which have shown that palm oil has a higher deforestation risk compared to other biofuel crops (European Commission, 2020). The EU also argues that its policies do not constitute a trade barrier but are necessary to achieve legitimate environmental objectives under Article XX of the GATT, which allows WTO members to adopt measures to protect human, animal, or plant life and health (WTO, 1994).

The sustainability debate lies at the heart of the Indonesia-EU dispute over palm oil and biofuels. While Indonesia has argued that palm oil can be produced sustainably and that it has implemented measures to promote sustainable practices, the EU remains unconvinced. The EU’s position reflects a broader global shift towards sustainability in trade and environmental governance, as countries and regions seek to balance economic growth with environmental protection.

One of the key challenges in the palm oil debate is the difficulty of ensuring that palm oil is produced in a way that does not contribute to deforestation or other environmental harms. Certification schemes such as the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and the Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) standard have been introduced to promote sustainable palm oil production, but these initiatives have been criticized for their limited effectiveness and lack of enforcement (Sustainable Palm Oil Transparency Toolkit, 2020).

The EU has raised concerns about the credibility of these certification schemes, arguing that they do not provide sufficient guarantees that palm oil is produced in a sustainable manner. For example, the EU has pointed to reports of illegal deforestation and human rights abuses in palm oil-producing countries, despite the existence of certification schemes (European Commission, 2020). In response, Indonesia has called for greater recognition of its national certification system and has argued that the EU should work with palm oil-producing countries to improve sustainability rather than imposing unilateral trade restrictions (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, 2019).

The WTO has become the primary forum for resolving the Indonesia-EU dispute over palm oil and biofuels. Indonesia’s complaint to the WTO challenges the EU’s measures on several grounds, including violations of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) (WTO, 2019).

The WTO’s dispute settlement system is designed to provide a neutral and rules-based mechanism for resolving trade disputes between its members. However, the WTO has faced criticism for its limited ability to address complex issues related to sustainability and environmental protection. The Indonesia-EU case raises important questions about how the WTO should balance trade liberalization with environmental concerns, particularly in the context of the growing global emphasis on sustainability (Howse, 2019).

One of the key challenges for the WTO in this case is determining whether the EU’s measures on palm oil are justified under the environmental exceptions in Article XX of the GATT. This provision allows WTO members to adopt measures that are necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life and health, or to conserve exhaustible natural resources, provided that these measures are not applied in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner (WTO, 1994).

The outcome of the Indonesia-EU case could have significant implications for the future of environmental regulation in international trade. If the WTO rules in favor of Indonesia, it could set a precedent that limits the ability of countries to adopt environmental measures that affect trade. On the other hand, if the WTO upholds the EU’s policies, it could reinforce the legitimacy of environmental objectives in trade policy and encourage other countries to adopt similar measures (Howse, 2019).

The Indonesia-EU dispute over palm oil and biofuels is a complex case that touches on fundamental issues related to trade, sustainability, and environmental governance. At its core, the conflict reflects the tension between economic development in producer countries and the environmental policies adopted by wealthier nations. For Indonesia, palm oil is a vital export commodity that supports millions of livelihoods, while for the EU, it is a high-risk product that poses serious environmental threats.

The case raises important questions about how to balance trade liberalization with sustainability, and how to ensure that environmental regulations are applied in a fair and non-discriminatory manner. The outcome of the WTO case will have significant implications not only for the future of the global palm oil trade but also for the broader relationship between trade and environmental policy.

As the world continues to grapple with the challenges of climate change and sustainable development, the Indonesia-EU dispute serves as a reminder of the need for more coordinated and collaborative approaches to addressing the environmental impacts of global trade. While trade rules are important, they must be balanced with the need to protect the planet’s ecosystems and promote a more sustainable and equitable global economy.

For almost 30 years of expertise in the agri markets, UkrAgroConsult has accumulated an extensive database, which became the basis of the platform AgriSupp.

It is a multi-functional online platform with market intelligence for grains and oilseeds that enables to get access to daily operational information on the Black Sea & Danube markets, analytical reports, historical data.

You are welcome to get a 7-day free demo access!!!

Tags: trade dispute, Renewable Energy Directive II, Indonesia, European Union, WTO, palm oil, deforestation, World Trade Organization, Biofuels