News Clipping

Browse the latest AEDS news in this page
Showing 8449 to 8456 of 10779
  • Renewables
29 October 2019

 – 

  • Singapore

SINGAPORE — By next year, Housing and Development Board (HDB) residents can expect to see one in two flats sporting solar panels on their rooftops.

And by 2030, Singapore aims to produce at least 2 gigawatt-peak (GWp) of solar energy, said Minister for Trade and Industry Chan Chun Sing on Tuesday (Oct 29).

That would be enough to power around 350,000 Singaporean households a year — more than 10 per cent of the peak daily electricity demand today, said Mr Chan, who was speaking at the opening of the Singapore International Energy Week conference.

Solar energy is set to play a key role in ensuring Singapore’s energy future. Infographic: Ministry of Trade and Industry

The 2030 target is more than five times the current target of 350 megawatt-peak (MWp) of solar energy by 2020. As of the second quarter of this year, some 260 MWp of solar capacity has already been installed.

Singapore is on track to meet its 2020 target, said Mr Chan, who added that “one in two HDB rooftops” will be fitted with solar panels by then.

Read also: Student’s lightbulb moment leads to installation of solar panels on school’s roof

OVERCOMING SPACE CONSTRAINTS

Given Singapore’s space constraints, the Republic needs to come up with ways to maximise the number of solar panels installed here, said Mr Chan.

He said that solar panels can be deployed on reservoirs, on top of rooftops or even on the vertical surfaces of buildings.

Read also: S’pore’s first large-scale floating solar panel system to be deployed at Tengeh Reservoir by 2021

“If we can do that, we will be able to significantly double the amount of space (available),” said Mr Chan.

The Government is currently studying setting up floating solar panels in Bedok Reservoir and Lower Seletar Reservoir.

For its part, national water agency PUB also announced in June that it intends to deploy Singapore’s first single large-scale 50 MWp floating photovoltaic (PV) system on Tengeh Reservoir by 2021.

Read also: Sembcorp, Singapore Polytechnic team up to develop pilot solar panel recycling plant

It was also reported last year that Sunseap will be building a sea-based floating photovoltaic system, a five-hectare development located north of Woodlands Waterfront Park, along the Straits of Johor.

Other initiatives to support solar adoption include the use of vacant state land that is not required for development in the near future.

This was started by JTC Corporation in May.

The project, called the SolarLand initiative, uses mobile substations and solar PV systems that can be relocated to alternate sites, should the land be needed for other uses.

In a factsheet released on Tuesday, the Energy Market Authority (EMA) said that Jurong Island made an “ideal location” for the first SolarLand project due to the availability of vacant land that was large enough to accommodate it.

The current system deployed at Jurong Island can produce about 6.6 GWh of solar energy per year, said the EMA.

In his speech, Mr Chan added that Singapore will also support research and development into solar energy, and also streamline regulations to make it cost-competitive to deploy solar panels.

For example, research is ongoing for building-integrated photovoltaics, said the EMA. This could mean that solar panels could soon be integrated directly into a building’s facade, rather than as separate rooftop installations.

STORING ALL THAT SOLAR ENERGY

In order to “do solar energy well”, Singapore will also need technology to store it, added Mr Chan.

However, the adoption of such energy storage systems (ESS) here is still “nascent”, and there is less than 1 MW of such systems installed currently, said the EMA.

Hence, Singapore aims to deploy 200MW of storage systems beyond 2025, said Mr Chan.

The EMA noted that the production of solar energy fluctuates due to weather conditions such as cloud cover, and this could lead to imbalances between electricity demand and supply.

Having adequate storage support will help overcome this, it added.
Read more at https://www.todayonline.com/singapore-ramp-solar-energy-production-2030-hdb-rooftops-have-solar-panels-2020?cid=h3_referral_inarticlelinks_03092019_todayonline

  • Bioenergy
29 October 2019

 – 

  • Cambodia

THE CAMBODIAN government is seeking a private partner to invest in a waste to energy plant to be developed in Phnom Penh.

Reports in Phnom Penh Post said the government had asked the Ministry of Mines and Energy to look into this.

The city generates more than 3,000 tonnes of rubbish daily and is currently faced with a waste management crisis.

A spokesman from the ministry, Victor Jona said they were currently preparing the relevant procedures for companies that want to participate in the auction for waste disposal rights in Phnom Penh.

Last week, the government revoked the business licence of Cintri (Cambodia) Ltd, Phnom Penh’s only waste disposal contractor, and will temporarily take over its services before putting waste disposal rights for auction.

In the past, the ministry issued up to six licences to foreign investment companies to assess the construction of a waste-to-energy plant.

However, after completion of the studies, only two companies sent documents to the ministry for review.

Apparently, the cost of the electricity generated from waste-burning was a major obstacle and the problem at the time was the high price.

Citing studies, Jona said electricity prices from a waste-burning plant would be in the range of US$0.14-US$0.15 per kWh.

The price of electricity from local hydropower plants currently stands at US$0.11.

However, Jona said producing electricity from rubbish is a must.

“An auction is needed to select a company to transform rubbish into electricity. We will run out of space for rubbish if we leave it unattended.”

Ham Oudom, a freelance consultant on natural resources governance, welcomes the investment in waste-to-energy electrical production as a renewable source.

Such investments not only address waste management but also reduce pollution.

  • Oil & Gas
29 October 2019

 – 

  • Myanmar

YANGON- Seven gas-fired power plants are now generating over 1,168-MW electricity before summer in 2020. Moreover, the plants will be joining the national grid system boosting Myanmar’s power capacity, according to the Ministry of Electricity and Energy.

The power plants are 28MW gas-fired power plant in Shwe Taung, Bago Region, 66MW and 20MW gas-fired power plants in Magway Region, 151.54MW gas-fired power plant in Ahlon Township, Yangon Region, 150MW gas-fired power plant in Kyaukphyu Township, Rakhine State, 350MW  and 400 MW gas-fired power plants in Thanlyin and Tharkayta Townships in Yangon Region.

Those gas-fired power plants are now boosting to generate totaling 1,165.54 MW of electricity targeting before coming summer.

Aiming to fulfill the Myanmar’s electricity requirements in timely, 28MW gas-fired power plant and 66MW gas-fired power plant are being constructed in Shwe Taung Township in Bago and Magway Regions.

Dr Tun Naing, Deputy Minister of Electricity and Energy, inspected above mentioned project sites on October 27th and he also urged the officials not to reduce power voltage during power distribution time and to pay special attention to the at least of power cutout.

Likewise, Electricity and Energy Minister Win Khaing said that the ministry was carrying out the power distribution tasks for the whole country until the December meeting the target 50 percent.

In Myanmar, only 34% of the population had access to electricity in 2016.

However, 50% of the population can enjoy the electricity by the end of this year. It is the goal of the electricity ministry because about 16 % can enjoy more electricity within three years, according to the electricity and energy minister.

Myanmar’s energy consumption is among the lowest in the world. Around 70% of popultaion and 84% of rural households had no access to electricity, according to the World Bank report announced in June of 2015.

  • Renewables
29 October 2019

 – 

  • Lao PDR

NONG KHAI: The first hydropower dam on the lower Mekong River began commercial operations in Laos on Tuesday amid protests from Thai villagers who say the Xayaburi Dam and several others in the works will destroy their livelihoods.

The 1,285-megawatt Xayaburi Dam’s debut coincides with parts of the Mekong drying to a trickle even at the end of the rainy season, though its builders and operators say it is not responsible for the reduced river flow.

Xayaburi, which will sell 95% of its power to Thailand at an average rate of 2 baht per unit, is the first of at least nine more hydropower projects either under construction or planned on the lower Mekong in Laos.

The new spate of dam-building is poised to turbo-charge already-fraught water and food security disputes after years of worry about the 11 existing Beijing-built dams on the upper Mekong in China are choking the river on which millions depend for their livelihoods in Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam.

Xayaburi Dam has been nine years in the making and the 135-billion-baht project, built and financed by Thai companies and banks, has been controversial since inception.

On Tuesday, Buddhist monks on the Thai side of the Mekong chanted and provided blessings in a ceremony for the river, which activists from the Freedom Mekong Group says is in danger of dying.

“When Xayaburi dam officially generates electricity … we won’t be able to know how the river will change and how bad it will deteriorate, said activist Montri Chanthawong.

About 150km to the south of Xayaburi, the fishing village of Ban Namprai is having its driest year in living memory.

Villagers say the Mekong is normally at least 3 metres high at the end of the rainy season, when Ban Namprai typically holds dragon boat races, which this year had to be cancelled.

Fishermen and fish farmers said that since March, when Xayaburi first started testing their turbines, they’ve seen ever-more erratic river flow that can’t be explained just by a drought earlier in the year.

“I think the future of the river is dire. This is just the beginning,” said Ban Nampai’s village chief, Sangtong Siengtid, 45, who is a fisherman himself.

“With more dams, the once powerful Mekong river will become just a small creek,” he said.

Some fish farmers in the nearby town of Nong Khai have begun moving fish enclosures out of the river and into manmade ponds fed by pumped-in water, said Krit Hemarak, 39, a local fish farm entrepreneur.

Xayaburi’s main developers, Thailand’s CK Power Plc , blamed the dried-up patches of riverbed downstream on late monsoon rains and an upstream Chinese dam.

CK Power, a subsidiary of Thai construction company CH. Karnchang Public Company Limited, declined requests for interviews from Reuters and did not respond to written questions.

Its Facebook page features videos of special 6 billion baht “fish ladders” and sediment gates that CK Power says will ensure the Mekong’s fragile ecosystem of fish migration and the sediment crucial to farming in Vietnam’s Mekong Delta will not be harmed.

The company will invest in “the most sustainable manner”, Thanawat Trivisvavet, CK Power’s managing director, said in an article in a local newspaper on Tuesday.

Environmental groups say the technology has not been tested.

  • Renewables
28 October 2019

 – 

  • Thailand

October 28 (Renewables Now) – Singapore’s Cleantech Solar has signed a deal to install photovoltaic (PV) panels atop the roofs of 19 stores owned by retail giant Tesco (LON:TSCO) in Thailand.

The solar power plants operator has inked a power purchase agreement (PPA) with hypermarket chain Tesco Lotus that will see it build and operate the solar plants. The installations are expected to have an output of over 21.5 GWh per year, the companies announced last week.

Cleantech Solar will be responsible for financing the design, installation, operation and maintenance of the PV arrays. Tesco Lotus, meanwhile, will not be required to make any capital investment. Once operational, the power plants will generate electricity that will save more than 12,500 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions annually.

The deal is in line with Tesco Group’s goal of souring 100% of its power from renewables by 2030 and become carbon-free by 2050. The group’s interim target is to meet with renewables 65% of its electricity consumption by 2020.

  • Coal
28 October 2019

 – 

  • Philippines
  • Coal has long been the primary power source in the Philippines, and large-scale power plants act as a safety crutch in the country’s quest for energy security.
  • But the advent of cost-efficient renewable energy technologies is challenging coal’s dominance as the go-to energy source.
  • President Rodrigo Duterte has voiced support for renewables but has yet to release an executive mandate that could propel the energy department to change its coal-dependent roadmap.
  • Any meaningful shift to renewables would require drastic changes in priorities and perspective, according to an energy think tank.

MANILA — In 1996, when a community in the Philippine municipality of Pagbilao agreed to house a coal power plant a few hours’ drive from Manila, the residents had high hopes. The fishing town saw in the dominating edifice full-time jobs and food on the table, says Warren Puno of the Catholic diocese of Lucena, the provincial capital.

What they didn’t expect, however, was for additional coal plants to follow suit.

After Pagbilao, another power station mushroomed in the nearby municipality of Mauban in 2000; the two plants have a combined generating capacity of 1,594 megawatts, earning the region the title of the “coal corridor” of the Philippines as it’s the only province to house two major coal plants. They also make the region the biggest power producer for the grid that serves the central island group of Luzon.

President Rodrigo Duterte inaugurated a third plant (the 21st nationwide) on Oct. 16, the 500 MW San Buenaventura Power facility in Mauban, citing the venture as a prime example of “clean coal technology” and a significant addition to the country’s green energy roadmap.

Environmental groups, however, are not convinced. “Coal is not clean, not cheap, and not sustainable,” Khevin Yu of Greenpeace Philippines said at a press conference on Oct. 21. “It is unfortunate that another coal plant has been inaugurated in the country, by no less than the president who seems to have been misled or misinformed by the coal industry and its ridiculous myth of ‘clean coal.’”

While Duterte continues to voice support for renewables in his public speeches, his energy department has gone the other way: more coal-fired power plants have been approved for construction since Duterte assumed office in 2016, driving environmental groups to question the government’s commitment to reducing emissions from coal and its transition to renewables as mere lip service.

Bucking the global coal decline

Since the signing of the landmark Paris climate agreement in 2015, coal projects have declined across the world. But it’s a different story in the Philippines and in Southeast Asia. Threatened by looming energy insecurity and with industries dependent on fossil fuels, coal remains the prime power generation source for electrification in the Philippines.

It’s the only country in Asia that gained a 1-gigawatt increase in power sourced from coal this year, which now accounts for 43 percent of the national energy mix. Given new investments, coal’s share of the pie will reach 50 percent in 2030. The energy sector is the biggest generator of the country’s carbon emissions and is at the forefront of its 70 percent emissions reduction pledge in the Paris Agreement, followed by the transport, waste, forestry and industrial sectors.

Duterte, however, has always had misgivings about the Paris Agreement. “I did not sign it … my predecessor signed it,” he said after taking office in 2016. “It will hamper the country’s industrialization agenda,” he added. He threatened to pull out of the agreement but ratified it begrudgingly a year later, when a majority of his cabinet secretaries voted for it.

Three years on, Duterte’s energy policies remain ambivalent, with the Department of Energy signalling a “conditional concurrence” to the deal, reflected in Secretary Alfonso Cusi’s “technology-neutral” bureaucracy. While the department signed renewable energy contracts in 2016, it also pushed for large-scale coal investments with seven committed projects that will provide 3,971 MW nationwide, spearheaded by San Buenaventura’s switch-on in October. “Coal still serves a purpose for our baseload,” Cusi said during his department’s budget deliberations, adding that a coal moratorium could “hurt” the energy sector.

“There remains considerable uncertainty around how these commitments will be achieved … given that continued economic development is contingent on significant increases in power generation capacity,” according to a 2019 report from the Asian Development Bank.

Further, the country’s power roadmap for 2016 to 2040 cements coal’s role in energy security. Both low-carbon and business-as-usual scenarios show anticipated annual supply growth rate from coal, with a 5.5 percent annual increase under business-as-usual and 4.9 under low-emissions scenarios.

“Investing in coal is investing in the climate crisis that is already impacting the lives and livelihoods of millions of Filipinos and costing the Filipino taxpayers billions every year,” Yu said, adding the government should “stop investing in coal, enact a moratorium on all planned coal projects, and enable an immediate energy transition towards clean and cheap renewable energy.”

‘The time is ripe for renewables’

Electricity prices in the Philippines remain among the highest in Southeast Asia, driven by high dependence on fossil fuel imports, high financing costs and uncompetitive market structures that have stifled innovation, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), an international think tank.

“There is an unprecedented opportunity to redesign the market to attract lower prices and more investment,” an IEEFA report says. “The government should guard against abuse of market power and anti-competitive agreements such as price fixing without a bidding system.”

But while renewable’s biggest opposition is its upfront high costs, especially for solar, the advent of new and cheaper technologies when matched with existing but underutilized financing schemes can tip the scales in favor of renewables, according to Gerry Arances of the local think tank Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development.

“Solar’s share in the energy mix is still a low 6 percent,” Arances told Mongabay. “But in the past, it never breached the 1 percent mark. But now it jumped in two years — that goes to show that there is a huge, untapped market … and it is growing. The technology, policies, and mechanisms are there to fully transition to renewables. We simply need to fully implement it.”

In the coal corridor, resistance against the fossil fuel ballooned after the energy department approved the construction of three new coal-fired power plants: Tangkawayan (1,000 MW), Atimonan (1,200 MW), and Ibabang (600 MW), in Pagbilao municipality.

“The community started asking: ‘Why are they building here again?’” Puno says. “We are being turned into a trash can. We think coal is dirty and we are becoming a repository for all that dirt.”

Theirs is not a lone sentiment. Around the Philippines, resistance against coal power is gaining ground in at least 12 provinces, with the most vocal opposition in Palawan, where the government approved a 15 MW plant that, according to local environmental groups, threatens the province’s biodiversity and overlooks cheaper renewable power generation options.

“The energy department is in a better position to begin the transition because the renewables technology is there,” Arances says. “Prices won’t plummet if the industry is not ripe for renewables. It’s about time that the Department of Energy puts its act together and shepherd the transition.”

Banner image of the coal-fired Quezon Power Plant in Mauban, Quezon. The 511-megawatt power plant was commissioned in 2000 and is owned and operated by Quezon Power Limited Co. Image by Lawrence Ruiz (Epi Fabonan III) via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

  • Renewables
28 October 2019

 – 

  • Philippines

Oct. 29– Oct. 29–Home Business Business Columns Only Russia will benefit if PH goes nuclear

Only Russia will benefit if PH goes nuclear

By BEN KRITZ, TMT

October 29, 2019

Facebook

Twitter

Email

By BEN KRITZ, TMT

October 29, 2019

Facebook

Twitter

Email

First of two parts

FOR the second time during the term of the current administration, fast-talking salesmen from Russia’s nuclear energy agency Rosatom have managed to convince a few impressionable officials here that the mighty atom is the answer to all the Philippines’ energy needs, especially if it is packaged in the product Rosatom has to offer.

The only people who will benefit from the Philippines’ adopting nuclear power will be the shareholders of Rosatom. Nuclear power is an economically and environmentally disastrous proposition for the Philippines, and no amount of persistence from the misguided nuclear advocacy can change that.

On October 17, Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi announced the Department of Energy had signed a memorandum of intent with Rosatom for the latter to conduct feasibility studies on the possible deployment of so-called small modular reactors (SMRs) in the Philippines.

These reactors, which generate between 20 to 200 megawatts (MW) of power, can be mounted on floating platforms to provide electricity to island provinces, or slaved together like giant batteries to create larger land-based power plants.

Russia currently has one such floating plant in operation, a 21,000- metric ton barge carrying two 35-MW reactors and dubbed the Akademik Lomonosov. The craft, which will replace a coal plant and an old nuclear plant in Russia’s far east, can provide power to about 100,000 homes and has a crew of about 70.

The (weak) case for nuclear power

Hard on the heels of the announcement of the DoE’s agreement with Rosatom, local nuclear advocates took part in a “Stand Up for Nuclear” event held in Manila and other cities around the world on October 20. The event achieved what its organizers presumably hoped it would — the publication of a rash of news articles and opinion columns in the days following it, all touting the supposed benefits of nuclear power to the energy-challenged Philippines.

The arguments put forth in favor of nuclear power in general — which haven’t changed in years — and of SMRs in particular are rather shallow, but at first glance seem to be valid.

The benefits of nuclear power, according to its advocates, are that it does not produce harmful emissions, unlike conventional fossil-fueled power plants; it is an extremely efficient energy source, which results in lower power costs to consumers; it has a very good overall safety record, in spite of attention-grabbing disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima; and it provides reliable baseload power to augment energy from intermittent sources like solar and wind power.

SMRs are touted as a good option for countries like the Philippines without well-developed nuclear capabilities or budgets to sustain them because they are small, versatile, relatively inexpensive, and less complicated than normal-scale nuclear plants. For example, unlike a conventional pressurized water or boiling water reactor, the cooling and steam generation water flows in most SMR designs are gravity-fed. This presumably makes them immune from the sort of loss-of-coolant accidents that led to the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters.

All of these arguments are very positive-sounding, enough to convince many impressionable government officials and media commentators, whom the nuclear advocacy hopes have neither the time, inclination nor capacity to look critically at the facts, which tend to be a more than a little inconvenient.

Cutting through the nonsense

The first argument that “nuclear plants do not produce harmful carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,” is true in a very literal sense, but it is not true that nuclear plants do not contribute to harmful emissions at all, as some advocates claim. All nuclear plants emit heat and water vapor to the atmosphere at the rate of 4.4 grams CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour (g CO2-e/kWh) of energy produced. While this is certainly very much less than a conventional power plant, it is not zero, and compares unfavorably with solar and wind power, which actually remove water vapor and heat flux to the atmosphere at the rate of -2.2 g CO2-e/kWh.

An even bigger environmental problem with nuclear power is that any nuclear reactor uses an enormous amount of fresh water and discharges a large amount of heated wastewater.

Because of the complicated chemistry within a nuclear reactor, seawater cannot be used, and even fresh water must be “scrubbed” to remove any impurities. In a country such as the Philippines, where fresh water supplies are increasingly constrained, any nuclear power facility is a problematic option.

The second argument, that nuclear energy is extremely efficient and therefore less expensive than other forms of power, is again only literally true in a narrow context.

Uranium as a fuel is incredibly efficient; one ton of uranium has the energy content of about 80,000 tons of coal. However, to obtain useable fuel a great deal of processing is necessary, which of course comes at an energy cost, and the amount of useful uranium to be used as nuclear fuel is quickly being depleted; US reserves of uranium have virtually disappeared, and reserves elsewhere in the world are estimated to last no more than 100 years.

The supposed cost benefits of nuclear power are completely misrepresented by the nuclear advocacy. A comparison between an existing nuclear plant and an existing coal plant, for example, would show that electricity derived from nuclear power is less costly on a per-MW basis, but power costs, as Filipino consumers have long been painfully aware, include all the costs associated with building and maintaining a power plant. The proper way to calculate comparative costs is through a formula called levelized cost of energy (LCOE), which takes into account construction costs, regulatory costs, fuel costs, available subsidies, and operating costs.

This is where nuclear power completely falls apart compared to other energy alternatives.

According to the 2018 report of Lazard (the go-to source for energy cost analysis), nuclear has a high-end LCOE of $189 per megawatt hour (MWh). Coal has an LCOE of $143/MWh; utility-scale solar of between $44/MWh and $48/MWh; and wind, $56/MWh. Of the various energy sources analyzed, only gas peaking plants and rooftop solar installations had a higher LCOE than nuclear power, at $208/MWh and $287/MWh, respectively.

And Lazard’s results may be a serious underestimate of the true cost of nuclear power. In the next installment, I’ll explain further why, despite supplying about 20 percent of the world’s electricity, nuclear power is one of the worst solutions for the Philippines, or any other country for that matter.

  • Bioenergy
28 October 2019

 – 

  • Malaysia

KUALA LUMPUR: World’s dominant palm oil producers, Indonesia and Malaysia contribute 87 per cent of the global supply — creating a duopoly market of the most versatile edible oil.

Indonesia produces 33 million tonnes of the commodity annually, while Malaysia 19.5 million tonnes. Other players are Thailand, Columbia and Nigeria.

Palm oil contributes approximately one-fifth of the world’s production of oils and fats.

It is also the most affordable edible oil in the market, making it a much sought after commodity, giving both Malaysia and Indonesia the upper hand in the industry.

Putrajaya and Jakarta can actually collude on prices or output, a practice that is banned by the US Antitrust Law, said an industry veteran.

Such practice can result in consumers having to pay higher prices than they would in a truly competitive market.

Here, it is a free market, whereby under the rule of engagement of two suppliers, consumers will try to seek after the raw material from both sides and by doing this, they can compete to buy at the best price.

“But if you choose to buy from only one market, first of all you lose bargaining power,” he said, adding that the particular market would also have to scramble to supply more palm oil.

“And in the case of the Indian trade body’s call for its members to refrain from importing Malaysian palm oil and instead buy more from Indonesia, it will require Indonesia to export 15,000 tonnes extra palm oil (one more shipload) everyday,” said the veteran who requested anonymity.

Mumbai-based Solvent Extractors’ Association of India, which represents oilseed crushers, had recently advised its members to stop buying palm oil from Malaysia in protest against Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s criticism of New Delhi for its actions in Indian-administered Kashmir.

One should also be mindful that both Malaysia and Indonesia are going full force on their respective bio-diesel programme to manage their respective stocks.

Malaysia is set to implement its 20 per cent bio-content or B20 biodiesel programme, which is expected to boost the domestic demand for palm oil to 500,000 tonnes per annum.

Indonesia is also set to implement its B30 programme by early January 2020 to increase domestic palm oil consumption, as well as reduce energy imports.

The move will lift the country’s total biodiesel output about eight million next year.

Jakarta currently has a mandatory B20 programme and aims for B50 by 2021.

As long as the world population continues to increase, the demand for palm oil will always be there.

The industry veteran said there will always be new markets to explore and new downstream products to be produced, given the innovation and research and development conducted in the country.

Meanwhile, Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia strategist Dr Rais Hussin, in a letter to The Star, said much of Indonesia’s palm oil is owned and sold by the likes of Malaysian companies.

He raised a valid question — whether India would then buy palm oil from Indonesia without Malaysian equity and partnership.

Until now, the call to restrict Malaysian palm oil purchase came merely from traders, and Putrajaya has not received any official note on the matter from New Delhi.

And therefore, Malaysia has not brought it up with the World Trade Organisation.

Malaysia, nevertheless, has the right to seek legal redress if India were to breach the Malaysia–India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (MICECA).

The fact is, none benefits from a trade war or anything along that line.

The current spat between the United States and China is clear example of how it has fractured the global value chain.

The Tamil Nadu Congress Committee (TNCC) has voiced concern that reduction of palm oil imports from Malaysia by India would hit the migrant workers from the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu who are currently employed in Malaysia is one example of the potential implications.

“At least 500,000 people from Tamil Nadu are working in the information technology sector and restaurants in Malaysia.

“They also send almost 90 per cent of their wages to their families living in India,” TNCC president KS Alagiri said.

According to the World Bank, India tops the global list of remittance recipients, with US$79 billion (RM331 billion) last year, mainly from the Gulf nations.

Malaysia ranks in the top 20 with an average remittance of RM2 billion annually for the past three years.

Hence, in a globalised economy where migration is norm and industries have partnerships in multiple countries, it is difficult to have such trade restrictions without equal disadvantages.– BERNAMA

User Dashboard

Back To ACE