### ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUEST E D BY UNIT E D STATE S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTI ON AGENCY: AGRICULT URE INPUT Data submitted by MPOB – inputs for RFS 2 Date: June 4, 2010.

1. Age and Yield Profile s of Oil Palm in Mala y s ia

a. The survey on oil palm age profile and y i eld profile from 1 year old to more than 44 years old (Figure 1) wa s completed in 2006 and in 2009 by MPOB.

0 50 , 000 10 0, 000 15 0, 000 20 0, 000 25 0, 000 30 0, 000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 1 4 15 16 17 1 8 19 20 21 2 2 2 3 24 25 26 2 7 28 29 30 3 1 32 33 34 3 5 36 37 38 3 9 40 41 42 4 3 44 > 4 4 Ag e A r ea (ha )



### Fi gure 1.Mala ysian Oil Palm Age Profile 2009

b. Table 1 shows area of oil palm by age categories. Almost 43% of oil palm trees in Malaysia in 2009 are betwe en 9-18 years, which is the most productive years of oil palm life cycle. About 8% was immature area, while another 8% was more than 25 years old.

Table 1: Oil Palm Area according to age category, 2009 Age Category Area (ha) % < 2 372,855 7.95 3 – 8 1,132,104 24.13 9 – 13 1,137,515 24.25 14 – 18 879,224 18.74 19 – 25 804,048 17.14 > 26 365,414 7.79 T o t a l 4 , 6 9 1 , 1 6 0 1 0 0

. 0 0

### c. The survey conducted in 2006 gat hered information about the average FFB yield, (conventional variety) with respect to specific age ( F igure 2). It shows that at age 3, the average yield is 5.25 tons/ha., increasing to 21.58 tons/ha at age 8 and to 23. 28 tan/ha at age 13. The yield dec line slo wly to 18.06 tons/ha at age 25, to 17.12 and 13.09 tons/ha at age 30 and 35, respectively.

0. 00 5. 00 10. 00 15. 00 20. 00 25. 00

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 Um u rTan/ha/th



### Figure 2.Mal a ysian Oil Palm Yiel d Profil e 2009



### 2. CROP YIE L D (HISTORICAL)

a. Table 1: FFB Yield by regions 2000-2009 (tonnes/hectare)

Year Peninsular Mala y s ia Sabah Sa r a w ak Mala y s ia 2 0 0 0 1 8

. 4 4 1 9

. 4 8 1 2

. 8 3 1 8

. 3 3 2 0 0 1 1 9

. 1 7 2 1

. 0 4 1 2

. 3 7 1 9

. 1 4 2 0 0 2 1 7

. 4 5 2 0

. 5 7 1 2

. 6 5 1 7

. 9 7 2 0 0 3 1 9

. 0 2 2 1

. 3 2 1 2

. 9 1 1 8

. 9 9 2 0 0 4 1 8

. 0 5 2 1

. 4 1 3

. 9 2 1 8

. 6 0 2 0 0 5 1 7

. 6 5 2 2

. 9 9 1 4

. 6 9 1 8

. 8 8 2 0 0 6 1 8

. 7 1 2 3

. 1 1 5

. 4 8 1 9

. 6 0 2 0 0 7 1 7

. 5 9 2 3

. 0 2 1 5

. 7 1 1 9

. 0 3 2 0 0 8 1 9

. 6 3 2 3

. 0 2 1 6

. 2 2 2 0

. 1 8 2 0 0 9 1 9

. 3 6 2 1

. 1 5 1 5

. 2 9 1 9

. 2



### 2

### b. PALM OIL YIELD (HISTORICAL ) 

### S t

a

t e 2 0

0

0 2 0

0

1 2 0

0

2 2 0

0

3 2 0

0

4 2 0

0

5 2 0

0

6 2 0

0

7 2 0

0

8 2 0

0

9 P

. M a l a ysi a 3. 38 3. 54 3. 27 3. 58 3. 47 3. 40 3. 60 3. 40 3. 85 3. 86 S a b a h 3 .9

1 4 .3

3 4 .4

5 4 .5

6 4 .5

6 4 .9

1 4 .8

8 4 .8

9 4 .8

5 4 .5

2 S a r a

w

a k 2 .6

4 2 .6

2 2 .7

4 2 .7

5 2 .9

4 3 .1 7 3 .3

3 3 .3

0 3 .4

1 3 .2

4 S a b a h / Sa r a

w

a k 3 .6

4 3 .9

2 4 .0

4 4 .0

5 4 .1 1 4 .3

8 4 .3

9 4 .3

8 4 .3

8 4 .0

6 M A L A Y

S I A 3. 46 3. 66 3. 59 3. 75 3. 73 3. 80 3. 93 3. 83 4. 08 3. 93

CPO yield has increased nationally by 13.6% from 3.46 in 2000 to 3.93 in 2009. By regions, Sar a wak recorded the hi ghest increase of 22.7% compared to Peninsula (14.2% ) and Sabah (15.6%).

3. PROJECT E D OIL PALM YIELD
Projected Crop yield (tons of Fresh Fruit Bunches/ha/year): Yield Profile over productive period of palm o il life cycle of 25 years.

A g e pro f i l e of palm t r ee ( y

ears) 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5

D x P (prev i ous) 7 .53 12. 5 5 16.57 19.08 1 9

. 8 3 20.34 20.34 2 0

. 0 9 20.09 19. 9 3 19. 58 19.58 19.58 19.33 19.08 18.83 18

. 5 8 1 8. 33 18. 0 8 17.83 17.58 17. 3 3

D x P (present) 8.03 16. 3 2 22.09 25.61 2 7

. 6 2 28. 87 29.63 3 0

. 1 3 29.88 29. 6 3 29.38 28.87 28.87 28.12 27.87 27.62 27

. 3 7 2 7. 12 26. 8 7 26.62 26.37 26. 1 2

new v a r i et y clone 9.80 19. 9 1 26.95 31.24 33.7 35.22 36.15 3 6

. 7 6 36.45 36. 1 5 35.84 35. 22 35.22 34.31 34.00 33.70 33

. 3 9 3 3. 09 32. 7 8 32.48 32.17 31. 8 7

Y i e l d P r of i l e of FF B / h e c t a r e s

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 Ag eFFB(ton/ha/yr)

Dx P ( p r e v i ou s ) D x P (p re s e n t ) c l one



### 3

### Percentage change in crop yield (histori c a l vs. current) and (current vs. projected-new variety clonal material) over productive peri od of p a lm oil life cycle of 25 years is shown in table below.

A g e P r of il e of palm t r ee ( y

ears) 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5
%

chang e : pr ev iou s v s . current (D xP) 6. 6 30.0 33.3 3 4

. 2 39.3 41.9 4 5

. 7 50. 0 48.7 48.7 50.1 47.4 4 7

. 4 45.5 46.1 4 6

. 7 4 7. 3 48. 0 48.6 49.3 50.0 50.7
%

chang e : cu rren t v s . clone 22

. 0 22.0 22.0 2 2

. 0 22.0 22.0 2 2

. 0 22. 0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 2 2

. 0 22.0 22.0 2 2

. 0 2 2. 0 22. 0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0



### Based on c u rrent DxP yield and at the optimum productive cycle, the average yield is 30 tons, about 50% above the historic al y i eld and using clonal material, the average yield will top 22% over the current DxP variet y.

4. PLANTED ARE AS (HISTORICAL )

a. Oil palm area has incr eased nationally by 38% from 3.4 mil. ha in 2000 to 4.7 mil. ha in 2009. During this period, Sarawak recorded a significant growth of 154%, the highest increase compared to Penins ula (22%) and Sabah (36%).

Year P. Malaysia Sabah Sarawak Total
2000 2009 2,045,500 2,489,814 1,000,777 1,361,598 330,387 839,746 3,376,664 4,691,160 % Change 22 36 154 38

b. In terms of planted hectarage, palm covers only 14.7% of the total land area of about 32 million hec tare of which 13.2 million ha comes from Peninsular Malaysia, 7.44 mil. ha from Sabah and 12.4 million ha from Sarawak. In terms of agriculture cr ops, palm covers 46.4 % of 10.1 millio n hectares identified for agriculture devel opment, of which 40% of agricultural land is in Peninsular Malaysia, 65% in Sabah and 47% in Sarawak

.

4Ar e a (M il. Ha) % A r e a ( M il. Ha ) % A r e a (M il. Ha) % A r e a (M il. Ha) % No t S u it a b le fo r A g r i c u l t u r e 1 8. 5 5 7. 0 5

. 6 4 2

. 6 4

. 44 59

. 7 8

. 5 6 8

. 5 Ar a b l e l a nd: S u i t a b l e 1 0 .1 4 6 .2 2

. 1 1 .8 M a r g i n a l 4. 0 3 1. 3 0

. 8 3 2 Sub

‐ to t a l 1 4 .1 7 4 3

. 7 7 .5 5 7 .0 2

. 9 3 3 9 .4 3

. 8 3 0

. 6

To t a l A r e a 3 2 .4 5 1 0 0 .7 1 3 .1 6 9 9
. 5 7 .4 4 9 9
. 1 1 2
. 4 9 9
. 2 M a la y s ia P e n . M a l a y s i a S a b a h S ar aw ak

So u r

ce

s: • http://www.nati onsencyclopedia.com/Asia

‐ and

‐ Oceania/Malaysi a ‐ LOCATION

‐ SIZE

‐ .. • http://www.unccd.int/cop/repor ts/asia/national/2002/malaysia ‐ eng.pd f



### 5. HAV EST E D ARE A

a. Harvested areas (his torical) (in hectares)
Year Total Mature Immature Total 2 0 0 0 2 , 9 4 1 , 7 9 1 4 3 4 , 8 7 3 3 , 3 7 6 , 6 6 4 2 0 0 1 3 , 0 0 5 , 2 6 7 4 9 3 , 7 4 5 3 , 4 9 9 , 0 1 2 2 0 0 2 3 , 1 8 8 , 3 0 7 4 8 1 , 9 3 6 3 , 6 7 0 , 2 4 3 2 0 0 3 3 , 3 0 3 , 1 3 3 4 9 8 , 9 0 7 3 , 8 0 2 , 0 4 0 2 0 0 4 3 , 4 5 0 , 9 6 0 4 2 4 , 3 6 7 3 , 8 7 5 , 3 2 7 2 0 0 5 3 , 6 3 1 , 4 4 0 4 1 9 , 9 3 4 4 , 0 5 1 , 3 7 4 2 0 0 6 3 , 7 0 3 , 2 5 4 4 6 1 , 9 6 1 4 , 1 6 5 , 2 1 5 2 0 0 7 3 , 7 6 4 , 3 8 9 5 4 0 , 5 2 4 4 , 3 0 4 , 9 1 3 2 0 0 8 3 , 9 1 5 , 9 2 4 5 7 2 , 0 3 3 4 , 4 8 7 , 9 5 7 2 0 0 9 4 , 0 7 5 , 5 0 2 6 1 5 , 4 5 8 4 , 6 9 0 , 9 6 0

5

### b. Future Projection of Oil Palm Ar eas (hectares) in Malaysia until 20 22
Peninsular Malaysia East Malaysi a * Total - Malay s ia year m a t u r e i m m a t u r e t o t a l m a t u r e i m m a t u r e t o t a l m a t u r e immature t o t a l 2006 2,092,69 0 2007 2 , 0 9 9 , 3 8 5 2 6 2 , 6 7 2 2,362,05 7 1,665,00 4 277, 85 2 1 , 9 4 2 , 8 5 6 3 ,764,38 9 540,52 4 4 , 3 0 3 , 9 1 3 2008 2 , 1 4 9 , 4 4 4 2 6 0 , 5 7 5 2,410,01 9 1,766,48 0 311, 45 8 2 , 0 7 7 , 9 3 8 3 ,915,92 4 572,03 3 4 , 4 8 7 , 9 5 7 2009 2 , 1 9 6 , 6 4 4 2 9 3 , 1 7 0 2,489,81 4 1,879,05 8 322, 28 8 2 , 2 0 1 , 3 4 6 4 ,075,70 2 615,45 8 4 , 6 9 1 , 1 6 0 2010 2 , 2 0 3 , 8 0 0 2 9 0 , 8 2 0 2,494,62 0 1,980,80 0 342, 80 0 2 , 3 2 3 , 6 0 0 4 ,184,60 0 633,62 0 4 , 8 1 8 , 2 2 0 2011 2 , 2 9 7 , 2 0 0 2 9 0 , 3 0 0 2,587,50 0 2,003,60 0 351, 40 0 2 , 3 5 5 , 0 0 0 4 ,300,80 0 641,70 0 4 , 9 4 2 , 5 0 0 2012 2 , 3 1 7 , 2 9 0 2 9 4 , 1 9 0 2,611,48 0 2,016,80 0 362, 70 0 2 , 3 7 9 , 5 0 0 4 ,334,09 0 656,89 0 4 , 9 9 0 , 9 8 0 2013 2 , 3 4 7 , 3 0 0 2 9 2 , 1 3 0 2,639,43 0 2,015,80 0 388, 32 0 2 , 4 4 0 , 1 2 0 4 ,399,10 0 680,45 0 5 , 0 7 9 , 5 5 0 2014 2 , 3 9 0 , 8 0 0 2 9 3 , 1 0 0 2,683,90 0 2,053,30 0 397, 40 0 2 , 4 5 0 , 7 0 0 4 ,444,10 0 690,50 0 5 , 1 3 4 , 6 0 0 2015 2 , 4 3 2 , 1 0 0 2 9 6 , 1 0 0 2,728,20 0 2,075,10 0 411, 20 0 2 , 4 8 6 , 3 0 0 4 ,507,20 0 707,30 0 5 , 2 1 4 , 5 0 0 2016 2 , 4 6 5 , 2 0 0 2 9 9 , 5 0 0 2,764,70 0 2,120,30 0 426, 00 0 2 , 5 4 6 , 3 0 0 4 ,585,50 0 725,50 0 5 , 3 1 1 , 0 0 0 2017 2 , 4 9 7 , 2 0 0 3 0 5 , 8 1 0 2,803,01 0 2,152,00 0 433, 00 0 2 , 5 8 5 , 0 0 0 4 ,649,20 0 738,81 0 5 , 3 8 8 , 0 1 0 2018 2 , 5 3 2 , 8 0 0 3 0 4 , 5 0 0 2,837,30 0 2,249,40 0 437, 80 0 2 , 6 8 7 , 2 0 0 4 ,782,20 0 742,30 0 5 , 5 2 4 , 5 0 0 2019 2 , 5 3 0 , 2 0 0 3 0 4 , 9 8 0 2,803,01 0 2,278,60 0 445, 10 0 2 , 7 2 3 , 7 0 0 4 ,808,80 0 750,08 0 5 , 5 5 8 , 8 8 0 2020 2 , 5 3 1 , 2 5 0 3 0 0 , 7 6 0 2,837,30 0 2,315,20 0 455, 10 0 2 , 7 7 0 , 3 0 0 4 ,846,45 0 755,86 0 5 , 6 0 2 , 3 1 0 2021 2 , 5 8 6 , 4 9 0 2 5 0 , 8 1 0 2,837,30 0 2,349,80 0 420, 50 0 2 , 7 7 0 , 3 0 0 4 ,936,29 0 671,31 0 5 , 6 0 2 , 3 1 0 2022 2 , 6 0 6 , 9 0 0 2 3 0 , 4 0 0 2,837,30 0 2,398,90 0 371, 40 0 2 , 7 7 0 , 3 0 0 5 ,005,80 0 601,80 0 5 , 6 0 2 , 3 1 0 * covers Sab a h and Saraw a k



### Due to limited land av ailability for agricul ture developm ent it is projected that the total area under oil palm will be restri cted to 5.6 million hectares by 2022.

6OIL PALM LANDUSE 2002-2003 AND 2008-20092002 - 20032008 - 20092002 - 20032008 - 200982002 -20032008-20099

### OIL PALM LANDUSE STATISTICS based on Remote Sensing
Area of oil palm (ha) Region 2002-2003 2008-2009 Peninsular Malaysia 2,320,938 2,503,682 Sabah 1,069,694 1,340,317 Sarawak 420,844 1,167,173
Total 3,811,476 5,011,172

Note:
• Satellite image Landsat was used for 2002-2003 and SPOT 10 for 2008-2009

• Normally areas detected by remote sensing (RS) are higher by 5-10% because areas taken by RS are inclusive of unregistered and unplanted areas (roads, drains, offices, quarters etc).

• Official land use for pa lm oil (as published by MPOB) in 2009 was 4.69 million hectares.

### 6. FERTILIZE R APPLICATION WITH IN THE OIL PALM INDUST R Y

.
a. Table 1: Fertilizer us age and soil carbon Categor y 2 0 1 0 (kg/ha/ y r) 2022 (kg/ha/ y r) I m p r o v e m e n t S o u r c e / assumption Fertilizer Use Nitrogen 99.9 kg N * 72.2 (MPOB Data based on LCA study) 76 kg N 24% improvement (2% per year) due to improvement in management practices (utilization of EFB, POME, leguminuos cover and Bioc har) *IFA (2006/2007);Use d in final RFS2

Phosphorous 35.7 kg P 2 

### O 5 

### * 58 kg P 2 

### O 5 

### (MPOB Data based on LCA study) 27.1 kg P 2 

### O 5 

### 24% improvement (2% per year) due to improvement in management practices (utilization of EFB, POME, leguminuos cover and Bioc har and accumulation from the previous years) *IFA (2006/2007);Use d in final RFS2

Potassium 234.9 kg K 2 

### O* 238 kg K 2 

### O (MPOB Data based on LCA study) 178.5 kg K 2 

### O 24% improvement (2% per year) due to improvement in management practices (utilization of EFB, POME, leguminuos cover and Bioc har) *IFA (2006/2007);Use d in final RFS2

Soil C 40 kg C/ha 41kg C/ha 3rd Generation 2.40%, build up of below ground root biomass. Khalid (20 09) Per Comm. and Chan, K W (2009) Soil and Carbon sequestration:

11

### b. Good Agr onomic Pr actice: Nutrient Recy cling to Reduce Fertilizer Inputs

• In 2001, M P OB has introduced an innov ative technique of plant ing oil palm during replanting.

• The technique is to plant oil palm s eedlings into the residue row of old palm biom ass ( Figure 3 ).

Figure 3: Innovative Re planting Technique - Young Palms Planted into Residue Row of Old Palm Biomass

• A large amount of biomass availa ble during replanting contains signific ant amount of nutrient, which c an be recycled to the succ eeding young palms.

c. Field Evaluation

• A field trial on nutrient recycling was conducted over a five-year period in Rengam Estate, Kluang, J ohor. The soil type is Typi c P a l

eudul t and known as Rengam Series, an inland s edentary soil from granitic parent materials.

• The trials results of five year ol d palms under two different rates of fertilizer i.e. 100% (Agronomic highes t rate) and 50% rates are shown in Tables 3 to 5

.

12

### Table 2: Quantit y of fertilizer at agronomic highest ra te Year (kg palm -1 

### ) Fertilizer 1 2 3 4 5 S O A 1

. 0 0 1

. 5 0 2

. 0 0 3

. 0 0 4

. 0 P R 1

. 0 0 1

. 5 0 2

. 0 0 2

. 5 0 2

. 5 0 M O P 0

. 5 0 1

. 0 0 1

. 5 0 3

. 0 0 3

. 5 0 K i e s e r i t e 0

. 5 0 1

. 0 0 1

. 5 0 1

. 5 0 2

. 0 0



### Table 3: Leaf nutrient cont ents of 5-y ear old palm s a t different rates of fertilizer Nutrient Content (%) Fertilizer Ra tes* N P K C a M g 1 0 0 % 2

. 8 9 0

. 1 6 0 1

. 2 5 0

. 6 8 0

. 4 2 5 0 % 2

. 8 5 0

. 1 5 9 1

. 3 0 0

. 6 2 0

. 4 1 LSD (0.05) 0.34 0.014 0.16 0.09 0.06 Note: * Fertilizer rates wi th respect to Table 2

.


### Table 4: Vegetative grow th of 5- y e ar old palms at different rates of fertilizer
Fertilizer Ra tes* Frond Length (cm) Total Leaf Area (m 2 

### ) Frond Dry Wt (kg) Palm Height (cm) 100% 4 7 4

. 3 3 6

. 3 3 2

. 5 0 7 6

. 5 5 50% 4 7 9

. 1 3 5

. 9 5 2

. 7 1 7 5

. 6 8 LSD (0.05) 3 7

. 2 1 0

. 9 2 0

. 5 6 2 4

. 6 7 Note: * Fertilizer rates wi th respect to Table 2

.


### Table 5: FFB y i elds* * for three y e ar s harvest under tw o differe n t rates of fertilizer FFB (t ha -1 

### yr -1 

### ) Bunch No. Palm -1 

### yr -1 

### Bunch Wt. (kg) Fertilizer R a t e s * Y e a r 1 Year 2 Year 3 Y ear 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
100% 4.51 7.58 16.82 8.97 12.08 15.58 3.38 5.68 9.74 50% 5.30 8.45 20.29 9.21 11.90 16.86 3.92 6.40 10.71 LSD (0.05) 1.89 2.89 4.29 2.39 3.80 4.13 0.70 1.47 1.62 Note: * Fertilizer rate s with respe c t to Table 2

. ** Yield recording started at 30 months after field planting.



### • The palm performance of five y ears old palm planted using innovativ e replanting technique ( Figure 4 ) and the statistics in Table 5 suggests that reduction o f fertilizer by 50% from agronomic highes t rate did not affect oil palm yield production.

13

### • The oil pa lm fertilizer recommendati on for the innov ative techn i que is shown in T able 6

.

Figure 4: Five Year Ol d Palms Planted under Innov a tive Replanting Technique are as good as Palm s Planted under Standard Estate Practice
Table 6: reduction in fertilizer ra te of oil palm adopting innovative replanting technique Year (kg palm -1 

### )

F e r t i l i z e r 1 2 3 4 5 S O A 0

. 5 0 0

. 7 5 1

. 0 0 1

. 5 0 2

. 0 P R 0

. 5 0 0

. 7 5 1

. 0 0 1

. 2 5 1

. 2 5 M O P 0

. 2 5 0

. 5 0 0

. 7 5 1

. 5 0 1

. 7 5 K i e s e r i t e 0

. 2 5 0

. 5 0 0

. 7 5 0

. 7 5 1

. 0 0



### Benefits

• Oil palm growth and FFB producti on were not affected by 50% reduction o f fertilizer rate fr om the normal es tate rate.

• Besides reduction in cost of production, les s fertilizer application would at the same time minimise impact on the environment.

Conclusion
Oil palm biomass available during replant ing contains significant amount of nutrients which can be recycled to t he su cceeding young palms. After five years of planting, the i nnovativ e replanting technique of oil palm c ould reduc e

14

### chemical f e rtilizer inp u ts by 50% wit hout affecting the growth and yie l d of succeeding oil palms.

7. OIL PALM BIOMASS UTILISATION On the average, the distribution of t he biomass (per hectare, dry weight) would be as follows:

• Empty Fruit Bunches (EFB) (1.55 tonnes)

• Oil Palm Trunks (OPT) (74.48 tonnes),

• Oil Palm Fronts (OPF) (10.40 tonnes),

• mesocarp fibers (1.63 tonnes)

• kernel shells (0.94 tonnes).

By 2020 it is estimated that about 5.6 million hectares will b e planted with oil palm. Bas ed on the above as sumptions, the estimated biom ass available would be as follows (based on the 4% replanting rate):

• EFB (8.68 mill tonnes) ,
• OPT (16.68 mill tonne s),

• OPF (2.33 mill tonnes) ,
• Mesocarp fibres (9.13 mill tonnes)

• Kernel she l ls (5.26 mill tonnes).

Indirectly, should we calculate the av aila b ility of the biomass b a sed on p e r tonne FFB (10.59 dry wt per hectare), the ratios would be as follows: EF B (0.15 tonnes), OPT (0.063 tonnes), OPF (0.039 tonnes), mesocarp fibres (0.154 tonnes) and kernel shells (0.016 tonnes).

As far as for the EFB, the pattern of the utilization in 2020 would be likely to be domin ated for the bio-fertilize r and b i o- e nergy sour ces. Currently, from the 415 o il p a lm mills in Malays ia, mo re than 50% has ventured into th e production of bio-compost of bio-fertilizer and this number would be increas ed by 2020 perhaps up to 80%. This num ber also would be changed once th e

15

### energy Ac t has been revised (electricity pricing) in which t he mills c an produce the electricity from the bi omass and biogas and supply it to the grid.

The bio-energy also can be produced fr om the mesocarp fibres and palm kernel shells. Other i ndustries that are anticipated to be demanding for the EFB are t he Medium Density Fibre Board (MDF) and pulp industries

. Currently in Sabah for exam ple, Eco-pulp has commis s i oned a pulp plant that could produce 25,000 tonnes of pulp per year (estim ated from 12 5,000 tonn es of EFB). This ca pac ity wi ll be increased in the future . Another industry that will be demanding for the EFB is the MD F. Currently there are about 14 MDF plants in Malaysia producing ab o u t 1.2 million meter cube, which is about 5% if wood based produc ts exports. With the depleting of the rubber-wood and other tropical wo od so urces, we are antic ip ating the in dustry to be utiliz ing t h e oil palm biomass, parti cularly t he EFB in their production lines.
The demand of the OPT for palm plyw ood industry is anticipated to be increasing. In the IMP3 (Industrial Ma ster Plan) for 2006-2010, the export of the timber products would be targeted to grow at an annual rate of 6.4%, to reach RM53 billion by 2010. Ply w ood shar es around 28.5% of the total value. With the constraint to use raw timber in the wood products in the near future, there would be a tremendous growth of palm plywood industry by 2020.

Examples of the some the plywo od compan ies/mills using OPT as raw material are:
Compan y Capacit y ( m 3/mth) OPT used (18 ft)/mth 1. Central Kedah, Sungai Petani 6 0 0

- 6 5 0 1 5 0 0

- 2 0 0 0
2. Bintang Plywood, Kluang Johor 1 3 0 0

- 1 5 0 0 5 0 0 0

- 5 5 0 0
3. Nippon Palm, Kluang, Johor 1 0 0 0

- 1 5 0 0 2 0 0 0

- 2 5 0 0

16

### By 2020, it is also anticipated that the OPT and OPF would be limited f o r furniture applications because most of the material would returned back to the field as the fertilizer s ource to the soil. The OPF wo uld be ma intained in the field also as the carbon source.

8. Use of biomass and biogas fo r renew a ble energ y pr ojects

a. Government Incentives for Rene w a ble Energy Projects 1. Pioneer Status – 100% tax exemption for 10 years or Investment Tax Allowanc e – 100% tax exemption for 5 year s. 2. Sales Tax Exemption 3. Import Tax Exemption 4. Tax Exem ption from Certifi ed Emissions Reductions (Carbon Credits) for CDM proje c ts. 5. RM 1.5 billion Green Technology Fund. Soft loans up to RM 10 millio n (technolo g y users) and up to RM 50 million (Technology provider s) at 2% interest rate fo r green technology projects.
b. The list of projects under SREP (Small Renewabl e Energy Power Programme – Grid Conn ection) and list of CD M (Clean Deve lopment Mechanism ) Projects (Grid and Off-Grid) electricity supply and bio-compost projects are shown in the appendix 1.

179. METHANE TRAPPING AND AVOIDANCE AT PALM OIL MILLSYear2010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022+ Incentives/NoMandate5101520304050607080909090* Methane Trapping(% of Mills)+Mandate from 1 Jan20165101525407090909090909090Incentives/NoMandate013571010101010101010** MethaneAvoidance (% ofMills)Mandate from 1 Jan2016013681010101010101010Note:* Methane Trapping entails generating biogas which contains methane from the palm oil mill effluent. The biogas can beflared or used as fuel to generate steam or electricity.** Methane avoidance entails recovering the solids from thepalm oil effluent so that there is no anaerobicdigestion and therefore no methane emission. The recovered solids maybe used as animal feed, food andfertilizer.+ Two alternative scenarios are given for each of the above:- The first scenario is with incentives but no mandatory implementation.- The second scenario is with incentives and with mandatory methane trapping/methane avoidance in 2016.

### 10. By-products – glycerine (appendix 2)

11. Peat-land characteristic and cla ssification in Malaysia and the SEA region (appendix 3). 12: Copy of MPOB licenses to carry out various activities within the oil palm industry (appendix 4).