Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Palm Oil 

Production

Literature review and proposals from the RSPO 

Working Group on Greenhouse Gases 

Final report 

November 2009 

Document prepared by: 
Table of contents 

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 4

2 GHG emissions of palm oil production – literature review .......................................... 6

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6

2.1.1 Scope of the literature review ....................................................................................... 6

2.1.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 6

2.2 Results -qualitatively .................................................................................................... 7

2.2.1 Type of documents ....................................................................................................... 7

2.2.2 Categories of emissions ................................................................................................ 7

2.2.3 Units of calculation ....................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Emissions arising from operations during oil palm growing and FFB processing ....... 8

2.3.1 Emissions related to the use of fossil fuels for plantation internal transport and 

machinery ..................................................................................................................... 9

2.3.2 Emissions related to the use of artificial fertilizers ....................................................... 9

2.3.3 Emissions related to the use of fuels in the palm oil mill, and the use palm oil mill byproducts (excluding POME) ....................................................................................... 10

2.3.4 Emissions from POME ............................................................................................... 11

2.4 Emissions arising from changes in carbon stocks....................................................... 13

2.4.1 General ........................................................................................................................ 13

2.4.2 Emissions from removal of aboveground and belowground biomass ........................ 13

2.4.2.1 Forest .......................................................................................................................... 13

2.4.2.2 Grassland .................................................................................................................... 14

2.4.2.3 Emission from biomass decomposition ...................................................................... 14

2.4.2.4 Emissions from biomass burning ................................................................................ 15

2.4.2.5 Carbon stocks on other forest landscapes ................................................................... 15

2.4.3 Avoided emission through accumulation of biomass at palm oil plantations ............. 16

2.4.4 Emissions from peat decomposition ........................................................................... 18

2.4.5 Net changes in carbon stocks ..................................................................................... 20

2.4.5.1 Carbon stock balances ................................................................................................ 20

2.4.5.2 Carbon payback times ................................................................................................. 21

2.5 Overall emission of palm oil production .................................................................... 22

2.5.1 The OPCABSIM model .............................................................................................. 22

2.5.2 Summary of emissions from palm oil production ....................................................... 24

2.5.3 GHG emissions from further transport and refinery ................................................... 25

2.6 Summary of conclusions ............................................................................................. 26

3 Proposals by the GHG Working Group ...................................................................... 27

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 27

3.2 Developing a framework to reduce GHG emissions from palm oil production ......... 27

3.2.1 Literature study findings on carbon stocks (excluding peat) ...................................... 28

3.2.2 Literature study findings on peat ................................................................................ 28

3.2.3 Developing a standard for the carbon intensity of palm oil ........................................ 29

3.3 Proposals for amendments of RSPO Principles & Criteria ........................................ 30

3.3.1 Plans to reduce GHG emissions .................................................................................. 30

3.3.2 Fossil fuel use ............................................................................................................. 31
3.3.3 Fertiliser use ................................................................................................................ 31

3.3.4 Palm oil mill residues ................................................................................................. 32

3.3.5 POME ......................................................................................................................... 33

3.3.6 Water management on plantations on peat ................................................................. 33

3.4 Other conclusions recommendations .......................................................................... 34

3.5 Procedural aspects ...................................................................................................... 35

4 References ................................................................................................................... 36
 4 

1 Introduction 

When the RSPO Principles & Criteria were first agreed in 2005, greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions from palm oil production were not a subject of particular attention within RSPO. 

Since then, a number of developments have changed this. 

Firstly, the attention for climate change in general has increased, and more specifically the 

contribution of certain land use (changes) to climate change. A report by Delft Hydraulics [9], 

quantifying GHG emissions from peatlands in Indonesia, has put particular focus on the 

(perceived) contribution of the palm oil industry to climate change. 

Secondly, there is an increasing demand for GHG emission information of products placed on 

the market. For example, European governments under the Renewable Energy Directive 

request GHG emission information of biofuels placed on the market, while international 

retailers are increasingly studying the ‘carbon footprint’ of the ingredients they use in food and 

cosmetics. In 2005, these developments were just about to start. 

Thirdly, it has become increasingly apparent that there is a relation between the two foregoing 

developments: additional palm oil demand, i.a. driven by new biofuel markets, increases 

pressure on land for extension of plantation acreage, which may (indirectly) result in 

additional GHG emissions from land use change. 

Given these recent and ongoing developments, RSPO has concluded that sustainability of palm 

oil production can only be claimed when explicit consideration has been given to aspects of 

greenhouse gas emissions. GHG emissions shall get a clear position in the RSPO Principles & 

Criteria. The central question is: how and to what extent? 

To provide an answer to this question, RSPO in March 2009 have established a Working Group 

on Greenhouse Gases (WG-GHG), for which Brinkmann Consultancy was appointed as 

independent facilitator. The Terms of Reference of the Working Group have been included in 

Appendix I. The composition of the Working Group has been detailed in Appendix II. 

Procedure followed by the GHG-WG 

Between March and May 2009, Brinkmann Consultancy executed an extensive literature study 

on GHG emissions from palm oil production. Working Group members from all RSPO 

constituencies provided input to this study. The results of this study have formed the basis for 

further discussions in the GHG-WG. 

In May 2009, the GHG-WG held its first meeting. The GHG-WG’s preliminary proposals arising 

from this meeting, were summarized in the report ‘Greenhouse gas emissions from palm oil 

production – literature review and recommendations for amendment of RSPO Principles & 

Criteria’, dated 6 July 2009. This document was then published on the RSPO website for a 

consultation period of 60 days (10 July – 10 September 2009), although there were some 

objections particularly from producers’ representatives in the GHG-WG. 
 5 

During the 60 days consultation period, some 25 stakeholders –both RSPO members and nonRSPO members- presented their views through written submissions (available on 

www.rspo.org). In addition, two well-attended stakeholder meetings were held in Jakarta (7 

September 2009) and Sibu, Sarawak (9 September 2009). The inputs received during the public 

consultation were reviewed by the GHG-WG during its second meeting on 10 and 11 May 

2009. 

During its second meeting, the Working Group again discussed the literature review. Most 

GHG-WG members felt that the literature was comprehensive and provided an objective 

overview of the issues pertaining to GHG emissions from the production and processing of 

palm oil. However, a group of stakeholders led by GAPKI and MPOA expressed their opinion 

that further work was needed. 

Also during the second meeting, the GHG-WG discussed several proposals to the Executive 

Board, which have been summarized in this report. These proposals supersede the 

(preliminary) proposals summarized in the public consultation document of 6 July 2009. 

After the public consultation meeting in Jakarta, Indonesian producers felt that their ability to 

respond to the public consultation document had been seriously hindered by the absence of a 

translated version, and also because translation had not been available during (the first part 

of) the consultation meeting. 

The president of the Executive Board then decided to extend the consultation period with a 

period of 20 days, until 30 September 2009. Due to time constraints, views submitted during 

the extended period of public consultation were not reviewed by the GHG-WG within its 

current mandate, but were directly submitted to the Executive Board. The Executive Board, on 

the basis of the GHG-WG’s proposals and the additional input to the public consultation, will in 

October/November 2009 decide on further steps. 

About this document 

This document comprises two main elements: Chapter 2 includes the results of the literature 

review on GHG emissions from palm oil production, executed by Brinkmann Consultancy with 

inputs from the GHG-WG. Chapter 3 includes the GHG-WG’s proposals to the RSPO Executive 

Board. 

N.B. As stated above, the proposals outlined in this document supersede the draft proposals 

outlined in the document ‘Greenhouse gas emissions from palm oil production – literature 

review and proposals for amendment of RSPO Principles & Criteria’, dated 6 July 2009. 
 6 

2 GHG emissions of palm oil production – 

literature review 

2.1 Introduction 

2.1.1 Scope of the literature review 

Numerous studies have looked into GHG emissions related to the development and operations 

of oil palm plantations, processing of fresh fruit bunches at palm oil mills, as well as further 

transport, processing and end-uses of palm oil and palm oil derived products. In the 

framework of the GHG Working Group, a significant number of studies have been reviewed 

(Refer to Chapter 4 ‘Reference list’). 

The primary objective of the literature review has been to identify major categories of GHG 

emissions during palm oil production, specify orders of magnitude for these emissions, and 

highlight any (scientific) (un-)certainties as regards the (level of) GHG emissions from palm oil 

production. The literature review is meant to provide a solid, objective basis for discussions on 

how to include GHG emissions in the framework of RSPO Principles & Criteria. 

As RSPO Principles & Criteria focus primarily on palm oil production (and do not cover 

sustainability aspects of further downstream transport and processing of palm oil products) 

the literature review has concentrated on GHG emissions related to growing oil palms, and 

processing of FFB in palm oil mills. GHG effects of further downstream transport and 

processing of palm oil products have not been considered, neither has a full LCA 

(methodology) for certain end-products been developed. 

Both GHG emissions related to operations of existing plantations, as well as emissions related 

to land use change when developing new plantations, have been considered (refer to 2.2.2 for 

more details). 

2.1.2 Methodology 

GHG Working Group members have submitted publications which they thought would be 

relevant in the framework of the literature review. Additional literature has been collected by 

Brinkmann Consultancy through internet search and via scientific libraries. 

The literature collected and reviewed does not provide full coverage of all existing, potentially 

relevant, publications. However, the author believes that the review covers all relevant issues 

in relation to GHG emissions from palm oil production, and is a good representation of the 

different scientific opinions on the subject. 

As stated in Chapter 1, most GHG-WG members felt that the literature was comprehensive and 

provided an objective overview of the issues pertaining to GHG emissions from the production 

of palm oil. However, a group of stakeholders led by GAPKI and MPOA expressed their opinion 

that further work was needed. 

The main findings of the literature review have been summarized in this Chapter. 
 7 

2.2 Results -qualitatively 

2.2.1 Type of documents 

The documents reviewed vary considerably in scope and size, and can be categorized as 

follows: 

• Life Cycle Assessments (LCA), to assess the GHG effects of a specific palm oil 

application, e.g. a well-to-wheel analysis for palm oil biodiesel (Refer e.g. to [33]). This 

includes also studies which have been carried out for the development of ‘CO2-tools’ 

by various European governments (Refer e.g. to [8], [27], [59], [41]); 

• Studies which focus primarily on changes in carbon stocks, when palm oil plantations 

replace other land uses (Refer e.g. to [9], [22] and [33]); 

• Studies which focus on environmental impacts, including GHG emissions, of operations 

at oil palm plantations and palm oil mills (Refer e.g. to [64]); 

• Other studies (Refer e.g. to [19] and [20]). 

Studies have been executed by scientists and researchers from various universities, research 

institutions and consultancy firms, primarily in South-East Asia and Europe. In addition, 

plantation industries, downstream palm oil processors/users, NGOs and governments, have 

commissioned and/or executed studies. 

2.2.2 Categories of emissions 

In literature, GHG emissions from palm oil production have generally been categorised as 

follows [3], [41], [44]: 

1. Emissions arising from operations during oil palm growing and FFB processing, or more 

precisely: 

1a.Emissions related to the use of fossil fuels for plantation internal transport 

and machinery; 

1b. Emissions related to the use of fertilizers; 

1c. Emissions related to the use of fuels in the palm oil mill, and the use of 

palm oil mill by-products; 

1d. Emissions from Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME). 

2. Emissions arising from changes in carbon stocks, during the development of new 

plantations, and during the operations of plantations. This includes in particular 

changes in aboveground and underground biomass and soil organic matter (including 

peat). 

The first category, emissions from operations, is discussed in Section 2.3. The second category, 

emissions from changes in carbon stocks, is discussed in Section 2.4. 

In addition to the above specified categories of emissions, ‘GHG emissions from indirect land 

use change’ are regularly debated in the public domain, particularly in relation to biofuels 

(refer to Box 1 below). The GHG-WG has acknowledged the relevance of this category of GHG 

emissions, but has concluded that there is still scientific lack of clarity how GHG emissions from 

indirect land use change can be quantified, and how they can be dealt with in the framework 

of a biomass sustainability certification scheme such as RSPO. As the focus here is on emissions 
 8 

which can directly be attributed to the RSPO unit of verification, GHG emissions from indirect 

land use have not been studied in detail. 

The GHG-WG recommends that RSPO will closely follow developments in science and policies 

towards measuring and attributing GHG emissions from indirect land use change, and 

reconsider the issue once conclusions have been reached. 

Box 1 GHG emissions from indirect land use change 

Indirect land use change occurs if the use of palm oil from an established plantation for biofuel purposes 

leads to an establishment of new plantations on agricultural land. The crops cultivated on that land are 

‘outcompeted’ and subsequently displaced to other areas, i.e. ‘leaking’ from agricultural land into 

natural forests, for example. This indirect land use change may result in significant GHG emissions, as a 

result of changes in carbon stocks. 

Policy makers are investigating possibilities to quantify GHG emissions from indirect land use change,

and how these shall be included in carbon balance/LCA methodologies. For example, the EU in Article 

19.5 of the Renewable Energy Directive [12] states that: ‘The Commission shall, by 31 December 2010, 

submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council reviewing the impact of indirect land-use 

change on greenhouse gas emissions and addressing ways to minimize that impact. The report shall, if 

appropriate, be accompanied by a proposal, based on the best available scientific evidence, containing a 

concrete methodology for emissions from carbon stock changes caused by indirect land-use changes, 

ensuring compliance with this Directive, in particular Article 17 (2).’

 

2.2.3 Units of calculation 

In literature, GHG emissions from palm oil production are either expressed ‘per hectare’ or 

‘per tonne CPO/FFB’. A ‘per hectare’ basis is generally applied for emissions related to land use 

change and/or change in carbon stocks. A ‘per tonne CPO/FFB’ basis is generally applied for 

emissions related to operations at the plantation and mill. 

In the literature review, both expressions have been quoted. However, for the purpose of 

comparing orders of magnitude, emissions ‘per hectare’ have also been converted to a ‘per 

tonne CPO/FFB’ basis. For this conversion, a yield range of 3.2 - 4 tonnes CPO/ha*yr has been 

applied. 

2.3 Emissions arising from operations during oil palm growing and FFB 

processing 

This section discusses emissions arising from operations during oil palm growing and FFB 

processing: 

• Emissions related to the use of fossil fuels for plantation internal transport and 

machinery (2.3.1); 

• Emissions related to the use of fertilizers (2.3.2); 

• Emissions related to the use of fuels in the palm oil mill, and the use of palm oil mill byproducts (2.3.3); 

• Emissions from Palm Oil Mill Effluent (2.3.4). 
 9 

2.3.1 Emissions related to the use of fossil fuels for plantation internal transport and 

machinery 

Fossil fuel use comprises mainly diesel consumption in agricultural machinery used in nursery, 

maintenance, harvesting, collection procedures, milling, and other estate internal transport. 

Studies vary in the assumptions of how much diesel is required per hectare or per tonne of 

product. 

Nikander [41] has estimated diesel consumption at 58-70 liters per hectare per year, and CO2-

eq emissions at 3.1 kg CO2-eq per liter diesel, equaling 180-217 kg CO2-eq/ha*yr. 

Damen and Faaij [7] have assumed that all transport within the plantation takes place with 5 

tonnes capacity trucks, with a diesel consumption of 1.8 MJ/tkm, and an average distance 

from harvesting to mill of 10 km (20 ton CO2-eq/TJ diesel). At their assumed FFB yield of 20 

tonnes/ha this leads to a CO2-eq emission of 36 kg CO2-eq/ha*yr. This figure only covers FFB 

transport from harvest to mill. 

Wood and Corley [61] have estimated energy use for vehicles and machinery at 4.7 GJ/ha*yr. 

Assuming a specific emission of 0.086 kg CO2-eq/MJ diesel, this would however result in an 

annual emission of 404 kg CO2-eq/ha*yr. 

ERIA [11] have estimated diesel consumption at the plantation stage at 33 liter/ha*yr, for 

transport from plantation to mill at 1.5 liter per tonne FFB, and at the palm oil mill at 0.45 

litre/tonne FFB. The study has assumed an average FFB yield of 19 tonne FFB/ha*yr, so that 

the overall diesel consumption equals 70 liters per hectare per year. The study has quoted a 

specific emission of 3.208 kg CO2-eq/ton diesel, resulting in an emission of 225 kg CO2-

eq/ha*yr. 

Conclusion: Based on the literature review, GHG emissions related to the use of diesel 

plantation internal transport and machinery, are in the order of 180-404 kg CO2-eq/ha*yr. 

Based on a yield range of 3.2-4 tonne CPO/ha*yr, GHG emissions per tonne of CPO are in the 

order of 45-125 kg CO2. 

2.3.2 Emissions related to the use of artificial fertilizers 

Common palm oil fertilizer inputs comprise nitrogen fertilizers (either ammonium nitrate, 

ammonium sulphate, urea and/or ammonium chloride), phosphate rock (P2O5), potassium 

chloride (K2O) and kieserite (MgO). Literature references on quantities of fertilizer inputs have 

been summarized in Table 2.1. 

Table 2.1 Fertiliser inputs in oil palm plantations, according to various studies. 

Input Damen and Faaij [7] Corley [5] Nikander [41] ERIA [11] 

Ammonium nitrate (kg N/ha/yr) 100 - 96-100 93 

Ammonium sulphate (kg N/ha/yr) -- 88.2 - - 

Phosphate rock (kg P2O5/ha/yr) 45 34.6 28-45 114 

Potassium chloride (kg K2O/ha/yr) 205 252.0 172-205 200 

Kieserite (kg MgO/ha/yr) 50 39.2 33-48 27 

In the framework of a LCA study [4], Chen has calculated fertilizer inputs on a per tonne CPO 

basis. His figures are – converted to a per ha basis- in the same order of magnitude as the 

figures specified in Table 2.1. 
 10 

GHG emissions related to the use of fertilizers in palm oil plantations comprise of two 

elements [7], [10], [11] [41], [44]: 

• Emissions which occur during the production and (international) transport of 

fertilizers, in particular due to the use of fossil fuels. Emissions vary between the type 

of fertilizers, as well as country and mode of production; 

• N2O emissions which occur during the application of nitrogen fertilizer. According to 

IPCC guidelines [27] 1% N2O-N of total N applied is emitted during fertilizer application. 

The Global Warming Potential of N2O is 296 times stronger than CO2. 

Nikander [41] has estimated overall greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer and pesticide use 

between 1,086 and 1,500 kg CO2-eq/ha*yr. N2O emissions during application of nitrogen 

fertilizer have been calculated at 616 kg CO2-eq/ha*yr, which amounts to 40-60% of total 

fertilizer related GHG emissions. 

Wijbrans and Van Zutphen [59] have estimated total GHG emissions related to the use of 

chemical fertilizers at 1,409 kg CO2-eq/ha*yr. 

The default value of the greenhouse gas calculator of the UK Renewable Fuels Agency [44] is 

also in the range of 1,000 - 1,500 kg CO2-eq/ha/yr, whereby the exact value depends on the 

assumptions made as regards exact quantities and type of fertilizers. 

ERIA [11] have estimated that overall CO2-eq emissions related to the use of the fertilizer mix 

equal 17.3 kg CO2-eq/tonne FFB or, at 19 tonnes FFB/ha*yr, 330 kg CO2-eq/ha*yr. From the 

study, it is not clear why this value is so much lower than those from other references. 

Wahid et al. [56] have estimated energy use by fertilizers at 10.25 GJ/ha*yr, but do not specify 

what this figure exactly includes (production, transport, etc.). 

N.B. GHG emissions resulting from the production of pesticides used in palm oil plantations, is 

generally considered negligible in comparison to the GHG emissions from fertilizers (ref e.g. 

[38]). 

Conclusion: Based on the literature review, GHG emissions related to the use of artificial 

fertilizers and pesticides, are in the order of 1,000-1.500 kg CO2-eq/ha/yr. Based on average 

yields (3.2-4 tonnes CPO/ha*yr), GHG emissions per tonne of CPO are in the order of 250 – 

470 kg CO2-eq/tonne. 

2.3.3 Emissions related to the use of fuels in the palm oil mill, and the use palm oil mill 

by-products (excluding POME) 

The milling process requires steam, which is generated in boilers generally fuelled by fiber and 

shell. As these are both biomass streams, and boiler GHG emissions other than CO2 are 

considered negligible, the energy generation process is CO2-neutral, and largely independent 

from fossil fuels. 

Another solid residue from the palm oil mill are empty fruit bunches (EFB). These can be used 

as mulch in the plantation, be composted or landfilled, or utilized as a biofuel, each of which 

has specific GHG emission characteristics. 

Application as mulch is currently common practice. Application as mulch has the potential to 

contribute to GHG emission reduction, as it may reduce the need for artificial fertilizers, 
 11 

improve carbon sequestration in the soil and soil organic matter. However, no quantitative 

data on GHG effects are available. Like in various studies (e.g. [11], [41], [51]) it is concluded 

here that application of mulch is carbon neutral. 

Landfilling of EFB leads to methane emissions, as a result of anaerobic decomposition 

processes [43]. 

GHG emissions of further transport and treatment of palm kernels are not considered here. In 

LCA methodologies, generally part of the GHG emissions are attributed to by-products 

produced, refer to Box 2 below. However, as no full LCA is developed, this is considered less 

relevant here. 

Box 2. Allocation of emissions to by-products 

The production of Crude Palm Oil involves generation of by-products (PKO, PKM) and residues. In LCA 

methodologies, it is common to allocate the overall emissions associated with the production of the 

main product (CPO), between the main product and the by-products. Various allocation methods exist, 

including: 

1.Allocation by market prices, i.e. allocation of the emissions proportional to the market prices of the 

main product and the by-products; 

2.Allocation by energy content, i.e. allocation of the emissions proportional to the total energy content 

of the main product and the by-products; 

3.System expansion. The by-products are included in the project boundary. For each by-product, the 

baseline production processes are identified. Respectively, the emissions associated with the production 

of the by-products in the absence of the activity are included in the baseline emissions. 

4.Attributing all emissions to the main product. As a conservative approach, all emissions from 

production process are accounted as project emissions where the main product is produced. 

In this document, GHG emissions are expressed per tonne CPO, without allocating overall emissions 

between main product and by-products. As in method 4 above, this is a conservative approach, ignoring 

the fact that besides CPO other useful products are produced. 

Conclusion: Efficient re-use of palm oil mill by-products and residues saves significant 

quantities of fossil fuels. Based on the literature review, it is assumed that no net GHG 

emissions arise from the use of fuels in palm oil mills, and from the useful application of the 

palm oil mill by-products and residues. 

2.3.4 Emissions from POME 

During the milling process, wastewater is produced, which is generally referred to as palm oil 

mill effluent (POME). The wastewater is heavily polluted with biodegradable organic material, 

typically up to 80,000 mg/l COD, and needs treatment prior to discharge. 

The most common POME treatment system consists of a pond or lagoon treatment system. 

The naturally available oxygen in this system is generally insufficient to cater for all aerobic 

decomposition of the organic material in the wastewater. As a result, the decomposition turns 

anaerobic, resulting in the production of biogas, which dissolves from the ponds into the 

atmosphere. POME derived biogas consists for a significant part of methane (CH4), which 

represents a substantial GHG emission source. Most studies indicate a typical methane 

content in biogas of 65% (e.g. [56], [8], [44]). Yacob et al. ([63] and [64]), however, have 

measured lower methane contents (54% on average), which they attributed to the large 

variation in chemical properties of POME, and to the lack of operational control of the tanks. 

Wijbrans and Van Zutphen [59] have calculated that the POME methane release equals 9 

kg/tonne FFB (at 0.7 m3

 POME/tonne FFB, 28 m3 biogas/m3 POME and 65% CH4 in the biogas). 
 12 

This results in considerable extra GHG emissions of 190 kg CO2-eq per tonne FFB. The figure of 

28 m3 CH4/ m3 POME has also been mentioned by others as a ‘common practice’ figure (e.g.[8] 

and [44]). 

Nikander [41] has used a POME emissions range of 2,500 - 3,800 kg CO2-eq/ha*yr. 

ERIA [11] has specified a POME generation rate of 0.7m3/tonne FFB, 28 m3 of biogas/tonne of 

POME (with 65% CH4), and 19 tonne FFB/ha/yr. 

Yacob et al. ([63] and [64]) have calculated a methane emission of 5.5 kg CH4/tonne POME 

discharged, equaling, some 9 m3 CH4/tonne POME. This figure is significantly lower than all 

other data found in the literature review, and can most likely be attributed to the specific lay 

out of the treatment system monitored. 

In recent years, palm oil mills have applied various technologies to improve the treatment of 

POME, while also reducing methane emissions. These include technologies for biogas capture, 

which is subsequently flared, or in some cases converted to electricity/heat for local use. 

Flaring of biogas, or conversion of biogas to electricity and/or heat, results in conversion of 

methane to CO2, which is biogenic: consequently, GHG emissions are reduced with a factor 23. 

Biogas capture technologies are eligible as CDM project, thus having the potential of 

generating significant revenues through the sale of carbon credits. The efficiency of GHG 

emission reduction through biogas capture varies widely ([63] and [64]). 

Another option for improved POME treatment is to co-compost the material with EFBs, thus 

generating a high quality compost with valuable C:N ratio, while also significantly reducing 

POME discharge. Schuchardt et al. ([48] and [50]) have demonstrated that this technology has 

the potentially to significantly reduce POME quantities, while Lord et al. [35] managed to 

achieve a zero discharge of POME. 

Other technologies which contribute to reducing methane emissions from POME include 

decanters prior to pond treatment, thus removing a significant amount of suspended solids, as 

well as denitrification technologies. No literature data have been found on the practical 

applications and the efficiency of these technologies. 

Conclusion: Based on the literature review, GHG emissions from POME, are in the order of 

2,500 – 4,000 kg CO2-eq per ha*yr, or 625 – 1,467 kg CO2-eq per tonne CPO (based on a yield 

range of 3.2-4 tonnes CPO/ha). 

Various technologies have the potential to significantly reduce methane emissions from 

POME, including biogas capture, decanters, co-composting with EFB, and denitrification. 

Emission reduction efficiencies for biogas capture technologies vary considerably in practice. 

For other technologies, no quantitative data on emission reduction efficiency have been 

found. 
 13 

2.4 Emissions arising from changes in carbon stocks

2.4.1 General 

This Section reviews emissions arising from changes in carbon stocks, during the development 

of a new plantation, and during the operations of a plantation. These emissions are in 

particular related to changes in aboveground and underground biomass, as well as soil organic 

matter (including peat). 

Establishing and operating palm oil plantations may have three different impacts upon 

aboveground and belowground carbon stocks, namely [27], [19]: 

• The establishment of a plantation leads to the removal of originally present 

aboveground and belowground biomass, e.g. forest, grassland; 

• A palm plantation stores carbon through the growth of oil palms; 

• Establishing and operating oil palm plantations on peat requires ongoing drainage, 

thus causing ongoing peat oxidation. 

These impacts are discussed separately in Section 2.4.2-2.4.4. Section 2.4.5 discusses the 

overall effects of palm oil plantations on carbon stocks. 

2.4.2 Emissions from removal of aboveground and belowground biomass 

This section discusses greenhouse gas emissions which arise when original biomass present on 

land, is removed to make way for a new oil palm plantation. 

The GHG emission which results from changes in aboveground and underground biomass, 

depends on the original biomass stock present on the land, as well as the question whether 

original biomass is removed through decomposition, or through burning. 

Available literature data concentrate on biomass of intact forests and grasslands. Very limited 

data have been found on biomass stock of other land cover types typical for areas where oil 

palm is developed, such as degraded forests, logged over forests, shrub land, etc. 

Below, first the typical biomass stock for intact forests and grasslands present in areas suitable 

for oil palm development are discussed (Section 2.4.2.1 and 2.4.2.2). Secondly, GHG emissions 

from the removal of these biomass stocks, either through decomposition or burning, are 

discussed (Section 2.4.2.3 and 2.4.2.4). Finally, literature data on carbon stocks from other 

landscapes have been summarized (Section 2.4.2.5). 

N.B. Literature data concentrate on intact primary forests and grasslands. In reality, palm oil in 

many cases is established on forest lands that have been logged at least once or have been 

degraded through intensive shifting cultivation or fire. The literature references on carbon 

stocks quoted here will in many cases be too high, and effectively represent a worst-case 

scenario. Equally, grasslands may in reality have lower carbon stocks than quoted here, in 

particular when these grassland are fire dominated.

2.4.2.1 Forest 

The quantity of biomass in intact tropical rain forests varies greatly in response to the local 

environment, whereby the biomass of tropical lowland forests is usually higher than that of 

upland forests. Germer and Sauerborn [15] have done an extensive review of available data for 

above ground biomass quantities, and derive a mean value of 295 +/- 152 tonnes/ha for 
 14 

intact tropical lowland forests. This is in line with the IPCC [29] default values for above ground 

biomass of 225 tonnes/ha in continental Asia, and 275 tonnes/ha in insular Asia. 

The belowground biomass is a function of the aboveground biomass, whereby the ratio 

between the two may vary depending on local circumstances. On the basis of a large number 

of literature sources, Germer and Sauerborn [15] have derived a mean ratio of 0.18 between 

aboveground and underground biomass, which is slightly higher than the IPPC [29] default 

value. Based on the ratio of 0.18, they calculated a mean value for belowground biomass of 47 

+/- 26 tonnes/ha. 

 

Based on the above figures, Germer and Sauerborn [15] have calculated the total above and 

belowground biomass of tropical lowland forests to be 342 +/- 178 tonnes/ha. Based on their 

assumption that the carbon content of biomass is 50%, which is also in line with the IPPC 

default value, this equals a carbon stock of 171 +/-89 tonnes/ha. 

2.4.2.2 Grassland 

The grassland biomass is determined by the floristic composition, precipitation, soil properties, 

fire, wildlife and other factors. The IPCC [29] default value for above ground biomass on 

tropical savanna ranges from 4.9 tonnes/ha to 6.6 tonnes/ha, whereby a savanna is defined as 

‘vegetation formations with a predominantly continuous grass cover’. 

A review of literature on typical Imperata grassland in oil palm growing regions reveals an 

average value for aboveground biomass of 11.2 +/-7.3 tonnes/ha, which is higher than the 

IPCC range [15]. It is hypothesized that this difference in biomass reflects the usually high soil 

fertility and favorable rainfall in areas suitable for palm oil production. 

No default values for grassland belowground (root) biomass is given in the IPCC reference 

manual and studies published on grassland root biomass in humid tropics are limited. Germer 

and Sauerborn [15] have calculated a value for grassland belowground biomass of 15.5 +/-10.1 

tonnes/ha. 

Germer and Sauerborn [15] have concluded, on the basis of available data, that the biomass of 

grassland (aboveground and belowground) in oil palm suitable environments is 26.7 +/- 17.4 

tonnes/ha. Based on their assumption that the carbon content of biomass in grassland is 43%, 

this equals a carbon stock of 11.5 +/- 7.5 tonnes/ha. 

2.4.2.3 Emission from biomass decomposition 

Oil palm plantation establishment requires the removal of the existing forest or grassland plant 

cover. After clearing, the biomass is, if not burned, broken down by termites, insects and 

micro-organisms. Decomposition emits the carbon contained in the biomass into the 

atmosphere as CO2. A fraction of the carbon is released as methane through the activity of 

termites. Due to the uncertainty of the effect of clearing on termite populations and 

associated methane release, no guidance on calculation of this component in included in the 

IPCC methodology [29]. 

The CO 2 released by decomposition is estimated as a direct function of biomass volume and 

carbon content. IPCC [29] have estimated a carbon content of 50% for all carbon stocks. For 

Imperata cylindrica grassland, additional research has provided a figure of 43% [15]. 

Decomposition of cleared aboveground biomass and root biomass is a long process. After 

cutting the vegetation there is an initial rapid loss of easily decomposable root biomass, 

leaving behind a large fraction of resistant material. Germer and Sauerborn [15] have indicated 
 15 

that exact figures on timelines and percentages decomposed are unknown. However, they 

assume a complete decay of biomass within a timeframe of 25 years, leading to a total 

emission from biomass decomposition of 42.0 +/- 27.4 tonnes CO2-eq/ha grassland, and 627 

+/-326.3 tonnes CO2-eq/ha of primary forest. These emission figures are equivalent to the 

removal of a carbon stock of 11.5 +/- 6.7 tonnes C/ha of grassland, and 171 +/- 89 tonnes C/ha 

of primary forest. 

2.4.2.4 Emissions from biomass burning 

Emissions from burning the cleared vegetation depend on the degree of combustion that is 

achieved, i.e. the proportion of biomass consumed by fire. The IPCC guidelines [29] have 

stated a default combustion fraction of 50% for cleared forest biomass, while the guidelines 

also recommend to adjust the value to actual local conditions. Germer and Sauerborn [15] 

have indicated that as a result of repeated burning, some 40% of the carbon contained in 

above ground biomass from forest clearing enters the atmosphere through combustion, while 

the rest is released through decomposition, and also some of the remainder is converted into 

charcoal. 

Grassland aboveground consists mainly of inflammable material, which admits a higher 

combustion fraction than in forest clearings. The IPCC [29] has recommended general default 

values in the range from 80% to 85%, if detailed local information is not available. 

Germer and Sauerborn [15] have calculated total emissions of aboveground biomass burning 

and the decay of unburned above and belowground biomass to be 43.5 +/- 28.3 tonnes CO2-eq 

per hectare of grassland, and 648.0 +/- 337.2 tonnes CO2-eq per hectare of primary forest. 

These emission figures are equivalent to the removal of a carbon stock of 11.8 +/- 7.7 tonnes 

C/ha of grassland, and 176 +/-92 tonnes C/ha of primary forest. 

Conclusion: Based on the literature review, GHG emissions from removal of aboveground 

and underground biomass in intact primary forests are in the order of 635 +/- 330 tonne 

CO2-eq/ha. GHG emissions from removal of aboveground and underground biomass in 

tropical grasslands are in the order of 43 +/-28 tonne CO2-eq/ha. 

These figures equal a carbon stock change of 171 +/- 89 tonnes Carbon/ha for intact primary 

forests, and 11.5 +/- 7.5 tonnes Carbon/ha for grasslands. 

2.4.2.5 Carbon stocks on other forest landscapes 

Morel [39] has summarized data of above ground carbon stocks of different forested land 

covers in Sabah. She found aboveground carbon stocks of unlogged forest to be around 278 

tonnes C/ha, and aboveground carbon stocks of logged forest in the range of 101 – 158 tonnes 

C/ha, depending on the year of logging. The Sabah Forest Research Centre measured 

aboveground carbon values ranging from 51 to 84 tonnes C/ha, for high to low disturbed 

forests. 

Morel [39] has also quoted a range of biomass values reported in literature for a number of 

forested land cover types across Malaysia and Indonesia. These have been summarized in 

Table 2.2 below. 
 16 

Table 2.2 Carbon values reported for a number of forested land cover types [39]. 

Forest Type Tonnes carbon/ha 

Peninsular Malaysia 

Logged hill 90 

Forest fallow 70 

Freshwater swamp 110 

Disturbed freshwater swamp 142.5 

Borneo – Sarawak 

Mixed diterocarps-dense stocking (flat to undulating) 162.5-192.5 

Mixed dipterocarps –dense stocking (mountainous) 330-405 

Borneo – Sabah 

Lowland Dipterocarp (logged and unlogged) 32-323.9 

Borneo – Kalimantan 

Fallows (range of years since cleared) 13-25.5 

Conclusion: The carbon stocks of logged over forests, and forests with various levels of 

disturbance, show large variations and generally appear to be in between the ‘extreme’ 

values of undisturbed primary forests and grasslands, as highlighted in the previous sections. 

2.4.3 Avoided emission through accumulation of biomass at palm oil plantations 

Biomass at oil palm plantations can be categorized as follows: 

• Aboveground biomass, i.e. the oil palm trees excluding roots; 

• Belowground biomass, i.e. the oil palm tree roots; 

• Litter from oil palm trees and other vegetation; 

• Biomass of ground cover vegetation. 

According to [15], the typical biomass accumulation in tree plantations follows a curve of quick 

initial growth and thereafter a minor increase. A linear equation to calculate the carbon stocks 

as provided in ‘Good Practice Guidance for and use, land use change and forestry’ by the IPCC 

tends to underestimate actual values. 

The amount of carbon bound in oil palm plantation biomass is primarily a function of palm 

growth and the understorey. Published values on the quantity of above ground biomass on oil 

palm plantations range from 50 tonnes/ha to over 100 tonnes/ha towards the end of the 

plantations economical live span after 20-25 years.

The root biomass of oil palm increases with the aboveground biomass increase, while its 

maximum volume depends strongly on soil properties and water availability. Germer and 

Sauerborn [15] have calculated a time-averaged oil palm root biomass of 20 +/- 5 tonnes/ha. 

Biomass of ground cover vegetation decreases with palm growth and heavier shade. Germer 

and Sauerborn [15] have calculated a time-averaged total ground cover biomass of 2.5 +/- 1.0 

tonnes/ha (assuming a fast ground cover establishment with a maximum of 10 tonnes/ha and 

a linear biomass loss through increased shading to 1 tonne/ha at canopy closure at 5 years 

after planting). 

Based on the above figures, Germer and Sauerborn [15] have calculated a time-averaged total 

quantity of (above and belowground) biomass in an oil palm plantation of 82.5 +/- 26 

tonne/ha. Considering a carbon content of 40.4% for oil palm biomass (Syahrinudin, 2005, in 

[15]) and of 50% for remaining vegetation, both palms and understorey together fix a time 

averaged quantity 35.3 +/- 11.0 tonne carbon/ hectare within the economic lifespan of oil 

palm (equaling 129.3 +/- 40.3 tonne CO2-eq/hectare). 
 17 

In Figure 1, taken from [15], biomass data from 51 oil palm fields were plotted. Integration of 

the fitted equation returns a time averaged oil palm aboveground biomass of 60 +/- 20 tonnes 

biomass/ha for 25 years after planting, where the standard deviation is an estimation taking 

the large variation of the plotted data into account. 

Figure 1. Increase in biomass (tonnes/ha) as a function of palm age [13]. 

Henson [22] has also quantified carbon sequestration of oil palms in Malaysia. The mean 

carbon sequestration of an oil palm stand with a 25 year life was found to total 2.09 tonnes 

carbon/ha/yr (equaling 7.66 tonnes of CO2-eq), with the oil palms accounting for 80% of the 

mean carbon storage by the system (and ground cover, litter, and palm products accounting 

for the remainder 20%). The total carbon accumulated by the palms at the end of the cycle 

comes to 44 tonnes C/ha. The time averaged in situ standing plantation carbon stock over 30 

years was calculated to be 35.4 tonnes/ha, which is similar to the 25 year mean value of 35.3 

tonnes carbon/ha for oil palm and understorey determined by Germer and Sauerborn [15], 

and with a later value by Henson [23] namely 35.87 tonne carbon/ha. Henson has indicated 

that this figure includes litter in plantations, however that the quantity is generally limited 

compared to the overall figure (also refer to Table 5 in [25]. 

In addition to the above quantified carbon sequestration Henson ([22] and [25]) has identified 

and quantified other sources of carbon sequestration, including harvested wood products 

during forest conversion, residues left after palm tree or forest clearing, mill by-product energy 

generation and mill by-product fertiliser substitution. The potential carbon sequestration has 

been calculated at 0.615 tonnes/ha*yr. In carbon accounting methodologies [30], only the 

carbon contained in wood products can be counted as ‘sequestered’, as for the other sources 

it is assumed that it will be released within a relatively short timeframe (due to consumption 

or end of life of products). 

Morel [39], on the basis of field measurements at oil palm plantings in Sabah, calculated a 

weighed averaged value of 24.2 tonnes carbon/ha for aboveground biomass, assuming a 25 

year planting period. 

Syahranudin [49] found a value of 84.6 tonnes carbon/ha for 30 years palm oil plantings, of 

which 62.8 tonnes C/ha was aboveground biomass, and 21.8 tonnes C/ha was underground 

biomass. Jiwan and Saharjo [31] found an aboveground carbon stock of approximately 40 
 18 

tonnes/ha, for a 25 year oil palm plantings in East Kalimantan. Both studies have not calculated 

time averaged carbon stocks on oil palm plantings. 

The time averaged carbon stock of approx. 35 tonnes C/ha, as calculated by various authors 

using different approaches (see above) is lower than the figure of 55 tonnes C/ha, used by the 

IPCC as default value. No references have been found as to how the IPCC figure has been 

derived. 

Conclusion: Based on the literature review, the time averaged carbon stock in an oil palm 

plantation appears to be in the order of 35 tonnes carbon/ha, calculated over a 25-30 years 

standing period. Some literature sources quote higher time averaged figures, while others 

quote lower figures. With multiple planting cycles, the time averaged standing stock is 

expected to remain close to 35 tonnes/ha, as biomass is removed prior to re-planting. 

2.4.4 Emissions from peat decomposition 

In the past few years, CO2 emissions from drained peatlands in South-East Asia have been the 

subject of a fierce debate, which included in particular also the perceived contribution of the 

palm oil sector. This section summarises scientific certainties and uncertainties as they appear 

from reviewed international literature. 

Box 3. Definitions of peat 

There is not one single, agreed definition for peat. M. Mohamed et al. [38] provide the following 

guidance: 

‘Peat in strict definition usually refers to the accumulation of a purely one hundred percent organic 

material and the distinction between soil and vegetative accumulation is not clear (Andriesse, 1992). 

Over the years, ‘peat’ has been alternately referred to as ‘organic soils’ and Histosoils. Tie (1979) refers 

to peat as organic soils on the basis of the mass composition i.e. soils that contain at least 65% organic 

matter or conversely, less than 35% mineral content. The more recent definition of organic soils as 

adopted by the Soil Division of Sarawak is based on profile partition, i.e. soils that have 50 cm or more 

organic soil matter within 100 cm or more than twice that of mineral soil materials overlying bedrock 

within 50 cm (Teng, 1996). On the other hand, USDA defines a soil type as organic soils (or Histosols) if 

more than half of the upper 80 cm of the soil is organic or if organic soil material of any thickness rests 

on rock or on fragmented material having interstices filled with organic materials (Soil Survey Staff,

1998)’. 

Wetlands International (www.wetlands.org) provides the following definition: ‘Peat is dead organic 

material that has been formed on the spot. Peat consists of 90% water and 10% plant matter. Peat is 

formed under conditions where dead plant material is conserved for thousands of years due to a 

combination of permanent water saturation, low oxygen levels and a high level of acidity. Areas with 

peat soils are called peatlands’. 

And the Peat Society (www.peatsociety.org) provides the following definition: ‘Peat is sedentarily 

accumulated material consisting of at least 30% (dry mass) of dead organic material. A peatland is an 

area with or without vegetation with a naturally accumulated peat layer at the surface’.

Experts agree that in their natural state, tropical peatlands sequester carbon by accumulation 

in peat and biomass (e.g. [22], [15] and [54]). Drainage and degradation of primary peat forests 

results in carbon losses mainly through increased decomposition of the peat. Conversion of 

peatlands to oil palm plantations requires drainage of 60-80 cm below soil surface which thus 

enhances peat decomposition. 

CO2-emissions increase with drainage depth, with a figure of 9 tonnes of additional CO2

emission for every extra 10 cm drainage depth quoted by various authors (e.g. [61]). Given the 
 19 

range in data available for overall emissions (see below), this figure is unlikely to be very 

robust. 

Conclusion: Experts agree that in their natural state, tropical peatlands sequester carbon by 

accumulation in peat and biomass. Drainage and degradation of primary peat forests results 

in carbon losses mainly through increased decomposition of the peat. Conversion of 

peatlands to oil palm plantations requires drainage of 60-80 cm below soil surface which 

thus enhances peat decomposition. CO2-emissions increase with drainage depth. 

The database of CO2-emission values from drainage and fire is still poor. Most published CO2 

emission data for both intact and damaged peatlands stem from closed chamber 

measurements of total (soil) respiration. These measurements cover not only heterotrophic 

but also autotrophic emissions from the living roots and low vegetation. With the possible 

exception of some of the measurements of Vasander and Jauhiainen [54] and Melling et al. 

[36], none of the numerous soil respiration studies from tropical peat soils convincingly 

manages to exclude autotrophic (root) respiration or short term litter turnover. As the root 

respiration component may vary between 6 and 67% of the total CO2 emission from peat soils, 

these studies are inadequate for determining net emissions from peat oxidation. 

Melling et al. [36] have attempted to exclude root respiration by ‘trenching’, i.e. inserting a 

cylinder into the peat severing roots well before flux measurements and – without indication 

of drainage depth- arrive at heterotrophic soil flux rates from a 5 year old oil palm plantation 

of 3.4 – 4.1 kg CO2/m2

*yr. The measurement method (chamber design and sampling method) 

tends to underestimate CO2 fluxes by 15-20% [36] or more, however, which means that the 

actual flux may amount to more than 4.9 kg CO2/m2*yr. 

Other, longer term lifecycle analyses also all arrive at clearly negative values for CO2 emissions 

from peat degradation, e.g. 1.8 kg CO2/m2*yr [15], 3.7-5.5 kg CO2/m2*annum [43], 3.9 kg 

CO2/m2*yr [58], and 5.5-7.3 kg CO2/m2*yr [13]. Muruyama and Bakar [44] have estimated a 

CO2-emissions of oil palm plantations on peat of 54 tonnes CO2-eq/ha*yr, at 80 cm drainage 

depth. 

Henson [22] has concluded that there is still great uncertainty concerning the magnitude of 

peat soil carbon emissions and their relationship to drainage intensity and peat subsidence. He 

cites values of 7.2 tonnes carbon ha/yr [61] and 9.17 tonnes carbon/ha/yr [36]. This equals 

emissions of approximately 25 to 35 tonnes CO2-eq/ha*yr. 

Conclusion: There is a large variety of quantitative data on CO2-emissions from drained 

peatlands, while not all measurement methods applied are reliable in terms of quantifying 

emission from peat oxidation. Literature data vary between 18 – 73 tonnes CO2/ha*yr (4.9-

19.9 tonnes carbon/ha*yr). 

Based on a yield range of 3.2 to 4 tonnes CPO/ha, this would lead to emissions of 4.5 - 22.8 

tonnes CO2/tonne CPO. Expressed in quantities of carbon, this range equals 1.2 – 6.2 tonnes 

carbon/tonne CPO.

In relation to other relevant GHG, in particular N2O and methane, the following appears from 

literature: 

• Nitrous oxide emissions from primary and secondary forest sites vary between -63 μg 

N2O/m2*hour, and 916 μg N2O/m2*hour, with 90% of the measured values below 125 

μg N2O/m2*hour (reference). 

• Methane emissions show a clear relationship to water level with values generally low 

(and often negative) for water levels below -20 cm and higher and more variable at 
 20 

higher water levels. Methane emissions from tropical peat swamps are small due to 

the recalcitrance of the material. Restoration (rewetting) of drained peat soils is 

unlikely to lead to methane emissions that negate gains in the reduction of CO2

emissions (Wilson et al. [57]). 

Conclusion: Carbon sequestration and emission fluxes in natural peat swamps are some 

orders of magnitude smaller than the carbon losses from oxidation of drained peat soils. 

Methane and N2O emissions from both natural peatlands and from oil palm plantations on 

peat, are limited. 

Vasander and Jauhiainen [54], like a number of other authors (e.g [1]) have made an analysis 

of uncertainties and gaps in current knowledge, comprising both GHG emissions from natural 

peatlands and from drained peatlands, and urge for additional research to further quantify 

data, ‘in particular ecosystem-level measurements of gaseous carbon and other GHG fluxes 

together with process based studies in order to detail further true overall carbon balances on 

undrained, degraded and developed tropical peatland’. Despite the indicated need for further 

detailing of existing data, also these authors explicitly conclude that ‘tropical peat swamp 

forests form one of the most efficient carbon sequestering ecosystems and important carbon 

stores and that drained peat ‘results in an abrupt and permanent shift in the ecosystem carbon 

balance from sink to source’. 

Conclusion: Various authors have indicated the need to further detail data on GHG fluxes in 

both undisturbed and drained peatlands. However, this research is not expected to change 

overall Conclusions 1-3 above, but rather refine and narrow down the data ranges. 

2.4.5 Net changes in carbon stocks 

2.4.5.1 Carbon stock balances 

Based on the figures specified in sections 2.4.1-2.4.4 above, net carbon stock changes have 

been calculated for the conversion of intact primary forest and grassland to a palm oil 

plantation. For peat, only the carbon stock change caused by peat decomposition in the first 

year has been calculated. Values have been summarized in Table 2.3. 

Again, it needs to be emphasized that in practice oil palm is developed on forest land where in 

many cases carbon stock values are lower, due to previous logging or degradation, and that 

the figures mentioned are a worst-case scenario. 
 21 

Table 2.3 Carbon stock change (tonnes carbon/ha) for plantation replacing grassland and intact primary

forest. 

 Plantation 

replacing 

grassland 

Plantation replacing 

forest on mineral soil 

Plantation replacing 

forest on peat soil 

Time averaged carbon stock of 

previous land use 

11.5 +/- 7.5 171 +/-89 171 +/- 89 

Time averaged carbon stock of oil 

palm 

35 35 35 

Carbon stock loss as as result of 

one year of peat decomposition2 

0 0 4.9 to 19.9 (annually) 

Net change in carbon stock +16 to +31 -47 to -225 -52 to -245 (after 

one year) 

Notes: 

1

A positive sign indicates a net increase in carbon stock 

2

Peat decomposition is an continuous process. For illustration purposes, only the carbon stock change in 

the first year has been quantified here. Over a 25 year period, the time averaged net change in carbon

stock will range from -169 to -723 tonnes (=net loss)

Henson [22] has examined the carbon balance of oil palm cultivation and palm oil production 

in Malaysia over the 25 years from 1981 to 2005. He concludes that ‘both the present and 

other studies cited have demonstrated that the nature of land use change leading to oil palm 

planting is all important in determining whether the crop constitutes a net sink or source of 

GHG emissions and whether oil palm cultivation reduces or increases, the threat of global 

warming’. 

Conclusion: The carbon loss which occurs when tropical forest is converted to oil palm 

plantation, by far exceeds the carbon sequestration during one cycle of oil palm growth (25 

years). The overall carbon loss is further enhanced when the oil palm plantation is located on 

peat. When oil palm plantations replace grasslands, carbon sequestration exceeds carbon 

loss by conversion of grass lands. In that case, palm oil plantations act as a net carbon sink. 

2.4.5.2 Carbon payback times 

The terms ‘carbon payback times’, ‘carbon debt’ or equivalent are mostly used in discussions 

on the GHG balance (well-to-wheel assessments) of biofuels. The carbon payback time has 

been defined as the number of years required for avoided fossil fuel emissions from biofuels to 

compensate for losses in original carbon stocks during land conversion. 

Gibbs et al. [16] have calculated ‘carbon payback times’ for a number of biofuels, including 

palm oil biodiesel. The study concludes that under current conditions, the expansion of 

biofuels into productive tropical ecosystems will always lead to net carbon emissions for 

decades to centuries, while expanding into degraded or already cultivated land will provide 

almost immediate carbon savings. No foreseeable changes in agricultural or energy technology 

will be able to achieve meaningful carbon benefits if crop-based biofuels are produced at the 

expense of tropical forests. 

For biodiesel from palm oil, a carbon payback time was calculated for 30-120 years for nonepeat soils in South-East Asia, and more than 900 years for forests on peatlands. The study 

concluded that degraded lands in Southeast Asia, could provide immediate carbon benefits. 

However, it also notices that growing biofuel crops on these marginal lands may require 

significantly more land area than other regions due to relatively lower yields, and will likely 
 22 

require more energy-intensive management such as increased fertilizer application to remain 

productive. 

Fargione et al. [13] have also concluded that converting native forests to biofuel production 

results in large carbon debts: ‘converting lowland tropical rainforest in Indonesia and Malaysia 

to palm biodiesel would result in a biofuel carbon debt of 610 tonne/ha of CO2-eq that would 

take approximately 86 years to repay’.....’Converting tropical peatland rainforest to palm 

production incurs a similar biofuel carbon debt from vegetation, but the required drainage of 

peatland causes an additional sustained emission of approximately 55 tonnes of CO2-eq/ha/yr 

from oxidative peat decomposition’....’Peatland of average depth (3m) could release peatderived CO2-eq for about 120 years. Total net carbon released would be approximately 6,000 

tonne/ha of CO2-eq, taking 840 years to repay’. 

Conclusion: Calculations on carbon payback time –though solely used for biofuels – reinforce 

the conclusion that intact forest conversion for oil palm plantation leads to very high GHG 

emissions, which takes decades to centuries to offset, through replacement of fossil fuels 

and carbon sequestration by oil palms. Producing on peat results in even longer payback 

times. 

2.5 Overall emission of palm oil production 

2.5.1 The OPCABSIM model 

In the literature review, only one study has been found which specifically models the overall 

greenhouse emissions of palm oil production. This is the OPCABSIM model developed by 

Henson [23]. In his study, he has illustrated the model with four calculation examples, which 

have been summarized in the box below. From the model calculations it appears that the 

order of magnitude of emissions is comparable to the results above. Specific emission figures 

are difficult to assess, as references to specific sources are limited [23]. 

The examples have been abbreviated as NA, CS, IS and PS, and can be summarized as follows: 

• NA stands for national average oil palm and represents the average performing 

Malaysian crop. It is assumed to grow on mineral soil, to have replaced a previous crop 

of rubber, is grown without return of mill by-products to the field, and is to be 

replanted after 25 years 

• CS stands for a coastal (soil) site, whereby it was assumed that the previous crop was 

oil palm 

• IS stands for an inland site , low to medium productive, with preceding vegetation 

being grassland. 

• PS stands for peat soil. 
 23 

Table 2.4 Four calculations examples with the OPCABSIM model (Henson, [23], all data are in tonnes 

Ceq/ha*yr). 

 NA CS IS PS 

 

Carbon 

gains 

Oil palm -1.628 -2.015 -1.902 -2.021 Includes roots

 Ground cover -0.059 -0.048 -0.052 -0.095 Includes cover litter 

 Oil palm litter -0.172 -0.217 -0.185 -0.191 Frond piles etc 

 Mill-by products 0 0 0 0 Assumed not returned 

 Total gains -1.859 -2.280 -2.139 -2.307 

Carbon 

losses 

Peat C oxidation 0 0 0 +8.032 Mean rate over 25 years 

 Plantation inputs +0.333 +0.333 +0.333 +0.392 Based on fossil fuel use 

 N2O emission –fertil. +0.166 +0.166 +0.166 +0.176 From N fertiliser 

 N2O emission – peat 0 0 0 +0.148 From peat 

 Initial biomass loss +2.466 +2.280 +0.199 +3.474 NA: Mature rubber 

CS: Mature oil palm 

IS: Grassland 

PS: Secondary forest 

 Total losses +2.965 +2.779 +0.698 +12.222 

Carbon 

balance 

 +1.105 +0.499 -1.441 +9.915 

 

Off-site 

budget 

items 

 

Carbon 

gains 

Mill products and byproducts -0.079 -0.127 -0.125 -0.226 CPO, PKO, kernel cake, 

EFB, fibre, shell, POME 

Carbon 

losses 

CH4 from POME +0.671 +0.900 +0.650 +0.759 

 

On plus 

off-site 

budget 

 

Total 

Carbon 

gains 

 -1.938 -2.407 -2.264 -2.533 

Total C 

losses 

 +3.636 +3.679 +1.348 +12.981 

Carbon 

balance 

 +1.698 +1.272 -0.916 +10.448 

(NA = national average; CS = coastal site; IS = inland ; PS = peat soil) 

Note: a positive sign indicates a net GHG emission
 24 

2.5.2 Summary of emissions from palm oil production

Sections 2.3 and 2.4 have quantified relevant GHG emissions from palm oil production, both 

from operations at plantations and mills, and from changes in carbon stocks. The categories of 

GHG emissions, and concluded orders of magnitude, are summarized in the table below 

Table 2.5 GHG emissions from palm oil production, including emissions from carbon stock changes (all 

emissions on a kg CO2-eq/ha and kg CO2-eq/tonne CPO basis). 

GHG emission 

factor 

Emissions per ha 

(kgCO2-eq/ha* 

annum)

Emissions per tonne CPO(kg 

CO2-eq/tonne CPO)

Note 

1.Operations 

1a. fossil fuel 

use transport & 

machinery 

+180 to + 404 +45 to + 125 - 

1b. fertilizer 

use 

+1,500 to +2,000 + 250 to + 470 - 

1c. fuel of mill 

& utilization of 

mill byproducts 

0 0 - 

1d. POME +2,500 to +4,000 + 625 to + 1,467 - 

Total 

operations 

+4,180 to +6,225 +920 to + 2,007 - 

2.Emissions 

from carbon 

stock change 

 

2a. 25 year 

discounted 

GHG emission 

from 

conversion of 

grass 

land/forest 

+1,700 to + 25,000 +425 to +7,813 Based on a carbon stock 

change of 11.5 – 171 tonnes 

C/ha, which is discounted 

over 25 years and expressed 

as CO2

2b. Annual 

carbon 

sequestration 

by oil palms 

- 7,660 -1,915 to -2,393 Henson [22] 

2c. Emissions 

from oil palm 

on peat 

+18,000 to + 73,000 +4,500 to +22,813 - 

Total emissions 

related to 

carbon stock 

change 

+12,040 to +90,340 +3,010 to + 28,233 - 

Total +16,220 to 96,565 +3,930 to +30,240 - 

Note: a positive sign indicates a net GHG emission 

The above calculation clearly indicate that converting high biomass carbon stocks to oil palm 

plantation, i.e. forests and/or peatlands, causes by far the highest GHG emissions. This 

confirms the conclusion of most literature, e.g. Zah et al. [67], who in a life cycle assessment of 

various biofuels (including palm biodiesel), concluded that ‘...most of the environmental 

impacts of biofuels are caused by agricultural cultivation. In the case of tropical agriculture this 
 25 

is primarily the slash-and-burning of rainforests which sets great quantities of CO2 free, causes 

air pollution and has severe impacts on biodiversity’.

2.5.3 GHG emissions from further transport and refinery 

The previous Sections have focused on quantifying GHG emissions from palm oil production, 

and have not quantified GHG emissions from further transport, processing etc. To put the GHG 

emissions from palm oil production in perspective, this Section summarises GHG emissions 

from further transport and refinery of palm oil. 

Transport 

Nikander [41] has calculated GHG emissions related to palm oil transport by ship, from 

Malaysia to Rotterdam (ship load 40,000 tonnes), and further to Porvoo (ship load 12,500 

tonnes). He estimated total GHG emissions for the 17,300 km journey at 106 kg CO2-eq/tonne 

palm oil. 

The (conservative) default values in the RFA CO2-calculation tool [44], for over land transport 

of palm oil (mill to port) and overseas transport, have been summarized below: 

Table 2.6 RFA default values for GHG emissions from palm oil transport. 

Type of 

transport 

Distance Fuel use Specific emission Total GHG emission 

Mill to port 250 km 1.89 MJ/t km diesel 0.086 kg CO2-eq/MJ 

fuel 

41 kg CO2-eq/tonne 

Overseas 

transport 

16,500 km 0.2 MJ/ t km HFO 0.087 kg CO2-eq/MJ 

fuel 

287kg CO2-eq/tonne 

 

Refinery 

The RFA CO2-calculation tool [44] specifies conservative default values for refinery of CPO in 

Asia, which have been summarized below: 

Table 2.7 RFA default values for GHG emissions for palm oil refinement. 

Type of energy input Specific energy use Specific emission Total GHG emission 

Electricity 1,093 MJ/tonne 0.137-0.216 kg CO2-eq/MJ 150-236 kg CO2-eq/tonne 

Gas 97 MJ/tonne 0.062 kg CO2-eq/MJ 6 kg CO2-eq/tonne 

 Total 156-242 kg CO2-eq/tonne 

Based on the data mentioned in [58], a refinery related GHG emission of 75 kg CO2-eq/tonne 

palm oil can be calculated, which is much lower than the conservative RTFO default values. 

Conclusion: From the above figures it can be concluded that total GHG emissions from 

transport and refinery together, are in the same order of magnitude as emissions from 

fertilizer application. 
 26 

2.6 Summary of conclusions 

The literature review has identified major categories of GHG emissions from palm oil 

production, and –based on the variety of data available- indicated robust orders of magnitude 

for each category. Based on the literature data reviewed, a number of conclusions can be 

drawn: 

• In plantation and mill operations, GHG emissions from POME far exceed other GHG 

emissions, such as from fertilizer use and diesel use; 

• Various proven technologies exist which can significantly reduce GHG emissions from 

POME, and consequently overall emissions from operations; 

• If palm oil production is located on peat, continuous GHG emissions resulting from 

oxidation of peat far exceed those from operations; 

• Development of new production areas at the expense of high above and/or 

underground carbon stocks, results in GHG emissions which takes many oil palm cycles 

to compensate through carbon sequestration in oil palms. These timeframes by far 

exceed the lifetime of an average (plantation) company; 

• If new production areas are developed in areas which are not high in carbon stocks, 

palm oil production may lead to net carbon sequestration. 
 27 

3 Proposals by the GHG Working Group 

3.1 Introduction 

This chapter summarises the proposals from the GHG-WG. The following proposals were 

discussed, however there was no broad consensus within the GHG-WG on all items discussed, 

i.e.: 

1. Develop a framework for reducing GHG emissions from RSPO certified palm oil 

(Section 3.2); 

2. Amend a number of RSPO Criteria and/or related Indicators and/or Guidance, to better 

include various aspects of GHG emission (reduction) (Section 3.3); 

3. Further study a number of other aspects which impact upon (standards for) GHG 

emissions from palm oil production, such as indirect land use change and yield 

increases (Section 3.4); 

4. Extend the mandate of the GHG-WG and establish an Expert Group (Section 3.5) to 

deliberate on the unresolved issues some of which are outlined above, in order to 

reach a consensus. 

3.2 Developing a framework to reduce GHG emissions from palm oil production 

The literature review summarized in the public consultation document of 6 July 2009, has 

categorised GHG emissions from palm oil production as follows: 

1. GHG emissions arising from operations during palm oil growing and FFB processing, or 

more precisely: 

1a. Emissions related to the use of fossil fuels for plantation internal transport 

and machinery; 

1b. Emissions related to the use of fertilisers; 

1c. Emissions related to the use of fuels in the palm oil mill, and the use of 

palm oil mill by-products; 

1d. Emissions from Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME). 

2. GHG emissions arising from changes in carbon stock during the development of new 

plantings; 

3. GHG emissions from peat (only when plantings are on peat). 

The GHG-WG has noted the literature findings in relation to GHG emissions from operations 

(category 1), but has not unanimously agreed with the literature study findings in relation to 

carbon stocks and peat (category 2 and 3). In short, producers’ representatives felt that more 

data collection is required before (quantitative) standards can be set, while non-producers’ 

representatives felt that sufficient evidence was available for the development of 

(quantitative) standards. 

The literature study findings on carbon stocks and peat, as well as views from the stakeholder 

groups in the GHG-WG, have been summarised below. 
 28 

3.2.1 Literature study findings on carbon stocks (excluding peat) 

The literature review has indicated that the development of new plantings will lead to a 

change in carbon stocks, depending on the previous land cover. Development of oil palm on 

grasslands (with mineral soils) will generally lead to an increase of carbon stock (i.e. net CO2

sequestration) whereas conversion of primary forests to oil palm will lead to a reduction of 

carbon stock (i.e. a net CO2 emission). Whether conversion of secondary or degraded forests to 

oil palm will lead to an increase or a decrease in carbon stocks, depends on the exact carbon 

stocks of those forests, and the assumed carbon stocks in the oil palm planting. 

The scientific literature reported estimated values for aboveground carbon stocks that varied 

between 25 and 40 tonnes C/ha. 

The GHG-WG has not come to a unanimous conclusion as regards the literature review 

findings on carbon stocks, and potentially necessary amendments of the RSPO P&C. 

The non-producers’ representatives in the GHG-WG have concluded that the development of 

new plantings shall not lead to a reduction in carbon stocks. They have suggested that new 

plantings shall only be developed on land which has a time averaged carbon stock in the order 

of 35 tonnes/ha (exact figure to be determined accounting for inclusion of underground 

biomass, precautionary principle, compensation mechanisms etc.). 

The producers’ representatives in the GHG-WG have doubted the time average carbon stock 

figure of 35 tonnes/ha, and argued that the time averaged carbon stock of oil palm plantings is 

highly variable and may strongly depend on local conditions. A thesis by Syahrinudin [49] has 

been submitted to illustrate the variation. The producers’ representatives in the GHG-WG 

strongly felt that more data need to be collected before a threshold for carbon stocks can be 

defined. 

3.2.2 Literature study findings on peat 

In relation to peat, the literature review has concluded the following: 

a. In their natural state, tropical peatlands sequester carbon by accumulation in peat and 

biomass. Drainage and degradation of peat forests results in carbon losses mainly 

through increased decomposition of the peat. Conversion of peatlands to oil palm 

plantations requires drainage of 60-80 cm below soil surface which thus enhances peat 

decomposition. CO2-emissions increase with drainage depth; 

b. There is a large variety of quantitative data on CO2-emissions from drained peatlands, 

while not all measurement methods applied are reliable in terms of quantifying 

emission from peat oxidation. Literature data vary between 18-73 tonnes CO2/ha*yr; 

c. Carbon sequestration and emission fluxes in natural peat swamps are some orders of 

magnitude smaller than the carbon losses from oxidation of drained peat soils. 

Methane and N2O emissions from both natural peatlands and from oil palm 

plantations on peat, are limited; 

d. Various authors have indicated the need to further detail data on GHG fluxes in both 

undisturbed and drained peatlands. However this research is not expected to change 

conclusions a-c above, but rather refine and narrow down the data ranges. 

The GHG-WG has not come to a unanimous conclusion as regards the literature study findings 

on GHG emissions from peat, and potentially necessary amendments to the RSPO P&C. One 

group, including primarily producers’ representatives, considered that five years would be 

needed to organize and execute a further study of peat emissions, while the other group 
 29 

believes that enough information exists to establish that converted peat forests are the source 

of significant CO2 emissions and that steps should be taken immediately to reduce those 

emissions and to avoid new emissions due to the conversion and drainage of peat. 

 

3.2.3 Developing a standard for the carbon intensity of palm oil 

Once it appeared that there were strongly divided views on both the quality of available 

quantitative data and on potential decisions on carbon stocks and peat, the GHG-WG has 

taken a more qualitative approach. It has concentrated on developing (qualitative) principles 

for setting carbon standards. Conclusions and recommendations have been summarized 

below. 

 

The GHG-WG recommends that RSPO develops a framework for reducing GHG emissions 

caused by the production of palm oil. This framework shall take account of all (potentially) 

relevant sources of GHG emissions, including in particular emissions from land use change, 

emissions from peat degradation (if applicable), emissions from POME, etc. 

The GHG-WG has agreed that a framework to reduce GHG emissions should be organized 

around a ‘baseline’ that is formulated using the ISO 14064 standards for reducing GHG 

emissions. The unit of measurement for the baseline shall be the holding level of the company. 

Furthermore, the GHG-WG has agreed that this baseline should be accompanied by a time 

bound plan (to be specified by the company), which allows companies flexibility in making 

GHG emission reductions over time, and also the possibility to link emission reductions to 

trading mechanisms to compensate for lost opportunities and costs associated with making 

GHG emission reductions. 

a. A group of GHG-WG members, led by MPOA and GAPKI representatives, have 

proposed that the baseline should be based on a company’s existing land banks, such 

that GHG emissions from past, present and future land use change are used to 

estimate what would occur in a business-as-usual scenario; 

b. A group of GHG-WG members, led by Conservation International and Wetlands 

International representatives, have proposed that the baseline should be based on 

historical emissions (including those that occurred on high carbon landscapes) so that 

future emission reductions can be verified objectively; 

c. A group of GHG-WG members, led by the Unilever representative, proposed that 

whatever baseline is selected (either A or B) this should be compared to a standard 

based on a value that would approximate the emissions of other major vegetable oils. 

The last suggestion assumes companies would incorporate within their time bound 

plan a commitment to reduce emissions from their baseline level to this (as yet to be 

determined) industry-wide carbon intensity standard (tonnes CO2/tonne CPO). 

The GHG-WG recommends that methodological issues in relation to the development of the 

framework, and issues for which additional data collection is required, shall be solved as a 

matter of high priority. 

The GHG-WG recommends that RSPO studies the feasibility of a mechanism for RSPO internal 

carbon trading. The Working Group believes that such a mechanism will contribute to the cost 

effective reduction of overall GHG emissions from RSPO certified producers. 

In addition, the GHG-WG recommends that mechanisms be developed which provide 

incentives/compensation for producers to move away from high carbon stock areas. 

The Working Group has discussed the possibility to set a moratorium for certification of new 

developments on peat, until the required additional data collection and detailing of 
 30 

methodological issues have been executed. One group supported the moratorium option as a 

means to put pressure on the development of a carbon intensity standard but the producers’ 

representatives opposed the idea as being too restrictive, moreover they felt that the GHGWG needs to consider the socio-economic implications of the proposed moratorium on the 

livelihood of the local people who rely on oil palm.

3.3 Proposals for amendments of RSPO Principles & Criteria 

In addition to the proposal by one group in the GHG-WG related to the development of a 

carbon intensity standard (Refer to Section 2.) the Working Group has discussed a number of 

recommendations for specific amendments to a number of RSPO Criteria, Indicators and 

related Guidance. In this Chapter, each of the proposed amendments is outlined in detail, i.e.: 

• Plans to reduce GHG emissions (3.3.1); 

• Fossil fuel use (3.3.2); 

• Fertiliser use (3.3.3); 

• Palm oil mill residues (3.3.4); 

• POME (3.3.5); 

• Water management on plantations on peat (3.3.6). 

3.3.1 Plans to reduce GHG emissions 

Under Principle 5 (‘Environmental responsibility and conservation of natural resources and 

biodiversity’) Criterion 5.6 specifies: ‘Plans to reduce pollution and emissions, including

greenhouse gases, are developed, implemented and monitored’.

The GHG-WG believes that GHG emission reduction should get a more prominent position 

under Principle 5, and proposes to add a new Criterion 5.7 specifically in relation to GHG 

emission calculation and reduction. 

It is proposed to re-phrase Criterion 5.6 as follows: ‘Plans to reduce pollution and emissions are 

developed, implemented and monitored’. 

And phrase a new Criterion 5.7 as follows: ‘Specific plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

are developed, implemented and monitored’. 

It is proposed to add under Criterion 5.7 the following Indicator 5.7.1: 

‘Significant sources of GHG emissions are identified and plans to reduce them implemented’, 

with the following Guidance: 

‘Significant sources of GHG emissions may include emissions resulting from carbon stock 

changes, treatment/re-use of mill residues (POME, EFB), fertilizers and fossil fuels. A system for 

the assessment, monitoring and reduction of GHG emissions should be developed based on ISO 

14064’ 

Furthermore, the GHG-WG recommends to add to this Criterion specific Indicators in relation 

to the ISO 14064 based framework methodology for reducing GHG emissions (refer to Chapter 

2). 
 31 

3.3.2 Fossil fuel use 

Criterion 5.4 specifies: ‘Efficiency of energy use and use of renewable energy is maximised’

The National Interpretation for Malaysia specifies the following Indicators under Criterion 5.4: 

‘5.4.1 Monitoring of renewable energy per tonne of CPO or palm product in the mill 

5.4.2 Monitoring of direct fossil fuel use per tonne of CPO or kW per tonne palm product in the 

mill (or FFB where the grower has no mill).’ 

The National Interpretation for Indonesia specifies the following Indicators under Criterion 5.4: 

‘5.4.1. Records of monitoring renewable energy use and its efficiency analysis (energy/ton CPO, 

or energy/ton palm product). 

5.4.2 Records of monitoring of fossil fuels use for operational reason and its efficiency analysis.’

The National Interpretation for PNG specifies the following indicators under Criterion 5.4: 

‘5.4.1 Monitoring Kilowatt hour per tonne of palm product in the mill from renewable energy 

sources. Kilogram steam per tonne of FFB. Monitoring trend for the preceding 5 years. 

5.4.2 Monitoring Kilowatt hour per tonne of palm product from non renewable energy 

resources. Monitoring trend for the preceding 5 years.’ 

The GHG-WG concludes that reporting on fossil fuel use is sufficiently covered by the 

Indicators in the respective national interpretations. The GHG-WG recommends to add to the 

guidance under Criterion 5.4 that ‘Use of sustainable biofuel on plantations should be

considered as an alternative to the use of fossil fuel’

3.3.3 Fertiliser use 

Criterion 4.2 specifies: ‘Practices maintain soil fertility at, or where possible improve soil 

fertility to, a level that ensures optimal and sustained yield'. 

The National Interpretation for Malaysia specifies the following Indicator 4.2.1: ‘Monitoring of 

fertilizer inputs through annual fertilizer recommendations’. 

The National Interpretation for Indonesia specifies the following Indicator 4.2.2: ‘Records of 

efforts to maintain and increase soil fertility (e.g. the use of fertilizer, legume cover crops , 

compost, and land applications of POME or EFB) based on the results of analysis carried out as 

in Point 1 above)’. 

The National Interpretation for PNG specifies the following Indicator 4.2.1: ‘Records of fertilizer 

inputs are maintained’. 

All three National Interpretations refer specifically to the monitoring of fertilizer inputs. For 

the purpose of quantifying GHG emissions, it will be necessary to monitor specifically the type 

of fertilizers used, and the annual quantities used per tonne of CPO or per tonne of FFB. The 

GHG-WG recommends to add the following to the existing Indicators: 

‘Types of artificial fertilizers applied shall be monitored. Quantities of fertilizers per tonne CPO 

or per tonne of FFB shall be calculated’. 

 
 32 

3.3.4 Palm oil mill residues 

Relevant references in current set of P&Cs

Criterion 5.3 specifies: ‘Waste is reduced, recycled, re-used and disposed of in an 

environmentally and socially responsible manner’. 

The National Interpretation for Malaysia specifies the following Indicator 5.3.3 ‘Evidence that 

crop residues/biomass are recycled (Cross reference Criterion 4.2)’, with Specific Guidance 

referring to the discharge of POME only (i.e. no reference of EFB). 

The National Interpretations for Indonesia and PNG do not provide a specific Indicator in 

relation to the recycling of palm oil mill residues (under Criterion 5.3). The PNG Guidance 

under Criterion 5.3 specifies that ‘Improving the efficiency of resource utilization and recycling 

potential wastes as nutrients or converting them into value added products (e.g. through 

animal feeding programmes)’.

Criterion 4.2 specifies: ‘Practices maintain soil fertility at, or where possible improve soil 

fertility to, a level that ensures optimal and sustained yield’. 

The National Interpretation for Malaysia specifies the following Indicator 4.2.3 ‘Monitor the 

area on which EFB, POME and zero-burning planting is applied’. 

The National Interpretation for Indonesia specifies the following Indicator 4.2.2: ‘Records of 

efforts to maintain and increase soil fertility (e.g. the use of fertilizer, legume cover crops, 

compost, and land applications of POME or EFB) based on the results of analysis carried out as 

in Point 1 above’.

The National Interpretation for PNG specifies Indicator 4.2.3: ‘A nutrient recycling strategy 

should be in place’, with the Guidance including the following: ‘The nutrient recycling strategy 

should include EFB, POME, other mill-by products, palm residues after replanting and any use 

of biomass for by-products or energy production’.

Rationale behind proposed amendments

Literature data provide little quantitative data on the GHG effects from potential 

disposal/recycling routes for palm oil mill by-products, in particular EFB (for POME refer to 

Section 3.2.4). However, it appears that landfilling of EFB has a worse GHG score that other 

options, due to the generation of methane emissions. 

Current Principles & Criteria stimulate EFB recycling as part of a nutrient management/soil 

improvement plan. However, landfilling of EFB is not explicitly discouraged. The GHG-WG 

believes that this shall be done. 

Proposal for amendments

It is proposed that under Criterion 5.3, the following indicator is added under the respective 

National Interpretations: 

‘Landfilling of EFB and other palm oil mill residues shall be avoided’. 
 33 

3.3.5 POME 

The GHG-WG has concluded that the conventional method of POME treatment, i.e. including 

anaerobic open lagoons, is a significant source of GHG emissions, in particular methane. 

Several technologies are available for effective methane emission reduction from POME, 

including biogas capture, decanters, co-composting with EFB, and denitrification technologies. 

Biogas capture technologies have been well documented in literature, including data on 

efficiencies, also in the framework of CDM reporting requirements of those projects. For the 

other technologies, no quantitative data have been found on methane reduction efficiencies. 

The GHG-WG have identified and discussed three main options for setting a standard to 

reduce methane emissions from POME: 

a. Mandatory biogas capture for mills above a certain treatment capacity (threshold 

capacity to be specified). 

b. Not prescribing a single technology, but instead defining a methane reduction target 

(% from a certain baseline) or setting a maximum emission (m3

 CH4/tonne POME). 

c. Neither prescribing a single technology nor setting a quantitative methane reduction 

target, but instead requesting that ‘the feasibility is studied of reducing methane 

emissions through the application of certain measures or technologies’. This 

requirement resembles the current Indicator under Criterion 5.4. 

The GHG-WG has not come to a conclusion as regards the preferred option. Instead, the GHGWG has concluded that emission reduction from POME shall be dealt with under the umbrella 

of the ISO 14064 based framework methodology for reducing GHG emissions. Specific 

indicators on POME might then be included under proposed new Criterion 5.7 (‘Plans to 

reduce GHG emissions’). 

3.3.6 Water management on plantations on peat 

The current National Interpretations have some specific requirements set in relation to 

existing plantations on peat (in particular under Criterion 4.3). 

Criterion 4.3 specifies: ‘Practices minimize and control erosion and degradation of soils’ 

The National Interpretations specify the following Indicator 4.3.4: ‘Subsidence of peat soils 

should be minimized through an effective and documented water management programme’, 

and Guidance: ‘For existing plantings on peat, water table should be maintained at a mean of 

60 cm (within a range of 50-75cm) below ground surface through a network of appropriate 

water control structures e.g. weirs, sandbags, etc. in fields, and water gates at the discharge 

points of main drains’ 

In the National Interpretations for Malaysia and Indonesia, this indicator has the status of 

‘minor compliance issue’, where as in the National Interpretation for PNG it has the status of 

‘major compliance issue’. 

In relation to existing plantings on peat, the GHG-WG recommends that in the National 

Interpretations for Malaysia and Indonesia, the status of this Indicator is amended from ‘minor 

compliance issue’ to ‘major compliance issue’, such as to strengthen the importance of this 

requirement. 
 34 

3.4 Other conclusions recommendations 

Further to the (specific) recommendations outlined in Chapter 2 and 3, the GHG-WG has 

formulated a number of more generic conclusions and recommendations in relation to indirect 

land use change, yield increases, reduction of fires, development of a CSPO market, and 

biofuel standards in the EU. These recommendations have been summarised in this Chapter. 

GHG emissions from indirect land use change 

The members of the GHG-WG have discussed the issue of indirect land use change, but have 

been unable to come to agreement on its significance regarding the palm oil industry. 

However, they did agree that it would be difficult to address within the current framework of 

the RSPO P&C, because the system is based on measures taken by individual companies within 

the context of their operations, whereas indirect land use change, by definition, occurs outside 

of those operations and are beyond their control. Nonetheless, because this issue has been 

highlighted by several academic studies and is relevant in current policy discussion in 

international forums, the members of the GHG-WG have flagged this as an issue in need of 

further study.

Yield increases 

The GHG-WG has concluded that increasing yields has the potential to significantly reduce the 

overall carbon footprint of palm oil production, as it reduces the need for expansion and 

carbon stock conversion, and lowers the average GHG emissions per tonne CPO/FFB produced. 

This relates in particular to smallholders, who on average have a much lower yield than large 

scale producers. 

The GHG-WG recommends that RSPO studies and implements mechanisms which facilitate 

significant yield increases, in particular from smallholders. 

Fires 

Intended and accidental fires related to the clearance of land for palm oil, are a significant 

source of GHG emissions, in particular when occurring on drained peatlands. The GHG-WG 

recommends that RSPO studies which further measures are required, within or outside the 

framework of RSPO, to reduce occurrence of fires. 

Development of CSPO market 

The GHG-WG has concluded that the development of a significant and fair CSPO market is a 

financial incentive for further steps towards decreasing the carbon intensity of palm oil 

production. The GHG-WG calls upon RSPO members buying palm oil to contribute to the 

development of this market. 

Qualification of CSPO on EU biofuel market 

The GHG-WG has concluded that its agreed recommendations are insufficient to allow CSPO to 

meet the sustainability requirements of the EU Renewable Energy Directive, as summarised in 

Box 2 below. 

Note: Producers’ representatives in the GHG-WG feel that the EU sustainability requirements 

as outlined in Box 2 have not been discussed in detail, and should therefore not have been 

included in this report with the intention to inform the Executive Board and others of relevant 

issues pertaining to biofuels. 
 35 

 

Box 2 Summary of relevant sustainability requirements in EU Renewable Energy Directive 

Art. 17.2 The greenhouse gas emission saving from the use of biofuels and bioliquids taken into account 

for the purposes shall be at least 35% (and target increases step-wise) 

Art. 17.4 Biofuels and bioliquids shall not be made from raw material obtained from land with high 

carbon stock, namely land that had one of the following statuses in January 2008 and no longer has that 

status 

(a) wetlands, namely land that is covered with or saturated by water permanently or for a significant 

part of the year 

(b) continuously forested areas, namely land spanning more than one hectare with trees higher than 

five metres and a canopy cover of more than 30%, or trees able to reach those thresholds in situ 

© land spanning more than one hectare with trees higher than five metres and a canopy cover of 

between 10% and 30%, or trees able to reach those thresholds in situ, unless evidence is provided that

the carbon stock of the area is such that, when the methodology laid down in part C of Annex V is 

applied, the emission saving reductions are fulfilled 

Art. 17.5 Biofuels and bioliquids shall not be made from raw material obtained from land that was 

peatland in January 2008, unless evidence is provided that the cultivation and harvesting of that raw 

material does not involve drainage of previously undrained soil 

Art. 19.6 The European Commission shall, by 31 december 2010, submit a report reviewing the impact 

of indirect land-use change on greenhouse gas emissions and addressing ways to minimise that impact 

3.5 Procedural aspects 

To allow an effective follow-up of the recommendations outlined in the previous sections, the GHG-WG 

proposes the following: 

1. That the mandate of this Working Group will be extended until 31 December 2009. This will 

allow the Working Group to review the input from the extended public consultation period and – 

on the basis of Executive Board and/or General Assembly decisions – to detail the Terms of 

Reference to develop the framework for a voluntary incentive system to reduce GHG emissions 

within the RSPO. 

2. Establish an expert group to develop the information resources that are sufficiently accurate to 

inform the implementation of a voluntary framework to reduce GHG emissions, particularly the 

definition of what type of baseline will be adopted within that voluntary system and the 

designation of default (average) values regarding carbon stocks on oil palm plantations and the 

different types of landscapes that are being converted to oil palm plantations, as well as the GHG 

emissions from intact peat forest, drained peatlands currently planted with oil palm, and 

peatlands that were previously planted to oil palm, but which are now undergoing restoration to 

a natural forest ecosystem.
 36 

4 References 

[1] Alterra (2008). Review of carbon flux estimates and other greenhouse gas emissions from 

oil palm cultivation on tropical peatlands – identifying the gaps in knowledge. Wageningen 

(the Netherlands), 2008. 

[2] Butler R.A., L.P. Koh and J. Ghazoul. REDD in the red: palm oil could undermine carbon 

payment schemes. Conservation letters (2009). 

[3] CE & University of Utrecht (2007). The greenhouse gas calculation methodology for 

biomass based electricity, heat and fuels. Utrecht (the Netherlands), January 2007. 

[4] Chen, S.S. (2008). The LCA approach to illustrate palm oil’s sustainability advantage. 

International Palm Oil Sustainability Conference, Sabah – Malaysia, April 2008. 

[5] Corley, R.H.V. and P.B. Tinker (2003). The Oil Palm –Fourth Edition. Blackwell Science 

publishers. 

[6] Couwenberg, J. R. Dommain and H. Joosten (2009). Greenhouse gas fluxes from tropical 

peatlands in Southeast Asia. Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology, University of 

Greifswald (Germany). 

[7] Damen and Faaij (2007). Greenhouse gas balances of biomass import chains for green 

electricity production in the Netherlands. Report in the framework of IEA Bio-energy Task 38. 

[8] Damen and Faaij (2006). A greenhouse gas balance of two existing international biomass 

import chains. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change (2006), 11. 

[9] Delft Hydraulics, Wetlands International and Alterra (2006). Assessment of CO2EQemissions from drained peatlands in South-East Asia. Wageningen (the Netherlands), 

November 2006. 

[10] Ecofys (2007). Technical specification: greenhouse gas calculator for biofuels. Utrecht (the 

Netherlands), December 2007. 

[11] ERIA (2007). Investigation on sustainable biomass utilization vision in East Asia: life cycle 

assessment for biomass derived fuel in Malaysia. ERIA Joint Research Project Series 2007, No. 

39. 

[12] Directive 2009/28 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the 

use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 

2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Brussels (Belgium), 23 April 2009. 

[13] Fargioni J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P (2008). Land clearing and the biofuel 

carbon debt. Science, doi: 10.1126/science.1152747. 
 37 

[14] Field, R.D., G.R. van der Werf and S.S.P. Shen (2009). Human amplification of droughtinduced biomass burning in Indonesia since 1960. Nature Geoscience, Vol 2, March 2009. 

[15] Germer J. and J. Sauerborn (2007). Estimation of the impact of oil palm plantation 

establishment on greenhouse gas balance. Springer Science+ Business Media BV, 2007. 

[16] Gibbs, H.K., M. Johnston, J.A. Foley, T. Holloway, C. Monfreda, N. Ramankutty, D. Zaks 

(2008). Carbon payback times for crop-based biofuel expansion in the tropics: the effects of 

changing yield and technology. Environmental Research Letters 3 (2008). 

[17] Gibbs, H.K., S. Brown, J. O. Niles and J.A. Foley (2007). Monitoring and estimating tropical 

forest carbon stocks: making REDD a reality. Environmental Research Letters 2 (2007). 

[18] Global Environment Centre and Wetlands International (2008). Assessment of peatlands, 

biodiversity and climate change – main report. Kuala Lumpur, May 2008 (ISBN 978-983-43751-

0-2). 

[19] Goetz S.J. et al. (2009). Mapping and monitoring carbon stocks with satellite observations: 

a comparison of models. Carbon Balance and Management 2009, 4:2. 

[20] Hansen, M.C. Humid tropical forest clearing from 2000 to 2005 quantified using multitemporal and multi-resolution remotely sensed data. (publication date and source unknown). 

[21] Henson, I.E. (2005). An assessment of changes in biomass carbon stocks in tree crops and 

forests in Malaysia. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 17 (2): 279-296 (2005). 

[22] Henson, I.E. (2008). The carbon cost of palm oil production in Malaysia. The Planter 84, 

(988). 

[23] Henson, I.E. and K.C. Chang (2009). Evaluating the global warming impact of palm oil 

production I. A field model. (not yet published). 

[24] Henson, I.E. and K.C. Chang (2009). Evaluating the global warming impact of palm oil 

production II. An estate model. (not yet published)

[25]Henson, I.E. (2009). Modelling carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions 

associated with oil palm cultivation and land-use change in Malaysia – a re-evaluation and a 

computer model. MPOB Technology – No 31, May 2009. 

[26] IFEU (2007). Conclusive evaluation of studies assessing the environmental impact of the 

use of palm oil as a bioenergy carrier. Heidelberg (Germany), September 2007. 

[27] IFEU (2006). An assessment of energy and greenhouse gases of NExBTL. Heidelberg 

(Germany), June 2006. 

[28] IFEU (2004) CO2EQ mitigation through biofuels in the transport sector. Heidelberg 

(Germany), August 2004. 

[29] IPCC (2006). Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: 

Reference Manual. Chapter 5 Land-use change & Forestry. 
 38 

[30] IPCC (2003). Good practice guidelines for land use, land use change and forestry. 

[31] Jiwan, N. and B.H. Saharjo (2009). The Above Ground Carbon Stock of 25 years Oil Palm 

Planted in the Mineral Soil “Case Study in Tanah Grogot, East Kalimantan, Indonesia”. July 

2009. 

[32] Khalil, M.I., A.B. Rosenani, O. Van Cleemput, C.I. Fauziah and J. Shamshuddin (2002). 

Nitrous oxide emissions from an ultisol of the humid tropics under maize-groundnut rotation. 

Journal of Environmental Quality 31: 1071-1078. 

[33] Lamade E. and J.P. Bouillet (2005). Carbon storage and global change: the role of oil palm. 

OCL, Volume 12 no2, March-April 2005. 

[34] Larson, E.D. (2006). A review of life-cycle analysis studies on liquid biofuel systems for the 

transport sector. Energy for Sustainable Development. Volume X No 2, June 2006. 

[35] Lord, S., M.K. Hoare and N.M. Thompson (2002) Composting for zero discharge_ NBPOL’s 

solution. International Oil Palm Conference and Exhibition, Bali, Indonesia 8-12 July 2002 

[36] Melling L, Goh KJ, Beauvais C, Hatono R (2007). Carbon flow and budget in a young mature 

oil palm agroecosystem on deep tropical peat. In: Carbon climate human interaction on 

tropical peatland. Proceedings of the International Symposium and Workshop on Tropical 

Peatland, Yogyakarta, 27-29 August 2007 (eds. Rieley JO, Banks CJ, RAdjagukguk B). 

[37] Melling L, Hatano R, Goh KJ (2005). Soil CO2 flux from three ecosystems in tropical 

peatland of Sarwawak, Malaysia .Tellus, 57B, 1-11. 

[38] M. Mohamed, E. Padmanabhan, B.L.H. Mie and W.B. Siong (2002). The peat soils of 

Sarawak. University Malaysia Sarawak March 2002. 

[39] Morel, A. (2009) Estimates of Aboveground Biomass Forest and Oil Palm Values for Sabah, 

Malaysia. University of Oxford, Environmental Exchange Institute, September 2009 

[40] Muruyama S, Bakar ZA (1996). Decomposition of tropical peat soils. Estimation of in situ 

decomposition by measurement of CO2-flux. Japan Agricultural Research Quarterly, 30, 153-

158. 

[41] Nikander, S. Greenhouse gas and energy intensity of product chain: case transport biofuel. 

MSc Thesis, Helsinki University of Technology. Helsinki (Finland), May 2008. 

[42] Noormahayu, M.N., A.R. Khalid and M.A. Elsadig (2009). Financial assessment of oil palm 

cultivation on peatland in Selangor, Malaysia. In: Mires and Peat, Volume 5 (2009), Article 2. 

[43] Reijnders L., Huijbregts MAJ (2008). Palm oil and the emission of carbon-based 

greenhouse gases. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 477-482. 

[44] Renewable Fuels Agency (2008). Carbon and sustainability reporting within the renewable 

transport fuel obligation – Technical guidance part one & part two. Office of the Renewable 

Fuels Agency (UK), August 2008. 

[45] RSPO – PNG National Implementation Working Goup (2007). Indicators and guidance 

required to establish the RSPO Principles and Criteria. November 2007. 
 39 

[46] RSPO – Indonesian National Interpretation Working Group (2008). National interpretation 

of RSPO Principles & Criteria for Sustainable Palm Oil Production – Republic of Indonesia. May 

2008. 

[47] RSPO – Malaysian National Interpretation Working Group (2008). Indicators and guidance 

to establish the RSPO Principles & Criteria. April 2008. 

[48] Schuchardt F., K. Wulfert, D. Darnoko and T. Herawan (2008). Effect of new palm oil mill 

processes on the EFB and POME utilization. Journal of Oil Palm Research – Special Issue, 

October 2008. 

[49] Syahrinudin (2005). The potential of oil palm and forest plantations for carbon 

sequestration on degraded lands in Indonesia. Ecology and Development Series No. 28, 2005. 

[50] Schuchardt F., D. Darnoko and P. Guritno (2002). Composting of empty oil palm fruit 

bunch (EFB) with simultaneous evaporation of oil mill waste water (POME). International Oil 

Palm Conference, Nusa Dua, Bali, July 8-12, 2002. 

[51] Searchinger T. et al. (2008). Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases 

through emissions from land use change. Sciencexpress, 7 February 2008. 

[52] SenterNovem (2005). Participative LCA on biofuels. Utrecht (the Netherlands), 2005. 

(Report 2GAVE-05.08) 

[53] SIRIM Berhad (2007). Development of LCI for biofuel production from palm oil 

(Presentation, exact date and author unknown). 

[54] Vasander H., Jauhiainen J. (2008) Uncertainties, deficiencies and unknowns in greenhouse 

gas emissions from tropical peatlands. Tropical Peatland, ... 

[55] Vries de, S.C. (2008) The biofuel debate and fossil energy use in palm oil production: a 

critique of Reijnders and Huijbregts 2007. Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 1927-1927. 

[56] Wahid Mohd Basri, Chan Kook Weng, Choo Yuen May, Chow Mee Chin (2006). The need 

to reduce national greenhouse gases emissions: oil palm industry’s role. Journal of oil palm 

research, April 2006. 

[57] Wahid Mod Basri, Siti Nor Akmar Abdullah and I.E. Henson (2004). Oil palm – 

achievements and potential. 4th International Crop Science Congress, October 2004 (Brisbane, 

Australia). 

[58] Wicke B, Dornburg V, Junginger M, Faaij M (2008). Different palm oil production systems 

for energy purposes and their greenhouse gas implications. Biomass and Bioenergy, 32, 1322-

1337. 

[59] Wijbrans and Van Zutphen (2005). Environmental impact study for the combustion of 

palm fatty acid distillate in a power plant. Zwolle (the Netherlands), May 2005. 

[60] Wilson D., Alm J., Liane J., Byrne K.A., Farrel E.P., Tuitila E-S (2008). Rewetting of cutaway 

peatlands: are we re-creating hot spots of methane emissions? Restoration ecology, doi: 

10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00416.x. 
 40 

[61] Wood B.J. and R.H.V. Corley (1993). The energy balance of oil palm cultivation. In: 

Proceedings 1991 PORIM International Palm oil Conference- Agriculture. Palm Oil Research 

Institute Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, pp 130-143. 

[62] Wösten J.H.M., A.B. Ismail and A.L.M van Wijk (1997). Peat subsidence and its practical 

implications:a case study in Malaysia. Geoderma,78, 25-36. 

[63] Yacob S., M.A. Hassan, Y. Shirai, M. Wakisaka, S. Subash (2006). Baseline study of methane 

emission from anaerobic ponds of palm oil mill effluent treatment. Science of the Total 

Environment 366 (2006), 187 – 196. 

[64] Yacob S., M.A. Hassan, Y. Shirai, M. Wakisaka, S. Subash (2005). Baseline study of methane 

emission from open digesting tanks of palm oil mill effluent treatment. Chemosphere 59 

(2005), 1575-1581. 

[65] Yusoff, S. (2006) Renewable energy from palm oil – innovation on effective utilization of 

waste. Journal of cleaner production 14 (2006) 87-93. 

[66] Yusoff, S. and S Hansen (2005). Feasibility study of performing a life cycle assessment on 

crude palm oil production in Malaysia. International Journal on LCA, 2005. 

[67] Zah, R., H. Böni, M. Gauch, R. Hischier, M. Lehmann and P. Wäger. Life cycle assessment of 

energy products: environmental assessment of biofuels. Empa, St. Gallen (Switzerland), May 

2007. 
 
 42 

Appendix 1

Terms of Reference for the RSPO Working Group on 

Greenhouse Gases 
 43 

Terms of Reference 

RSPO Greenhouse Gas Working Group (GHGWG) 

These Terms of Reference outline the scope of work, expected outputs and timeframe 

of the RSPO GHG Working Group. 

 Background 

There is rising worldwide concern about global climate change driven by increasing 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Climate change is now accepted as one of the top 

issues of the environment and sustainable development agenda with all sectors of 

society needing to identify ways to reduce GHG emissions. Biofuels offer the potential 

for reducing GHG emissions and palm oil provides one pathway to producing biofuels 

because of its high productivity and the high energy use ratio in its production and 

processing.1 At the same time, the reduction of deforestation is considered to be one 

of the cost-effective GHG abatement measures available over the short term,2 because 

it represents more than 20% of all GHG emission,3

 of which 80% of the global total are 

estimated to come from the Amazon and Southeast Asia,4 two regions with the largest 

potential for expansion of oil palm cultivation. If the perceived conflicts between oil 

palm cultivation, deforestation, and GHG emissions are resolved, the future potential 

for palm oil as a biofuel feedstock will be significantly enhanced. 

Although there are different views by diverse stakeholders as to the scale of emissions 

from palm oil production – it is generally agreed that emission sources from the palm oil 

sector include those from the clearance of forests and peatlands for plantation 

development, use of fossil fuels for operating, processing and transport, fertiliser use, 

and methane emissions from wastewater treatment ponds. Accepted mitigation 

measures include establishing new plantations on low biomass landscapes, increased 

energy efficiency, reforestation of degraded landscapes, maintenance of optimal water 

levels in peatlands, and methane capture and bio-energy production. A number of palm 

oil companies have addressed these issues are already generating revenues by 

certifying reductions in GHG emissions via the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), 

but other companies have yet to access such resources. 

The reduction of GHG emissions and the avoidance of deforestation in the 

establishment of new plantations are increasingly being recognized in the RSPO as an 

emerging and critical issue that requires further investigation and adjustments to the 

existing RSPO Principles and Criteria (P&C), which were adopted in November 2005. 

The issue was raised by a number of stakeholders in the review process, but the 

RSPO Criteria Working Group (CWG) was not able to finalize revised wording to 

incorporate GHG issues into the revised P&C presented to the GA4 in November 2007. 

In October 2007, the CWG therefore made an urgent recommendation to the RSPO 

Executive Board for the establishment of GHG Working Group. The Executive Board in 

 

1 Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S and Hawthorne P (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. 

Science 319:1235-1238. 

2 McKinsey & Company (2007) Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost? 

http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/greenhousegas.asp (accessed 11/20/2008). 

3 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Climate Change 2007 – The Physical Science Basis: 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, UK. 

4 Hansen MC, Stehman SV, Potapov PV, Loveland TR, Townshend JRG,. DeFries RS. Pittman1 KW, Stolle F, 

Steininger MK, Carroll, M, DiMiceli C (2008) Humid tropical forest clearing from 2000 to 2005 quantified by using 

multitemporal and multiresolution remotely sensed data Proc. Nat. Acad. Science 105:9439–9444. 
 44 

its meeting in November 2008 recognized the concern and called for the development 

of a draft Terms of Reference (ToR) to guide a decision on the establishment of the 

group. 

The GHG Working Group is envisaged to be a short-term, multi-stakeholder expert 

panel established to review the current P&C in relation to GHG emissions in the 

production of palm oil and to advise the Executive Board on options for adjustment of 

the RSPO P&C. The GHG Working Group is not envisaged to develop a separate 

certification or auditing scheme, nor should it develop a comprehensive methodology 

for assessment and monitoring of biomass and GHG emissions from palm oil 

operations. Rather, the GHG Working Group will incorporate key features into the 

existing P&C framework to provide credible proxy measures for GHG emissions,5

including those originating from above and below-ground carbon pools from natural 

and anthropogenic land cover types that are converted to oil palm plantations.6 The 

proposed changes to the RSPO P&C will enable managers and certifiers to assess 

GHG emissions associated with the establishment of new plantations, ongoing 

operations in plantations and processing facilities, as well as identify lands where new 

oil palm plantations are inappropriate. While doing so, it will strive to align and 

coordinate the RSPO P&C for palm oil production with complimentary standards to 

promote the use of biomass for fuel applications and sustainable forest management. 

2. Objectives 

The proposed objectives of the GHG Working Group are to: 

2.1 Review and synthesize relevant information on palm oil production and GHG 

emissions, particularly related to the development of plantations, but also 

including plantation operations, industrial processing and the transport of 

palm oil, 

2.2 Identify options for avoiding or mitigating GHG emissions at all stages of the 

production chain. 

2.3 Provide technical guidance and recommendations on how to address GHG 

emissions from palm oil production and processing within the RSPO P&C. 

2.4 Provide specific recommendations for modifying of the existing RSPO P&C 

terminology, in order to establish auditable and achievable indicators for units 

of certification 

2.5 Coordination with similar certification schemes under development in forestry, 

agro forestry and biofuels industries. 

2.6 Provide objective information from peer-reviewed sources to guide 

communication related to the sustainability of palm oil in the context of 

biofuels and bioenergy. 

3. Proposed Activities 

 

5 Note: Proxy measures for biomass estimates of land-cover types are typically based on changes in vegetation cover 

derived from remote sensing technologies. 

6 Note: Oil palm plantations established in pasture or other low biomass vegetation types are very effective carbon 

sinks and can be used to offset GHG emissions from other components of an enterprises’ activities or potentially be 

eligible for carbon-based subsidies in future voluntary or compliance markets. 
 45 

The initial timeframe of the GHG Working Group’s timeframe is proposed to be 9 

months starting in January 2009. Within this period the following activities are 

proposed: 

3.1 Conduct a literature review of key issues regarding GHG emissions and the 

oil palm industry in order to inform future discussions pertaining to the 

evolution of the RSPO P&C framework: 

3.1.1 Life Cycle Analyses for Oil Palm and other relevant information to 

identify the main sources of GHG emissions from palm oil production 

(including land development, drainage, fertilization, plantation 

operation, processing, and the transport of palm oil). 

3.1.2 The social dimensions of carbon accounting including “leakage” (i.e. 

displacement of land use) and “permanence” (i.e. long term vs. short 

term land use impacts), market-driven crop displacement, impact on 

food prices and other social implications, as well as the potential role 

of smallholders in oil palm production. 

3.1.3 The availability, accuracy, and cost of existing and new technologies 

that can be used to estimate carbon stocks on landscapes prior to and 

following the establishment of oil palm plantations (i.e., satellite and 

airborne platforms using L-band RADAR and LIDAR technologies).7

3.1.4 Existing methodologies and approaches for calculation of GHG 

emission from oil palm plantations and processing and options of use 

of proxy indicators (eg. energy, fertilizer use, previous land use). With 

a view to develop a “Carbon Score Card” that can aid reporting on the 

dimensions of total GHG emissions related to palm oil production. 

3.2 Identify measures that will allow producers to avoid GHG emissions 

originating from the establishment of new plantations: 

3.2.1 Site selection criteria that will avoid GHG emissions by ensuring that 

all new plantations are established on low biomass landscapes. 

3.2.2 Special recommendations and measures that can assist smallholders 

to reduce GHG emissions (i.e., raising yields and reducing the use of 

pesticides), either individually, via producer cooperatives, or in 

partnership with processors. 

3.3 Review the current RSPO P&C and recommend adjustments to incorporate 

GHG issues, if possible focussing on indicators and systems that are 

auditable and achievable in order to facilitate the certification process and 

which produce real and meaningful reduction in GHG emissions. 

• Recommend further work required to refine guidance or assist in its 

implementation. 

 

7 Note: The most common remote sensing technologies are based on optical sensors (LANDSAT, SPOT, CBRS), 

which can be of limited use in high rainfall areas due to frequent cloud cover and infrequent data acquisition 

protocols; new RADAR satellites and LIDAR sensors (an infrared laser instrument) provide cost effective alternatives 

that not only document forest cover but provide direct measurements that can be used as proxies for above ground 

biomass.. 
 46 

4. Proposed Outputs 

The GHG Working Group will develop: 

4.1 A document that summarizes the scientific literature on GHG emissions and 

palm oil. 

4.2 Clear standards on site selection to avoid GHG emissions on new oil palm 

plantations. 

4.3 Auditable and achievable amendments to the current RSPO P&C guidance 

and indicators based on this review process. 

4.4 Recommendations for coordinating mechanisms and communication 

strategies. 

5. Proposed Operational Arrangements 

GHG Working Group Participants 

To ensure a representative mix of stakeholders and expertise, it is envisaged that the 

Working Group would comprise 12 members 

Members: 

It is proposed that members of the group come from the following sub-groups: 

i. Representatives from the Criteria Working Group or Executive Board (to ensure 

a strong understanding of RSPO processes and the current P&C) - 4 members 

with a range of different backgrounds including palm oil/biofuel industry, 

environmental NGO, social NGO) 

ii. Experts on Greenhouse Gases and climate change – 4 members with a range of 

different experiences including carbon stocks in forest and peatlands, palm oil 

life cycle analysis and GHG emission/mitigation options. 

iii. Other members – 4 members from industry, NGOs, government or research 

institutes with practical experience in implementing measures to assess or 

mitigate GHG emissions from palm oil production and processing. 

Chair: 

The working group should be chaired by an independent expert in GHG emission, who 

will also be contracted to facilitate the work of the Working Group. 

He/she will be responsible for leading the working group, organising and coordinating 

the contributions of the different members of the working group to ensure that the 

mandate is fulfilled, all the outputs are adequately addressed, and that the outcome is 

of high quality and correctly reflects the collective and individual positions of the 

working group members. 

Consultant/Facilitator: 
 47 

The working group should be supported by an independent consultant/facilitator with 

appropriate experience on GHG life cycle assessment from palm oil/ land use change 

and understanding of appropriate certification schemes. The consultant will prepare the 

meetings (agenda, invitations, distribution of documents, minutes) and Chair them, act 

as a moderator at stakeholder meetings, collate public comments and draft the 

inception, interim and final reports, coordinating and synthesising the inputs of the 

members of the group. The consultant will also carry out some appropriate desk 

research/analysis as may be required by the working group. 

Proposed Timetable 

The working group will meet two times during 2009 (two days per meeting), although 

the number of meetings can be adapted as necessary. One public consultation meeting 

should be organized before submitting the text for adoption by the Executive Board of 

the RSOP. Participants will need to assume responsibilities and commit time between 

meetings to deliver the objectives. Meetings are tentatively proposed in April/June 2009 

with public consultation in May/June to enable a recommendation to be considered by 

the Executive Board in September 2009. 
 48 

Appendix 2

Composition of RSPO Working Group on GHG 

 
Composition of RSPO Working Group on GHG 

RSPO Category Name of expert Organisation 

Oil palm growers Purboyo Guritno PT Makin Group 

 Ong Kim Pin Kulim Berhad 

 

 Mamat Salleh MPOA / RSPO EB 

 Chew Jit Seng MPOA (alternate) /RSPO EB 

 Jean-Charles Jacquemard PT Socfindo 

 

Palm oil processors/traders Dr Klimes ADM 

 UR Unnithan Carotina Sdn Bhd 

 Kaisa Hietala Neste Oil 

 Riitta Lempiainen Neste Oil (alternate) 

 Adrian Suharto Neste Oil (alternate) 

 

NGOs Faizal Parish Global Environment Center 

 Suzana Mokheri Global Environment Center (alternate) 

 Sander van Bennekom OxfamNovib 

 Johan Verburg OxfamNovib (alternate) 

 Norman Jiwan Sawit Watch/RSPO EB 

 Bambang H. Saharjo Sawit Watch (alternate) 

 Marcel Silvius Wetlands International 

 Tim Killeen Conservation International/ RSPO EB 

 

Consumer goods/retailers Jonathan Fursland Royal Dutch Shell 

 Amir Abdul Manan Royal Dutch Shell (alternate) 

 Sarah Sim Unilever 

 Llorenc Mila-i-Canals Unilever (alternate) 

 

Banks & Investors Ken MacDicken IFC 

Technical experts Niels Wielaard Sarvision 

 Simon Lord Global Sustainability Associates 

 Petra Meekers Global Sustainability Associates (alternate) 

 Dr Puah Chew Wei MPOB 

 Dr Chen Sau Soon SIRIM 

 B.G. Yeoh Eco Securities Malaysia Sdn Bhd 

 Robert Cheong TUV Nord 

 Yohannes Samosir Indonesian Palm Oil Research Institute 

 Ian Henson Independent consultant 

Observers at Working Group meetings 

Name Organisation/Affilliation 

 Dr. Vengeta Rao RSPO Secretary General 

 Ms. Jutta Poetz RSPO Secretariat Biodiversity Coordinator/New Plantings Working Group 

 Darrel Webber WWF Malaysia 

GHG Working Group facilitator: Arjen Brinkmann (Brinkmann Consultancy)
 

 

Appendix 3

Glossary 
 

 

Above-ground biomass: All living biomass above the soil including stem, stump, branches, 

bark, seeds, and foliage. 

Afforestation: planting of new forests on lands that historically have not contained forests. 

Below-ground biomass: All living biomass of live roots. Fine roots of less than (suggested) 

2mm diameter are sometimes excluded because these often cannot be distinguished 

empirically from soil organic matter or litter. 

Biomass: the biodegradable fraction of products, waste and residues from biological origin 

from agriculture, forestry and related industries including fisheries and aquaculture, as well as 

the biodegradable fraction of industrial and municipal waste. 

Canopy cover: The percentage of the ground covered by a vertical projection of the outermost 

perimeter of the natural spread of the foliage of plants. Cannot exceed 100%. (Also called 

crown closure). 

Carbon compensation project: a project dedicated to ‘offset’ greenhouse gases emissions 

from another organisation’s project, which overall results in less carbon dioxide or other 

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than would otherwise occur. 

Carbon sequestration: The process of removing carbon from the atmosphere and depositing it 

in a reservoir. 

Carbon stock: The quantity of carbon in a “pool”, meaning a reservoir or system which has 

the capacity to accumulate or release carbon. Examples of carbon pools are living biomass 

(including above and below-ground biomass), dead organic matter (including dead wood and 

litter) and peat soils. 

Carbon dioxide equivalent: a measure used to compare different greenhouse gases based on 

their global warming potentials (GWPs). The GWPs are calculated as the ratio of the radiative 

forcing of one kilogram greenhouse gas emitted to the atmosphere to that from one 

kilogramme CO2 over a period of time (usually 100 years). 

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM): A mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol through 

which developed countries may finance greenhouse-gas emission reduction or removal 

projects in developing countries, and receive credits for doing so which they may apply 

towards meeting mandatory limits on their own emissions. 

Degraded forest: forest that has lost biomass after logging, fire, or some combination of the 

two. 

Greenhouse gases (GHGs): The atmospheric gases responsible for causing global warming 

and climate change. The major GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous 
oxide (N20). Less prevalent --but very powerful -- greenhouse gases are hydrofluorocarbons 

(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). 

Peat soils: soils that have 50 cm or more organic soil matter within 100. 

Reforestation: Replanting of forests on lands that have previously contained forests but that 

have been converted to some other use. 

Remote sensing: practice of acquiring and using data from satellites and aerial photography to 

infer or measure land cover/use. May be used in combination with ground surveys to check 

the accuracy of interpretation. 

Secondary forest: Forest regenerated largely through natural processes after significant 

human (‘slash and burn’) or natural disturbance of the original forest vegetation. 

Sequestration: a process, activity or mechanism which removes a greenhouse gas from the 

atmosphere.
Appendix 4

Measuring carbon stocks 
Background carbon stock and canopy cover measurements GHG emission WG

Draft version 18-06-2009. Niels Wielaard, SarVision

Applicable measurement approaches 

As noted in the paper of Goetz et al that I contributed “attempts to map above ground biomass without 

satellite imagery are insufficient”. In my opinion, solely relying on ground assessments should not be 

recommended for assessing compliance with sustainable oil palm production: 

1. The number of locations that can be assessed within in the framework of a social and environmental 

impact assessment will likely be insufficient and its spatial coverage limited. For relevant and accurate 

biomass indications, vegetation stratification is required first to do field measurements in representative 

areas. Such stratification is commonly based on... satellite data. 

2. Stocks which are easiest to measure, i.e. forest carbon stocks using tree measurements of diameter at 

breast height (DBH) are NOT the primary focus of measurements. The focus of measurements should be 

lands with carbon stocks below 35 to 70 tonnes carbon/ha. Such areas will mostly be shrublands with an

excessive number of stems with (very) small DBH or grassland that can not be surveyed using DBH 

measurements. 

3. It is not possible to do field measurements in the past, would it be required. It is not possible to perform 

measurements in all places that will be converted to plantations just before or after the cut-off dates such 

as January 2008, 2010 or any other proposed by country systems (e.g. UK, Netherlands), EU RED, or the 

revised RSPO P&C. 

Leading scientists have developed recommendations for credible carbon measurements using a 

combination of field measurements and satellite/airborne sensor data. Guidance is documented in the 

GOFC GOLD source book (http://www.gofc-gold.uni-jena.de/redd/index.php), developed to complement 

the IPCC Good Practice Guidance (IPCC, 2003) and IPCC Guidelines (IPCC, 2006) by providing 

additional explanation, clarification and enhanced methodologies for obtaining and analyzing key data.

GOFC GOLD is a platform of leading forest monitoring experts (space agencies, institutes, industry). 

Australia has already developed an operational National Carbon Accounting System, in which satellitebased land cover maps are playing a key role (AGO, 2009). This approach is currently adapted and 

transferred to tropical regions, including Indonesia. This work is coordinated within the framework of a 

new initiative of the Group on Earth Observation (GEO). GEO is an international collaborative effort of 

over 78 countries, institutes and space agencies, initiated by the G8. GEO has defined a ‘Forest Carbon 

Tracking task’ (http://geo-fct.org/), aiming to establish an operational independent global carbon 

information system, integrating national level systems. Its objectives are: 

(i) to demonstrate that coordinated Earth observations can provide reliable information of suitable 

consistency, accuracy and continuity to support forest carbon monitoring, reporting and verification; 

(ii) to define a set of standards and requirements that any methodology should adopt to provide the most 

accurate results relying on the full potential of existing observational and processing capabilities. 

Obviously, the oil palm sector could benefit much from carbon stock information resulting from the GEO

Forest Carbon Tracking task, and technical guidance by GOFC GOLD. 

Mapping carbon stocks 

Of the credible, internationally accepted wide area carbon stock assessment approaches that exist, the

following are most applicable (GOFC GOLD, 2008, CIFOR, 2008): 

1. indirect measurement: using field measurement data in combination with land cover/vegetation type 

data derived from satellite imagery; 

2. indirect measurement: using field measurement data in combination with land cover/vegetation type 

data derived from satellite imagery and other spatial data for spatially explicit modeling of carbon 

stocks; 

3. direct measurement: using biomass information detected more directly from the (radar) satellite 

signal (i.e. without the requirement to use land cover/vegetation type maps as a proxy by assigning 

biomass values to each thematic type class). 
Indirect measurement 

The lack of clear and agreed definitions of land cover vegetation types currently leads to much confusion. 

For example, there is a lot of debate and dispute as to whether forest earmarked for conversion to 

plantation is ‘degraded’ or not. 

This problem might be addressed by adhering to the classes proposed by IPCC. IPCC has identified six 

broad ‘high-level’ categories of land use consistent with the IPCC Guidelines, to be reported at the 

national level. These include forest land, cropland, grassland, wetlands, settlements, and other land.

According to IPCC it is good practice to specify national definitions for all categories used in the 

inventory and report any threshold or parameter values used in the definitions. Furthermore, it is good 

practice to make locally relevant additional classes subcategories of the suggested high-level categories. 

This could include well described and therefore objectively measurable shrubland or ‘degraded’ forest 

classes. The 30% canopy cover threshold as defined by the EU RED is also useful to distinguish forest 

from ‘degraded’ forest. 

The oil palm sector could use such IPCC maps when made available by national governments in 

compliance with UN climate convention requirements.

To further address the definition problem, the FAO has developed a classification ‘language’ to 

operationalize the definition of thematic map class descriptions in terms of objectively measurable 

parameters; e.g. canopy cover, number of months flooded, etc. This so-called FAO Land Cover 

Classification System (LCCS - http://www.glcn-lccs.org/) is applicable to all climatic zones and 

environmental conditions and compatible with existing classification systems developed by countries. 

LCCS has been submitted to become an international standard through the TC 211 technical committee of 

the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 

Direct measurement 

Traditionally used satellite sensors (e.g. landsat) can not be used for accurate direct measurement of

biomass. The direct relationship between radar sensors and biomass has been investigated since the early 

90’s (LeToan et al, 1992; Beaudoin et al 1994; Imhoff, 1995; LeToan et al 2004). Studies from Malaysia

also indicate that radar data can be used as an indicator for biomass (Hazim and Kadir, 1999). Currently 

operational satellite radar can be used to measure biomass up to 50-100 ton/ha. Forest biomass can not be 

reliably measured directly as the satellite signal saturates beyond 100 ton/ha. The proposed time averaged 

carbon stock of oil palm, as well as bare areas, grassland and shrublands however, is within the range that 

can be measured. Measurement error is typically in the order of 20 tons/ha (e.g. Pierce et al. 2002), which 

is relatively large. Nevertheless, if only a simple scheme is used identifying bare areas, grassland, 

shrubland, mature plantations and forest it should be acceptable as a proxy. 

Satellite lidar (laser) is very promising, but will not be operationally available in the next few years. 

Airborne radar (Hoekman and Quiñones, 2002; Santos et al, 2003) and airborne lidar (Lucas et al, 2006; 

Boudreau et al, 2008) are readily available and will provide much more accurate results, but at high cost. 

Mapping canopy cover 

The mapping of canopy cover (required to demonstrate compliance with the EU RED 30% threshold for 

continuously forested areas) is relatively straightforward. Very high resolution satellite data or aerial 

photography (at 0.10 – 2.5m spatial resolution) can be used to identify individual trees. Using visual

analysis or computer classification, tree crown cover can be classified at full resolution and results

aggregated to canopy cover percentages over larger spatial units required (e.g. per hectare). This is 

common practice in Australia (AGO. 2009) and Malaysia (e.g. Ming, 2003). Other studies have 

demonstrated it is also well possible to extrapolate local very high resolution canopy cover mapping 

results to regional and even global scale with acceptable accuracy (Hansen et al, 2002). 

In addition, techniques have been developed to classify canopy cover using widely used satellite sensors 

such as 30m spatial resolution Landsat-type data (Joshi et al, 2005). The development of one of such 

freely available techniques, Forest Canopy Density mapping (Rikimaru et al, 2002), has been funded by 

ITTO and applied by government agencies in Sabah and Indonesia. A consistent, yet approximate, 

application should suffice. 
Accuracy of measurements 

Carbon stock measurement can and does not have to be perfect from the start, as long as commitment to 

continuous improvement is assured. Despite known uncertainties, experts agree that well documented 

techniques and satellite data are available for reliable mapping of carbon stocks over large areas. 

Applicable techniques and data have been published in refereed scientific literature and are progressing 

rapidly (Goetz et al, 2008). 

The Voluntary Carbon Standard for credible carbon offset trading recommends that “When highly 

uncertain data and information are relied upon, the project proponent shall select assumptions and 

values that ensure that the quantification does not lead to an overestimation of GHG emission reductions 

or removal enhancements.” The IPCC good practice guidance supports the development of inventories 

that are “transparent, documented, consistent over time, complete, comparable, assessed for uncertainties, 

subject to quality control and assurance, efficient in the use of resources available to inventory agencies,” 

and last but not least, “in which uncertainties are reduced as better information becomes available”. 

The situation with respect to accuracy will improve further as new satellite missions and approaches come 

online in the next few years, several of which are designed specifically with the intent of improving 

estimates of the standing stock of carbon in biomass, and changes in those stocks through time (Houghton 

and Goetz, 2008). 

References 

AGO, 2009. URL: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/ncas/activities/landcover.html

Beaudoin, A., Le Toan, T., Goze, S., Nezry, E., Lopes, A., Mougin, E., Hsu, C.C., Han, H.C., Kong, J.A., 

Shin, R.T., Retrieval of forest biomass from SAR data. International Journal of Remote Sensing, (14), 

2777 – 2796, 1994. 

Goetz, S., A. Baccini, N. Laporte, T. Johns, W. Walker, J. Kellndorfer, R. A. Houghton, 2008. Mapping 

and Monitoring Carbon Stocks with Satellite Observations: An Update 

Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF), to support the 

Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC Guidelines) URL: 

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gpglulucf/gpglulucf_contents.html

Hazim and Kadir, 1999. Comparison of JERS-1 and Radarsat Synthetic Aperture Radar Data for Mapping 

Mangrove and Its Biomass. URL http://www.gisdevelopment.net/aars/acrs/1999/ps3/ps300e.asp 

Hoekman, D.H., Quiñones, M.J., Land Cover Type and Biomass Classification Using AirSAR Data for 

Evaluation of Monitoring Scenarios in the Colombian Amazon. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and 

Remote Sensing 38 (2), 685 – 696, 2002. 

Houghton, R.A. and S.J. Goetz, 2008. New satellites offer a better approach for determining sources and 

sinks of carbon. Eos Transactions of the American Geophysical Union (43): 417-418, 21 Oct 2008 

Imhoff, M.L., Radar backscatter and biomass saturation: ramifications for global biomass inventory. 

IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 33(2), 511-518, 1995. 

IPCC. 2003. Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF). 

Available at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp / 

IPCC. 2006. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories – Volume 4: Agriculture, Land Use and 

Forestry (AFOLU). Available at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/ 

Le Toan, T., Beaudoin, A., Riom, J., & Guyon, D., Relating forest biomass to SAR data. IEEE 

Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 30(2), 403-411, 1992. 
Le Toan T, Quegan S, Woodward I, Lomas M, Delbart N and Picard C 2004 Relating radar remote 

sensing of biomass to modeling of forest carbon budgets Clim. Change 76 379–402 

Lucas, R.M., Cronin, N., Lee, A., Moghaddam, M., Witte, C. & Tickle, P. 2006. Empirical relationships 

between AIRSAR backscatter and LiDAR-derived forest biomass, Queensland, Australia. Remote 

Sensing of Environment, 100, 407-425. 

Lucas, R.M., Cronin, N., Moghaddam, M., Lee, A., Armston, J., Bunting, P. and Witte, C., Integration of 

Radar and Landsat-derived Foliage Projected Cover for Woody Regrowth Mapping, Queensland, 

Australia, Remote Sensing of Environment, 100, 407-425, 2006. 

Lucas, R.M., Mitchell, A.L., Rosenqvist, A., Proisy, C., Melius, A. and Ticehurst, C., 2007. The potential 

of L-band SAR for quantifying mangrove characteristics and change. Case studies from the tropics and 

subtropics. Aquatic conservation: marine and freshwater ecosystems - Special Issue: Radar Applications

for Wetlands Management. 17, 245-264, 2007. 

Pierce, L.; Pan Liang; Dobson, M.C., 2002. Regrowth biomass estimation in the amazon using JERS1/RADARSAT SAR composites. Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 2002. IGARSS apos;02. 

2002 IEEE International Volume 4, Issue , 24-28 June 2002 Page(s): 2075 - 2077 vol.4 

Santos, J.R., Freitas, C.C., Araujo, L.S., Dutra, L., Mura, J.C., Gama, F.F., Soler, L.S., & Sant’Ánna, 

S.J.S., Airborne P-band SAR applied to aboveground biomass studies in the Brazilian tropical rainforest. 

Remote Sensing of Environment, 87, 482-493, 2003.