Wednesday, August 11, 2010

SMART vs. Greenpeace

Environment organization Greenpeace has continuously alleged that Indonesia's largest producer of Palm Oil i.e Sinar Mas Agri (SMART) has massively cleared Peatland and Primary Forests as habitat of Orangutan in Indonesia.

Due to this fact, SMART has lost major customers of its products including Unilever, Nestle and Kraft.

So in order to counter the allegations, SMART has commissioned two independent inspection companies i.e. Control Union Certifications and BSI, to carry put an audit on this matter.

And last Tuesday, SMART president Daud Dharsono told reporters that the result of audit shows that the above allegations were largely unfounded and that SMART was not responsible for deforestation of primary forests and the destruction of Orangutan habitats.

However, Greenpeace denied this saying that said audit has actually "confirmed Greenpeace's findings" that the company cleared Peatland and Primary Forests.

Source : AFP/Google


Tira said...

Talk about overreacting... O_o

H. Nizam said...

Thank you for your comment, but I wish that you mention what you meant by overreacting.

Anonymous said...

blog yang bagus, uptodate..saya dah follow..
salam dari

Download skripsi gratis makalah said...

i think so.. this is a good blog.
To Be success lah buat pemiliknya...hehe

H. Nizam said...

Terima kasih atas pujian dan follow anda. Saya akan folow balik.

@Download Skripsi,
Thank you for your compliment.

yanuar catur rastafara said...

nice post gannn

H. Nizam said...

Yanuar Catur,
Thank you for your compliment.

Yari NK said...

It is relieving to find that Kraft and Nestlé had stopped buying products from the loggers who still ignore the importance of preserving the rain forests. I hope someone has a list containing the names of the corporations that still deal with the ignorant loggers so I can stop buying their products. At least this is the best thing that I can do :(

colson said...

The phenomenon of companies and governments which are under attack from public opinion and/or NGOs, that hire independent counter-expertise, is pretty common. It's the usual way to neutralize the criticism.

Alas, more often than not the independence of these experts and scientists deserve a lot of doubt. Their reports tend too please the institution that pays them.

I don't know sufficiently the facts in this case, but as for now I tend to distrust SMART's claims.

H. Nizam said...

Yes, I am also anxious to know which companies are still dealing with the illegal loggers, and forest destruction companies.
Actually if the government and its law enforcement agencies can do their job properly such things would not exist. Impossible to imagine that whole lot of logs being cut and carrier to the port and load unto ships without the authority's knowing.

I agree with you that the so called independent surveyors tend to be on the side of those who are paying them. So your distrust on SMART's claims is understandable.

mas kholiq said...

ku da follow follow balik

H. Nizam said...

Mas Kholik,
Saya senang sekali bahwa kita sudah saling follow blog masing2. Terima kasih.

Greg Johnson said...

It is interesting that the opposing sides both cite the same report as proof of their position.

Ladyulia said...

please everyone,lets keep our nature
for the sake of the contunuity of our life
sad that so many animals had to lose their habitats bacause of human just think for their profits

H. Nizam said...

@Greg Johnson,
Yes, interesting indeed.

It is sad that destruction of nature keep on existing, thus endangering the future of the earth and human beings. We must never stop writing to show our protest.

Kiwi Riverman's Blogesphere said...

I'd put my money on Greenpeace, Harry.

H. Nizam said...

Peter/Kiwi Riverman,
So you're very sure about Greenpeace