Update COVID-19 in Indonesia: 248,852 confirmed infections, 9,677 deaths (21 September 2020)
21 September 2020 (closed)
USD/IDR (14,782) +59.00 +0.40%
EUR/IDR (17,387) -76.37 -0.44%
Jakarta Composite Index (4,999.36) -59.86 -1.18%
The Indonesian Palm Oil Producers Association (Gapki) believes that it is difficult for Indonesia to achieve the government’s target of collecting USD $36 billion by 2019 through crude palm oil (CPO) exports as several government policies disturb the performance of CPO exports. Moreover, global commodity prices (including palm oil) are still showing a downward trend - hence limiting foreign exchange earnings - as global economic growth remains sluggish. Economic growth of China, a major CPO importer, is expected to slow further this year.
Fadhil Hasan, Executive Director at Gapki, said that even if global palm oil prices were to rise above USD $1000 per metric ton, then the government target would still not be met. Besides weak global demand for CPO, another issue is the reduced competitiveness of CPO compared to other vegetable oils such as soybean oil. The price difference between CPO and soy has declined from USD $200 to USD $160 due to enhanced productivity and expansion of soybeans. If the price difference continues to moderate then vital CPO importing countries may prefer to import soybeans rather than CPO as both oil are interchangeable. To avert this situation, Hasan advises the Indonesian government to improve the competitiveness of the domestic crude palm oil industry, for example by improving the country’s infrastructure but also by requesting the Indonesian government to determine why it uses a CPO export tax: is it just to collect state income or is it to boost domestic downstream processing facilities in the palm oil sector?
Indonesia uses a specific formula to set its CPO export tax. When international and local CPO prices fall below USD $750 per metric ton then a zero percent tariff is set. However, the government recently indicated that it may lower the USD $750 per metric ton threshold as palm oil prices have been below this level for over three months implying that the government has not been able to collect export tax income from this sector.
In recent years, Indonesian crude palm oil exports have also been impacted by health and environmental issues. The Eurozone has set higher barriers for imports of Indonesian CPO as it aims to reduce the consumption of palm oil due to the high saturated fat content as well as concerns about deforestation and environmentally unfriendly practices in Indonesia.
Hasan added that CPO exports of Malaysia (the world’s second-largest CPO producer) have in fact improved after the Malaysian authorities signed a free trade agreement with Turkey and a comprehensive economic cooperation with the Eurozone. Therefore, Hasan would support the signing of similar agreements by Indonesian authorities to boost Indonesian CPO exports.
Gapki official Joko Supriyono added that the regulatory framework in Indonesia’s palm oil industry should be improved as well in an effort to raise more investment. Due to several recent policies (for example the temporary stop to the granting of new permits to clear rain forests and peat lands introduced in 2011) investors are hesitant to invest.
Gapki expects CPO exports from Indonesia to rise slightly by 2.5 percent (y/y) to 22.3 million metric tons in 2015 as demand from China and India are not likely to increase significantly. Exports to India declined by 17 percent (y/y) to 5.1 million tons in 2014 due to higher Indian palm oil import taxes. Meanwhile shipments to China fell by 9 percent (y/y) to 2.43 million tons due to the country’s economic slowdown. But perhaps the weaker CPO export performance to China and India can be offset by higher imports to Pakistan and the Middle East. CPO shipments to Pakistan rose by 84 percent (y/y) to 1.66 million tons in 2014 as import duties were reduced after the signing of a trade agreement between Indonesia and Pakistan. Exports to the Middle East climbed 16 percent (y/y) to 2.29 million tons last year.
Gapki expects Indonesian palm oil production to rise by roughly 4.5 percent (y/y) to the range of 32.5 - 33.0 million tons in 2015.
Indonesian Palm Oil Export in 2014:
Source: Indonesian Palm Oil Association (Gapki)
Indonesian Palm Oil Production and Export:
(million metric tons)
(million metric tons)
(in USD billion)
¹ indicates forecast
Sources: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Indonesian Palm Oil Producers Association (Gapki) and Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture
Global Corporate Economic Leaders & SHAREHOLDERS Trying to Gouge NON Shareholders to Make up for Non Volatile, but Democratic & Rational Trade Growth.
Obama may release full text of Submission to The Supreme Court to 'Tear Down that Wall' of 'Death-Star-Chamber' Secret Tribunals in Hope of Quick Passage Thu. Congress & Assuage harmless, Global NON shareholders?
HOW to DISCOURAGE CORPORATE USA, et al, "Need" to FLEECE NON-Shareholders & GLOBALLY EXPAND & DILUTE $17+ Trillion DEBT; SECRET TPP, CETA, et al, GLOBALIZES WALL ST.'s UNREGULATED TRANSGRESSIONS? TOO Big, BigGER, BIGGEST for "ARRANGED" FAILURE?
New 'Savvy' Head, Matt Salmon (R), May Demand corp'USA' & Feds Prepay $Billions for All of TPP's, TTIP's, et al, Secret ('Death-Star-Chamber) Tribunals' Punitive Damages to Protect Home State's Taxpayers; other States, Municipalities, et al, "...(we) need to control corp. USA's 'Contributions'".
How Much are You Selling your Right to Sue the Global Corporate Economy for?
Higher Taxes & More Cuts to Services to Pay Secret Penalties; NON Shareholders Have to Pay SHAREHOLDERS, corporate USA, Japan, Canada, et al. How Much are You Selling your Right to Sue the Global Corporate Economy for?
But, If Not PUTIN; 'The WHITE KNIGHT', then Who Do YOU Want to Save the harmless NON shareholders from Fast Tracking TPP's, CETA's (TTIP) Secret 'Death-Star-Chamber' Tribunal Penalties? Will China, Iran, the Muslim World, et al, Support Putin in Suits?
It will be good for, not only the NON shareholders of the enterprises that can be generated by the on-going global "cooperation" of corporate treaties, agreements, partnerships, et al, including the Trans Pacific Partnership, the EU - Canada CETA, the China - Canada Investment Treaty, et al,
for the potential shareholders, as well,
who are quite interested to know if President Xi Jinping (China) will support Russia as a co-member of B.R.I.C.S. when President Putin uses his potential role as "The White Knight".
And, while President Putin's potential support as “The WHITE KNIGHT” in the development of the CETAgreement, et al, litigation below can dramatically off-set the hundreds of billions of dollars due to the present & future sanctions levelled by American led, et al, corporations & financial institutions via their governments' signing their global corporate economic treaties/”arrangements”,
and the potential for making trillions of dollars for the Russian economy over the next 30 - 40 years & beyond,
are the citizens (SHAREHOLDERS & NON shareholders) of Germany & JAPAN just being prudent in wanting to wait for the outcome of:
1) The Submission to The SUPREME COURT of CANADA & the highest court in Germany, et al, to make their findings regarding “The Submission”:
'The SHAREHOLDERS & Corporations of AMERICA, France, Germany, Canada, et al
the harmless Canadian NON shareholders, both; Native & non Native, et al'?
2) 'The MERKEL (Chancellor of Germany) Letter; To Sue, or, Be Sued?'
Have the federal representatives of the nations that are the potential signatories of CETA, TPP, et al, willingly provided the NON shareholders of China, Canada, Europe, the Trans Pacific nations, et al, with the aforementioned information? Are the federal representatives, et al, depriving the NON shareholders of Canada, et al, of the due diligence information that enables the family of the NON shareholders of Canada, et al, to make informed decisions regarding their financial planning?
And, would a reasonable person conclude by a preponderance of the evidence, &/or, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these documents, et al, demonstrate that the SHAREHOLDERS of AMERICA, CANADA , the EU & Trans Pacific nations, et al, really do not care which NON shareholders pay them the punitive penalties, etc., by way of their secret (“Death-Star Chamber”) TRIBUNALS, as long as its not the SHAREHOLDERS who pay & not their corporations regardless of which country the corporations:
1) operating from,
2) maintain their headquarters,
3) use to do their cyber banking, accounting, "taxation", etc.
4) et al?
And, re; the CHINA – Canada Investment Treaty, is it understandable why the “coveted” Hong Kong investor & his associates are “concerned” with the aforementioned findings of The SUPREME COURT of CANADA, et al, & the effects of the potential findings, et al, on the EU, AMERICA, the Trans Pacific nations, et al, treaties with CHINA, et al?
In regard to arms sales (and other 'contentious' products & services) ; how about the sale of arms (non nuclear) in general in regard to the "trade" treaties that are continuing to be secretly negotiated and how will the Tribunals, both; B.R.I.C.S. & non BRICS, adjudicate, decide & penalize the NON SHAREHOLDERS for the sale of legitimate, semi- legitimate & "illegal" sales of arms within the signatories nations & the those of others, &/or, unaligned? Of particular, interest is China, which does have an treaty with Canada, which puts China "at odds" with other arms manufacturing & nuclear powers that it (China) does not have any "arrangements" with.
Are these types of questions that your politicians & the corporate lobbyists calls "forget-me-nots" ("Buyer Beware") that will be (maybe) worked out after the fast tracked signatures are obtained?
And, what do you think is the significance of the line in The Submission to The Supreme Court of Canada '...And, lest one forgets that the revelation of the present perilous international treaties/'arrangements' began with the regard for the rights of Native Canadians as per the Treaties/”arrangements” that corporate Canada & the Government of Canada have 'foisted' upon Native Canadians...'? What are the various ways that this line will cost the SHAREHOLDERS, et al?
On the other hand, it may be worth repeating yet again,
'What the TREATY of VERSAILLES was to the 20th century PALES in COMPARISON to the TPP, CETA, C-CIT, NAFTA, et al, in the 21st'.
And, how will YOUR submission to YOUR highest court IMPROVE upon The Submission that is presently before The Supreme Court of Canada?
David E.H. Smith
- 'Qui tam...'
Please consider sharing the enclosed information & questions with 10 members of your family, friends, associates in order that they can use the due diligence info to make more informed decision about their families' financial planning, & then they can share it with 10 others...
For more Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics by way of the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, TPP, et al, and The WAD Accord
List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS,