Palm Oil Under Threat: Elephant Deaths Expose Weak Governance Amidst Strict EU Deforestation Rules
The spatial conflict between elephants and humans frequently occurs in Riau Province, a central distribution hub for Sumatran elephants. The province has lost approximately 70% of its forest cover since 1985, and during the same period, 23 elephant habitat areas have become extinct. This habitat constriction is caused by land clearing for timber plantations or estates, often without considering the function of the land being converted. This lack of consideration triggers conflict, as elephants enter areas that have been turned into settlements or farming fields. Many residents are distressed and question how elephants can enter areas that no longer resemble forests, highlighting that educating the public about elephant behaviour and living space remains an urgent task. In reality, elephants do not wander randomly; they possess the ability to memorise routes they have traversed since the first time, using these traditional migratory corridors repeatedly.
Why is the elephant issue important? Because elephants act as guardians of forest sustainability and ecosystem balancers. They play a role in dispersing seeds and helping other fauna meet their water needs by digging into the ground with their tusks during the dry season. The number of human-elephant conflicts in Riau between 2021 and 2025 exceeded 200 cases. Given this significant number, prevention and mitigation efforts are desperately needed. Ideally, the response should prioritise structural prevention, such as the construction of green infrastructure like toll road underpasses, a measure successfully implemented on the Pekanbaru-Dumai Toll Road. However, this approach remains limited and is a single pilot project. Legally, integrated corporate sanction policies, such as the threat of revoking Cultivation Rights Titles (HGU) for companies whose areas cut across wildlife corridors or destroy habitats, should act as a deterrent. Yet, a lack of firmness is evident, as cases of wildlife deaths in concession areas often end with administrative sanctions that provide no deterrent effect.
In the era of globalisation, environmental conflict is no longer viewed as a domestic issue but is closely linked to Indonesia’s international political and economic reputation. The tightening of regulations in the global market, such as the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) which will effectively apply to large and medium-sized companies from 30 December 2026, strictly prohibits the entry of commodity products proven to be produced on deforested land or that damage biodiversity. Consequently, the installation of iron snares or electric fences that cause elephant deaths can become a danger alarm for Indonesia’s trade diplomacy. If the government continues to be negligent, Indonesian palm oil products face the threat of a boycott or failure to meet due diligence standards in the international market.
In response to this global regulatory pressure, Indonesia often argues that the EUDR is a form of regulatory imperialism, a covert protectionist tactic by the European Union to shield its domestic sunflower and rapeseed oil markets from palm oil dominance. However, a defensive stance hiding behind a trade war narrative will never solve the problem. This rhetoric collapses in the face of the chaotic domestic palm oil supply chain. The reason for clearing land in wildlife corridors is a tangible degradation. As long as wildlife living space is sacrificed for short-term profit, Indonesia’s diplomatic defence will remain raw in the global eye, jeopardising the position of national products in the global supply chain.
On the other hand, the EUDR’s green agenda is not entirely solid. Its implementation was forced to be postponed due to protests from producer countries. The first delay pushed the date from December 2024 to December 2025, and a second delay moved it to December 2026, with the European Commission citing IT technical constraints and pressure for regulatory simplification. A further grace period until 30 June 2027 applies for small and micro enterprises. This postponement is proof that the ecological narrative championed by Western nations can soften and become pragmatic when faced with threats to macroeconomic stability. This window of time should be used as a golden moment to fix palm oil governance.
When upstream handling is not optimal, the burden shifts to mitigation efforts. In the advanced technology sector, measures such as installing GPS collars on the matriarch of an elephant herd and using drone buzzing sounds as a sound-based repellent have proven capable of deterring elephants peacefully. However, these findings cannot yet become a mass operational standard due to constraints in device costs, limited battery life, and a lack of operational experts. These limitations are worsened by the absence of economic compensation for affected residents. A wildlife conflict insurance scheme remains merely a discourse. Because of this, communities often resort to destructive shortcuts. Bio-fencing efforts, such as planting chilli or coffee, often fail to deter starving elephants displaced by deforestation, leading residents to turn to inappropriate physical barriers like electric wires that use high voltage instead of the required low-voltage current.