Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76 (2017) 608–619

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Sustainable oil palm industry: The possibilities MARK

a,b,⁎ a,⁎⁎ b b
Rahima Khatun , Mohammad Imam Hasan Reza , M. Moniruzzaman , Zahira Yaakob
a
Southeast Asia Disaster Prevention Research Initiative (SEADPRI), Institute for Environment and Development (LESTARI), Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
b
Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built, Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi,
Selangor, Malaysia

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: Cruel oil or green gold is a dilemma for the oil palm industry. The oil palm industry (planting and milling) has a
Ecological integrity devastating impact on the environment and ecosystems. Oil palm plantations and expansion cause deforesta-
Renewable energy tion, habitat loss, forest fragmentation, biodiversity loss, food chain disruption, soil property changes, water and
Sustainable agriculture air pollution, conversion of wetlands and arable lands, and increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
Ecosystem services
resulting in annual fires as well as increasing both subsidence and flood risk. Palm oil mill effluents (POME) are
Oil palm farming
toxic compounds that cause eutrophication and acidification, pollute terrestrial and aquatic systems and release
Production intensification
greenhouse gases. However, the oil palm industry is a million-dollar industry that ensures food security (oil and
fat). There is increasing demand for palm oil due to population growth and for use as a biofuel feedstock.
Significant higher production per hectare in comparison to other oil crops is the main advantage of oil palm. The
anthropogenic pressure on the environment is increasing to fulfil the demand and increasing susceptibility to
natural disasters. Therefore, the sustainability of this industry is an urgent need. This critical review identified
gaps and researched ways for the oil palm industry to be sustainable. Maintaining ecological integrity (ecological
health, connectivity, resilience); justifying land allocation (ecosystem service mapping); providing awareness,
good management practices, no/minimum production gaps, high yield and disease resistant cultivar generation
and plantations, supplemental forms of alternative sources, zero-waste milling technology; and locating
plantations on suitable land without further deforestation can fulfil the oil palm industry's present and future
demands without impairing the ecosystem or environment.

1. Introduction human well-being [4]. Human survival and well-being depends on

An ecosystem is a complex composition of physical, chemical and
biological components. The ability of an ecosystem to support and
maintain biological communities (assemblages of species) comparable
to those found in unmanaged or relatively undisturbed habitats of the
region is recognized as Ecological Integrity. Ecological Integrity
includes biotic (living things) and abiotic components (soils, air, water)
as well as ecosystem functions, such as energy flow and nutrient
cycling, within the forest. A complex ecosystem remains in a healthy
state if the ecological integrity and resilience is maintained [1].
Ecosystems provide various goods and services to society, which in
turn directly contribute to human well-being and economic wealth
[2,3]. Ecosystem services are defined as the contributions of the
ecosystem structure and function in combination with other inputs to
these services and therefore on the conservation and best management
of the ecosystems that provide them. The ecosystem services concept
has been postulated as having important potential to support land use
planning [5]. Ecosystem services mapping and analysis facilitates
trade-off analysis [6] and can also be used to optimize the allocation
of land for specific uses [7].
Oil palm is economically important crop that ensures food security.
Recently, it has emerged as a potential source of renewable energy [8–
10]. In 2015, the world oil palm production reached 55.70 million tons
(MT) from 17.32 million hectares (mha) of plantation. The average
production is 3.214 t/ha (FAOSTAT1). Due to population growth and
increased energy demand, the demand for oil palm is increasing.
Global palm oil production has doubled every 10 years in the past few
decades. By 2020, the production is expected to reach 78 million tons

⁎
Corresponding author at: Southeast Asia Disaster Prevention Research Initiative (SEADPRI), Institute for Environment and Development (LESTARI), Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
⁎⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: rahimabtge@gmail.com (R. Khatun), rezamih@gmail.com (M.I.H. Reza), monirbge@gmail.com (M. Moniruzzaman), zahira@ukm.edu.my (Z. Yaakob).
1
http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/Q/QC/E, Last Accessed Jun, 2016.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.077
Received 15 August 2016; Received in revised form 18 December 2016; Accepted 16 March 2017
1364-0321/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Khatun et al.
Fig. 1. Environmental and social impact of oil palm plantation.
[11]. The increased demand is expected to lead to the expansion of oil
palm plantations. With the current (2015–2016) production rate, a
plantation increase of approximately half of the existing plantation area
is required to fulfil the demand needed by 2020. However, traditional
oil palm plantations and expansion are detrimental to the environment,
especially tropical forest, as they cause deforestation [12,13], habitat
loss [13], forest fragmentation [14], biodiversity loss [15], food chain
disruption, soil property changes [16,17], water and air pollution
[12,18], conversion of peatlands [19] and arable lands [20], and
increased carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions [21,22], resulting in annual
fires [22] as well as increased subsidence and flood risk (Fig. 1). Palm
oil mill effluents (POME) are eutrophying, acidifying, and toxic
compounds that pollute terrestrial and aquatic systems [23] and
release greenhouse gases [24]. The conflicts over land rights [25],
labour management [26], human behaviour change [27] and the
livelihood (low income) of smallholders are social issues related to
plantations.
The economy, environment and society are the basis of sustainable
development. Oil palm is an important and large industry. Oil palm
plantations and expansion are of great concern for environmentalists,
ecologists and policy makers. Therefore, the sustainability of this
industry is critical. We critically studied environmental issues and
supply-demand issues along with technological improvement and
application towards sustainable oil palm industry. Finally, we explored
the gaps that need to be sealed as well as ways to make the oil palm
industry sustainable.
2. Oil palm as a promising renewable energy source
The world energy spending will have increased three fold by the last
50 years ending in 2025. Till date fossil fuel is contributing to over 80%
of the total combusted energy. The fossil fuel oil is expected to face a
greater threat of becoming exhausted. Globally the maximum oil
production may likely be between 2015 and 2030. It is then expected
609
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76 (2017) 608–619
to sharply decline to 40% of today's production by 2075 [28].
Industrialisation, economic growth, global warming, energy security
sustainable environment and comfortable life are the challenges of
modern civilisation. To fulfil the above, the world is looking for
adequate renewable energy sources [29].
The use of vegetable oils as an alternative fuel has been reported.
Oil from rapeseed was the first type used for bio-diesel production and
it remains the main feedstock for bio-diesel production in Europe [30].
However, the best alternative fuel must be environmentally acceptable,
technically feasible, economically competitive and readily available. Oil
palm is a high yielding oil crop. On an average, it produces up to 10
times higher yield in comparison to other oil crops (soybean, sunflower,
rapeseed) [31]. Among the vegetable oil sources, palm oil is a cheap
option for bio-diesel feedstock [32]. Moreover, palm oil can easily be
converted to bio-diesel [9,33].
Generally, bio-ethanol is produced from sugar or starch grains by
fermentation. Solid waste from oil palm, especially empty fruit bunch
(EFB), contains higher sugar. Glucose and xylose were successfully
produced from EFB [34,35]. Pyrolysis and fermentation or hydrolysis
of EFB can produce bio-oil and bio-ethanol. Bio-methanol is also
produced from biomass. Black liquor gasification is a cost competitive
technique to produce methanol from biomass.2 Trunk of oil palm can
produce black liquor [36,37].
Biomass can also be used to generate bio-powers [38–40]. Direct-
fired, gasification, anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis, and small, modular
systems are different forms of bio-power. Direct firing of solid waste
(EFB, mesocarp fibre) can produce heat and steam for ultimate
electricity production [26]. Synthesis gas, also known as syngas,
produced from biomass materials has been identified as a potential
source of renewable energy for power generation and transport fuel, as
2
Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. /http://www.iags.org/n052404t3.htmS
(Accessed August 2016).
R. Khatun et al.
well as feedstock for chemical production. Syngas is produced through
biomass gasification process that converts solids to gas phase via
thermochemical conversion reactions. Optimization of the gasification
process can significantly improve the prospect of commercial syngas
production from oil palm biomass [41]. Palm oil mill effluent (POME)
has emerged as a potential renewable energy source. Approximately
28 m3 of biogas is generated from 1 m3 of POME in the treatment plant
[42]. The EFB is ligno–cellulosic biomass, which can be converted to
hydrogen gas through gasification process. Bio–hydrogen gas produc-
tion from oil palm biomass is a promising source of alternative energy
[43,44].
3. Environmental issues towards sustainability
In the context of environmental issues, environmentalists acknowl-
edge palm oil as cruel oil. Fig. 1 discloses the environmental and social
impact of oil palm plantations. The following measures can reduce
anthropogenic pressure on the environment due to oil palm plantations
and processing.
3.1. Maintaining ecological integrity and health
In general, an ecosystem has ecological integrity (Fig. 2) when “the
structure, composition and function of the ecosystem are unimpaired
by stresses from human activity; natural ecological processes are intact
and self-sustaining, the ecosystem evolves naturally and its capacity for
self-renewal is maintained; and the ecosystem's biodiversity is en-
sured” [1].
Ecosystem Integrity is a concept consisting of several aspects,
including ecosystem health, sustainable development, ecological life
support, actual and future states of the ecosystem, long-term function
and processes, self-regulation, uncertainties concerning future devel-
opment, valuation of ecosystem goods and services, protection against
ecological risks and early warning systems, precautionary principles
Fig. 2. Ecological integrity and ecosystem health.
610
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76 (2017) 608–619
(environmental law), and protection against future anthropogenic
demands. Ecosystem health includes health as homeostasis, health as
the absence of disease, health as diversity or complexity, health as
stability or resilience, health as vigour or the scope for growth, and
health as a balance between system components.
The principles of sustainable ecological integrity are: i) considering
the entire ecosystem, rather than only the trees; ii) considering the
structures (biotic and abiotic) that are important to biological commu-
nities (e.g., large dead trees) along with their ecological processes; iii)
performing long-term thinking, not only planning for 10 or 20 years;
iv) integrating management across all scales; and v) accounting for
ecological considerations that increase with harvest intensity.
Maintaining existing ecological integrity and restoring damage may
provide many market and non-market benefits [45]. The sustainable
ecological integrity of a forest can be achieved by: a) maintaining the
productive capacity of the soil and natural structures, b) practicing
similar harvesting techniques to that of the natural disturbance
regimes of the forest, c) stimulating the growth of species and
structures that would naturally develop within stands over time, d)
understanding forest growth as it applies to each ecological site type, e)
managing the forest so that the majority of the forest is represented by
mature and relatively mature stands of long-lived species, f) leaving a
few trees on every acre to grow old and die, g) identifying permanent
no-harvest areas where ecological processes can proceed unimpeded,
h) considering and managing the various scales at which species and
communities occur on the landscape, i) avoiding forest fragmentation,
and j) identifying and managing sensitive and/or unusual natural
areas.
3.2. Justified land allocation (ecosystem service mapping)
Many goods and services provided by ecosystems to society
contribute directly to human well-being and economic wealth [2,3].
The value of ecosystems through economic, ecological and social
R. Khatun et al.
(triple-bottom-line) contributions to human well-being is known as
Green GDP (gross domestic product) [46]. Ecosystem services (ES) are
the benefits that humans derive from nature [4]. Human survival and
well-being depend on these services and therefore on the conservation
and optimal management of the ecosystems that provide them. The
provision of ecosystem services depends on biophysical conditions and
changes over space and time due to human-induced land cover, land
use and climatic changes. The spatial patterns of land cover and land
cover change can be linked to large regions and provide direct
measures of human activity [47]. Ecosystem services, as a science-
policy interface, link ecological and sociological data to assess the
interactions among them and inform policy and decision-making [48–
50]. They can be accessed through simple or more complex models and
indicators [51,52], which are the basis for map generation. Mapping
and assessment of ecosystems and ecosystem services are important for
the advancement of biodiversity objectives and to inform the develop-
ment and implementation of related policies on water, climate,
agriculture, forest, and regional planning [53]. This visualization of
ecosystem services can be used by decision makers, e.g., land man-
agers, as a powerful tool for the support of landscape sustainability
assessments [54]. Ecosystem services mapping and analysis facilitate
trade-off analysis [6] and can be used to optimize the allocation (Fig. 3)
of land for specific uses [7].
There is a wide variety of existing approaches, leading to variety in
the methods and models, classification systems and terminologies [55–
57]. This variety calls for a system that gathers all of the existing
information on indicators that are used to map ecosystem services and
facilitates communication and data sharing among the diverse parties
involved. Many recent studies have mapped the supply of multiple
ecosystem services at global [58], continental [59], national [60] or
sub-national [61,62] scales. A few recent studies have mapped the
demand of ecosystem services [63–65]. Other recent studies offer
frameworks for integrating the ecological and economic value dimen-
sions of ecosystem services to more accurately calculate the monetary
value of mapped ecosystem services [2,5,66]. However, there is very
little research on ecosystem service mapping in Southeast Asia. A lack
Fig. 3. Framework for integrated analysis of ES and land use planning.
611
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76 (2017) 608–619
of clear policy directives or management frameworks as well as a lack of
data, methods and tools in developing and data-poor countries is the
main barrier for research in this region.
Land cover and land use are changing rapidly in Southeast Asia,
especially in Indonesia and Malaysia [67], due to the expansion of
plantations. The assessment of ecosystem functions and services as
well as checks on the justification of dismantling the ecosystem and
changing land use are required. Although oil palm presents a major
development opportunity, there is a need to carefully plan and monitor
the conversion of land because of the associated environmental impact
[68].
3.3. Plantation and management
The most contentious environmental issue facing the oil palm
industry is deforestation, as large tracts of tropical rainforest are being
converted to plantations [69,70]. Currently, Southeast Asian tropical
forests have been confronting a higher rate of deforestation than other
tropical forests [71,72]. The devastating expansion of oil palm (Elaeis
guineensis) plantations on tropical lowland mainly caused this defor-
estation and resulted in above-ground biodiversity loss [73], air and
water pollution from increased nitrogen (N) and carbon emissions
[74,75], and physical and chemical changes to the soil. Studies in oil
palm frontier areas on the island of Sumatra concluded that oil palm
plantations result in a significant reduction in biodiversity if planta-
tions replace natural forests, secondary forests, agro-forests, or even
degraded forests and scrubby unplanted areas [76,77]. Ecosystem
service mapping (ESM) can help to select suitable available land
without deforestation or impairing the environment.
Best management practices (BMPs) are the agronomic methods and
techniques that are found to be the most cost effective and practical
means to reduce the gap between actual and site yield potential and
minimize the impact of the production system on the environment by
efficiently using external inputs and production resources. Best man-
agement practice can improve oil yield and simultaneously reduce the
adverse effects on the environment.
R. Khatun et al.
Approximately 25% of the total production cost or 50–70% of field
operational costs is accounted for by fertilizers [78,79]. Pesticide
application is also part of the expenditure. Moreover, aquatic ecosys-
tems near plantations are particularly at risk for water quality impair-
ment due to the relatively high rate of fertilizer application on
plantations [76].
The target yield, soil fertility, climate, plantation age, genetic
potential of the planting material and numerous environmental factors,
such as tree spacing and groundcover conditions, are variable factors
for the nutrient requirements of oil palm [80,81]. Fertilizer manage-
ment in oil palm plantations is based on the nutrient balance principle,
which estimates the total demand of the palm and matches it with the
nutrient supply in the oil palm plantation and from supplemented
fertilizers [82].
The optimal frequency of fertilizer application depends on the crop
requirements, tree age, ground conditions, types of fertilizer available
and rainfall [83]. It is necessary to determine the actual requirements
by leaf analysis or other methods and to meet the requirements by
suitable methods at proper times. For example, frequent application of
fertilizer at low rates is preferred for sandy or sloped land where the
risk of nutrient losses through runoff or drainage is high. In such areas,
a single annual application of water insoluble rock phosphate is
recommended, whereas soluble fertilizers would be applied at low
doses several times a year elsewhere. More frequent fertilizer applica-
tion is also advised for immature trees [84]. Some authors recommend
fertilizer application close to the tree base in the initial years and
gradual extension to the tree avenues when the canopy overlaps and
good root development is reached. Moreover, the timing of fertilizer
application should account for the rainfall pattern to avoid substantial
nutrient losses. Thus, the general guideline is to avoid fertilizer
application during periods with high rainfall of more than 250 mm
per month, months with high rainfall on more than 16 days per month,
and months with high intensity rainfall events of more than 25 mm per
day [79,84].
Organic fertilization helps reduce nutrient fluxes compared to
mineral fertilizers. Both EFB and POME contain substantial amounts
of nutrients and organic matter that can replenish the soil fertility and
help to meet the nutrient requirements for oil palm. Recycling all
organic materials- empty fruit bunches (EFB), mill effluent and
decanter solids as well as surplus shell and fibre to the field can help
with waste management and considerably reduce chemical fertilizer
use. It is ideal to return approximately six tons per hectare of EFB to
plantation sites annually. Application of 40–60 t EFB ha−1 yr−1 or
750 m3 POME ha−1 yr−1 is recommended to add organic matter and
improve soil fertility on poor inland soils [82]. It is best to cut old
fronds of mature palms during harvesting, and the pruning should be
left on the ground for decomposition and nutrient recycling.
3.4. Environmentally friendly mill operation
By-products utilization for renewable bio-energy production will
make oil palm industry environmental friendly, with cleaner produc-
tion and greater sustainability [85–88]. Approximately 0.5–0.75 t of
palm oil mill effluent (POME) is produced from one ton of fresh fruit
bunches [89]. A large volume of POME is subsequently discharged.
Clarification wastewater (60%), sterilizer condensate (36%) and hydro-
cyclone wastewater (4%) are three principal sources of POME produc-
tion and discharge [90]. The raw POME consists of 0.6–0.7% oil and
grease, 4–5% total solids (2–4% suspended solids) and large volume of
water-95–96%. It is a thick brownish, viscous and voluminous colloidal
acidic matter that is discharged at a temperature of 80–90 °C [91].
POME is a remarkably contaminating effluent because of its high
amount of chemical oxygen demand (COD), biological oxygen demand
(BOD) and colour agent.
Oil palm mills generate greenhouse gases (CH4, CO2) that can affect
the environment, especially air and water resources. Acquisition of raw
612
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76 (2017) 608–619
material, the chemicals and energy used, transportation and waste-
water management are sources of green house gas (GHG) in the milling
process. Palm oil mill by-products and residue reuse reduces the
combustion of significant quantities of fossil fuels. There is no net
GHG emission from the use of fuels in palm oil mills when the palm oil
mill by-products and residues are efficiently reused [92]. POME-
derived biogas consists of a significant portion of methane (CH4).
Harsono et al. reported the production of biogas from POME at the rate
of 28 m3 biogas/m3 POME [42]. GHG emissions from POME are in the
order of 2500–4000 kg CO2-eq per ha/yr or 625–1467 kg CO2-eq per
ton CPO (based on a yield range of 3.2–4 t CPO/ha) [92]. Biogas
capture, co-composting with EFB, decanters, and denitrification are
technologies that significantly reduce methane emissions from POME.
Kaewmai et al. reported 30% less GHG emissions from mills with
biogas capture than from mills without biogas capture [93].
However, POME has emerged as a potential renewable energy
source [42]. In mills, steam and power are being generated by using
solid wastes (fruit fibre and kernel shell). The utilization of available
alternative energy sources from the mills decreases the operation and
effluent treatment costs. It is possible to earn ringgit Malaysia (RM) 3.8
million per year by the generation of electricity using biogas from
POME treatment [10]. Appropriate reactor designing and treatment
condition is important for biogas production [94]. Ohimain and Izah
[95] reported that Ultrasonic-assisted Membrane Anaerobic System
(UAMAS) is superior among different configurations of reactors such as
fluidized bed reactor, anaerobic filtration, up-flow anaerobic sludge
blanket (UASB) reactor, anaerobic contact digestion, up-flow anaerobic
sludge fixed-film (UASFF) reactor, modified anaerobic baffled bioreac-
tor (MABB), anaerobic baffled bioreactor (ABR), continuous stirred
tank reactor (CSTR), expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB) reactor,
Ultrasonicated membrane anaerobic system (UMAS), Ultrasonic-as-
sisted Membrane Anaerobic System (UAMAS), membrane anaerobic
system (MAS) and upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor (UASBR).
They also reported that pH, temperature (environmental factors),
organic loading rate (OLR), hydraulic retention time (HRT), mixing
rate, pressure, equilibrium, nutrient and microbial activities (internal
factors) are the factors that affect biogas yield during treatment. Palm
oil agricultural refinery waste can be used as a carbon source for the
production of rhamnolipid biosurfactant through fermentation [96].
More research is needed for appropriate fermentation methods,
operation conditions, and reactor design for the efficient utilization of
POME and minimization of discharged pollutants.
4. Demand and supply issues towards sustainability
Oil palm has many uses in several categories: Food- cooking oil,
industrial frying fat, margarine, vegetable ghee, confectionary fat, ice
cream, non-dairy cream, salad dressing, cheese analogues, chocolates,
supplements, and vitamins; Oleochemicals- surfactant, personal care
products, cosmetics, agrochemicals, lubricants, toilet soap, industrial
cleaning, printing Ink, polyols, and polyurethane; and Biofuels-
biodiesel, jet fuels, and biogas. With the growth of the world's
population (mostly middle class) and an increasing demand for energy
from renewable sources, the demand for palm oil has increased. There
is a gap between demand and supply, and in the future, it is expected
that this gap will be large. The following measures can close the gap
and aid in fulfilling the oil palm demand.
4.1. More oil from existing plantation areas
Narrowing the gap between actual and attainable yields in existing
oil palm plantations is perceived as a key to fulfil the growing global
demand for vegetable oil [97]. During the period between 1950 and
1960, production increased from 1.3 to 5.4 t of oil per hectare in
Malaysia [98]. Indonesia and Malaysia have achieved average oil yields
of 6 t/ha at a larger scale (MY standard). The potential oil yield of oil
R. Khatun et al.
Fig. 4. Production (t/ha) gap among current and different standards.
palms planted on a commercial scale has been estimated at 10–11 t/ha
(MY commercial standard) [99]. However, in 2015, the world oil palm
production was approximately 55.70 million tons (MT) from 17.32
million hectares (mha) of plantation. The average production is
3.214 t/ha (FAOSTAT1). The per hectare oil production of Malaysia
and Indonesia was approximately 4 t/ha in 2015, 33.33% below the
Malaysian and Indonesian standard production range (6 t/ha) (Fig. 4).
Per hectare oil production ranged from 0.31 to 6.4 t among the 15 top
producing countries. Nigeria and Ghana (3.374 million hectares) share
19.5% of total plantation, producing 94.66% less oil per hectare than
the Malaysian standard (6 t/ha). The average per hectare oil produc-
tion of Mexico, the Philippines, and the Congo in 2015 was approxi-
mately 1.54 t/ha (Fig. 4). This gap may be due to the absence of or
selection of inappropriate planting material, unsuitable site selection,
fertilization and irrigation mismanagement, inappropriate harvesting
and post-harvest handling, or inefficient oil extraction processes.
According to four PalMA scenarios, Global Orchestration (GO),
Techno Garden (TG), Order from Strength (OS) and Adaptic Mosaic
(AM) for crude palm oil (CPO) production, 264–447 Mt of crude palm
oil may be needed for cooking oil and biodiesel worldwide by 2050
[100]. If all plantations are as productive as those in Malaysia (MY
current production -4.2 t/ha) as of 2015, the total oil produced could
be 72.744 million tons, approximately 17 million tons of excess oil. If
palm oil is produced as per the Malaysian standard (MY standard -6 t/
ha) and Malaysian commercial standard (10 t/ha), the global oil palm
production from the existing area of plantation could reach 103.92
million tons (MT) and 173.2 million tons, respectively. Moreover, if the
production level is that of claims of oil palm breeders (18 t/ha), 311.76
million tons of oil will be produced, which can satisfy the oil palm
demand in 2050 (Fig. 5).
4.2. Extra oil from efficient milling
The oil palm fruit contains 30–40% oil, depending on the variety.
Industrial operation affects the oil yield. Oil can be extracted by
mechanical pressure, solvent extraction and enzymatic degradation of
the kernel. Palm oil is extracted from fresh fruit bunches (FFB) by a
mechanical process. Current palm oil mills are predominantly based on
concepts developed in the early 1950s [101]: sterilization, stripping,
digestion and pressing, clarification, purification, drying, and storage.
The operating conditions can determine the oil loss and increase oil
production. Mechanical processes of oil extraction produce less oil per
unit than other processes. In 2015, the average oil extraction rate
(OER) in Malaysia was 20.46%. However, in the same year, Malaysian
613
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76 (2017) 608–619
palm oil board (MPOB) reported that some mills achieved more than
23% OER (MPOB3). If all mills in Malaysia produced at 23% OER,
there would be 2.44 million tons of excess oil from the same level of
production in this country. The oil extraction rate data are not available
for most countries. It is believed that the OER in Malaysia is higher
than that of other countries. If all producers could achieve a 23%
standard, there would be a significant increase in global palm oil
production. Recently, the Indonesian Oil Palm Research Institute
(PPPK) aimed for an increase to 26% OER to positively affect palm
oil production [102].
To prevent oil loss, focus should be placed on sterilizer condensate,
empty bunches, fruit loss in unstrapped bunches, press cake fibre, nuts
and sludge. Over-ripe bunches lose more oil during sterilization. To
minimize this loss, shorter sterilizer cycles or better control of bunch
ripeness and quality will help ensure less waste. Moreover, mechanical
extraction affects oil quality, as the temperature of processing ranges
between 90 °C and 140 °C. Solvent and enzymatic extraction need to be
explored for minimum-loss oil extraction.
4.3. Higher yields from improved cultivars
Genetic improvement of the oil palm plant can play a vital role in
the sustainability of this crop and the environment. Application of
modern biotechnology tools and approaches to plant breeding have
contributed to the increase of oil production [103]. Oil palm breeding
and genetic improvement activities started in Africa and Southeast Asia
in the 1920s. The plant breeding targets can be classified into four
groups: yield potential, adaptation, oil quality and stress tolerance
[104].
Successful breeding and cloning would short-circuit the process of
maximizing an oil yield of up to 18 t/ha [105]. Conventional breeding
takes a long time (over 20 years) to achieve superior yields. DNA
marker-based selection (marker-assisted selection and genomic selec-
tion) can jump the selection gap [106]. High yield crops have been
achieved through the combination of high biomass production and
high harvest index. Palm breeding efforts should focus on breeding for
high efficiency palms with a more efficient light capture, higher
photosynthetic rate, higher leaf expansion ratio, higher leaf area ratio,
better conversion efficiency of energy captured to dry matter, reduced
respiratory loss, and improved harvest index [104].
3
http://bepi.mpob.gov.my/index.php/statistics/oil-extraction-rate/140-oil-
extraction-rate-2015/769-oer-performance-2015.html, Last Accessed Jun 2016.
R. Khatun et al.
Fig. 5. Oil palm demand (in million tons) fulfillment by sealing production gaps.
Fig. 6. Available suitable land in South-America.
The sex ratio is an important yield determinant. For oil palm, it may
decrease by 35% in older plants. Both genetic and environmental
factors (fertilizer application, planting densities and availability of
sufficient water) influence the proportion of female flowers in inflor-
escence. Building up a dioecious oil palm will produce palms with only
bunches. Dwarf plants and non-seeding fruits can make harvesting
easier and reduce labour costs. Low lipase activity can prevent palm oil
degradation from the field to the mill [107].
The oil palm is susceptible to a number of diseases. These diseases
significantly reduce the productivity and ultimately cause plant death.
Vascular wilt, caused by Fusarium oxysporum elaeidis, caused up to
70% mortality in Africa [108]. In Southeast Asia, Ganoderma has been
known to cause up to 80% mortality [109]. In Latin America, a bud rot
disease of unknown origin is rife, causing up to 100% mortality.
Genetic control strategies are being developed for some diseases
[103]. Breeders should focus on disease resistance, drought tolerance
and less agricultural impute variety creation.
The high percentage of saturated fatty acids in oil palm generates
two problems, solidification at lower temperatures and undesirability
for human health. However, the oil of Elaeis guineensis contains
antioxidants, such as carotenoids, tocopherols and tocotrienols. Plant
breeding seeks to reduce saturated fatty acids and increase polyunsa-
614
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76 (2017) 608–619
turated fatty acids and antioxidant components.
4.4. Oil and energy from alternative sources
Microbial oil is a triglyceride same as vegetable oil. Microorganisms
called oleaginous can accumulate lipids at more than 20% of their dry
weight [110,111]. Microbial species and their growth conditions create
variation in lipid content and profiles [110,111]. Fatty acids, such as
palmitic, stearic, and oleic acids, as well as the omega-3 fatty acids
eicosa pentaenoicacid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) are
found in microbial oils [112]. The oleaginous yeast Yarrowia lipolytica
was genetically modified for higher production of omega-3 essential
fatty acids. This engineered yeast is reported to produce EPA at 15% of
the dry cell weight [113]. The engineered yeast lipid consists of 56.6%
EPA and saturated fatty acids of less than 5% by weight. This
technology makes feasible large-scale production of tailored lipids as
a new nutrient source feasible [113].
Many biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol [114], n-butanol
[115,116], iso-butanol [117], long chain alcohols [118,119], electricity
[120], alkanes [121], fatty acid esters [122], hydrogen [123,124],
hydrocarbons [125,126], and waxes [127], have been proposed. It is
now possible to transition to hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) (i.e., 12.8–
R. Khatun et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76 (2017) 608–619

Fig. 7. Suitable lands in Indonesia for oil palm plantation (based on work of Afriyanti et al. [100]).

Fig. 8. Steps and activities towards sustainable oil palm industry.

15.2%), H2-fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) (i.e., 22.3%), or even sugar- FCV
(i.e., 26.9%) from ICE-gas vehicles (i.e., 6.81%) [128].
Biofuel production rate by microorganisms or cell-free biosystems
is slow. For a higher energy conversion efficiency ratio, a balance
cofactor is required. However, commercial production of free fatty
acids, fatty acid ethyl esters, alkanes, and waxes by synthetic pathways
is not possible because of the poor reaction efficiency, as they do not
have cofactor balances [121,122,127,129,128,130,131]. Aerobic fer-
mentation requires higher energy consumption and has a relatively low
yield while anaerobic fermentation has some advantages. Iso-butanol
and hydrogen can be produced under strictly anaerobic conditions,
featuring high energy-retaining efficiencies.
A number of microorganisms, such as E. coli [118], Bacillus subtilis
[132], Corynebacterium glutamicum [133], Saccharomyces cerevisiae
[134], and Clostridium acetobutylicum [135], were designed to
introduce heterologous pathways for the production of iso-butanol
from sugars. Another group of organisms was designed to produce iso-
butanol from proteins [136] or CO2 supplemented by solar energy
[137] or electricity [138]. Enzymes show more resistance to butanol
inhibition than microbes. Volker and co-workers reported efficient
conversion of glucose to isobutanol via a minimal number of enzymes
[117].
Hydrogen is the best biofuel for future fuel cell vehicles (FCVs).
Gasification [117], pyrolysis, gasification in critical water [139], aqu-
eous phase reforming [140], dark anaerobic fermentation [141], light
fermentation [142], microbial electro hydrogenesis, and their combi-
nations are the methods for hydrogen production from biomass and
sugars through chemical catalysis. However, low product yields,
possibly dirty products, or low productivity are the barriers to the
commercialization of all these approaches. A synthetic in vitro pathway

615
R. Khatun et al.
can be designed for the production of hydrogen from water by using the
chemical energy in starch [143]. There are several advantages of one-
pot enzymatic hydrogen production over chemical catalysis; i.e., (i)
higher production rate, (ii) energy efficient production, (iii) clean
product (hydrogen) without CO, (iv) lower capital investment for low
temperature and low pressure bioreactors, and (v) smaller distributed
biohydrogen generation systems. However, a slow reaction rate is the
weakness of enzymatic production. Recently, Rollin et al. reported
more than 750-fold higher reaction rate of enzymatic hydrogen
generation [144]. More attention is needed to speed up the enzymatic
reaction rate.
Algae have multiple industrial applications, including biofuel
production, food, animal feeds, fertilizers, and pharmaceuticals [145].
Recently, algae gained attention for its bioenergy producing potential
[146]. Algae-derived biofuels have the potential to make a significant
contribution to the global market, as algae can sequester atmospheric
carbon dioxide and has a higher productivity per unit land area than
conventional terrestrial crops [147,148]. Moreover, algae can utilize
nutrients derived from wastewater sources, and the potential for
cultivation of algal biomass on marginal or non-arable lands is an
additional benefit of cultivating algal biomass for biofuel as well as
other bio-products [149]. POME can be a great nutrient for algal
cultivation whilst remediating effluents and generating biomethane
through anaerobic digestion. This will slash down the cost of waste-
water treatment with green energies as by-products and lead to
environmental safety. The major challenges for wastewater treatment
systems based on microalgae are the harvesting of the biomass at the
conclusion of the treatment process. Immobilization of cells could be
an alternative for cell harvesting as well as providing advantages such
as an increase in the cell retention time within bioreactors and higher
metabolic activity [150].
4.5. Expansion without deforestation and environmental hazards
Tropical forests are being destroyed at an alarming rate, threaten-
ing more than half of the planet's biodiversity with extinction
[151,152]. To mitigate the demand for palm oil, plantations are being
expanded to wetland ecosystems, particularly in peat-swamp forests. In
Indonesia, the top producer of palm oil, approximately 25% of all oil
palm plantations are located on peat-swamp forest areas [76,153].
Peatlands regulate water flow by capturing rainwater during the wet
season and slowly releasing it. Consequently, peatlands help to prevent
floods and droughts [153,154]. In addition, peatlands are an important
carbon (C) sink in the global C cycle. Sharing approximately 3% (some
4 million km2) of land, it stores approximately 528,000 million tons C,
one-third of the global soil C and 70 times the annual global emission
from fossil fuel burning [153,155]. Tropical peatlands are important
genetic reservoirs of animals and plants. Peatlands also provide goods
and services (hunting grounds and fishing areas, food, medicines, and
construction materials) for local communities to fulfil their daily needs
[156].
Rapid peat subsidence and compaction, leading to various changes
in the physical properties of peatland, including a greater bulk density
and less total porosity, oxygen diffusion, air capacity, available water
volume, and water infiltration, are adverse effects of oil palm plantation
expansion on peatland [156]. The anthropogenic pressures cause a
reduction in the ability of the ecosystem to hold rainfall, and water is
flushed more quickly into rivers, increasing flooding in the rainy season
and drought in the dry season [156,157]. The effects of anthropogenic
pressures also cause massive CO2 gas emission to the atmosphere
[155,158].
For a sustainable ecosystem, oil palm plantation expansion should
not be allowed to replace rainforest, especially peat-swamp forests.
Plantations should be restricted to mineral soil only. Silalertruksa et al.
[159] studied the life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, water use
and water scarcity footprint of oil palm cultivation in the different
616
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76 (2017) 608–619
regions of Thailand. They reported a wide variation of GHG emissions
(64 and 225 kg CO2 eq/t FFB) and irrigation water required (550–
1749 m3/t FFB) depending on plantation locations. They suggested
that the promotion of oil palm cultivation must thus be based on land
and climate suitability considerations along with good practices for
productivity improvement.
According to FEDEPALMA estimation, in Colombia, there are 3
million hectares (Mha) of suitable land and an additional 4 million
hectares of less suitable land for oil palm plantation without deforesta-
tion. In Brazil, there are 38 million hectares (Fig. 6) of suitable land
available for palm plantation [160]. Afriyanti et al. identified 17–
26 Mha of suitable land [100] in Indonesia for oil palm cultivation
(Fig. 7). The dominant soils are ultisols and incept sols. These soils are
highly productive according to the PALMSIM model. The mineral lands
can produce 565–880 million tons FFB. Proper use of this land would
enable 130–176 million tons crude palm oil (CPO) at the production
rate of 3.6 t/ha without further deforestation and peat conversion
[100]. Other suitable lands for oil palm plantation can be explored for
future plantations.
Site clearing is the initial step of plantation expansion. If the
selected site is forest (primary, secondary or degraded), it involves
demolishing the plants and making roads; cleaning by burning is a
common practice of oil palm plantation, causing an excess amount of
CO2 emission, habitat loss and organism loss. Peatlands contain humus
that could easily be burned to expose its stored carbon. Forest
defragmentation is another concern for healthy ecosystems. Large
plantation sites of commercial plantations are causing tropical forest
fragmentation, requiring strict monitoring of new plantation site
selection and cleaning operations.
Fertilizer and pesticide management is important; increasing the
production cost and causing GHG emission, air and water pollution.
Use of organic fertilizer and pesticides along with good management
practice can reduce chemical use. Best management practices signifi-
cantly increase palm oil productivity [161].
5. Conclusions
The economy, environment and society are key factors for sustain-
able development. Sustainability will not last long if any of these are
ignored. Natural resource conservation has significant direct and
indirect influences on the economy and human health. Maximum
services and goods are provided by an ecosystem only when it is in
healthy condition (with ecological integrity, connectivity and resili-
ence). Anthropogenic and other pressures (such as natural disasters
that are caused/accelerated by imbalanced ecosystems) reduce ecosys-
tem services. The oil palm industry (plantation and milling) has a
significant negative impact on the ecosystem and environment.
Deforestation, habitat loss, forest fragmentation, biodiversity loss, food
chain disruption, soil property changes, water and air pollution,
conversion of peatlands and arable lands, increased carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions, forest firing, and incidence of natural disasters are
general effects of the oil palm industry. Palm oil mill effluents (POME)
bear enormous contaminating substrates that pollute terrestrial and
aquatic systems and release greenhouse gases. However, oil palm is a
driving economic crop in many countries that ensures food security (oil
and fat). Approximately 35% of total vegetable oil production world-
wide is from oil palm. The demand for oil palm is sharply increasing as
the world's population grows, as along with interest in oil palm as a
potential biofuel feedstock. Fulfillment of demand creates extra pres-
sure on ecosystems and the environment. Therefore, sustainable oil
palm production is an urgent need. There is a large gap between
current production and the expected/recommended production of oil
palm. Fig. 8 depicts the steps and activities towards sustainable oil
palm industry. The immediate step is good management practice of
environmentally friendly operation (plantation and milling) that re-
duces the anthropogenic pressure on the environment while intensify-
R. Khatun et al.
ing the yields, along with prolonged monitoring, assessment and
maintenance of ecological integrity. Launching long-term strategic
breeding programs for higher yields and disease tolerant cultivar
generation may be the next step. This involves the accumulation of
available germplasms and scattered knowledge as well as a combined
application of conventional and biotechnology-based breeding ap-
proaches. This step also includes environmentally friendly milling,
use of waste by-products and development of no-waste technology.
Finding alternative sources that can partially mitigate the oil palm
demand and discovering suitable lands or justifying the allocation of
lands by ecosystem service mapping (ESM) that can be used for
plantation without further deforestation and environment hazard are
the final steps. Practicing good management and appropriate land
allocation by ecosystem service mapping, maintaining ecological health
(integrity, connectivity and resilience), minimizing the production gap,
developing and planting high-yield disease resistant plantation materi-
al, searching for alternative energy sources, and developing and
applying zero-waste technology can make this industry sustainable
and fulfil the future demand.
Acknowledgement
The authors thank the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia for financial
assistance through the research fund DLP-2014-015 and GUP-2014-
042.
References
[1] Reza MIH, Abdullah SA. Regional index of ecological integrity: a need for
sustainable management of natural resources. Ecol Indic 2011;11:220–9.
[2] De Groot R, Brander L, van der Ploeg S, Costanza R, Bernard F, Braat L, et al.
Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units.
Ecosyst Serv 2012;1:50–61.
[3] Kumar P. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic
foundations. UNEP: Earthprint; 2010.
[4] Burkhard B, de Groot R, Costanza R, Seppelt R, Jørgensen SE, Potschin M.
Solutions for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Indic
2012;21:1–6.
[5] Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, et al.
Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ
2009;7:21–8.
[6] Haines-Young R, Potschin M, Kienast F. Indicators of ecosystem service potential
at European scales: mapping marginal changes and trade-offs. Ecol Indic
2012;21:39–53.
[7] Goldstein JH, Caldarone G, Duarte TK, Ennaanay D, Hannahs N, Mendoza G,
et al. Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA 2012;109:7565–70.
[8] Bicalho T, Bessou C, Pacca SA. Land use change within EU sustainability criteria
for biofuels: the case of oil palm expansion in the Brazilian Amazon. Renew Energy
2016;89:588–97.
[9] Mekhilef S, Siga S, Saidur R. A review on palm oil biodiesel as a source of
renewable fuel. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:1937–49.
[10] Chin MJ, Poh PE, Tey BT, Chan ES, Chin KL. Biogas from palm oil mill effluent
(POME): opportunities and challenges from Malaysia's perspective. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2013;26:717–26.
[11] Mielke L Global supply, demand and price outlook for palm and lauric oils. In:
Proceedings of the 2nd palm oil internet seminar. 22–29 July 2013, or POINTERS
organized by MPOC2013; 2013.
[12] Lord S, Clay J. Environmental impacts of oil palm—practical considerations in
defining sustainability for impacts on air, land and water. In: International
planters conference on higher productivity and efficient practices for sustainable
agriculture. Putrajaya, Malaysia; 2006. p. 26-8.
[13] Brown E, Jacobson MF. Cruel oil. Center for Science in the Public Interest; 2005.
[14] Reza MIH. Measuring forest fragmentation in the protected area system of a
rapidly developing Southeast Asian tropical region. Sci Postprint 2014;1:e00030.
[15] Freudmann A, Mollik P, Tschapka M, Schulze CH. Impacts of oil palm agriculture
on phyllostomid bat assemblages. Biodivers Conserv 2015;24:3583–99.
[16] Hamilton RL, Trimmer M, Bradley C, Pinay G. Deforestation for oil palm alters the
fundamental balance of the soil N cycle. Soil Biol Biochem 2016;95:223–32.
[17] Hartemink AE. Plantation agriculture in the tropics: environmental issues.
Outlook Agric 2005;34:11–21.
[18] Comte I, Colin F, Grünberger O, Whalen JK, Widodo RH, Caliman J-P.
Watershed-scale assessment of oil palm cultivation impact on water quality and
nutrient fluxes: a case study in Sumatra (Indonesia). Environ Sci Pollut Res
2015;22:7676–95.
[19] Miettinen J, Hooijer A, Tollenaar D, Page S, Malins C, Vernimmen R, et al.
Historical analysis and projection of oil palm plantation expansion on peatland in
617
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76 (2017) 608–619
Southeast Asia. International Council on Clean Transportation. ICCT White Paper
No. 17; 2012.
[20] Koh LP, Wilcove DS. Oil palm: disinformation enables deforestation. Trends Ecol
Evol 2009;24:67–8.
[21] Inubushi K, Furukawa Y, Hadi A, Purnomo E, Tsuruta H. Seasonal changes of
CO2, CH4 and N2O fluxes in relation to land-use change in tropical peatlands
located in coastal area of South Kalimantan. Chemosphere 2003;52:603–8.
[22] Hooijer A, Silvius M, Wosten H, Page S. PEAT-CO2, assessment of CO2 emissions
from drained peatlands in SE Asia. Delft Hydraulics report Q3943/2006; 2006. p.
36.
[23] Abrams JF, Hohn S, Rixen T, Baum A, Merico A. The impact of Indonesian
peatland degradation on downstream marine ecosystems and the global carbon
cycle. Glob Change Biol 2016;22:325–37.
[24] Reijnders L, Huijbregts M. Palm oil and the emission of carbon-based greenhouse
gases. J Clean Prod 2008;16:477–82.
[25] Dhiaulhaq A, Gritten D, De Bruyn T, Yasmi Y, Zazali A, Silalahi M. Transforming
conflict in plantations through mediation: lessons and experiences from Sumatera,
Indonesia. For Policy Econ 2014;41:22–30.
[26] Nawi NSM, Deros BM, Rahman MNA, Sukadarin EH, Nordin N. Malaysian oil
palm workers are in pain: hazards identification and ergonomics related problems.
Mal J Public Health Med 2016:50–7.
[27] Soga M, Gaston KJ. Extinction of experience: the loss of human–nature interac-
tions. Front Ecol Environ 2016;14:94–101.
[28] Demirbas A, Demirbas MF. Algae energy: algae as a new source of biodiesel.
London: Springer-Verlag; 2010 https://www.amazon.com/Algae-Energy-Source-
Biodiesel-Technology/dp/1849960496.
[29] Moniruzzaman M, Yaakob Z, Khatun R. Biotechnology for Jatropha improvement:
a worthy exploration. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;54:1262–77.
[30] Kondili E, Kaldellis J. Biofuel implementation in East Europe: current status and
future prospects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2007;11:2137–51.
[31] Plantation SD. Palm oil facts & figures. Online; 2014.
[32] Sumathi S, Chai S, Mohamed A. Utilization of oil palm as a source of renewable
energy in Malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2008;12:2404–21.
[33] Kuss VV, Kuss AV, da Rosa RG, Aranda DA, Cruz YR. Potential of biodiesel
production from palm oil at Brazilian Amazon. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2015;50:1013–20.
[34] Rahman S, Choudhury J, Ahmad A. Production of xylose from oil palm empty fruit
bunch fiber using sulfuric acid. Biochem Eng J 2006;30:97–103.
[35] Lim K, Ahmaddin FH, Vizhi SM. A note on the conversion of oil-palm trunks to
glucose via acid hydrolysis. Bioresour Technol 1997;59:33–5.
[36] Sun R, Tomkinson J, Bolton J. Effects of precipitation pH on the physico-chemical
properties of the lignins isolated from the black liquor of oil palm empty fruit
bunch fibre pulping. Polym Degrad Stab 1999;63:195–200.
[37] Sun R, Tomkinson J. Fractional separation and physico-chemical analysis of
lignins from the black liquor of oil palm trunk fibre pulping. Sep Purif Technol
2001;24:529–39.
[38] Awalludin MF, Sulaiman O, Hashim R, Nadhari WNAW. An overview of the oil
palm industry in Malaysia and its waste utilization through thermochemical
conversion, specifically via liquefaction. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2015;50:1469–84.
[39] Aziz M, Kurniawan T, Oda T, Kashiwagi T. Advanced power generation using
biomass wastes from palm oil mills. Appl Therm Eng 2016.
[40] Bazmi AA, Zahedi G, Hashim H. Progress and challenges in utilization of palm oil
biomass as fuel for decentralized electricity generation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2011;15:574–83.
[41] Samiran NA, Jaafar MNM, Ng J-H, Lam SS, Chong CT. Progress in biomass
gasification technique–with focus on Malaysian palm biomass for syngas pro-
duction. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;62:1047–62.
[42] Harsono SS, Grundmann P, Soebronto S. Anaerobic treatment of palm oil mill
effluents: potential contribution to net energy yield and reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions from biodiesel production. J Clean Prod 2014;64:619–27.
[43] Hossain MA, Jewaratnam J, Ganesan P. Prospect of hydrogen production from oil
palm biomass by thermochemical process – a review. Int J Hydrog Energy
2016;41:16637–55.
[44] Mohammed M, Salmiaton A, Azlina WW, Amran MM, Fakhru’l-Razi A, Taufiq-
Yap Y. Hydrogen rich gas from oil palm biomass as a potential source of renewable
energy in Malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:1258–70.
[45] González-Cabán A, Loomis J. Economic benefits of maintaining ecological
integrity of Rio Mameyes, in Puerto Rico. Ecol Econ 1997;21:63–75.
[46] Boyd J. Nonmarket benefits of nature: what should be counted in green GDP*.
Ecol Econ 2007;61:716–23.
[47] Riitters KH, Wickham JD, Vogelmann JE, Jones KB. National land-cover pattern
data. Ecology 2000;81:604.
[48] Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P, Schägner JP. Mapping
ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union.
Ecosyst Serv 2012;1:31–9.
[49] Martínez-Harms MJ, Balvanera P. Methods for mapping ecosystem service
supply: a review. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 2012;8:17–25.
[50] Sutherland WJ, Bellingan L, Bellingham JR, Blackstock JJ, Bloomfield RM, Bravo
M. A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda. PLoS One
2012;7:e31824.
[51] Egoh B, Drakou EG, Dunbar MB, Maes J, Willemen L. Indicators for mapping
ecosystem services: a review. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European
Union; 2012. p. 107.
[52] Müller F, Burkhard B. The indicator side of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv
2012;1:26–30.
R. Khatun et al.
[53] Maes J, Teller A, Erhard M, Liquete C, Braat L, Berry P, et al. Mapping and
assessment of ecosystems and their services. An analytical framework for
ecosystem assessments under action 5 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2013. p. 58.
[54] Swetnam R, Fisher B, Mbilinyi B, Munishi P, Willcock S, Ricketts T, et al. Mapping
socio-economic scenarios of land cover change: a GIS method to enable ecosystem
service modelling. J Environ Manag 2011;92:563–74.
[55] Boyd J, Banzhaf S. What are ecosystem services* The need for standardized
environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ 2007;63:616–26.
[56] Wallace KJ. Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biol
Conserv 2007;139:235–46.
[57] Hauck J, Görg C, Varjopuro R, Ratamäki O, Maes J, Wittmer H, et al. Maps have
an air of authority”: potential benefits and challenges of ecosystem service maps at
different levels of decision making. Ecosyst Serv 2013;4:25–32.
[58] Naidoo R, Balmford A, Costanza R, Fisher B, Green RE, Lehner B, et al. Global
mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA 2008;105:9495–500.
[59] Schulp CJ, Alkemade R, Klein Goldewijk K, Petz K. Mapping ecosystem functions
and services in Eastern Europe using global-scale data sets. Int J Biodivers Sci
Ecosyst Serv Manag 2012;8:156–68.
[60] Bateman IJ, Mace GM, Fezzi C, Atkinson G, Turner K. Economic analysis for
ecosystem service assessments. Environ Res Econ 2011;48:177–218.
[61] Willemen L, Hein L, van Mensvoort ME, Verburg PH. Space for people, plants,
and livestock* Quantifying interactions among multiple landscape functions in a
Dutch rural region. Ecol Indic 2010;10:62–73.
[62] Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett E. Ecosystem service bundles for
analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
2010;107:5242–7.
[63] Kroll F, Müller F, Haase D, Fohrer N. Rural–urban gradient analysis of ecosystem
services supply and demand dynamics. Land Use Policy 2012;29:521–35.
[64] Nedkov S, Burkhard B. Flood regulating ecosystem services—mapping supply and
demand, in the Etropole municipality, Bulgaria. Ecol Indic 2012;21:67–79.
[65] Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F. Mapping ecosystem service supply,
demand and budgets. Ecol Indic 2012;21:17–29.
[66] Wainger L, Mazzotta M. Realizing the potential of ecosystem services: a frame-
work for relating ecological changes to economic benefits. Environ Manag
2011;48:710–33.
[67] Margono BA, Potapov PV, Turubanova S, Stolle F, Hansen MC. Primary forest
cover loss in Indonesia over 2000–2012. Nat Clim Change 2014;4:730–5.
[68] Sumarga E, Hein L. Mapping ecosystem services for land use planning, the case of
Central Kalimantan. Environ Manag 2014;54:84–97.
[69] Germer J, Sauerborn J. Estimation of the impact of oil palm plantation
establishment on greenhouse gas balance. Environ Dev Sustain 2008;10:697–716.
[70] Wakker E. Forest fires and the expansion of Indonesia's oil-palm plantations.
Indonesia: WWF Indonesia; 1999.
[71] Achard F, Eva HD, Stibig H-J, Mayaux P, Gallego J, Richards T, et al.
Determination of deforestation rates of the world's humid tropical forests. Science
2002;297:999–1002.
[72] Miettinen J, Shi C, Liew SC. Deforestation rates in insular Southeast Asia between
2000 and 2010. Glob Change Biol 2011;17:2261–70.
[73] Fitzherbert EB, Struebig MJ, Morel A, Danielsen F, Brühl CA, Donald PF, et al.
How will oil palm expansion affect biodiversity*. Tren Ecol Evol 2008;23:538–45.
[74] Hewitt C, MacKenzie A, Di Carlo P, Di Marco C, Dorsey J, Evans M, et al. Nitrogen
management is essential to prevent tropical oil palm plantations from causing
ground-level ozone pollution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2009;106:18447–51.
[75] Carlson KM, Curran LM, Asner GP, Pittman AM, Trigg SN, Adeney JM. Carbon
emissions from forest conversion by Kalimantan oil palm plantations. Nat Clim
Change 2013;3:283–7.
[76] Sheil D, Casson A, Meijaard E, Van Noordwjik M, Gaskell J, Sunderland-Groves J,
et al. The impacts and opportunities of oil palm in Southeast Asia: what do we
know and what do we need to know*. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International
Forestry Research (CIFOR); 2009.
[77] Gillison A, Liswanti N. Impact of oil palm plantations on biodiversity in Jambi,
Central Sumatra, Indonesia. CIFOR; 1999.
[78] Caliman J. Dynamics of nutrient release from empty fruit bunches in field
ctfnditions and soil characteristics changes; 2001.
[79] Goh K-J, Härdter R, Fairhurst T. Fertilizing for maximum return. Oil Palm
Management for Large and Sustainable Yields: PPI, PPIC and IPI; 2003.
[80] Fairhurst T, Mutert E. Introduction to oil palm production. Better Crops Int
1999;13:3–6.
[81] Tarmizi A, Mohd Tayeb D. Nutrient demands of tenera oil palm planted on inland
soils of Malaysia. J Oil Palm Res 2006;18:204–9.
[82] Goh K, Teo C, Chew P, Chiu S. Fertiliser management in oil palm: agronomic
principles and field practices. In: Fertiliser management for oil palm plantations,
20–21 September 1991. ISP North-east Branch, Sandakan, Malaysia, 44 pp.
Available at: 〈http://www.aarsb.com.my/AgroMgmt/OilPalm/FertMgmt/
Principle/Fertiliser%20management%20in%20oil%20palm-%20Agronomic
%20Principles%20an%E2〉; 1999. 80. A6.
[83] Comte I. Landscape-scale assessment of soil properties, water quality and related
nutrient fluxes under oil palm cultivation: a case study in Sumatra. Indonesia:
McGill University; 2013.
[84] Goh K, Chew P. Managing soils for plantation tree crops I: general soil manage-
ment. Course on Soil Survey and Managing Tropical Soils. Kuala Lumpur: MSSS
and PASS; 1995. p. 228-45.
[85] Kong S-H, Loh S-K, Bachmann RT, Rahim SA, Salimon J. Biochar from oil palm
biomass: a review of its potential and challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
618
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76 (2017) 608–619
2014;39:729–39.
[86] Gobi K, Vadivelu V. By-products of palm oil mill effluent treatment plant – a step
towards sustainability. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;28:788–803.
[87] Mukherjee I, Sovacool BK. Palm oil-based biofuels and sustainability in southeast
Asia: a review of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2014;37:1–12.
[88] Hosseini SE, Wahid MA. Utilization of palm solid residue as a source of renewable
and sustainable energy in Malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;40:621–32.
[89] Yacob S, Shirai Y, Hassan MA, Wakisaka M, Subash S. Start-up operation of semi-
commercial closed anaerobic digester for palm oil mill effluent treatment. Process
Biochem 2006;41:962–4.
[90] Thani M, Ibrahim W, Sulaiman M. Industrial processes & the environment
(handbook no. 3,) crude palm oil industry. Malaysia: Department of Environment;
1999. p. 92.
[91] Borja R, Banks CJ. Treatment of palm oil mill effluent by upflow anaerobic
filtration. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2004;61:103–9.
[92] Klaarenbeeksingel F. Greenhouse gas emissions from palm oil production; 2009.
[93] Kaewmai R, Aran H, Musikavong C. Greenhouse gas emissions of palm oil mills in
Thailand. Int J Greenh Gas Control 2012;11:141–51.
[94] Ahmed Y, Yaakob Z, Akhtar P, Sopian K. Production of biogas and performance
evaluation of existing treatment processes in palm oil mill effluent (POME).
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;42:1260–78.
[95] Ohimain EI, Izah SC. A review of biogas production from palm oil mill effluents
using different configurations of bioreactors. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2017;70:242–53.
[96] Radzuan MN, Banat IM, Winterburn J. Production and characterization of
rhamnolipid using palm oil agricultural refinery waste. Bioresour Technol
2017;225:99–105.
[97] Hoffmann M, Donough C, Cook S, Fisher M, Lim C, Lim Y, et al. Yield gap analysis
in oil palm: framework development and application in commercial operations in
Southeast Asia. Agric Syst 2017;151:12–9.
[98] Cochard B, Noiret J, Baudouin L, Flori A, Amblard P. Second cycle reciprocal
recurrent selection in oil palm. Elaeis guineensis Jacq. Results of Deli× La Mé
hybrid tests. Oléagineux; 1993. 48. p. 441–51.
[99] Donough C, Witt C, Fairhurst T. Yield intensification in oil palm plantations
through best management practice. Better Crops 2009;93:12–4.
[100] Afriyanti D, Kroeze C, Saad A. Indonesia palm oil production without deforesta-
tion and peat conversion by 2050. Sci Total Environ 2016;557:562–70.
[101] Mongana Report VaCdPeedlhdpdCB; 1955.
[102] PPKS. Bagaimana cara meningkatkan produktifitas kelapa sawit* How to improve
productivity of oil palm*; 2014.
[103] Cochard B, Amblard P, Durand-Gasselin T. Oil palm genetic improvement and
sustainable development. Oléagineux, Corps gras, Lipids; 2005. 12. p. 141–7.
[104] Soh A, Wong G, Hor T, Tan C, Chew P. Oil palm genetic improvement. Plant Breed
Rev 2003;22:165–220.
[105] Nugroho YA, Sumertajaya IM, Wiendi NMA, Toruan-Mathius N. Estimation of
genetic parameters for in vitro culture traits and selection best progenies for
Tenera oil palm tissue culture. Energy Proc 2014;47:316–22.
[106] Cros D, Denis M, Sánchez L, Cochard B, Flori A, Durand-Gasselin T, et al.
Genomic selection prediction accuracy in a perennial crop: case study of oil palm
(Elaeis guineensis Jacq.). Theor Appl Genet 2015;128:397–410.
[107] Morcillo F, Cros D, Billotte N, Ngando-Ebongue GF, Domonhédo H, Pizot M, et al.
Improving palm oil quality through identification and mapping of the lipase gene
causing oil deterioration. Nat Commun 2013;4(2160):1–8.
[108] Franqueville HdR JL. Improvement of oil palm vascular wilt tolerance: results and
development of the disease at the R. Michaux plantation. Oleagineux
1990;45:399–405.
[109] De Franqueville HAH, Jacquemard JcHZ, Durand-Gasselin T. Indications on
sources of oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) genetic resistance and susceptibility
to Ganoderma sp, the cause of basal stem rot. Mal Palm Oil Board 2001:420–31.
[110] Beopoulos A, Cescut J, Haddouche R, Uribelarrea J-L, Molina-Jouve C, Nicaud J-
M. Yarrowia lipolytica as a model for bio-oil production. Prog Lipid Res
2009;48:375–87.
[111] Ageitos JM, Vallejo JA, Veiga-Crespo P, Villa TG. Oily yeasts as oleaginous cell
factories. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2011;90:1219–27.
[112] Kosa M, Ragauskas AJ. Lipids from heterotrophic microbes: advances in
metabolism research. Trends Biotechnol 2011;29:53–61.
[113] Xue Z, Sharpe PL, Hong S-P, Yadav NS, Xie D, Short DR, et al. Production of
omega-3 eicosapentaenoic acid by metabolic engineering of Yarrowia lipolytica.
Nat Biotechnol 2013;31:734–40.
[114] Shaw AJ, Podkaminer KK, Desai SG, Bardsley JS, Rogers SR, Thorne PG, et al.
Metabolic engineering of a thermophilic bacterium to produce ethanol at high
yield. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008;105:13769–74.
[115] Shen CR, Lan EI, Dekishima Y, Baez A, Cho KM, Liao JC. Driving forces enable
high-titer anaerobic 1-butanol synthesis in Escherichia coli. Appl Environ
Microbiol 2011;77:2905–15.
[116] Krutsakorn B, Honda K, Ye X, Imagawa T, Bei X, Okano K, et al. In vitro
production of n-butanol from glucose. Metab Eng 2013;20:84–91.
[117] Guterl JK, Garbe D, Carsten J, Steffler F, Sommer B, Reiße S, et al. Cell‐free
metabolic engineering: production of chemicals by minimized reaction cascades.
ChemSusChem 2012;5:2165–72.
[118] Atsumi S, Hanai T, Liao JC. Non-fermentative pathways for synthesis of
branched-chain higher alcohols as biofuels. Nature 2008;451:86–9.
[119] Zhang K, Sawaya MR, Eisenberg DS, Liao JC. Expanding metabolism for
biosynthesis of nonnatural alcohols. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008;105:20653–8.
[120] Campbell J, Lobell D, Field C. Greater transportation energy and GHG offsets
R. Khatun et al.
from bioelectricity than ethanol. Science 2009;324:1055–7.
[121] Schirmer A, Rude MA, Li X, Popova E, Del Cardayre SB. Microbial biosynthesis of
alkanes. Science 2010;329:559–62.
[122] Liu T, Vora H, Khosla C. Quantitative analysis and engineering of fatty acid
biosynthesis in E. coli. Metab Eng 2010;12:378–86.
[123] Ye X, Wang Y, Hopkins RC, Adams MW, Evans BR, Mielenz JR, et al.
Spontaneous high‐yield production of hydrogen from cellulosic materials and
water catalyzed by enzyme cocktails. ChemSusChem 2009;2:149–52.
[124] Martín del Campo JS, Rollin J, Myung S, Chun Y, Chandrayan S, Patiño R, et al.
High‐yield production of dihydrogen from xylose by using a synthetic enzyme
cascade in a cell‐free system. Angew Chem Int Ed 2013;52:4587–90.
[125] Wang Y, Huang W, Sathitsuksanoh N, Zhu Z, Zhang Y-HP. Biohydrogenation
from biomass sugar mediated by in vitro synthetic enzymatic pathways. Chem Biol
2011;18:372–80.
[126] Serrano-Ruiz JC, Dumesic JA. Catalytic routes for the conversion of biomass into
liquid hydrocarbon transportation fuels. Energy Environ Sci 2011;4:83–99.
[127] Steen EJ, Kang Y, Bokinsky G, Hu Z, Schirmer A, McClure A, et al. Microbial
production of fatty-acid-derived fuels and chemicals from plant biomass. Nature
2010;463:559–62.
[128] Huang W-D, Zhang Y-HP. Analysis of biofuels production from sugar based on
three criteria: thermodynamics, bioenergetics, and product separation. Energy
Environ Sci 2011;4:784–92.
[129] Liu T, Khosla C. Genetic engineering of Escherichia coli for biofuel production.
Ann Rev Gen 2010;44:53–69.
[130] Dugar D, Stephanopoulos G. Relative potential of biosynthetic pathways for
biofuels and bio-based products. Nat Biotechnol 2011;29:1074–8.
[131] Bastian S, Liu X, Meyerowitz JT, Snow CD, Chen MM, Arnold FH. Engineered
ketol-acid reductoisomerase and alcohol dehydrogenase enable anaerobic 2-
methylpropan-1-ol production at theoretical yield in Escherichia coli. Metab Eng
2011;13:345–52.
[132] Li S, Huang D, Li Y, Wen J, Jia X. Rational improvement of the engineered
isobutanol-producing Bacillus subtilis by elementary mode analysis. Microb Cell
Fact 2012;11:1.
[133] Smith KM, Cho K-M, Liao JC. Engineering Corynebacterium glutamicum for
isobutanol production. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2010;87:1045–55.
[134] Chen X, Nielsen KF, Borodina I, Kielland-Brandt MC, Karhumaa K. Increased
isobutanol production in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by overexpression of genes in
valine metabolism. Biotechnol Biofuels 2011;4:1.
[135] Higashide W, Li Y, Yang Y, Liao JC. Metabolic engineering of Clostridium
cellulolyticum for production of isobutanol from cellulose. Appl Environ Microbiol
2011;77:2727–33.
[136] Huo Y-X, Cho KM, Rivera JGL, Monte E, Shen CR, Yan Y, et al. Conversion of
proteins into biofuels by engineering nitrogen flux. Nat Biotechnol
2011;29:346–51.
[137] Atsumi S, Higashide W, Liao JC. Direct photosynthetic recycling of carbon dioxide
to isobutyraldehyde. Nat Biotechnol 2009;27:1177–80.
[138] Li H, Opgenorth PH, Wernick DG, Rogers S, Wu T-Y, Higashide W, et al.
Integrated electromicrobial conversion of CO2 to higher alcohols. Science
2012;335:1596.
[139] Rezaiyan J, Cheremisinoff NP. Gasification technologies: a primer for engineers
and scientists. Boca Raton, London, New York, Singapore: CRC Press, Taylor &
Francis Group; 2005. p. 360, https://www.amazon.com/Gasification-
Technologies-Engineers-Scientists-Industries/dp/0824722477.
[140] Cortright R, Davda R, Dumesic JA. Hydrogen from catalytic reforming of biomass-
derived hydrocarbons in liquid water. Nature 2002;418:964–7.
[141] Vavilin V, Rytow S, Lokshina LY. Modelling hydrogen partial pressure change as a
result of competition between the butyric and propionic groups of acidogenic
bacteria. Bioresour Technol 1995;54:171–7.
619
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76 (2017) 608–619
[142] Ueno Y, Tatara M, Fukui H, Makiuchi T, Goto M, Sode K. Production of hydrogen
and methane from organic solid wastes by phase-separation of anaerobic process.
Bioresour Technol 2007;98:1861–5.
[143] Rollin JA, Tam TK, Zhang Y-HP. New biotechnology paradigm: cell-free biosys-
tems for biomanufacturing. Green Chem 2013;15:1708–19.
[144] Rollin J, Ye X, Martin D, Adams M, Zhang Y. Novel hydrogen detection apparatus
along with bioreactor systems. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 2014.
[145] White RL, Ryan RA. Long-term cultivation of algae in open-raceway ponds:
lessons from the field. Ind Biotechnol 2015;11:213–20.
[146] Shurin JB, Abbott RL, Deal MS, Kwan GT, Litchman E, McBride RC, et al.
Industrial‐strength ecology: trade‐offs and opportunities in algal biofuel produc-
tion. Ecol Lett 2013;16:1393–404.
[147] Yun J-H, Smith VH, Pate RC. Managing nutrients and system operations for
biofuel production from freshwater macroalgae. Algal Res 2015;11:13–21.
[148] Yun J-H, Smith VH, deNoyelles FJ, Roberts GW, Stagg-Williams SM. Freshwater
macroalgae as a biofuels feedstock: mini-review and assessment of their bioenergy
potential. Ind Biotechnol 2014;10:212–20.
[149] Kazamia E, Aldridge DC, Smith AG. Synthetic ecology – a way forward for
sustainable algal biofuel production*. J Biotechnol 2012;162:163–9.
[150] Ahmad A, Buang A, Bhat A. Renewable and sustainable bioenergy production
from microalgal co-cultivation with palm oil mill effluent (POME): a review.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;65:214–34.
[151] Sayer J, Whitmore T. Tropical moist forests: destruction and species extinction.
Biol Conserv 1991;55:199–213.
[152] Laurance WF, Cochrane MA, Bergen S, Fearnside PM, Delamônica P, Barber C,
et al. The future of the Brazilian Amazon. Science 2001;291:438–9.
[153] Tan K, Lee K, Mohamed A, Bhatia S. Palm oil: addressing issues and towards
sustainable development. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:420–7.
[154] Clark DB, Clark DA, Brown S, Oberbauer SF, Veldkamp E. Stocks and flows of
coarse woody debris across a tropical rain forest nutrient and topography
gradient. For Ecol Manag 2002;164:237–48.
[155] Hooijer A, Page S, Canadell JG, Silvius M, Kwadijk J, Wosten H, et al. Current and
future CO2 emissions from drained peatlands in Southeast Asia. Biogeosci Dis
2009;6:7207–30.
[156] Rieley J. Tropical peatland – the amazing dual ecosystem: coexistence and mutual
benefit. In: Rieley JO, Banks CJ, Ragkagukguk B, editors. Proceedings of the
international symposium and workshop on tropical peatland. Gadjah Mada
University, Indonesia and University of Leicester, United Kingdom, Yogyakarta,
Indonesia. EU CARBOPEAT and RESTORPEAT Partnership; 2007. p. 1–14.
[157] Immirzi P. Biodiversity and sustainability of tropical peatlands. In: Reiley J, Page
S, editors. Proceedings of the international symposium on biodiversity, environ-
mental importance and sustainability of tropical peat and peatlands. Held in
Palangka Raya, Central Kaliman. Environ Conserv; 1998. 25. p. 175–85.
[158] SchrevelA. Oil-palm estate development in Southeast Asia: consequences for peat
swamp forests and livelihoods in Indonesia. In: Wood Adrian, Gerardo E van
Halsema, editors. Scoping agriculture–wetland interactions: towards a sustain-
able multiple-response strategy. Water Reports; 2008. 33. p. 81–6.
[159] Silalertruksa T, Gheewala SH, Pongpat P, Kaenchan P, Permpool N, Lecksiwilai N,
et al. Environmental sustainability of oil palm cultivation in different regions of
Thailand: greenhouse gases and water use impact. J Clean Prod 2016. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.069.
[160] Billote N, Cuellar T. Biotechnology and breeding of oil palm: the Golden Palm of
the future. In: Proceedings of the 18th international oil palm conference.
Cartagena de Indias, Colombia; 2015.
[161] Donough C, Witt C, Fairhurst T. Yield intensification in oil palm using BMP as a
management tool. In: Proceedings of international conference on oil palm and the
environment. Bali, Indonesia; 2010.