 The debate stems from the success of all palm development, especially in Southeast Asia. In just a few years, millions of hectares have been converted into all palm plantations. And this is where the controversy started between the sector, the pros, the industrial sector and the cons. These are the environmental groups. Well, the debate is very contentious between the pros and the cons and this is why there is a need for a more balanced view and this is where scientists come in and provide a real balanced view between the good sides and the bad sides of all palm development. We decided to go down to the arena when some extremist radical environmental groups decided to boycott all palm or try to boycott all palm which according to us is a very bad solution because it has more negative effects than positive because replacing all palm with other crops for instance would be disastrous to the forests. We were quite surprised because for during say the last ten years every time somebody tried to defend all palm as an interesting crop for small holders or for the environment also. We were thrown shoes at and quite surprisingly the time has come now because people don't believe anymore in everything which is said either by the pros and the cons and people were looking for this balanced view and we had very positive reactions and the book was sold out in one and a half month which is quite nice, we're not always that successful. Well, there are many, I say the first thing is that all palm originates from the countries bordering the Gulf of Guinea in Central, Western Central Africa so all palm grows spontaneously in the tropical forest and it's only later that thanks to its success that it became an industrial crop and people forget that in the start all palm was a non-timber forest product, that's one reason. The other probably one of the most interesting fact about all palm is that it's the highest yielding oil producing crop so far and number two is eight to ten times less productive so if you try to replace all palm with soybean for instance you need eight to ten times more land, you need to convert eight to ten times more forests. Well the answer is yes, yes and no. So first the development of all palm was done by large agro industries and preferentially on forest land so of course all palm can be considered as responsible for deforestation but all palm does not need to be planted on former forests just because it was the easiest way to do. You can plant all palm on savannas as in Colombia, you can plant all palm on degraded land so you have lots of ways to do. So all palm per se as a crop is not responsible for deforestation so it's our major take home message in the book is don't confuse the crop and the people who develop it. Again the answer is mixed and needs a balanced answer. In most places where all palm has been developed all the people who adopted all palm really were lifted out of poverty. The problem is in many forested areas once all palm has been developed before even the plantation started producing the people sold their land just for quick cash and a few years later they were left without plantation, without land, without money and then of course in that case they were not lifted out of poverty but they were forced into poverty. But it was as the company say it was their choice but all palm has this effect on economic differentiation. The ones who keep it get richer, the ones who don't get on the train are left behind. After you convert a primary forest into a crop, an agricultural crop or even a forestry plantation the result is the same it's an ecological disaster. You replace hundreds and thousands of diverse plants by one crop. So yes it is a disaster from the biodiversity point of view to convert forest into something else. And convert it into all palm, soybean or casium engine the problem is the same. So again all palm is not responsible as a crop. All palm is a forest plant so in the start it was just collected in the wild then it was progressively introduced in the agricultural sphere by the people and in different ways. You don't need to use monoculture, you can do it in an agroforestry kind of way. You can also mix it, mix all palm plantations in diverse landscape in a mosaic landscape and of course you can use it in an environmental friendly way. The idea is not to convert huge stretches of forest into one monocrop but do it in a more ecologically, more environmentally friendly way. We try to promote in Cameroon and hopefully in Central Africa we try to promote sustainable development of oil palm therefore we help the Ministry of Agriculture to draft a national strategy for sustainable development of oil palm that's one thing. In this we also try to push to introduce the smallholder agenda in a certain way not to oblige but to convince agro industries that they have advantages for them to organize equitable win-win agro schemes and so that's our present goal. The idea being that if you develop oil palm on already cleared land owned by communities or private planters it's that much of land which will not be taken from primary forest.