A national park not for Merapi<\/p>\n
Mimin Dwi Hartono, Contributor\/Yogyakarta<\/p>\n
Local conversations about the classification of the Mount Merapi
\nforest area into a national park often end up questioning why it
\nwas established as a park at all.<\/p>\n
Many in the area had expressed their opposition to the
\ngovernment's plan to classify the area, when the process began in
\n2001. Despite the protest, the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry on
\nMay 4 this year issued a decree that officially changed the
\nforest into a protected area.<\/p>\n
We who are opposed to the change say the ministerial decree
\nviolates legal principles as well as principles of transparency,
\ndemocracy and human rights; and is a manifestation of the
\ngovernment's arrogance.<\/p>\n
The decree, we say, goes against an earlier decree from the
\nsame ministry that sets out due process prior to the gazetting of
\na national park. The decision also contravenes Law No 22\/1999 on
\nregional autonomy because it ignores the authority of regional
\ngovernments and legislative councils in the area.<\/p>\n
However, this article will not focus on the legal aspects of
\nthe ministerial decree but instead on the substance of it; that
\nis, it will question whether the concept of a national park fits
\nMerapi's conservation needs. If we agree that Merapi needs
\nconservation then what kinds of conservation will
\nbest suit it, and how should this conservation be carried out?<\/p>\n
The concept of a national park first emerged in Western
\ncountries and was strongly influenced by classical concepts of
\nconservation -- a region was tightly protected with no one
\nallowed to touch it. It later developed into an eco-fascist
\nconservation model that placed the continuation of undisturbed
\n\"nature\" as a top priority even if it meant getting rid of the
\nlocal inhabitants considered to have endangered it.<\/p>\n
The world's first national park was established in the U.S. in
\n1872 with the gazetting of the Yellowstone National Park. The
\npark's management did not allow anyone to make use of the natural
\nresources in the park, disregarding the fact it was previously
\nthe home of indigenous tribes. Conflicts were unavoidable and so
\nwas the forced eviction of the indigenous communities from the
\nregion.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, it is also the same concept that has inspired
\nmany countries, including Indonesia, in developing their
\nconservation models. In 1980, the Indonesian government
\nestablished its first five national parks -- Gunung Leuser, Gede
\nPangrango, Ujung Kulon, Baluran, and Komodo.<\/p>\n
The government seems to have received this concept without
\nconsidering its suitability to the country's social and economic
\nconditions. It prefers to please Western countries rather than
\nits own people. The fact that 42 national parks have been
\nestablished across the country one after another without
\ncomprehensive studies on how the existing parks have been
\nmanaged, proves so.<\/p>\n
The conditions in many of the regions named national parks has
\nworsened since they were gazetted as such. Instead of preserving
\nthe area and generating positive spinoffs, the establishment of
\nnational parks has often resulted in damage and disadvantage. The
\nGunung Leuser, Gunung Halimun, Kutai, Bukit Tiga Puluh, Tanjung
\nPuting, Gunung Palung, Ujung Kulon, Lore Lindu, Rawa Aopa,
\nKomodo, Lorentz, and Wasur national parks are examples where such
\nconservation models lead to social and economic problems and
\nenvironmental degradation rather than preservation.<\/p>\n
This failure in applying the national park concept to
\nIndonesia is not just at a conceptual level, but also at the
\npolicy and management level. At the policy level, for example,
\nthrough the National Park Management Body (BPTN), the government
\ndiscriminates between the rights of the BPTN and those of the
\npeople. The people are considered subordinate to the BPTN. They
\nhave to obey the body without question while it applies fascist
\nregulations that were made for the government's interests. Law No
\n5\/1990 on the conservation of natural resources and ecosystems,
\nwhich makes no mention of the people's role and rights regarding
\nnatural resources, is an example of this arrogance.<\/p>\n
The BPTN organization, too, is not only government-biased but,
\nlike other state organizations, suffers from corruption. As the
\nmanager of national parks, the BPTN holds almost complete
\nauthority. There is no room for the rights of the surrounding
\ncommunities. That national park management is often corrupt is
\nshown through its cooperation with business and the military in
\nillegal deforestation -- activities that have long been well-
\nknown.<\/p>\n
The massive illegal logging that occurs in almost all national
\nparks outside Java, including in the Tanjung Puting and Gunung
\nPalung national parks, involves BPTN management, businesspeople,
\nand military personnel.<\/p>\n
This cooperation also leads to the massive theft of biological
\nresources, the eviction of the indigenous inhabitants and the
\nopenings of new mining sites inside supposed \"national parks\".<\/p>\n
National parks here do not mean conservation, they mean more
\ndamage to nature and the impoverishment of local communities.<\/p>\n
One should well ask why the government established the Mount
\nMerapi National Park (TNGM) without conducting comprehensive,
\nparticipative studies prior to it. To my belief, the same
\nproblems in other areas will reoccur in Merapi. Why? Because the
\nlocal community and the Merapi ecosystem are inseparable and
\ninterdependent.<\/p>\n
For hundreds or maybe even thousands of years, the surrounding
\ncommunities have been wisely guarding Merapi because it
\nguarantees their livelihoods through its clean water, green trees
\nand because it provides food, shelter and medicines.<\/p>\n
Will the establishment of TNGM fix the problems caused by sand
\nquarrying on the slope of Merapi that has caused damage to its
\nforest and dried out its spring? Will the management of the TNGM
\ncare about the fate of the evicted communities after the arrival
\nof new \"investors\"? I really don't think so. The TNGM will never
\nbe able to answer these problems, it will instead create new ones
\nthat will further tarnish this beautiful area.<\/p>\n
The problems of Merapi cannot be answered by classifying it as
\na national park. Only by empowering the local community and
\nintegrating the management of the Merapi area to involve all the
\nstakeholders through the principles of cooperation, trust,
\nparticipation and conservation, will we answer the area's
\nproblems.<\/p>\n
What this area needs is a people-based conservation model; not
\na national park concept that has only proved to be a recurrent
\nfailure.<\/p>\n
We won't let Merapi be another entry into the long list of
\nnational park disasters in Indonesia, will we?<\/p>\n
The writer is coordinator of the Wana Mandhira and Merapi
\nCommunity and can be contacted at mimin_dh@yahoo.com<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/a-national-park-not-for-merapi-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}