Call for moratorium on logging<\/p>\n
By Longgena Ginting<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Our forest is dying a painful death.<\/p>\n
Indonesia is known worldwide to be among places with the worst
\nforest destruction. Overcutting, illegal logging, forest fires,
\nmonoculturalization of the natural forest, soil quality
\ndegradation, to name but a few of the problems.<\/p>\n
We no longer even ask where all the profits of this
\noverexploitation of our forest have gone, or how this has
\nadversely affected the 80 million Indonesians whose livelihood
\ndirectly or indirectly depend on the forest.<\/p>\n
The saddest thing is that it is unlikely the government's or
\nthe community's outlook on the problem will change in the near
\nfuture.<\/p>\n
The simplest logic would tell us that illegal logging is a
\n"natural" occurrence due to a gap between timber supply and
\ndemand as well as poor domestic prices of timber--which has over
\nthe years, led to smuggling of timber abroad.<\/p>\n
The government's response--such as frequent raids and arrest
\nof the smugglers--however, barely touches the roots of the
\nproblem because in Indonesia it does not really matter whether
\nlogging is legal or otherwise. What matters is the fact that both
\nmethods are leading to an overcutting of our forest.<\/p>\n
From this perspective, even "legal" felling through forest
\nconcessions can be considered an illegal operation because it
\ncontributes to the killing of our forest. Certainly, this holds
\ntrue if we can agree that overcutting is a crime against our
\nnatural resources.<\/p>\n
Even the natural forest conversion is also actually a part of
\na systematic crime against our forest because it has been made
\ninseparable from the overly high demand for timber and raw
\nmaterial for the pulp and paper industry.<\/p>\n
The natural forest conversion is a crime against our forest,
\nthat's what it is.<\/p>\n
Unless they want to be called criminals, the forestry ministry
\nand the Association of Indonesian Forest Concessionaires (APHI)
\nmust immediately halt this robbing of the forest. They must stop
\nnatural forest conversions until the establishment of a
\nsustainable forest management.<\/p>\n
The root of the problem is actually simple, namely the
\nextraordinary increase in the capacity of the national logging
\nindustry. In 1998, the country "consumed" a total of 78.1 million
\nm3 of timber, while the official timber production rate was only
\n21.4 million m3. This means that 56.6 million m3 or 71 percent of
\nthe timber was from illegal felling and other unrecorded harvest.<\/p>\n
This was reportedly a long-standing situation and the forestry
\nministry has always turned a blind eye to the practice.<\/p>\n
Interestingly, the 1994\/95 up to 1998\/99 fiscal years recorded
\na decline in timber production, while recording a consistent
\nincrease in forestry upstream industries such as sawn-wood
\ntimber, plywood and pulp.<\/p>\n
Forest conversions, illegal felling and forest fires, however,
\nare mere symptoms. The true disease is the forest management (or
\nmismanagement as is the case) policy that has existed since very
\nearly; the limited timber supply; the paper industry development
\npolicies that have led to indiscriminate cutting of commercial
\ntimber; and major oil palm plantations.<\/p>\n
No matter how high our annual forest conversion is, the
\ngovernment has never tried to curb it. Instead, the government
\ncontinues to issue new licenses for forest conversion.<\/p>\n
It is also the government policies that have enabled the same
\ncompanies to operate forest concessions (HPH), timber concessions
\n(HTI) and other plantations simultaneously.<\/p>\n
Following the 1997 economic crisis, the government issued a
\nnumber of policies that affected the rate of natural forest
\nconversion. These include restrictions on palm oil exports, the
\nliberalization of foreign investment in the sector and the
\nconversion of 30 percent of state forest for oil palm
\ncultivation.<\/p>\n
Indonesia has been witnessing the steadily increasing rate of
\nnatural forest conversion, as indicated by the increased volume
\nof timber produced through licenses for clear-felling or
\nindiscriminate logging (IPK). This signified an increase in the
\nlogging industry's dependence on indiscriminate cutting.<\/p>\n
A portion of the demand is met by forest conversion whose rate
\nis found to be 30 percent over the national demand of timber.
\nThis may mean either of the following: 1) the decline of our
\nforest's capacity and quality after more than 30 years of
\noverexploitation or; 2) the continued exploitation and conversion
\nof the remaining forest.<\/p>\n
With the annual timber demands standing at 65-70 million m3,
\nwe can estimate that between 20.7 and 22.3 million m3 of the
\ntimber is produced from forest conversion. Given that
\nindiscriminate logging is the most used method and modestly
\nassuming that 20-30 m3 of timber is produced per hectare, we can
\nestimate the forest conversion rate to reach 750,000 to 1.1
\nmillion hectares per year.<\/p>\n
This figure is certainly far beyond the figures officially
\nissued by the forestry and plantations ministry because it is
\nvery possible that illegal conversion contributes to the high
\nrate of forest conversion.<\/p>\n
Figures, however, do not matter as importantly as the dire
\nreality facing us. Actions are need to save the remaining 28
\npercent of our forest areas.<\/p>\n
It is true we have limited alternatives: banning logging, a
\nmoratorium on forest concessions, putting a stop to forest
\nconversion, closing down indebted and inefficient industries,
\nrecognizing the people's tenurial rights, rationalizing timber
\nindustries and establishing forest spatial zoning.<\/p>\n
Let's first discuss the need to change the existing pattern of
\nforest exploitation. We must evaluate the forest resources that
\nwe still own and calculate whether to continue with the
\nconsumption pattern that is three times our forest's production
\ncapacity. This calls for a moratorium.<\/p>\n
By putting a stop to this consumption pattern, we may have to
\nlose a total of US$3 billion income from legal felling but can
\nactually save US$8.5 billion worth of timber that would be lost
\nthrough illegal felling. We must be willing to do away with
\ninefficient and wasteful industries, and put a stop to
\nunsustainable logging practices and natural forest conversion.<\/p>\n
Some people may consider this line of thinking "subversive"
\nbut what are the alternatives?<\/p>\n
We could refuse to take those measures because we fear
\nramifications such as the collapse of the economy or unemployment
\nbut this only delays a sure death. The maintenance of the current
\nforest exploitation pattern will surely lead to its eventual
\ndeath and the nightmare becoming a reality.<\/p>\n
The writer is campaign coordinator of the Indonesian
\nEnvironmental Forum (Walhi).<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/call-for-moratorium-on-logging-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}