Facing up to destruction of forests<\/p>\n
By Suhardi Suryadi<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): At the October meeting of the Consultative Group
\non Indonesia in Tokyo, a number of donor countries raised the
\ncrucial issue of forest devastation in Indonesia. The commitment
\nof the Indonesian government to forest conservation even became
\none requirement for the extending of further loans. Given the
\npresent condition of Indonesia's forests, the CGI's political
\npressure on Indonesia is understandable.<\/p>\n
The past five years have witnessed various parties committing
\nrampant forest destruction in all provinces. Damage to forest
\nfunctions seems indiscriminate as it is found in protected
\nforests and other conservation areas like national parks. The
\nfatal inundations and landslides that hit Nias Island recently
\nmay be taken as an example of how forest devastation can inflict
\nhuge damage in terms of loss of life and material losses.<\/p>\n
There is mounting concern over forest devastation in
\nIndonesia following the increasing intensity of deforestation. Up
\nto 1998 alone, deforestation involved up to 2 million hectares a
\nyear. The World Resource Institute even estimated in 1987 that
\nthe loss of virgin forest stood at 70 percent owing to excessive
\ndomestic consumption and the export of forest products. In the
\nestimation of the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (Walhi),
\nthe demand of the timber industry for forest products, both
\ndomestically and for export, stands at about 100 million cubic
\nmeters, of which 21.9 million cubic meters come from imports.<\/p>\n
The remaining 78.1 million cubic meters must therefore come
\nfrom primary forests while, in fact, the natural forest
\nregeneration process has only a very low level of success.<\/p>\n
In spite of the trillions of rupiah invested in reforestation
\nand forest conservation, the government and forest
\nconcessionaires alike have scarcely managed to produce any of the
\ndesired results. For about 30 years forest concessionaires have
\nbeen largely responsible for extensive damage to an estimated 48
\nmillion hectares of forests across the country.<\/p>\n
Viewed from their biodiversity value and the loss sustained,
\nthe revenues contributed by the forest concessionaires to the
\nstate's coffers have been very insignificant. Worse, part of
\nthese revenues go into the pockets of high-ranking officials and
\ntheir cronies who ironically blame locals as the culprits for the
\ndamage.<\/p>\n
One of the main factors contributing to forest devastation
\nhave also been inconsistency in the policies adopted and hence
\ndemoralization. The government's policy on forest development as
\nset forth in the laws and action plans has been unable to
\neffectively guarantee the success of forest conservation and the
\nimprovement of public welfare. The wordings in the regulations
\ncan be construed as ambivalent in nature and the policies
\nthemselves are more oriented towards generating foreign exchange
\nearnings, making it relatively easy for interested parties to use
\nor abuse loopholes.<\/p>\n
Situations fraught with corruption, collusion and nepotism
\nfor over 30 years have made forestry officers demoralized in
\nenforcing the law.<\/p>\n
Public dissatisfaction over unjust sharing of forest resources
\nand the government's inability to implement good governance has
\nadded to forest destruction.<\/p>\n
A study by Indonesia's Transparent Society showed that 74 out
\nof 925 ministerial forest concessions issued by the forestry
\nministry during the period 1995-2000 deviating from existing
\nrules.<\/p>\n
The government's leniency in implementing the law is seen from
\nits failure to revoke the concession of PT Angkawijaya even after
\nthe company was proved to have blatantly committed illegal
\nlogging and gravely harmed the ecosystem of the productive forest
\naround the Rinjani National Park in Lombok, despite the fact that
\nthe company is no longer in operation.<\/p>\n
Government Regulation No. 6 1999 stipulates that a
\nconcessionaire can only get a maximum forest area of 100 hectares
\nwithin a province. Yet PT Suka Jaya Makmur has a total area of
\n171,350 hectares in West Kalimantan while six other companies
\nhave total forest areas of 1,28 million hectares in six
\nprovinces.<\/p>\n
Indonesia will pay a high price for this inconsistency. The
\npeople who felt that they had been robbed of the land or deprived
\nof their "rights" to the forests during the New Order are now
\ngoing on the rampage, cutting the trees down, intimidating
\nconcessionaires or annexing their concessions.<\/p>\n
The government's failure in forest development is
\nattributable to three factors:<\/p>\n
First, the government has failed to safeguard forest
\nconservation from certain parties who have access to power and
\ncapital.<\/p>\n
Second, the government has been unable to manage sustainable
\nforest resources by developing non-timber related products and
\nservices as a source of revenues.<\/p>\n
Third, the government has failed to develop the local human
\nresources living in and around forest areas and to boost
\nawareness of their responsibilities and participation in forest
\nconservation.<\/p>\n
Indonesian forests, it is often said, are the lungs of the
\nworld. Nearly 60 million people in this country are heavily
\ndependent on forest resources, including water. The forests here
\nare on the brink of the tolerable limit of destruction as nearly
\n70 percent of the total area has been severely damaged. In the
\nmeantime, many issues concerning the environment raised in the
\nreform agenda have hardly been responded to by the government.
\nThere has been no significant change in political policy over
\nforestry except for minor amendments to the legislation and small
\nmeasures taken involving a limited role for society.<\/p>\n
Timber exploitation by powerful parties is still rampant under
\nthe pretext of the national interest, even though it deprives the
\nlocal people of their rights.<\/p>\n
The new freedom of each region to implement its own policy on
\ndevelopment may have lately added to the pace of forest damage as
\nsome areas with limited economic resources have tended to make
\nuse of their forests as the main source of locally-generated
\nincome.<\/p>\n
In East Kalimantan, by only paying Rp 200 million, one can
\neasily secure a concession from the forestry ministry for the
\nright to manage a 100-hectare forest plot. And in Jember, East
\nJava, the local administration has issued gold mining concessions
\nfor the Metu Betiri National Park.<\/p>\n
We always face the dilemma of competing claims arising from
\nforest conservation and economic development, making resources
\ndevelopment a complex matter involving international and national
\ninterests. The plan to grow one million plants is only wishful
\nthinking and will not produce anything of value.<\/p>\n
The real challenge for the government is to synchronize the
\naspects of social justice with the agenda of forest development.
\nFailure to do this will confirm public perception that the
\nappointment of the Minister of Forestry M. Prakosa from the
\nIndonesian Democratic Party of Struggle is designed to turn the
\nministry into the party's cash cow.<\/p>\n
The writer is Deputy Director for the Jakarta-based Institute of
\nResearch, Education and Information (LP3ES).<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/facing-up-to-destruction-of-forests-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}