Forestry woes reflect local tragedy<\/p>\n
By Wimar Witoelar<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The World Bank has endorsed more debt for the
\ngovernment including forestry sector programs. This relates to an
\nimportant seminar held recently in Jakarta by the government and
\nsponsored by the World Bank.<\/p>\n
An aftermath of last year's Conference of the Consultative
\nGroup on Indonesia in Paris, the topic is the management of our
\nforests, an urgent topic overshadowed by Indonesia's troubled
\ntransition.<\/p>\n
The case studies shown in the seminar through 19 illustrations
\nbrought attention to this problem. Everything, however, boiled
\ndown to the fact that Indonesia's forests are disappearing. The
\nannual deforestation rate is 1.6 million hectares, nearly twice
\nthe estimate published by the World Bank in 1994.<\/p>\n
More than 17 million hectares have been lost in 12 years --
\none-fourth of the forest coverage in 1985. The area burned down
\nin the 1997 to 1998 fires could cover a country as large as
\nPortugal or South Korea, and only 1 percent was caused by nature.<\/p>\n
Lowland dry forest -- the most valuable forest type for
\nlogging and biodiversity conservation -- is disappearing fastest,
\nessentially gone in Sulawesi, and set to vanish from Sumatra by
\n2005 and Kalimantan by 2010.<\/p>\n
Most importantly, the original keepers of the forest --
\ncustomary (adat) communities who have managed the forests
\ncarefully and productively for thousands of years -- are being
\ndriven out of their habitat.<\/p>\n
Whether it is the forests or the banks, the roots of the problem are
\ncaused by disrespect for ourselves as a nation. They come together:
\ncorruption, human rights abuse, natural resource degradation. All for private
\ngain, public loss.<\/p>\n
Take the tax loss from illegal logging. At the old cubic meter
\nvalues of the U$11 reforestation fund and $6 of royalty, and
\nusing the Ministry of Forestry and Plantations estimate of 30
\nmillion cubic meters of illegal logging in 1998, the public loss
\napproaches $500 million.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, you cannot quantify a moral issue.<\/p>\n
The public violations interact and amplify each other cross-
\nsectorally from Bank Indonesia liquidity credits to logging
\nconglomerates, from militaristic practices to the criminalization
\nof traditional forest-based communities.<\/p>\n
It is important to distinguish between the previous and the
\ncurrent governments.<\/p>\n
A former forestry minister mentioned that some of the crimes
\nagainst the forest were technically not legal violations back
\nthen, because it was not until last September that laws
\nrestricted actions of people in the past.<\/p>\n
It confirms that the lack of legislation left the forests prey
\nthe political culture of violence and corruption, but the
\nminister's point is well taken.<\/p>\n
New laws and a new government have a chance to save the
\nforests. People do care about the forests, but not enough of
\nthem. The die-hard activists, dedicated non-governmental
\norganizations and international donors only slow down the loss.
\nPrevious governments seem to have accelerated, not stopped,
\ndeforestation.<\/p>\n
Disinformation has skewed public opinion. Some even say,
\n"Maybe it is not that bad". Is this the Stockholm syndrome? Being
\noppressed for so long, do some believe their oppressors more than
\ntheir liberators?<\/p>\n
The causes of the problem are clear. Forest fires which
\nconsumed more than 5 million hectares in 1997-1998 were started
\nby large corporations who sought to convert forestland into
\nplantations.<\/p>\n
Mines, plantations and settlements converted forests without
\nregard to forest boundaries. Logging concessions are stimulated
\nby the wrong incentives: it is more lucrative to clear forestland
\nfor plantations than to plant on open and unproductive land.<\/p>\n
On top of that, illegal logging is pushed by the greed of
\npeople who have been given permits to construct and operate
\nplants with capacity far in excess of any amount of timber they
\ncould source legally from our forests.<\/p>\n
These timber tycoons are rich, powerful and motivated. The
\nseminar showed an excellent video of one of these illegal
\noperations. A few days before the talks, the Indonesian activist
\nwho appeared in this video and a British citizen were beaten and
\nkidnapped for days by the illegal loggers. A final blow to forest
\nsustainability is the rejection of the direct stakeholders --
\nrural communities and traditional forest dwellers -- which
\nsometimes lead to destruction.<\/p>\n
What next? We have hope in the current government but they
\nneed prompting from NGOs, funding agencies, the media, political
\ngroups and the general public.<\/p>\n
Strength now lies in information, knowledge, networks. Power
\nis not in the hands of political parties because now the NGOs,
\nthe academics and the media are the political leaders.<\/p>\n
In a country where legitimacy of political parties is still
\nquestionable, the strength is in civil society.<\/p>\n
No national issues are ever sector-specific. The question is
\nnot "Is there a future for the Indonesian forests?" but "Is there
\na future for Indonesia?"<\/p>\n
The answer lies in our political will to reverse self-
\ndestruction to empowerment. It is difficult. Social discipline
\nhas broken down, the economy is gasping for life and people's
\nemotions are being provoked into ever-threatening spirals of
\ndiscord and violence.<\/p>\n
But now we can talk, we can hope because we are heard -- and
\nwe can change things. In the old days the question was: "Which
\nregulation?" Now we face shifting paradigms. The question is,
\n"What do we want?" All laws and regulations need substantial
\nreview when matters of principle still need to be addressed. Conspicuously,
\nthe urgency of adat communities is still underplayed.<\/p>\n
An honest recognition of their legitimacy should return
\nforests to their rightful keepers. A crash program is still
\ncalled for in the form of a moratorium on conversion of natural
\nforests, also for aggressive replanting to meet industrial needs.<\/p>\n
We have heard that several donors are ready to commit or
\nrecommit funds to the sector if there is a commensurate
\ngovernment commitment. In the absence of such a commitment,
\ndonors might reevaluate their own existing programs and hesitate
\nto start new ones.<\/p>\n
In the case of the World Bank, they say: "Our management is
\ngoing to ask, after this meeting, is there anything promising to
\npursue? If the answer is no, we have other priorities." Now that
\nsounds like bad news, but is it really?<\/p>\n
Apart from everything else, holding down our national debt
\nmight not be a bad idea. Should we go forward, can we be more
\nselective in increasing our debt burden? Some say past debt has
\nbeen responsible for the perceived support of the Soeharto
\ngovernment by the international funding community.<\/p>\n
Who will pay for past corruption, collusion and nepotism? Is
\nit logical to increase debt without punishing profiteers who
\nabused foreign loans? A moratorium on debt payments is seen as
\nmore sensible just than getting back on the debt treadmill. But
\nis that feasible? The answer to these questions will have to be
\nfound in our fledgling democratic system.<\/p>\n
The writer is a commentator on sociopolitical affairs and a
\ntalk show host.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/forestry-woes-reflect-local-tragedy-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}