Whenever forest and land fires occur, people once again face the same\nthreat. The air is polluted, children are at risk of respiratory\nproblems, school activities are disrupted, and people who depend on\ndaily work must contend with the risk of losing their income.<\/p>\n
For them, forest fires are not merely news about environmental\ndamage. Their effects reach into homes, harm health and disrupt lives\nthat should be able to proceed normally.<\/p>\n
More troubling still, forest and land fires are not a problem the\ngovernment has only just encountered. Indonesia has a long history of\ndealing with forest fires and haze, including their impacts across\nnational borders.<\/p>\n
That experience should provide a basis for improving policy. Yet\nwhenever fires spread again, public attention is once more consumed by\nfirefighting, mask distribution and advisories urging people to reduce\noutdoor activities.<\/p>\n
All these emergency measures are necessary. But people surely expect\nmore than a response once the fire has grown. They need assurance that\nthe state is genuinely committed to preventing the same disaster from\nrecurring.<\/p>\n
An Unequal Burden<\/strong><\/p>\n Haze reveals a reality that does not always appear in economic growth\ncalculations. Land use can generate profits for businesses and stimulate\neconomic activity in a region. But when fires occur, the burden of\ndamage spreads to communities that may not have received a commensurate\nshare of the benefits.<\/p>\n Residents have to breathe polluted air without ever having a say in\nhow the land is managed. Children face disruption to their education.\nSmall traders, farmers, drivers and daily workers risk losing income\nwhen activity declines. People with limited financial means also find it\nharder to avoid exposure to smoke or obtain healthcare when they need\nit.<\/p>\n This imbalance deserves firm scrutiny. The benefits of exploiting\nnatural resources may accrue to particular parties, while the costs of\nenvironmental damage are borne much more widely. This cannot be accepted\nas a reasonable price of development.<\/p>\n The state has an obligation to protect people from this threat.\nProtection cannot consist solely of healthcare services once smoke has\nblanketed residential areas.<\/p>\n The government must ensure that the sources of fires are addressed,\nrisks in vulnerable areas are reduced, and affected communities receive\nproper assistance and recovery support.<\/p>\n Blurred Accountability<\/strong><\/p>\n Forest and land fires have a range of causes. Dry weather, peatland\nconditions, changes in land cover and human activity can combine to\nheighten the risk of fires. Each incident must therefore be investigated\ncarefully. Drawing conclusions about causes without evidence is as wrong\nas allowing possible violations to go unexamined.<\/p>\n Areas at high risk of fire and land managed by companies must be\nmonitored consistently. Where violations are found, the government must\nhold those responsible to account on the basis of evidence and the\nlaw.<\/p>\n Administrative sanctions, criminal proceedings and civil lawsuits\nmust each be pursued in accordance with their respective legal grounds.\nCompliance with environmental restoration obligations must also be\nmonitored until the work is genuinely completed.<\/p>\n Law enforcement should not attract serious attention only when haze\nbecomes national news. Weak monitoring before fires break out is just as\ndangerous as a slow response after they have spread.<\/p>\n Without transparent investigations and clear accountability, people\nwill continue to struggle to establish whether the state is addressing\nthe source of the problem or merely dealing with its consequences. The\ngovernment should also disclose information about affected areas,\ninvestigation findings, the status of legal cases and follow-up action\nagainst parties found to have violated the law.<\/p>\n Such transparency is no threat to businesses that comply with the\nlaw. Moreover, consistent enforcement is necessary to ensure that\ncompanies meeting their obligations are not disadvantaged by those that\ndisregard their environmental responsibilities.<\/p>\n Development and Destruction<\/strong><\/p>\n We must acknowledge that the use of natural resources plays a role in\nthe economy. Jobs, regional revenue and production are legitimate\ninterests that deserve consideration.<\/p>\n But economic interests cannot justify disregarding the environment\u2019s\ncapacity to sustain life and the safety of communities. The costs of\nforest destruction far exceed the value of the land that has burned.<\/p>\n When smoke harms people\u2019s health, schools have to restrict activities\nand residents lose opportunities to work, the public also pays costs\nthat do not appear in company profit reports. There are further\nconsequences for ecosystems and emissions that worsen the climate\nproblem.<\/p>\n Development policy must therefore take account of who benefits and\nwho bears the risks. The polluter-pays principle should be applied to\nparties found responsible for pollution or environmental damage.\nRestoration costs should not simply be shifted to the state and the\npublic after the benefits of economic activity have already been\nenjoyed.<\/p>\n Prevention also requires the central and regional governments to\nimprove monitoring, strengthen preparedness and involve communities\nliving around fire-prone areas.<\/p>\n Local residents have knowledge of their environment. That knowledge\nshould be incorporated into policy, rather than used only when the\ngovernment needs help putting out fires.<\/p>\n A State with a Short Memory<\/strong><\/p>\n Every disaster leaves communities with experience. But that\nexperience is useful only if it changes the way the government makes\ndecisions. In managing forest and land fires, change should be evident\nin better prevention, consistent monitoring, law enforcement open to\npublic scrutiny and genuine environmental restoration.<\/p>\n We need not wait for all the annual data to be compiled to understand\nthat public health and forest conservation must not be put at risk. Even\nso, the government must demonstrate its results through open data,\nmeasurable assessments and accountable explanations.<\/p>\n People have the right to know what has been improved after fires in\nprevious years. Burned forests may lie far from centres of power. But\ntheir smoke can enter classrooms, homes, markets and workplaces.\nGeographic distance does not diminish the state\u2019s responsibility.<\/p>\n For residents who once again shut their doors and windows to keep\nsmoke out of their homes, explanations about the difficulty of\ncontrolling fires do little to change their circumstances. They need\nsafe air, lives free from disruption and assurance that the harm they\nhave suffered will not simply be forgotten once the flames are out.<\/p>\n The state has accumulated ample experience in dealing with forest and\nland fires. What remains to be demonstrated is whether that experience\ntruly changes policy, or merely adds to the long list of disasters that\nhave occurred.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/haze-and-a-state-slow-to-learn-1791964241",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}