Only clean govt can save the forests<\/p>\n
Wiryono, Lecturer, Department of Forestry, University of
\nBengkulu, Bengkulu<\/p>\n
Sumatra's lowland forests, according to World Bank
\npredictions, will last only another four years. Kalimantan's
\nforests will vanish in nine years. Lowland tropical rain forest
\nis one of the world's most productive ecosystems, and also the
\nrichest in biodiversity. The loss of lowland tropical rain forest
\nin Indonesia, which will be followed by the loss of hill and
\nmountain forests, will also come at a tremendous economic cost.<\/p>\n
It will take up to 100 years to recover the loss. Forest
\necosystems will recover, but many species will become extinct.<\/p>\n
Resuming timber production will take a relatively short time
\nfrom the ecological point of view -- but even the fastest growing
\ntrees take at least 10 years to produce timber, and that of a
\nrelatively inferior quality.<\/p>\n
Higher quality timber for construction will need a longer
\ntime, while demand will increase due to population growth and
\nimproved lifestyles. A country with the world's second largest
\ntropical forest and once a prominent timber exporter will have to
\nimport timber from other countries!<\/p>\n
Yet the Ministry of Forestry seems to be unaware of this
\nlooming, bleak and dangerous scenario.<\/p>\n
Authorities and activists, many with a background in social
\nsciences, may be so busy formulating a new paradigm, from
\neconomic-based to community-based forest management, that they
\nmay fail to see the root of the problem.<\/p>\n
Forest destruction at current levels is not caused by an
\nincorrect paradigm, but largely by misconduct on the part of
\nrelevant authorities. Even if we had treated forests merely as
\nmoney machines we would have managed them in such a way as to be
\nable to produce timber with a consistent volume each year.<\/p>\n
The simple, logical principle is that to achieve a maximum
\nsustainable yield, the harvesting rate should be the same as the
\nregeneration rate. For a man-made forest, such as a teak forest
\nin Java, a management unit is divided into a number of blocks,
\nthe number being the same as the age of trees ready for
\nharvesting. Every year a block is cut, while another block is
\nplanted. This way, the forest will yield the same volume of
\ntimber every year.<\/p>\n
Similarly for natural forests outside Java with a selective
\ncutting system, we only need to manage the cutting system and let
\nthe forest regenerate naturally. Only the large trees are cut so
\nthat when the next harvest time comes, the small trees will be
\nready for cutting.<\/p>\n
The worst consequence of our "wrong paradigm" would be the
\nconversion of natural, species-rich forests into single, fast-
\ngrowing species, man-made forests. We would lose our
\nbiodiversity.<\/p>\n
But this could have been balanced with advanced research in
\napplied forestry biotechnology. To have fast growing trees with
\ndesirable traits (e.g. straight trunks and disease resistance) we
\nneeded research in tree genetics.<\/p>\n
For mass propagation of trees we needed tissue culture
\ntechnology. Among other things, we also needed to develop
\nresearch in wood technology since fast growing trees usually
\nproduce inferior timber. In short, applied biological sciences
\nand technology in forestry had to flourish.<\/p>\n
But this did not happen.<\/p>\n
We have not seen large-scale plantations, and the
\nbiotechnological sciences have not been given much attention in
\nthe forestry sector. Most of the natural forest did not turn into
\nwell-managed man-made forests -- but into shrubs, agriculture
\nplantations, and critical land.<\/p>\n
What has happened and is still happening is indiscriminate
\ndestruction. Production forests became the first victims,
\nfollowed by the conservation forests (national parks, animal
\nsanctuaries, nature reserves, etc.).<\/p>\n
The fact that we have designated a portion of our forests as
\nprotected areas since colonial times shows that we realized from
\nthe beginning that forests are not merely a source of timber
\nproduction, but are an ecosystem with many functions.<\/p>\n
We have allocated forests for animal protection, soil
\nconservation, hydrological protection, ecosystem preservation and
\nnature recreation.<\/p>\n
Managing natural forests is technically very simple. Most
\nconservation forests only need to be left to nature. Production
\nforests outside Java require annual harvest management but can
\nthen be left until the next harvest.<\/p>\n
So why have we failed? Because we have not followed our own
\nrules. Every year, all forest concession companies have to draft
\nan annual work plan and submit it to the forestry authorities for
\nvalidation. But most harvest more than the permitted number of
\ntrees, even outside the designated harvesting area. Various
\nparties also come back to areas that had been harvested
\npreviously to reharvest the forest before its cycle time is due.
\nWorse, harvesting in concession areas is also carried out by
\nvarious people with access to the area, and not just companies
\nwith valid permits.<\/p>\n
So legal and illegal loggers race to loot the remaining
\ntimber. Many turn to illegal logging in conservation forests when
\nthe production forests are depleted -- in broad daylight!<\/p>\n
Why don't we follow our plans, our rules and even our laws?
\nSimple: Timber is economically highly valuable and easy to
\nobtain. Bribery is not surprisingly pervasive from the beginning
\n(acquiring permits to exploit the forest) to the end of the
\nprocess (transporting the timber). Very weak law enforcement
\nresults from the "backing" of strong men in business and
\ngovernment. This is the crux of the problem.<\/p>\n
Now in the local autonomy era, control over production forests
\nlies with local governments. Sidelined for 30 years during the
\nNew Order period, local governments are eager to harvest what is
\nleft of the forests to bolster their revenue.<\/p>\n
This eagerness for quick money, coupled with the absence of
\nadequate law enforcement, will certainly accelerate the
\ndestruction. Many regents and local council members often ask
\nconservation forest managers, "What contribution can the
\nconservation area make to local development?" -- meaning, of
\ncourse, money.<\/p>\n
So, is there any chance to save our forests? The chances are
\nvery slim. But it is still possible to save the remaining forests
\nand recover damaged areas if we really want to. First, the
\nauthorities must genuinely acknowledge that the destruction of
\nour forests is caused by misconduct.<\/p>\n
They must openly apologize to the public because they are the
\nmost responsible parties in forest management, and declare that
\nfrom now on this misconduct will stop. They must then urge the
\npolice, the army, judges, prosecutors, regents and others to
\ncommit to clean governance. Only then can the science of
\nforestry, supported by social sciences, do its job.<\/p>\n
But, if we continue corruption and collusion in forest
\nmanagement, our precious forests will soon be gone and we will
\nsuffer a great biological and economic disaster. Clean governance
\nis the only way to save what is left of this treasure.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/only-clean-govt-can-save-the-forests-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}