Preventing future forest fires<\/p>\n
By Aleksius Jemadu<\/p>\n
This is the first of two articles on how we can prevent forest
\nfires in the future.<\/p>\n
BANDUNG (JP): Minister of Forestry Djamaludin Suryohadikusumo
\nannounced recently that forest fires over the last few months
\nhave destroyed 96,000 hectares of forest areas, consisting of
\n70,000 hectares of productive forests -- including some 15,000 on
\ntimber estates -- and 26,000 hectares of protected forests. In
\nfinancial terms the losses on timber estates amounted to Rp 45
\nbillion (US$11.8 million) given an average value of Rp 3 million
\nper hectare (The Jakarta Post, Oct. 7,1997). Another casualty of
\nthis national disaster is Indonesia's reputation abroad.<\/p>\n
Forest fire is one of the main causes of deforestation in
\nIndonesia. According to World Bank calculations, it deforests an
\narea of 70,000 to 100,000 hectares annually (World Bank, 1990).
\nOver the last few months forest fires have resulted in thick haze
\nboth here and in Malaysia and Singapore. The haze caused several
\nairports in Sumatra and Kalimantan to temporarily close down for
\nseveral days. In Riau, Jambi, Palangkaraya and Kuala Lumpur the
\nhaze has also reportedly posed respiratory problems to many. The
\nIndonesian government has declared these forest fires a national
\ndisaster.<\/p>\n
In order to sustain our remaining natural forest resources and
\nto restore our international credibility, our challenge now is
\nhow to prevent forest fires from reoccurring. While it is good
\nnews that the government has revoked wood-use licenses of
\nplantations and timber companies who failed to present
\ndocumentation disproving the government's allegations that they
\nare responsible for starting brush and forest fires, preventive
\nmeasures should be enacted.<\/p>\n
Government officials at the Ministry of Forestry and the elite
\nof timber associations tend to think that slash and burn
\nactivities practiced by local people are the major cause of
\nforest fires in the outlying islands. Based on such a perception
\n(or misperception?) the government has established different
\nforms of social forestry programs through which the local
\npopulation are encouraged to participate in afforestation and
\nreforestation activities. The forest village development program
\nsponsored by forest concessionaires (HPH Bina Desa Hutan program)
\nhas turned out to be the most extensive social forestry
\ndevelopment.<\/p>\n
According to Minister of Forestry Decrees No. 691\/1991 and No.
\n69\/1995, on which the formulation and implementation of this
\nprogram are based, there are several objectives that the
\ngovernment wants to achieve through the program. The program is
\nexpected to raise the income level of the villagers; provide
\nemployment and small business opportunities; promote
\nenvironmentally friendly rural economies; provide adequate social
\nand economic infrastructures; create a new awareness and positive
\nbehavior among forest villagers, so that they can participate in
\nthe sustainable management of forest resources and so the
\npractice of shifting cultivation might be controlled.<\/p>\n
From these objectives, we can see how central policy-makers
\nperceived or defined policy problems regarding the incorporation
\nof the environmental dimension into forest management. The
\ncontent of the two decrees seems to be based on a widely debated
\nassumption that if forest villagers could develop economic
\nactivities other than slash and burn agriculture, then the human
\nthreat to forest management would be minimized. Thus, the program
\nvery much reflects the concern of the Ministry of Forestry over
\nforest destruction by the so-called peladang berpindah (nomadic
\nfarmers).<\/p>\n
While many would doubt the validity of this assumption, we
\njust want to underline the fact that it is the central government
\nauthorities who dominated the formulation of the policy problems.
\nIn fact, the formulation of the policy problems was conducted
\nunilaterally by the Ministry of Forestry without an extensive and
\nthorough consultation with provincial and district governments,
\nmuch less the villagers themselves.<\/p>\n
Central government officials seemed to receive much
\ninformation and policy input from forest concessionaires and the
\nelite of timber business associations, who are widely known as
\nthe main proponent of the view that nomadic farmers are to blame
\nfor forest degradation.<\/p>\n
The problem of shifting cultivation, which is perceived by the
\ngovernment officials at the Ministry of Forestry and the elite of
\ntimber associations as a major cause of forest fires in the
\noutlying islands, is technically an agricultural problem.
\nObviously the challenge is how to develop alternative
\nagricultural or farming systems that would be suitable to the
\nsoil and ecological conditions in the outlying islands which nota
\nbene are quite different from those of Java.<\/p>\n
It is quite surprising to find that the involvement of the
\nMinistry of Agriculture and its lower level agencies in the
\nformulation of the forest village development program was only
\naccidental. The promotion of permanent agriculture and irrigated
\nrice fields in the outlying islands cannot be based on
\nimprovisation by inexperienced staff members of timber companies,
\nbut should be under the routine supervision of government
\nofficials from agricultural agencies.<\/p>\n
Milton J. Esman (1988) introduced the concept of
\nmultiorganizational service networks which could be very useful
\nif applied to the governance of the forestry sector outside Java.
\nLet us see how this concept can be applied in the implementation
\nof forest village development programs.<\/p>\n
Application of this concept would require the transfer of
\nmanagement and protection of forest areas (at least people's TFAs
\nor Traditional Forest Areas) from the government (Ministry of
\nForestry) to local communities. Each step in the policy process
\nshould be carried out in consultation with, and the consent of,
\nthe local people, without whom the plans will fail.<\/p>\n
First of all, government authorities delineate forest areas to
\nbe managed and protected by local people. They should identify
\nthe existence of forest products that can be generated on a
\nsustainable basis and the real possibility of selling them in
\naccessible local markets.<\/p>\n
The second step is to form small groups of people, with each
\ngroup linked to one specific block of forest. Of particular
\nimportance at this stage is to make sure that every individual of
\nthe group gets an equal share of the benefits, and is involved in
\nmaking decisions on forest management. This is an effective
\nmechanism to commit the group to conserve the forest since it is
\ndirectly linked to their interests.<\/p>\n
The third step is to divide the forest areas into blocks.
\nThere should be a match between the size of the block and its
\nability to make a \"significant contribution\" to the income of the
\nindividual families. Negotiations regarding the size of the
\nblocks should be made possible.<\/p>\n
Fourth, agreements should be drawn up between the groups and
\nthe government, in which the government retains the ownership of
\nthe forest areas and every group is responsible for the
\nsustainability of forest resources. The local people are
\nauthorized to manage and protect the forest area and are
\nconvinced that the government is sincere in sharing the benefits
\nfrom the use of forest resources.<\/p>\n
The fifth step is to develop the skills of local people. In
\ndoing this it is highly recommended that the people's pertinent
\nknowledge on traditional sustainable management practices be
\ncombined with modern forestry management for commercial gain. In
\naddition, local people also need to improve their basic knowledge
\nof money management, accounting, sale negotiations and marketing.<\/p>\n
Finally, an equitable benefit-sharing system should be
\ncreated. This is to ensure that the project and all the benefits
\nof forest products (such as fodder, grasses, fuelwood, timber,
\nnon-timber forest products) belong to all members of the group
\nand are not confined to the rural elite (A. Banerjee and H.
\nMishra, 1995).<\/p>\n
The writer is the director of the Parahyangan Center for
\nInternational Studies at UNPAR, Bandung. His research areas
\ninclude global politics and environmental problems in developing
\ncountries.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/preventing-future-forest-fires-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}