The case for sustainable forests<\/p>\n
Didy Wurjanto, Bureau of Planning and Finance ,
\nMinistry of Forestry ,Jakarta, dwu112001@yahoo.com<\/p>\n
Sustainable development is a process of meeting the continuing
\nneeds of people while protecting and enhancing the resource base
\non which the entire production of goods and environmental
\nservices depends. Therefore, good forest management is essential.
\nThis principle has been in use since the colonial days,
\nespecially regarding teakwood plantations in Java.<\/p>\n
However, \"the needs of people\" was translated to mean the
\nneeds of those controlling the resources and the state. As a
\nresult, resources dwindled at an alarming rate. Only now is there
\ngrowing awareness that sustainable forest management is
\nimpossible to achieve without linking its management with rural
\ndevelopment.<\/p>\n
The Dutch colonial government realized the important strategic
\nand commercial value of timber. As a result, forestry activities
\nwere directed at gaining sustainable colonial power.<\/p>\n
Under these policies, any use of local timber for firewood or
\nany other domestic use was considered harmful and had to be
\ncontrolled. Locals were therefore sometimes placed in the same
\ncategory as natural threats such as wild animals, pests and
\ndisease.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, this approach did not significantly change
\nafter Indonesia achieved independence. A major factor
\ncontributing to the further strengthening of colonial policies,
\nwhich stressed state control over forest resources, was the
\nprevailing modernization theory of economic development.<\/p>\n
Modernization resulted in the belief that the forest sector
\nwould best contribute to economic development. As a result, the
\npolicies were directed to maintain the government's grip on this
\nvaluable resource.<\/p>\n
It began in 1966 when the government allowed investment in
\nforest industries and expected them to trigger self-sustained
\ngrowth in wood-processing industries. During 1966 and 1997, 65
\nmillion hectares of forest were leased to logging companies,
\nrepresenting one third of the national land area.<\/p>\n
Because forests were used as a means of national economic
\ndevelopment, sustainable forest management lagged behind the
\nrapid exploitation of natural forests. Studies proved that the
\napproach did not contribute much toward rural development. Too
\noften local people living in forests hardly profited from
\npolicies because the benefits were accumulated and transferred to
\nthe urban elite and foreign investors.<\/p>\n
This negative approach was one factor that resulted in the
\nhuge socioeconomic discrepancies, which contributed to the fall
\nof the New Order regime in 1998.<\/p>\n
Greater recognition during the reform era of the rights of
\nlocal communities and the elimination of political influence over
\nnatural resources, forestry policies have shifted from using
\nforests as a means to contribute to national economic development
\nto the use of forests for the welfare of rural people.<\/p>\n
The policies now stress that sharing benefits is more
\nimportant than simply seeking revenue. This marks government
\nadmittance that it failed to manage the forests in a sustainable
\nway.<\/p>\n
During the last 10 years, more than 1.6 million hectares of
\nforest have been lost on an annual basis. It has created a huge
\ndeficit of wood supply for timber-related industries, as well as
\nmassive environmental problems. The government has sped up the
\nestablishment of plantations and emphasized more conservation
\nefforts. However, any progress is rendered futile given the fact
\nthat today's forestry problems are no longer technical but
\nsocial. Therefore, there is no better option other than embracing
\nlocal people to protect and replenish the depleted resources.
\nNowadays, the government virtually begs local people, whom the
\ngovernment previously denied access to forest resources, for help
\nthrough community-based forestry schemes.<\/p>\n
In contrast to traditional forestry, which concentrates on the
\nproduction of industrial wood, community-based forest management
\ncan be directed to community sustenance and well-being through
\nproduction of socially desired benefits -- goods and services on
\na sustainable basis -- and to avoid floods, soil erosion and
\ndrought. This new approach cannot be separated from rural
\ndevelopment because it deals not only with trees but also with
\nsocioeconomic problems.<\/p>\n
It represents a promising alternative to the administration of
\nstate-controlled forests because studies conducted by the Food
\nand Agricultural Organization and the World Bank prove that local
\npeople, if given responsibility for forests in their area, can
\ndevelop management skills to administer these resources
\neffectively. For most rural communities, commercial forestry is a
\nviable pathway to improve their standard of living.<\/p>\n
By allowing locals to control their own forests, the
\ngovernment will gain their support, work together to safeguard
\nforest resources from problems such as illegal logging or forest
\nfires. This approach will also reduce the pressure on our natural
\nforests as locals can fulfill their needs from their own
\nresources. Community forests can also save government money,
\nbecause currently it has to provide huge sums of money for timber
\ncompanies to establish forest plantations.<\/p>\n
The question is how rural communities can be motivated to save
\nour forests and become involved in commercial forestry.<\/p>\n
Estimates from 2001 revealed that community forestry schemes
\ncover a total area of 1.2 million hectares, or only 8.8 percent
\nof the total degraded land favorable for community forests.
\nCommunity forests in Java are able to supply 6 million cubic
\nmeters of timber annually. Although some have raised doubts on
\nthis claim, there is evidence of substantial yields, particularly
\nin Java. Most planted trees are softwood such as acacia and
\nsengon (Paraserianthes falcataria). They are quick and easy to
\ngrow and suitable for local people's short-term needs.<\/p>\n
Community forestry projects always have two different
\npriorities. The government is concerned with how local people
\nparticipate, while the rural communities are concerned with
\nwhether the project will deliver benefits to them. Indeed, for
\nthe last five years, the government has spent billions of rupiah
\nfor projects that are designed to encourage locals to grow
\ncommercial trees. Most of the funding was used to pay wages and
\nfor the purchase of tree seedlings and infrastructure.<\/p>\n
These incentives, however, are not sufficient for successful
\ncommunity projects. People abandon their trees as soon as
\nprojects are terminated, unless the government assists them in
\nfinding a market.<\/p>\n
True, tropical hardwood timber is the most wanted forest
\nproduct compared to softwood timber which community forests
\nusually produce. However, recent research has found that
\ninternational consumers are now uneasy about using products from
\ntropical forests. Among wood industries, there has been a
\nfundamental shift toward engineered wood products to ensure a
\nuniformity of quality, especially for construction use.
\nInternational demand for pulp and paper has also risen. These
\nindustries do not require tropical hardwoods.<\/p>\n
Although industrial plantations were planned to serve that
\npurpose, plantations have not caught up with intended production
\nlevels. There is hence a gap between resource supplies and the
\nproduction capacity of pulp and paper factories. That has become
\nan important issue and the government has to consider these
\ntrends in order to capture the available opportunities.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/the-case-for-sustainable-forests-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}