A national park not for Merapi

A national park not for Merapi

Mimin Dwi Hartono, Contributor/Yogyakarta

Local conversations about the classification of the Mount Merapi forest area into a national park often end up questioning why it was established as a park at all.

Many in the area had expressed their opposition to the government's plan to classify the area, when the process began in 2001. Despite the protest, the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry on May 4 this year issued a decree that officially changed the forest into a protected area.

We who are opposed to the change say the ministerial decree violates legal principles as well as principles of transparency, democracy and human rights; and is a manifestation of the government's arrogance.

The decree, we say, goes against an earlier decree from the same ministry that sets out due process prior to the gazetting of a national park. The decision also contravenes Law No 22/1999 on regional autonomy because it ignores the authority of regional governments and legislative councils in the area.

However, this article will not focus on the legal aspects of the ministerial decree but instead on the substance of it; that is, it will question whether the concept of a national park fits Merapi's conservation needs. If we agree that Merapi needs conservation then what kinds of conservation will best suit it, and how should this conservation be carried out?

The concept of a national park first emerged in Western countries and was strongly influenced by classical concepts of conservation -- a region was tightly protected with no one allowed to touch it. It later developed into an eco-fascist conservation model that placed the continuation of undisturbed "nature" as a top priority even if it meant getting rid of the local inhabitants considered to have endangered it.

The world's first national park was established in the U.S. in 1872 with the gazetting of the Yellowstone National Park. The park's management did not allow anyone to make use of the natural resources in the park, disregarding the fact it was previously the home of indigenous tribes. Conflicts were unavoidable and so was the forced eviction of the indigenous communities from the region.

Unfortunately, it is also the same concept that has inspired many countries, including Indonesia, in developing their conservation models. In 1980, the Indonesian government established its first five national parks -- Gunung Leuser, Gede Pangrango, Ujung Kulon, Baluran, and Komodo.

The government seems to have received this concept without considering its suitability to the country's social and economic conditions. It prefers to please Western countries rather than its own people. The fact that 42 national parks have been established across the country one after another without comprehensive studies on how the existing parks have been managed, proves so.

The conditions in many of the regions named national parks has worsened since they were gazetted as such. Instead of preserving the area and generating positive spinoffs, the establishment of national parks has often resulted in damage and disadvantage. The Gunung Leuser, Gunung Halimun, Kutai, Bukit Tiga Puluh, Tanjung Puting, Gunung Palung, Ujung Kulon, Lore Lindu, Rawa Aopa, Komodo, Lorentz, and Wasur national parks are examples where such conservation models lead to social and economic problems and environmental degradation rather than preservation.

This failure in applying the national park concept to Indonesia is not just at a conceptual level, but also at the policy and management level. At the policy level, for example, through the National Park Management Body (BPTN), the government discriminates between the rights of the BPTN and those of the people. The people are considered subordinate to the BPTN. They have to obey the body without question while it applies fascist regulations that were made for the government's interests. Law No 5/1990 on the conservation of natural resources and ecosystems, which makes no mention of the people's role and rights regarding natural resources, is an example of this arrogance.

The BPTN organization, too, is not only government-biased but, like other state organizations, suffers from corruption. As the manager of national parks, the BPTN holds almost complete authority. There is no room for the rights of the surrounding communities. That national park management is often corrupt is shown through its cooperation with business and the military in illegal deforestation -- activities that have long been well- known.

The massive illegal logging that occurs in almost all national parks outside Java, including in the Tanjung Puting and Gunung Palung national parks, involves BPTN management, businesspeople, and military personnel.

This cooperation also leads to the massive theft of biological resources, the eviction of the indigenous inhabitants and the openings of new mining sites inside supposed "national parks".

National parks here do not mean conservation, they mean more damage to nature and the impoverishment of local communities.

One should well ask why the government established the Mount Merapi National Park (TNGM) without conducting comprehensive, participative studies prior to it. To my belief, the same problems in other areas will reoccur in Merapi. Why? Because the local community and the Merapi ecosystem are inseparable and interdependent.

For hundreds or maybe even thousands of years, the surrounding communities have been wisely guarding Merapi because it guarantees their livelihoods through its clean water, green trees and because it provides food, shelter and medicines.

Will the establishment of TNGM fix the problems caused by sand quarrying on the slope of Merapi that has caused damage to its forest and dried out its spring? Will the management of the TNGM care about the fate of the evicted communities after the arrival of new "investors"? I really don't think so. The TNGM will never be able to answer these problems, it will instead create new ones that will further tarnish this beautiful area.

The problems of Merapi cannot be answered by classifying it as a national park. Only by empowering the local community and integrating the management of the Merapi area to involve all the stakeholders through the principles of cooperation, trust, participation and conservation, will we answer the area's problems.

What this area needs is a people-based conservation model; not a national park concept that has only proved to be a recurrent failure.

We won't let Merapi be another entry into the long list of national park disasters in Indonesia, will we?

The writer is coordinator of the Wana Mandhira and Merapi Community and can be contacted at mimin_dh@yahoo.com