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