Action needed in forest fires

From Kompas

It is really tiring to hear reports on forest fires in our country. Why? The way things happened it seemed as if the government failed to take any immediate action.

About 15 years ago people enthusiastically talked about the beauty of our motherland and its natural wealth.

The government was then issuing a lot of forest concessions. However, many of those who have enjoyed the profit from the concessions may now be simply sitting back sipping their hot tea in an air-conditioned room.

The government, meanwhile, knows well that forest concessionaires are in fact responsible for these forest fires. So why doesn't the government take action against them?

We need concrete action, not mere news. If indeed the government thinks that certain forest concessions must be revoked, please do so.

We should actually be ashamed. Why? Because it is only now that we have been put to shame by our neighboring countries whose cynicism has been couched in their remarks that we are not capable of handling the forest fires because we do not have the funds.

The government issues forest concessions and enjoys the proceeds. Logically parties who directly or indirectly enjoy forest produce must spend either money or energy to help manage forest fires.

Not all community members benefit from forest produce. We are ready to contribute our energy and ideas, not money. But those who have helped make the government's forestry program a success and are still enjoying a profit should donate funds to save our forests without hoping for any reward.

Just by chopping down one big tree in a forest, 10 to 15 species of trees will die in a 50-meter radius, 5 to 10 species of animals will either die or lose their original habitat and various microbiological species will die along with the big tree.

Imagine what happens when 100 big trees are felled. How many other plant and animal species will die along with them?

The losses are very big and will become even bigger if the present forest fires are included. It turns out that the losses we sustain are greater than the profits we enjoy from forest produce.

It is basically true that our forestry program is launched for the sake of stable economic growth. However, it will be of no use if the benefit is transient as our forests will shortly exist only in our memory.

Then there will be nothing else left to prove the lyrics of a song sang by pop singer Harvey: "My land is rich and prosperous; its panorama beautiful."

HARRY SOES K.

Jakarta