Action needed in forest fires
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