Call for moratorium on logging

Call for moratorium on logging

By Longgena Ginting

JAKARTA (JP): Our forest is dying a painful death.

Indonesia is known worldwide to be among places with the worst
forest destruction. Overcutting, illegal logging, forest fires,
monoculturalization of the natural forest, soil quality
degradation, to name but a few of the problems.

We no longer even ask where all the profits of this
overexploitation of our forest have gone, or how this has
adversely affected the 80 million Indonesians whose livelihood
directly or indirectly depend on the forest.

The saddest thing is that it is unlikely the government's or
the community's outlook on the problem will change in the near
future.

The simplest logic would tell us that illegal logging is a
"natural" occurrence due to a gap between timber supply and
demand as well as poor domestic prices of timber--which has over
the years, led to smuggling of timber abroad.

The government's response--such as frequent raids and arrest
of the smugglers--however, barely touches the roots of the
problem because in Indonesia it does not really matter whether
logging is legal or otherwise. What matters is the fact that both
methods are leading to an overcutting of our forest.

From this perspective, even "legal" felling through forest
concessions can be considered an illegal operation because it
contributes to the killing of our forest. Certainly, this holds
true if we can agree that overcutting is a crime against our
natural resources.

Even the natural forest conversion is also actually a part of
a systematic crime against our forest because it has been made
inseparable from the overly high demand for timber and raw
material for the pulp and paper industry.

The natural forest conversion is a crime against our forest,
that's what it is.

Unless they want to be called criminals, the forestry ministry
and the Association of Indonesian Forest Concessionaires (APHI)
must immediately halt this robbing of the forest. They must stop
natural forest conversions until the establishment of a
sustainable forest management.

The root of the problem is actually simple, namely the
extraordinary increase in the capacity of the national logging
industry. In 1998, the country "consumed" a total of 78.1 million
m3 of timber, while the official timber production rate was only
21.4 million m3. This means that 56.6 million m3 or 71 percent of
the timber was from illegal felling and other unrecorded harvest.

This was reportedly a long-standing situation and the forestry
ministry has always turned a blind eye to the practice.

Interestingly, the 1994/95 up to 1998/99 fiscal years recorded
a decline in timber production, while recording a consistent
increase in forestry upstream industries such as sawn-wood
timber, plywood and pulp.

Forest conversions, illegal felling and forest fires, however,
are mere symptoms. The true disease is the forest management (or
mismanagement as is the case) policy that has existed since very
early; the limited timber supply; the paper industry development
policies that have led to indiscriminate cutting of commercial
timber; and major oil palm plantations.

No matter how high our annual forest conversion is, the
government has never tried to curb it. Instead, the government
continues to issue new licenses for forest conversion.

It is also the government policies that have enabled the same
companies to operate forest concessions (HPH), timber concessions
(HTI) and other plantations simultaneously.

Following the 1997 economic crisis, the government issued a
number of policies that affected the rate of natural forest
conversion. These include restrictions on palm oil exports, the
liberalization of foreign investment in the sector and the
conversion of 30 percent of state forest for oil palm
cultivation.

Indonesia has been witnessing the steadily increasing rate of
natural forest conversion, as indicated by the increased volume
of timber produced through licenses for clear-felling or
indiscriminate logging (IPK). This signified an increase in the
logging industry's dependence on indiscriminate cutting.

A portion of the demand is met by forest conversion whose rate
is found to be 30 percent over the national demand of timber.
This may mean either of the following: 1) the decline of our
forest's capacity and quality after more than 30 years of
overexploitation or; 2) the continued exploitation and conversion
of the remaining forest.

With the annual timber demands standing at 65-70 million m3,
we can estimate that between 20.7 and 22.3 million m3 of the
timber is produced from forest conversion. Given that
indiscriminate logging is the most used method and modestly
assuming that 20-30 m3 of timber is produced per hectare, we can
estimate the forest conversion rate to reach 750,000 to 1.1
million hectares per year.

This figure is certainly far beyond the figures officially
issued by the forestry and plantations ministry because it is
very possible that illegal conversion contributes to the high
rate of forest conversion.

Figures, however, do not matter as importantly as the dire
reality facing us. Actions are need to save the remaining 28
percent of our forest areas.

It is true we have limited alternatives: banning logging, a
moratorium on forest concessions, putting a stop to forest
conversion, closing down indebted and inefficient industries,
recognizing the people's tenurial rights, rationalizing timber
industries and establishing forest spatial zoning.

Let's first discuss the need to change the existing pattern of
forest exploitation. We must evaluate the forest resources that
we still own and calculate whether to continue with the
consumption pattern that is three times our forest's production
capacity. This calls for a moratorium.

By putting a stop to this consumption pattern, we may have to
lose a total of US$3 billion income from legal felling but can
actually save US$8.5 billion worth of timber that would be lost
through illegal felling. We must be willing to do away with
inefficient and wasteful industries, and put a stop to
unsustainable logging practices and natural forest conversion.

Some people may consider this line of thinking "subversive"
but what are the alternatives?

We could refuse to take those measures because we fear
ramifications such as the collapse of the economy or unemployment
but this only delays a sure death. The maintenance of the current
forest exploitation pattern will surely lead to its eventual
death and the nightmare becoming a reality.

The writer is campaign coordinator of the Indonesian
Environmental Forum (Walhi).