Changing forest policies fail to curb deforestation

Changing forest policies fail to curb deforestation

Tertiani ZB Simanjuntak, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Every hour, loggers in Indonesia's forests fell trees at a rate
fast enough to lay out six FIFA-standard soccer fields in the
cleared area. Overnight, the expanse is the equivalent of South
Jakarta's 145.75 hectares.

Indonesia's tropical rainforests are disappearing, with only
28 percent of the total 162 million hectares of virgin forest
that existed in the early 1950s -- or around 40 million hectares
-- remaining.

Many observers blame the government's disregard for the
principles of sustainable development as the reason behind the
rapid shrinking of Indonesia's rainforests, which are the third
largest in the world after the forests in Brazil and the Congo.

A recent study by the World Bank revealed that Indonesia's
deforestation rate had reached about two million hectares per
year since 1996 as a result of reckless logging. Without
immediate and drastic changes, the study predicted that Sumatra's
forests would disappear in 2005, followed by Kalimantan's in
2010.

However, after over three decades of flawed forestry policies,
"no significant effort has been made by the government to address
the deforestation problem," said Indonesian Forum for the
Environment (Walhi) executive director Longgena Ginting.

"The government only treats the symptoms of the main issues by
merely carrying out raids on illegal logging, smuggling, or
forming a task force to restructure the timber industry. Such
measures are useless," he remarked.

Illegal logging, according to Ginting, is an "inevitable"
occurrence due to the gap between timber supply and demand, as
well as low domestic prices. The latter has encouraged smuggling.

The government's response -- such as frequent raids and the
arrest of smugglers -- barely touches the roots of the problem.

The government established the Interdepartmental Committee on
Forestry (IDCF) in 2000 to deal with illegal logging, handle
forest fires, manage the restructuring of forest-based businesses
as well as the mapping of forests. Since then, Indonesia has
seen four ministers of forestry, and yet nothing has been done to
restore the forests. Illegal logging and smuggling remain a good
business due to a continuing increase in demand.

According to Ginting, the overblown capacity of industrial
logging that results from a continuing increase in demand and the
uncertainty faced by concessionaires regarding the terms of their
obligation to manage and sustain the forest are the core of all
problems related to deforestation.

Led by Walhi, environmentalists have been campaigning for a
cessation in logging. They have also called for the reenactment
of the log export ban that was lifted in 1998 under the letter of
intent signed with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to give
a breathing space for the government to change forestry sector
policies and to save the diminishing forests.

In response, the associations of plywood and pulp and paper
producers have demanded that the government rescue the industries
on the grounds that they contribute 9.29 percent out of 12.25
percent, or about 75 percent, of the country's non-oil/gas
foreign exchange earnings.

The demand has met strong criticism, especially as many of the
plywood and pulp and paper companies are deep in debt.
Currently, the Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency (IBRA) is
handling the sale of the assets of 128 forest-based companies to
cover their Rp 21.9 trillion (US$24.7 billion) foreign debt,
tagging the price at a mere 20 percent of their nominal value.

Ginting expressed fear that such treatment might not benefit
efforts to restructure forest-based industries because it opened
up the possibility of former owners reclaiming the companies and
running them as before.

Ginting said that not all of the companies deserved to be
rescued due to their poor performance in sustainable forestry. He
suggested the government salvage assets now in the hands of IBRA
only after tight screening to determine the companies that
deserved to be bailed out.

"I suggest the government determine what companies deserve to
be kept alive through a due diligence mechanism carried out by an
independent party. Only those companies that have potential,
sustain the ecology and promote social development should pass
the selection process," he said.