Definition of 'degraded', 'sustainable' forest needed

Jim Jarvie, Ecologist, Jakarta

The Secretary General of the Indonesian Pulp and Paper Association recently had a letter published in The Jakarta Post (July 11) attempting to correct a previous article on the Indonesian logging ban.

It used two terms, "sustainable forest" and "degraded forest", which badly need clarification. Their definitions have serious ramifications for management of remaining forests in Sumatra and their continued exploitation by the pulp and paper industry.

On the short term they affect how mill production targets are set and how the natural resource assets exploited are valued in the mess of billions of dollars in corporate debt among companies like APP and APRIL and their creditors. In the mid to long term they affect the chances of Sumatran forests surviving against a backdrop of expected extinction by 2005 in the lowlands if destruction remains unchecked.

The pulp and paper industry in Indonesia frequently talks about its "sustainable forest" estates. This definition refers to plantations or in other words, tree farms. Whereas a natural forest in Sumatra can contain more than 450 tree species a hectare, and thousands more of herbs, animals, insects and more, pulp tree farms are intensively planted with less than five species, most often from Acacia or Eucalyptus.

What is more, these species are not native to Sumatra or its ecoregion, despite claims by some in the industry that some plantation species should be seen as native because they are found in dry areas of Eastern Indonesia. The truth of the matter is that the political boundary of Indonesia has little to do with biological reality.

A natural forest is a complex ecosystem that has evolved over millennia. Communities in and around these forests have co- evolved in past centuries, benefiting directly from forest products providing food and shelter, and indirectly from provision of water and retention of soils.

In contrast, plantations are man-made and new, almost sterile environments supporting little wildlife and providing few services. From a biodiversity prospective, they are virtual deserts. From community perspectives, where plantations do work they can be poor substitutes for the benefits of natural forest.

Economically their pay off is poor when compared to other tree crops, including oil palm. When plantations do not work properly the impacts are bared land, polluted water, fires and haze. These effects are happening now and affect not just communities, but also those at a distance including in other countries.

So, the term "sustainable forest" should not be applied to pulp and paper plantations. Call them plantations or farms. In the Sumatran context they have nothing to do with the diminishing lush forests facing extinction in the lowlands.

This leads to the second term, "degraded forest". Some in the pulp and paper industry would have the public believe degraded forest is cleared and planted with tree farms to the benefit of all. But what is a degraded forest?

A certified, sustainably managed production forest is a natural forest that under current management conditions will survive in perpetuity. It is used to extract timber, equitably distribute benefits and not disturb natural processes unduly. So, a logged area need not be seen as degraded.

Much forest in Indonesia has been badly logged, yet numerous studies indicate that if left alone much can recover. These forests are, or were, degraded, yet are in the process of returning to their natural state. Yet more forest has been affected by humankind to a lesser extent. All such forests are not pristine, yet whereas might be interpreted as degraded to some extent, they are certainly not without hope.

It is these sorts of forests that are classified as degraded by elements of the pulp and paper industry and being cleared right now for their fiber, and exported to domestic and international markets. Perfectly good natural forest is being cleared in the name of removing "degraded forest", which is in turn being planted by sterile tree farms called "sustainable forest".

There is no rationale for clearing these sorts of forests; they are close, or can return to, their original state. Given how little forest remains in Sumatra given its former glory, there is no justifiable reason to clear it. To do so may even be illegal; the government of Indonesia has committed to the Consultative Group on Indonesia not to clear natural forest.

This said, an effective and ethical pulp and paper industry can and should contribute to Indonesia's economy and recovery. Any satellite image, flight or drive through Sumatra shows huge amounts of barren scrubland that could be converted to fiber bearing tree farms that would have economic benefit and reduce risks of fire and other environmental catastrophe.

What is needed is the political will to drop current capacity in the pulp and paper industry to levels that can be supplied by fiber from current tree farms, truly degraded forest and scrub that has no hope of recovery.

The definitions for "degraded" here need transparent and public discussion. Those running the industry, their business and finance partners must take full responsibility for the lands they manage and the damage they cause. Ethical business will be rewarded with happy buyers, poor business with more frequent and damaging boycotts. Business will be judged in part by the level of transparency provided, and clear, unambiguous definitions of that being talked about.