Future rides on land use

Future rides on land use

Douglas Sheil and Imam Basuki, Bogor

One of the worst environmental disasters in Indonesian history
was an ambitious but failed rice-growing project in Central
Kalimantan during the Soeharto era. One million hectares of
virgin forest were staked on a venture that proved a dud. All
that remains is a wasteland of little value to local people or
anyone else. It was like the government was playing a game where
the potential payout was huge, but so were the risks.

Another environmental disaster was the destruction of the
forest in Bohorok in north Sumatra, which resulted in nearly 200
people being killed in catastrophic flooding in 2003.

Fourteen major natural disasters -- involving forest fires,
landslides, contaminated water, biodiversity loss -- have been
reported across Indonesia since 1999, as a result of playing
land-use roulette.

The winning strategy for land use is clear enough: evaluate
the options, think ahead, make small-scale trials and never bet
too much on a longshot. We know this works. Local farmers have
been doing it for centuries.

The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), in
collaboration with the Ministry of Forestry, recently assessed
land resources in the upper Malinau in East Kalimantan. This
lightly populated, forested locality is typical of areas targeted
for large-scale plantations such as oil palm plantations.

Steep slopes and thin, easily eroded soil dominate the area,
and we found the soil lacked the nutrients required for crops to
grow. In one analysis, we applied standard government criteria to
guide sustainable land-use choices. On this basis, none of our
200 sample sites were suitable for producing pepper, cocoa,
coffee, peanuts, rubber, candlenuts or palm oil.

Plantation crops are sometimes fertilized, but this would not
change our assessment. Oil palms, for example, require not only
large amounts of fertilizer, but also level terrain and good soil
drainage -- both of which are in short supply in the upper
Malinau.

Local people use small-scale shifting cultivation, where
cutting and burning vegetation temporarily improves soil. But the
benefits are short-lived and the farmers move on after one or two
crops, leaving the forest to slowly recover.

The farmers choose sites carefully by observing vegetation and
soil conditions. Low population density and supplementing diets
with wild forest foods have allowed people to subsist with
relatively little environmental impact.

The farmers' land evaluations and our technical measures of
suitability were in close agreement: the best sites were those
used to cultivate their own crops. Why would anyone gamble on oil
palm developments in such an unpromising region? The answer is
simple: greed.

In remote regions, developers who negotiate with local
communities and government officials generally make profits even
if the gamble fails. They are hustlers. They talk up the supposed
benefits and play down the potential risks.

After all, clearing the land generates large timber revenues.
And when all the trees are gone, all too often the project is
abandoned before anything else is planted. It is not surprising,
then, that an estimated 80 percent of new Indonesian oil palm
projects occur in forests well stocked with timber.

This is precisely what happened in Jambi: about 800,000
hectares of forest were cleared and then abandoned. Similarly in
the Landak district of West Kalimantan, some 300,000 hectares
were cleared and forsaken.

One recent account in Kompas newspaper stated that fictitious
oil palm plantations in East Kalimantan had already cost the
state at least Rp. 3.5 trillion (US$372 million). In short,
plantation schemes provide easy camouflage for looting valuable
timber.

Oil palm plantations are viable in some places, but not
everywhere. Poor planning means plantation development is now one
of Indonesia's most conflicted economic sectors.

The fact is that forests do not have to be cut down to develop
plantations. Anyone genuinely interested in these ventures can
easily find plenty of unused, already cleared land.

Even when oil palms are planted, people have grievances. In
Pasir, East Kalimantan, indigenous groups regret losing their
forests and they feel misled. Once the trees are gone, it is
difficult to recreate a forest and all its benefits.

The Malinau government recently approved a 200,000-hectare oil
palm project outside the Kayan Mentarang National Park, close to
the Malaysian border. The initial 40,000-hectare phase involved
four districts. Much forest was to be cleared in rugged areas
where our research shows oil palm plantations are neither
economically nor environmentally sustainable.

This included forests important for local livelihoods and
culture, for maintaining water quality and for sheltering a
globally rich array of biodiversity. We encouraged the Malinau
government to review the land's potential and reassess the
companies' commitment to follow through with planting. The good
news is the government agreed to reconsider the gamble.

Our Malinau surveys also suggest some sites may be relatively
well suited to growing rice and coconuts. Even better would be
low-impact timber felling, timber planting with agro-forestry and
nature conservation.

Good land-use planning is not difficult. You only need to
determine what uses are economically viable and sustainable, and
then examine the risks and wider impacts. Our surveys show local
people agree that planning should include forest conservation,
protecting clean water and conserving plants and animals.

Good research and an understanding of local knowledge are
important in ensuring effective and sustainable land management
in Indonesia. Policy makers need good information to make well-
informed choices.

Vigilant and responsible local governments like Malinau are to
be warmly applauded. The trends are less positive elsewhere.
Forests are being removed, apparently for short-term gains,
without assessing the environmental risks and long-term local
implications.

Land-use roulette is no way to make good decisions. The future
is at stake, and that is too much to lose.

Douglas Sheil is a senior scientist researching biodiversity
and environmental services while Imam Basuki specializes in
researching soil.