In over our heads: Floods in Indonesia

In over our heads: Floods in Indonesia

Christine Foster, Denpasar, Bali

In Jakarta, several questions loom large on the horizon as
countless people attempt to rebuild their lives after losing
everything to enormous floods. These questions all revolve around
responsibility, such as who will assist those who are in critical
need now that they no longer have homes, food or even employment,
or how the government, at a time when it is trying to promote
fiscal austerity, will pay for the clean-up of roads and rivers
that have been inundated with debris.

But as natural disasters have a tendency to reveal what was
hidden under the mud, so to speak, the real questions should
center on urban migration and more importantly, the issues of
economic and environmental sustainability in areas far from the
cities.

For the past several decades, people in Indonesia have
migrated to urban areas in search of opportunities that simply do
not exist in the villages from which they come. During this time,
billions of dollars, mostly in the form of loans from external
institutions such as the World Bank and IMF, have been spent to
create infrastructure such as roads, sewers and water catchments.

Unfortunately, the swelling of urban populations far outpaced
the rate of development and put increasingly severe pressure on
an already overloaded infrastructure. Lack of clear zoning
regulations and enforcement resulted in the creation of
overcrowded, under-serviced residential neighborhoods, many of
them in areas that are clearly flood plains.

And it must be acknowledged that the money did not always end
up as viable sewers and waterways, let alone an appropriate
master plan for urban expansion. The question of where the money
went is a matter for the justice system; but lest we think that
building infrastructure is the only solution, we must also
examine the myth of the urban center as a source of livelihood
for so many millions of people. Politicians, government
bureaucrats, and anyone who believes that eking out a living on
urban streets is somehow the only alternative to rural poverty
should scrutinize this problem.

There is nothing wrong with wanting a better life, and clearly
those who move to urban areas are exercising their right to
pursue it. However, the explosive growth of urban populations
exposes the dilemma of economic stagnation in rural areas. Few
opportunities exist for people living in non-urban areas, so in
their own efforts to "develop" they frequently turn to quick-fix
solutions to their poverty.

This usually means selling whatever happens to be in close
proximity, which often translates into exploitation of natural
resources. All over Indonesia, this has meant unrestrained
logging, especially of older hard wood trees. Hard wood is a
commodity that has become increasingly rare and therefore
increasingly valuable.

The use of natural resources to generate economic development
is nothing new; in fact, it is usually the cornerstone of a
nation's wealth. While natural resources are a crucial component
of any economic system, they also belong to the larger, more
dynamic ecological one. More importantly, natural resources are
truly the right of all, regardless of social or political status.

This means that their proper management is imperative in order
to ensure that they remain available for everyone. They are
generally of a fixed quantity and should therefore be subject to
careful management for long-term sustainability. Even though
trees can be replanted, they may take years or even decades to
become established. Most importantly, older trees with their
extensive root systems help to keep the ground stable, crucial in
a climate that is subject to frequent rain.

There are laws that regulate the logging in Indonesia, but
those who should be responsible for protecting Indonesia's wealth
of resources have been engaging one of two practices, neither of
which is sustainable. One is to look the other way. After all,
who can blame anyone for wanting to make money?

The other, more nefarious practice is to be directly involved
in the appropriation of large tracts of forest for logging,
something that has become virtually uncontrollable with the
introduction of regional autonomy. These appropriations are
technically called concessions, and are meant to generate both
income for the government and employment in non-urban areas.

But it is not just logging companies with concessions in the
National Park system that cut down trees. Individual
"entrepreneurs" have recently entered the trade. These small-time
businessmen have resorted to imitating big companies by
indiscriminately cutting down trees and selling the wood. Cutting
down a tree does not require a large amount of capital to realize
a profit. An axe or chainsaw is all that is needed, and so it is
a quick and easy way to get money. The money from it can be
sizable, enough for an individual to purchase a new motorbike,
television or refrigerator, all common symbols of prosperity in a
nation hungry for consumer products.

In light of the numerous floods and landslides that are
plaguing this country, it is obviously a practice that is
unsustainable over the long term. It would be prudent to compare
the total of money made from both concessions and small time
loggers with the cost of cleaning up after the recent spate of
disasters, already estimated to be in the trillions.

Some would argue that global warming is to blame for all of
the recent natural disasters. However, it must be remembered that
the trees that once helped to hold the ground and soak up the
rains of monsoon season are gone, and this is a primary cause of
landslides and flooding all over the country. So are these
disasters really nature's fault?

Obviously socio-economic factors that lie beyond the
capriciousness of nature have contributed to the magnitude of
these disasters. Both the government and the people of Indonesia
now need to recognize the gravity of the situation so that these
catastrophes do not reoccur with the annual monsoon rains. All
need to act responsibly with respect to the environment. The
floods in Jakarta, as well as the numerous floods and landslides
in other areas of the country prove that no longer can people
continue to treat the environment as a source of disposable
income.

The trend of urban migration stems from a disregard for the
welfare of the periphery. It has created an untenable situation
in both urban and rural areas. The solution to this problem does
not lie in ongoing government subsidies for the poor, but in the
planning and creation of sustainable economies at the local
level. With respect to over logging, sustainable forestry
techniques that would provide income for rural populations have
already been developed by numerous NGO's and need to be
implemented, supported and enforced by both the government and
the people.

By creating sustainable economic opportunities in non-urban
areas, some of the pressure on urban infrastructure could be
relieved. People would no longer feel it necessary to migrate to
urban areas to find a better life, as opportunity would be
available in their own backyards. The government needs to
seriously examine ideas about sustainability, especially as it
will hold preparatory meetings in May for its delegates attending
the upcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development in
Johannesburg, South Africa.

Indiscriminate logging on the part of a few has resulted in
the suffering of many. Clearly, this cannot be allowed to
continue. The natural resources of Indonesia, which rightfully
belong to the Indonesian people, should not be used as a quick
fix for poverty, but should be sustainably managed for future
generations.

If not, Indonesia will not only be continually inundated with
debt, but with water and mud as well.

The writer has recently enrolled in a Masters program in Asian
Sjstainable Development at Murdoch University, Australia.