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.