Indonesia looks into illegal logging, debt swap for nature

Indonesia is sending at least three ministers to the fourth preparatory committee meeting for World Summit on sustainable development in Bali. The delegation will be led by Coordinating Minister for Economy Dorodjatun Kuntjoro-Jakti, with State Minister of Environment Nabiel Makarim and Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayuda as delegates. The Jakarta Post interviewed Nabiel and Hassan to get a glimpse of Indonesia's goals in the upcoming series of meetings. =================== Tantri Yuliandini and Fabiola Desy Unidjaja The Jakarta Post Jakarta -------------------

NABIEL MAKARIM

What will be presented as the main agenda in the preparatory committee meeting in Bali?

In preparing for the substantial material, anybody could give ideas so that there are many issues to consider.

There are so many inputs, it is in our best interest to get them into focus. Only the important issues will be considered and we will try to avoid controversial ones.

We will not pursue the Kyoto Protocol, for example, because the United States will never agree to it and there would be a big argument over it. In the end, the cooperation that we are hoping for will be jeopardized. It would be better if, for now, we build trust and cooperation with the issues that we all believe in, and discuss the Kyoto Protocol at a later time.

In giving focus, we also need to choose strategic issues that could become a momentum for cooperation to work, for example poverty alleviation, the financing of sustainable development, changing the pattern of production and consumption, good governance, environmental conservation and civil society.

Those are neutral subjects and we must start from those. What will the government of Indonesia push for in this meeting?

The first three issues are important to us, with global perspective. There is also one thing that concerns Indonesia most that we must push forward, which is illegal logging.

We will ask other countries to check the logs they buy and not buy those without official papers. Because as long as people do not question whether the wood used for chairs are stolen or not, illegal logging will never be eradicated.

For problems (like this), it's important to not only act from the supply side but also from the demand side. We could do everything possible in Indonesia but as long as there is demand, illegal logging will continue.

Yes, there's ecolabeling, but not enough countries are doing it. It has to be strengthened. What about the Debt for Nature Swap (DNS) scheme, are we going to push for it, too?

In principle, the scheme works like this: If Indonesia owes US$100 to the United States, the U.S. could say that we could pay only $50 while the other half is put into the DNS program. From that $50 saved, we would be required to put into environmental efforts such as replanting trees.

After sustainable development, the DNS is changed to just debt swap, full stop, meaning that it is not only for nature but also open to education, or other concerns. This will be further discussed during the Prepcom meeting where we will figure out how we will finance sustainable development. Are there any countries that we have agreed to do a debt swap with?

Yes, we have reached an agreement with Germany for education, it's now left for us to implement it. The value is about $50 million. The value is not necessarily huge, if you look at the total debt, but it will greatly lighten the load of the state budget.

Other countries have also expressed interest for a debt swap with us, such as the U.S. and other European countries. What happened with us was this; the program was initiated at the time of (former president) B.J. Habibie and before an agreement could be finalized there was a change in government. This has happened several times. Let's hope that now we will have time to finalize this. Are there any other trade-off schemes besides debt swaps?

Another scheme for trade is what is called carbon trade. If a company in a developed country has not yet achieved an accepted level of carbon emissions, the company would be obliged by its government to pay for tree planting in developed countries, as many as it needs, for the remaining emissions to be absorbed.

This (scheme) will be a bit time-consuming to implement because there is no agreement yet in terms of pricing, or how many trees it takes for an amount of carbon to be absorbed.

This is important for us, if it works well then there will be an incentive for regional administrations to preserve their forests. The situation now is that regencies want to cut down trees for the money, but if unharmed trees have a value, then it is more profitable not to cut them down.

The third scheme is to include the participation of businesses. If the government has 2,000 hectares of empty land, companies could finance the planting of trees and in return we could grant the company's name to the forest. Nokia forest, for example, isn't a bad idea, right? How does Indonesia, as a host country anticipate the insertion of terrorism issues, especially to divert attention from the Kyoto Protocol

There will always be diversions, but we will try to keep it focused. But it also depends on how well the U.S. can influence other countries, because it is a strong country. If that happens obviously we cannot walk out. If that's the general consensus then what can we do, but quietly object to it.

We don't want to get stuck in political issues outside our focus on this. There will always be efforts to divert attention, and they take many forms, for example from the anti-globalization groups that will maybe launch a demonstration. Sustainable development has so far lost out to the World Trade Organization (WTO) that is backed by powerful countries, how could we counter this?

In general the problem of money is more interesting. But we must also see the trend, and the trend for environmental issues are increasing. It's possible that in 10 years time this will become even bigger than WTO.

Especially for Indonesia, we are already effected directly by the destruction of the environment, the recent floods for example. The effects are immediate, cut down tress then flooding will occur.

What's happening is that the impacts of the destruction of the environment around the world are increasing. People feel this, they fear it, and so it becomes important.

Losing out to WTO is okay as long as this also works. If sustainable development becomes more important but (implementation is) ineffective then it is useless. Effectiveness is what's important, the cooperation.

International trade will, of course, be discussed, illegal logging is a form of trade too, trade of illegal logs.