Leuser Park: A battle unbegun

Leuser Park: A battle unbegun

By Donna K. Woodward

MEDAN, North Sumatra (JP): The report on illegal logging in
this newspaper of June 18 on Aceh's Gunung Leuser National Park
titled "An unending battle against illegal logging," was right on
the mark. Except that the article by Tertiani Z.B. Simanjuntak
should probably have been titled "an unbegun battle."

Because of illegal logging Leuser National Park, one of the
world's most important remaining rain forests, is disappearing.
To combat this illegal logging, starting in 1994 the European
Union and the Indonesian government began feeding money,
approximately US$30 million over seven years, to fund the mammoth
task.

Some of us who knew the expatriate staff and heard their
stories have wondered when someone would look seriously at this
project and sing, "Where has all the money gone? What benefits
have accrued to the local population? How many hectares of
forest have been saved or will be saved each year?" This is more
than an ecological tragedy. It is yet another story of millions
of dollars squandered, mismanaged or worse.

One of the prime objectives of this project was to have been
the development of ecotourism as an alternative source of income,
so residents wouldn't need to cut trees to sell to businessmen
and military lords. Aceh is one of most beautiful places in the
world. With its jungles and forest and mountains and beaches it
is an ecotourist's dream. This ecotourism project should have
trained and created permanent jobs for hundreds of people living
within the park or providing support services. Instead it has
gone through its first seven-year, $30 million stage, and what is
there to show for it? What were the original goals, and what has
been attained?

To be fair we must take Aceh's "troubles" into account. No
project has escaped the effects of Aceh's war, and the Leuser
Development Program suffered the loss of several volunteers and
had to close field offices because of the deteriorating security
situation. But from the beginning there were things about this
project that raised eyebrows. First: While the project was meant
to be centered in Kutacane within Leuser Park, the expatriate
technical experts preferred to live closer to urban pleasures and
demanded homes in Medan.

Soon the project rented office space in Medan, paying more in
rent than was being paid by any other tenant for similar
facilities lies in Medan at the time. Then the megavehicles
arrived from Europe -- but only after millions of pre-krismon
(monetary crisis) rupiah in ransom money was paid quietly to the
Customs officials.

Worst of all, the fabled ecotourism never seemed to happen,
not even in the four years before violence blanketed Aceh.
Facilities were developed at two locations on the Alas River to
accommodate rafting groups, but those who used them found
significant deficiencies.

Recommendations for changes which were given to the ecotourism
planner were, it appeared, ignored. The ecotourism planner was
employed by the project as a local hire on the basis of his
illegally purchased Indonesian citizenship and Islamic name, then
hurriedly dismissed in mid-1998 when Medan's immigration
corruption became a public issue.

This may seem irrelevant, but it illustrates the project's way
of doing things. There were entertaining stories of the
project's ecosystem management strategy: pay what we must to the
local military chiefs for security, and negotiate with them about
which areas they could continue to log and which they would leave
alone along the riverbanks so the rafting tourists would see
trees and not bare ground. Indonesian staff, too, have their
anecdotes to tell. But who cares to hear them?

Mentioning these things in this newspaper will be considered
by some to be a worse violation of a taboo than was the collusion
with illegal loggers or other dubious practices. Yet the
practises were discussed openly in Medan by those connected to
the project. People will prattle freely, but won't bring their
complaints to those with authority to redress the problems, for
fear of rocking the boat and losing their contracts. This project
had a large staff, a huge amount of money, superior technical
equipment, and international consultants coming and going.

What explains the poor results? Who will explain to the
Indonesians who are footing part of the bill for this, and paying
again in lost opportunity costs? According to Tertiani's
article, in the wake of this withered Save-the-Rain forest project
the EU is contemplating spending another 2 million euros to
establish an illegal-logging response center. If the authorities
aren't responding now, how will this initiative change that?

Might it be more productive just to take the money and give it
to the police as an incentive to do what they should be doing
now, arresting illegal loggers and exporters? How will the EU
ensure that new funds will produce better results than the last
$30 million?

One wonders: By proposing an extended project are EU officials
trying to protect the forest, or their own positions? Before
implementing another money-consuming plan that gives the illusion
that Leuser National Park is being protected, how about getting
to the bottom of the problems in the current project.

The writer, an attorney and former American diplomat at the
U.S. Consulate General in Medan, is a management consultant.