Only clean govt can save the forests

Wiryono, Lecturer, Department of Forestry, University of Bengkulu, Bengkulu

Sumatra's lowland forests, according to World Bank predictions, will last only another four years. Kalimantan's forests will vanish in nine years. Lowland tropical rain forest is one of the world's most productive ecosystems, and also the richest in biodiversity. The loss of lowland tropical rain forest in Indonesia, which will be followed by the loss of hill and mountain forests, will also come at a tremendous economic cost.

It will take up to 100 years to recover the loss. Forest ecosystems will recover, but many species will become extinct.

Resuming timber production will take a relatively short time from the ecological point of view -- but even the fastest growing trees take at least 10 years to produce timber, and that of a relatively inferior quality.

Higher quality timber for construction will need a longer time, while demand will increase due to population growth and improved lifestyles. A country with the world's second largest tropical forest and once a prominent timber exporter will have to import timber from other countries!

Yet the Ministry of Forestry seems to be unaware of this looming, bleak and dangerous scenario.

Authorities and activists, many with a background in social sciences, may be so busy formulating a new paradigm, from economic-based to community-based forest management, that they may fail to see the root of the problem.

Forest destruction at current levels is not caused by an incorrect paradigm, but largely by misconduct on the part of relevant authorities. Even if we had treated forests merely as money machines we would have managed them in such a way as to be able to produce timber with a consistent volume each year.

The simple, logical principle is that to achieve a maximum sustainable yield, the harvesting rate should be the same as the regeneration rate. For a man-made forest, such as a teak forest in Java, a management unit is divided into a number of blocks, the number being the same as the age of trees ready for harvesting. Every year a block is cut, while another block is planted. This way, the forest will yield the same volume of timber every year.

Similarly for natural forests outside Java with a selective cutting system, we only need to manage the cutting system and let the forest regenerate naturally. Only the large trees are cut so that when the next harvest time comes, the small trees will be ready for cutting.

The worst consequence of our "wrong paradigm" would be the conversion of natural, species-rich forests into single, fast- growing species, man-made forests. We would lose our biodiversity.

But this could have been balanced with advanced research in applied forestry biotechnology. To have fast growing trees with desirable traits (e.g. straight trunks and disease resistance) we needed research in tree genetics.

For mass propagation of trees we needed tissue culture technology. Among other things, we also needed to develop research in wood technology since fast growing trees usually produce inferior timber. In short, applied biological sciences and technology in forestry had to flourish.

But this did not happen.

We have not seen large-scale plantations, and the biotechnological sciences have not been given much attention in the forestry sector. Most of the natural forest did not turn into well-managed man-made forests -- but into shrubs, agriculture plantations, and critical land.

What has happened and is still happening is indiscriminate destruction. Production forests became the first victims, followed by the conservation forests (national parks, animal sanctuaries, nature reserves, etc.).

The fact that we have designated a portion of our forests as protected areas since colonial times shows that we realized from the beginning that forests are not merely a source of timber production, but are an ecosystem with many functions.

We have allocated forests for animal protection, soil conservation, hydrological protection, ecosystem preservation and nature recreation.

Managing natural forests is technically very simple. Most conservation forests only need to be left to nature. Production forests outside Java require annual harvest management but can then be left until the next harvest.

So why have we failed? Because we have not followed our own rules. Every year, all forest concession companies have to draft an annual work plan and submit it to the forestry authorities for validation. But most harvest more than the permitted number of trees, even outside the designated harvesting area. Various parties also come back to areas that had been harvested previously to reharvest the forest before its cycle time is due. Worse, harvesting in concession areas is also carried out by various people with access to the area, and not just companies with valid permits.

So legal and illegal loggers race to loot the remaining timber. Many turn to illegal logging in conservation forests when the production forests are depleted -- in broad daylight!

Why don't we follow our plans, our rules and even our laws? Simple: Timber is economically highly valuable and easy to obtain. Bribery is not surprisingly pervasive from the beginning (acquiring permits to exploit the forest) to the end of the process (transporting the timber). Very weak law enforcement results from the "backing" of strong men in business and government. This is the crux of the problem.

Now in the local autonomy era, control over production forests lies with local governments. Sidelined for 30 years during the New Order period, local governments are eager to harvest what is left of the forests to bolster their revenue.

This eagerness for quick money, coupled with the absence of adequate law enforcement, will certainly accelerate the destruction. Many regents and local council members often ask conservation forest managers, "What contribution can the conservation area make to local development?" -- meaning, of course, money.

So, is there any chance to save our forests? The chances are very slim. But it is still possible to save the remaining forests and recover damaged areas if we really want to. First, the authorities must genuinely acknowledge that the destruction of our forests is caused by misconduct.

They must openly apologize to the public because they are the most responsible parties in forest management, and declare that from now on this misconduct will stop. They must then urge the police, the army, judges, prosecutors, regents and others to commit to clean governance. Only then can the science of forestry, supported by social sciences, do its job.

But, if we continue corruption and collusion in forest management, our precious forests will soon be gone and we will suffer a great biological and economic disaster. Clean governance is the only way to save what is left of this treasure.