Only clean govt can save the forests

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.