Preventing future forest fires
By Aleksius Jemadu
This is the first of two articles on how we can prevent forest fires in the future.
BANDUNG (JP): Minister of Forestry Djamaludin Suryohadikusumo announced recently that forest fires over the last few months have destroyed 96,000 hectares of forest areas, consisting of 70,000 hectares of productive forests -- including some 15,000 on timber estates -- and 26,000 hectares of protected forests. In financial terms the losses on timber estates amounted to Rp 45 billion (US$11.8 million) given an average value of Rp 3 million per hectare (The Jakarta Post, Oct. 7,1997). Another casualty of this national disaster is Indonesia's reputation abroad.
Forest fire is one of the main causes of deforestation in Indonesia. According to World Bank calculations, it deforests an area of 70,000 to 100,000 hectares annually (World Bank, 1990). Over the last few months forest fires have resulted in thick haze both here and in Malaysia and Singapore. The haze caused several airports in Sumatra and Kalimantan to temporarily close down for several days. In Riau, Jambi, Palangkaraya and Kuala Lumpur the haze has also reportedly posed respiratory problems to many. The Indonesian government has declared these forest fires a national disaster.
In order to sustain our remaining natural forest resources and to restore our international credibility, our challenge now is how to prevent forest fires from reoccurring. While it is good news that the government has revoked wood-use licenses of plantations and timber companies who failed to present documentation disproving the government's allegations that they are responsible for starting brush and forest fires, preventive measures should be enacted.
Government officials at the Ministry of Forestry and the elite of timber associations tend to think that slash and burn activities practiced by local people are the major cause of forest fires in the outlying islands. Based on such a perception (or misperception?) the government has established different forms of social forestry programs through which the local population are encouraged to participate in afforestation and reforestation activities. The forest village development program sponsored by forest concessionaires (HPH Bina Desa Hutan program) has turned out to be the most extensive social forestry development.
According to Minister of Forestry Decrees No. 691/1991 and No. 69/1995, on which the formulation and implementation of this program are based, there are several objectives that the government wants to achieve through the program. The program is expected to raise the income level of the villagers; provide employment and small business opportunities; promote environmentally friendly rural economies; provide adequate social and economic infrastructures; create a new awareness and positive behavior among forest villagers, so that they can participate in the sustainable management of forest resources and so the practice of shifting cultivation might be controlled.
From these objectives, we can see how central policy-makers perceived or defined policy problems regarding the incorporation of the environmental dimension into forest management. The content of the two decrees seems to be based on a widely debated assumption that if forest villagers could develop economic activities other than slash and burn agriculture, then the human threat to forest management would be minimized. Thus, the program very much reflects the concern of the Ministry of Forestry over forest destruction by the so-called peladang berpindah (nomadic farmers).
While many would doubt the validity of this assumption, we just want to underline the fact that it is the central government authorities who dominated the formulation of the policy problems. In fact, the formulation of the policy problems was conducted unilaterally by the Ministry of Forestry without an extensive and thorough consultation with provincial and district governments, much less the villagers themselves.
Central government officials seemed to receive much information and policy input from forest concessionaires and the elite of timber business associations, who are widely known as the main proponent of the view that nomadic farmers are to blame for forest degradation.
The problem of shifting cultivation, which is perceived by the government officials at the Ministry of Forestry and the elite of timber associations as a major cause of forest fires in the outlying islands, is technically an agricultural problem. Obviously the challenge is how to develop alternative agricultural or farming systems that would be suitable to the soil and ecological conditions in the outlying islands which nota bene are quite different from those of Java.
It is quite surprising to find that the involvement of the Ministry of Agriculture and its lower level agencies in the formulation of the forest village development program was only accidental. The promotion of permanent agriculture and irrigated rice fields in the outlying islands cannot be based on improvisation by inexperienced staff members of timber companies, but should be under the routine supervision of government officials from agricultural agencies.
Milton J. Esman (1988) introduced the concept of multiorganizational service networks which could be very useful if applied to the governance of the forestry sector outside Java. Let us see how this concept can be applied in the implementation of forest village development programs.
Application of this concept would require the transfer of management and protection of forest areas (at least people's TFAs or Traditional Forest Areas) from the government (Ministry of Forestry) to local communities. Each step in the policy process should be carried out in consultation with, and the consent of, the local people, without whom the plans will fail.
First of all, government authorities delineate forest areas to be managed and protected by local people. They should identify the existence of forest products that can be generated on a sustainable basis and the real possibility of selling them in accessible local markets.
The second step is to form small groups of people, with each group linked to one specific block of forest. Of particular importance at this stage is to make sure that every individual of the group gets an equal share of the benefits, and is involved in making decisions on forest management. This is an effective mechanism to commit the group to conserve the forest since it is directly linked to their interests.
The third step is to divide the forest areas into blocks. There should be a match between the size of the block and its ability to make a "significant contribution" to the income of the individual families. Negotiations regarding the size of the blocks should be made possible.
Fourth, agreements should be drawn up between the groups and the government, in which the government retains the ownership of the forest areas and every group is responsible for the sustainability of forest resources. The local people are authorized to manage and protect the forest area and are convinced that the government is sincere in sharing the benefits from the use of forest resources.
The fifth step is to develop the skills of local people. In doing this it is highly recommended that the people's pertinent knowledge on traditional sustainable management practices be combined with modern forestry management for commercial gain. In addition, local people also need to improve their basic knowledge of money management, accounting, sale negotiations and marketing.
Finally, an equitable benefit-sharing system should be created. This is to ensure that the project and all the benefits of forest products (such as fodder, grasses, fuelwood, timber, non-timber forest products) belong to all members of the group and are not confined to the rural elite (A. Banerjee and H. Mishra, 1995).
The writer is the director of the Parahyangan Center for International Studies at UNPAR, Bandung. His research areas include global politics and environmental problems in developing countries.