The case for sustainable forests

The case for sustainable forests

Didy Wurjanto, Bureau of Planning and Finance ,
Ministry of Forestry ,Jakarta, dwu112001@yahoo.com

Sustainable development is a process of meeting the continuing
needs of people while protecting and enhancing the resource base
on which the entire production of goods and environmental
services depends. Therefore, good forest management is essential.
This principle has been in use since the colonial days,
especially regarding teakwood plantations in Java.

However, "the needs of people" was translated to mean the
needs of those controlling the resources and the state. As a
result, resources dwindled at an alarming rate. Only now is there
growing awareness that sustainable forest management is
impossible to achieve without linking its management with rural
development.

The Dutch colonial government realized the important strategic
and commercial value of timber. As a result, forestry activities
were directed at gaining sustainable colonial power.

Under these policies, any use of local timber for firewood or
any other domestic use was considered harmful and had to be
controlled. Locals were therefore sometimes placed in the same
category as natural threats such as wild animals, pests and
disease.

Unfortunately, this approach did not significantly change
after Indonesia achieved independence. A major factor
contributing to the further strengthening of colonial policies,
which stressed state control over forest resources, was the
prevailing modernization theory of economic development.

Modernization resulted in the belief that the forest sector
would best contribute to economic development. As a result, the
policies were directed to maintain the government's grip on this
valuable resource.

It began in 1966 when the government allowed investment in
forest industries and expected them to trigger self-sustained
growth in wood-processing industries. During 1966 and 1997, 65
million hectares of forest were leased to logging companies,
representing one third of the national land area.

Because forests were used as a means of national economic
development, sustainable forest management lagged behind the
rapid exploitation of natural forests. Studies proved that the
approach did not contribute much toward rural development. Too
often local people living in forests hardly profited from
policies because the benefits were accumulated and transferred to
the urban elite and foreign investors.

This negative approach was one factor that resulted in the
huge socioeconomic discrepancies, which contributed to the fall
of the New Order regime in 1998.

Greater recognition during the reform era of the rights of
local communities and the elimination of political influence over
natural resources, forestry policies have shifted from using
forests as a means to contribute to national economic development
to the use of forests for the welfare of rural people.

The policies now stress that sharing benefits is more
important than simply seeking revenue. This marks government
admittance that it failed to manage the forests in a sustainable
way.

During the last 10 years, more than 1.6 million hectares of
forest have been lost on an annual basis. It has created a huge
deficit of wood supply for timber-related industries, as well as
massive environmental problems. The government has sped up the
establishment of plantations and emphasized more conservation
efforts. However, any progress is rendered futile given the fact
that today's forestry problems are no longer technical but
social. Therefore, there is no better option other than embracing
local people to protect and replenish the depleted resources.
Nowadays, the government virtually begs local people, whom the
government previously denied access to forest resources, for help
through community-based forestry schemes.

In contrast to traditional forestry, which concentrates on the
production of industrial wood, community-based forest management
can be directed to community sustenance and well-being through
production of socially desired benefits -- goods and services on
a sustainable basis -- and to avoid floods, soil erosion and
drought. This new approach cannot be separated from rural
development because it deals not only with trees but also with
socioeconomic problems.

It represents a promising alternative to the administration of
state-controlled forests because studies conducted by the Food
and Agricultural Organization and the World Bank prove that local
people, if given responsibility for forests in their area, can
develop management skills to administer these resources
effectively. For most rural communities, commercial forestry is a
viable pathway to improve their standard of living.

By allowing locals to control their own forests, the
government will gain their support, work together to safeguard
forest resources from problems such as illegal logging or forest
fires. This approach will also reduce the pressure on our natural
forests as locals can fulfill their needs from their own
resources. Community forests can also save government money,
because currently it has to provide huge sums of money for timber
companies to establish forest plantations.

The question is how rural communities can be motivated to save
our forests and become involved in commercial forestry.

Estimates from 2001 revealed that community forestry schemes
cover a total area of 1.2 million hectares, or only 8.8 percent
of the total degraded land favorable for community forests.
Community forests in Java are able to supply 6 million cubic
meters of timber annually. Although some have raised doubts on
this claim, there is evidence of substantial yields, particularly
in Java. Most planted trees are softwood such as acacia and
sengon (Paraserianthes falcataria). They are quick and easy to
grow and suitable for local people's short-term needs.

Community forestry projects always have two different
priorities. The government is concerned with how local people
participate, while the rural communities are concerned with
whether the project will deliver benefits to them. Indeed, for
the last five years, the government has spent billions of rupiah
for projects that are designed to encourage locals to grow
commercial trees. Most of the funding was used to pay wages and
for the purchase of tree seedlings and infrastructure.

These incentives, however, are not sufficient for successful
community projects. People abandon their trees as soon as
projects are terminated, unless the government assists them in
finding a market.

True, tropical hardwood timber is the most wanted forest
product compared to softwood timber which community forests
usually produce. However, recent research has found that
international consumers are now uneasy about using products from
tropical forests. Among wood industries, there has been a
fundamental shift toward engineered wood products to ensure a
uniformity of quality, especially for construction use.
International demand for pulp and paper has also risen. These
industries do not require tropical hardwoods.

Although industrial plantations were planned to serve that
purpose, plantations have not caught up with intended production
levels. There is hence a gap between resource supplies and the
production capacity of pulp and paper factories. That has become
an important issue and the government has to consider these
trends in order to capture the available opportunities.