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.