The Padusan tragedy

The calamity that befell scores of families at Padusan, in the village of Pacet, Mojokerto in East Java, this week is the latest reminder of how serious the problem of environmental degradation has become in Indonesia. While some confusion still existed as of Friday as to the exact number of people who either died or went missing in the landslide that swept away much of what was once the popular hot springs resort of Padusan near Pacet during the week, the course of events itself was clear enough.

Being one of the more affordable health and recreation spots, the hot spring pools of Padusan on the slopes of Mount Welirang to the southeast of Mojokerto has long been a popular holiday destination among the population of the surrounding areas. On the day that the calamity happened, the holiday crowd was believed to have numbered well over 100 people who were enjoying their extended Idul Fitri holiday.

Eyewitness accounts of the disaster made mention of a sudden rumbling sound coming from the slopes of the mountain above the pools about 20 minutes before the landslide struck -- time enough for the site to be evacuated had someone only had the presence of mind to sound the alarm. As it was, neither the bathers nor onlookers took heed. Suddenly, a wave of mud and rocks hit the area, sweeping away all but a part of the main building.

As of late Friday, at least 31 people -- both adults and children -- were confirmed dead. Nobody knows for certain how many others are missing, although according to some estimates the bodies of about 50 or 60 people could have been carried downstream by the landslide. The question that is now on everybody's lips is: Who is to blame?

In the wake of the disaster, the first public reaction was to put the blame on the illegal loggers who had stripped the area above Padusan of much of its forest cover. Undeniably, denudation and heavy rainfall had combined to trigger the landslide. But if illegal loggers are the culprits, the local administration, by implication, is also to blame because it failed to enforce the law and prevent the loggers from carrying out their destructive work.

Furthermore, reports have it that the hot springs are managed together by Perhutani, the state company that runs and manages forestry, and the local administration. Obviously, that would make state Perhutani a partner in the act of criminal negligence.

One other factor that is worth noting in this context is that Perhutani has planted pine trees in the area above Padusan. It was under Perhutani that pine trees of the species Pinus merusii were first planted on a large scale on land that was considered not very fertile or less suitable for planting with other trees. The logic that underlies this move was seemingly sound enough.

Whereas the Dutch colonial administration in the past planted teak and mahogany trees for commercial use on such land, Perhutani followed suit by planting pines, not only to produce resin but to grow timber that could be sold on the world market. Furthermore, pines are fast-growing trees. The flaw in this line of reasoning is that Indonesia would have a hard time competing in this particular line of production with countries such as Finland and Canada.

In the longer term, pine trees also tend to destroy the soil that supports them. For that reason it is debatable whether pine trees are suitable for planting in Java. The only region where they seem to have yielded commercially good results is Aceh, now the Special Province of Nangroe Aceh Darussalam. One major lesson that the Padusan disaster has taught us is that it is a major mistake to invite logging, especially illegal logging, by planting commercial trees on land designed to protect the soil in water-catchment areas.

As for who is responsible for the Padusan disaster, we frankly do not see how Perhutani, or the local administration, could possibly evade taking the responsibility. After all, it is difficult to accept that those two parties, knowing that much of the land has been stripped of its cover by loggers and forest fires, were unaware of the dangers that the onset of the rainy season would bring. At the very least, their failure to close the site in time or at least to set up an early warning system amounts to an act of criminal negligence they cannot easily deny.