If we put two and two together, forest conversion and the pulp and paper industry are also causal factors in the rising rate of deforestation. We know that some 15.9 million ha of natural tropical forest has been cleared for forest conversion. The conversion of forests for oil palm development is a contributing factor to the increase in deforestation in Indonesia. From being prime land, 15.9 million ha of natural tropical forests have been cleared. On the contrary, there has been no meaningful increase in planted land area. Plantation area has only increased to 5.5 million ha in 2004, from 3.17 million ha in 2000. More than 10 million ha of forest have been abandoned after the ‘harvest’ of the wood crop growing there.
Similarly, the pulp and paper industry have also brought problems. This industry needs at least 27 million cubic meters of timber each year (Department of Forestry, 2006). Since plantation forests can only supply 30 percent of the total demand for pulp, this industry continues logging activities in natural forests, harvesting some 21.8 million cubic meters in order to fulfill its annual requirement. The timber obtained from natural forests is owned by company affiliates or taken from the concessions of its partners. This is not mentioning plywood or other trades, for which only 25% of timber requirements are supplied by plantation forests.
The negative impacts of forestry crime in Indonesia are described above. Economic losses from forestry crimes such as illegal logging, conversion of natural forests, and so on, are calculated to reach 200 trillion Rupiah. This loss does not include ecological disasters caused by illegal logging activities, such as floods and landslides, which now occur frequently in all corners of the Archipelago.
WALHI deduces that the ecological degradation caused by forestry crimes is caused, at least, by two major factors: (1) differences in the outlooks and value systems upheld by the community, the forestry department, and the government (both local and central); and (2) erosion of the judicial process due to corruption, collusion and nepotism. At this point, enforcement of the law is inconsistent.
Inconsistency in the judicial process is caused by the viruses of corruption, collusion and nepotism, which intricately bind the immediate interests of law enforcers (and even bureaucratic officers) throughout the judicial process, starting with the police, attorneys and the judiciary. The result is that anti-illegal logging operations in Papua Province (March 2005) failed to catch top-rung criminals or their protectors in the police force and military. From this operation, 186 suspects were arrested. But, until January 2007, only 13 suspects had been successfully prosecuted and not one syndicate leader has been caught. From the 18 major cases that have reached court, all accused have been released.
Furthermore, differences in the outlooks and value systems upheld by the community, the forestry department and the government (both local and central) have been a major factor in the increasing rate of forestry crime. From the community’s perspective, forests function to protect people from high winds, drought and erosion. The forestry department also recognises the ecological functions of the forests; however, illegal clearing and logging are allowed to continue in accordance with the economic calculations maintained by the forestry department. Similarly, the government’s stance also draws from economic aspects of forests rather than its ecological functions. For them, the forests are a resource with abundant natural resource wealth that must be extracted for the national income. Unfortunately, the development policies that are implemented do not favour forest sustainability.
As we track the rate of forestry crime (illegal logging, conversion of forests without replanting, the unlimited thirst of the pulp and paper industry for wood), it is clear that the government needs to halt several forms of forestry crime that have the potential to trigger a series of ecological disasters, such as floods, landslides, and drought. In addition, community involvement (especially the traditional community) in securing forest conservation is highly necessary. Moreover, the seriousness of all law enforcers (starting with the police force, attorney, to the judge) is crucial to stopping deforestation associated with forestry crimes. Without the serious involvement of all parties in carrying out surveillance, it is quite possible that Indonesia’s forests will be completely cleared in the not-too-distant future.
Finally, deforestation as a consequence of illegal logging is caused, at least, by three major factors, that is, the lack of acknowledgement by the government of people’s rights to manage their forest resources, widespread corruption in various sectors of forest resource management, and the large gap between supply and demand. If these three factors are not immediately overcome – make no mistake – Indonesia’s forests will be rapidly cleared within a short timeframe.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Destructive Logging and Deforestation
Walhi: Governor Aceh, Immediately Implementation Plan Moratorium
Campaign of Moratorium Forest Aceh which is frequent to be buzzed by Drh. Irwandi Yusuf at event appointment of regent and mayor in Provinsi Aceh some times then not yet expressed big step to be done by government in Forest Aceh reform, because legal forestry permit discourse and illegal only one of the slice of complicated problem of forest of aceh.
According to view of Walhi Aceh, plan Moratorium Forest Aceh represent big scenario in saving of forest of aceh which must be done by government of provinsi later;then of followed by government of town and sub-province. To facilitate plan of moratorium this of field in detail and do not happened doubt to its executor hence Governor have to specify Moratorium Forest Aceh in the form of regulasi or policy of government of provinsi or insist on Parliament Aceh (DPRA) to authenticating it in the form of Qanun, so that there are rule of law in execution of Moratorium.
Plan of Moratorium Forest Aceh have to entangle public widely, do not only On duty Forestry, but Sectoral On duty related to management of natural resources, and society around forest, public and also widely which is have importance to forest of aceh.
Moratorium or interval cut away is stop or coagulation whereas all activities hewing of big and small scale wood (industrial scale) certain for the time being until a condition of which is wanted to be reached. a period to goning into effect of moratorium is usually determined by how long time required to reach the condition.
According to Walhi Aceh, in general plan Moratorium or forestry reform of aceh done with step which is structure, first, started with stop of expenditure of new permissions, both, execution of test totally industrial performance of forestry, third, saving of most threatened forests, fourth, stop whereas all deforestation and solution of potential problems, fifth, prohibition order hewing in forest of aceh.
To fulfill requirement of wood to big industry can use Import wood mechanism, while to answer the demand of domestic requirement or household can fulfill to through scheme of community arranged logging and observed tightly and adapted for requirement of household.
For that Walhi Aceh, urgent of Governor Governance Of Aceh of Drh. Irwandi Yusuf to immediately to discontinue discourse of Moratorium Forest Aceh, but immediately do implementation step by releasing moratorium regulasi and compile step of moratorium in detail. Do this implementation step have to immediately done by Government before public doubt of forest moratorium comitment of aceh. (end).
Moratorium Logging Now
11 April 2007
Save the Forests with your Hands
Proposal for Execution of the Government of Indonesia’s Commitment to Save Remnant Tropical Forests (Indonesian Forum for the Environment, WALHI), May 2007
During 2007, the proposed Moratorium on Logging has been the most-discussed policy anticlimax in the forestry sector. A number of key government officials themselves described a moratorium on logging as the best way to avoid a range of disasters and negative impacts caused by extractive industries in the forestry sector.
When WALHI first proposed a Moratorium on Logging in 2001, we immediately considered the pros and cons. With forestry businesses providing direct benefits to 2.8 million householders and yielding 9 billion dollars in foreign exchange, a Moratorium on Logging would surely contain some economic threats.
By definition, a Moratorium on Logging is the temporary cessation of logging and forest conversion activities. Its objective is to provide some leeway regarding problems in order that a long term and permanent solution be found.
A Moratorium on Logging must be applied for at least fifteen years. Before the end of this period, an evaluation is carried out to re-assess the situation. A fifteen year period is considered sufficient to improve all conflicts in management and policies that often had to be resolved in the field. Fifteen years is also regarded as adequate time to formulate: (1) a protocol for conflict resolution; (2) a standard for ecological service in plantations; and (3) the conceptualization of a community forest system as the standard policy for forests in Indonesia.
Why must there be a Moratorium on Logging?
A Moratorium on Logging is the most sensible choice. Every year, 2.72 million hectares of Indonesian forests are lost. Each minute, an area as large as five soccer fields is destroyed, equivalent to the loss of a forest the size of Bali each year. Considering that just 41.25 million hectares of remaining Production Forest reserves have good forest cover, that the supply of timber inputs from industrial plantations are only sufficient to fulfill the needs of the pulp industry, and that bio-fuel will stimulate acceleration of zoning for oil palm plantations, it is estimated that the natural forests in Sumatra, Kalimantan and Sulawesi will be extinct by 2012. The price of timber these islands, including Java, will escalate dramatically because all timber will have to be shipped from Papua. In 2022, all natural forests in Indonesia will be extinct and the price of timber will climb once again because wood will have to be imported from China and/or Vietnam.
Acceleration in development of Community Forests could indeed suppress the rate of logging. However, if Community Forests are established in 2008, yields will only be realized in 2016, by which time the natural forests of Sumatra, Kalimantan and Sulawesi will already be extinct, following the footsteps of natural forests in Java.
Various initiatives, like FLEGT, are unable to suppress the rate of destruction because FLEGT is administered by the European Union and only regulates law enforcement, management, and timber trade destined for Northern countries. FLEGT never addresses the fundamental roots of forestry sector problems, namely, acknowledgement of community rights, corruption, and the large discrepancy between supply and demand in the forestry industry. Moreover, FLEGT does not address the pattern of consumption in Indonesia, which is the critical factor spurring accelerated deforestation.
Initiatives, such as certification, will do nothing to resolve the problem if they continue to be voluntary. The Green Label applied to forestry products has in practice provided no added value to sold products, though this was the theoretical objective. The communities of consumer countries like Europe, Japan and China, in reality care little whether the timber they buy is derived from a sustainable source or not. Lower price is still the main choice of consumers in these importer countries. Also, certification can cast a false illusion of sustainable forest management, and can shift the focus from the real fundamental problems. This does not mean that campaigns for the use of materials from sustainable sources must be stopped, nor that consumption of raw timber materials must be stopped. However, even if these objectives are achieved, we will still be faced with extinction of Indonesia’s natural forests.
These concerns arise from the realities of forestry industry itself. The rate of illegal logging in 2006 was greater than 19 million cubic meters, causing a loss of Rp 22.862 trillion rupiah. This figure is slightly less than the foreign exchange obtained from forestry exports, excluding pulp, which only reached Rp 29.536 trillion. However, if we add the direct losses from flooding and landslides in the same year, which cost Rp 8.158 trillion, total losses come to Rp 31.020 trillion.
In sum, the forestry industry contributes Rp 1.484 trillion to the national foreign account deficit each year. This excludes losses from timber smuggling, costs of conflict, and the ecological value of forest resources.
Solving the problems of the forestry sector will not be easy. Anti-poaching operations have addressed less than 8.7 percent of illegal logging, and the operational costs of these programs are not trivial, though far less than the losses caused by poaching activities themselves, which extend beyond the timber smuggling problem.
Efforts to revitalize and restructure the industry conflict with attempts to increase industrial capacity. After the auditing of industries, for which results remain unknown, the government increased the pulp production capacity in Sumatra. In addition, they plan to build pulp industries in Kalimantan and Papua.
In sum, many agendas diverge in the forestry sector. On the one hand, problems of disaster and conflict incur large costs. On the other hand, there is a push to continue extraction to fill foreign exchange reserves and pay off debts in industries accountable to the National Banking Restructuring Agency.
This has led to regency-level development/growth of industry that the central government may have incomplete information about or may be unaware of, such that forestry development planning can only be based on assumptions. Working out solutions for forestry sector development fails to take three basic issues into account: (1) lack of acknowledgement of people’s rights; (2) corruption; and (3) a huge discrepancy between supply and demand in the timber industry.
A Moratorium on Logging was taken up as an alternative because of the many interests requiring some form of improvement. The large number of agendas made it difficult to find a single solution. Through a moratorium, all of these agendas can be put on hold so that overlapping problems in administration and policy can first be improved.
The same goes for conflict resolution. The regulation of standards related to permits and the system of community forest management can be reviewed more clearly.
The Benefits of a Moratorium on Logging
A Moratorium on Logging will have multifold benefits in improving management of forest resources and the sustainability of the timber industry, including:
a) Provide the natural forests with political and ecological space in which to ‘breath’ and halt the continuing destruction of tropical forests in Indonesia;
b) Provide the best opportunity to monitor timber-tracking and log-auditing activities, as well as to catch illegal logging using satellite monitoring technology;
c) Provide an opportunity to restructure the forestry industry and tenurial rights to forest resources, and to increase the yields of non-timber forestry resources;
d) Correct domestic timber market distortions by opening the tap on imports as wide as possible, so that domestic timber market prices become comparable to world log prices;
e) Through the market mechanism, conduct restructuring and industrial rationalization of timber processing and correct excessive industrial capacity: only industries that carry out business genuinely and competitively are allowed to continue their enterprises and those dependent on illegal timber supplies will be unable to compete;
f) Through the market mechanism, force timber processing industries to improve the efficiency of their raw material usage; and
g) Through the market mechanism, encourage pulp industries to seriously establish plantation forests.
Losses if there is no Moratorium on Logging
Indonesia will suffer huge losses in the future if a moratorium on logging is not put in place now, including:
a) The Government will be unable to effectively monitor illegal logging activities;
b) Market distortions will be uncorrectable and wastage of logs will continue;
c) No incentive for industries to improve the efficiency of their raw material usage or to import more;
d) Pulp industries will continue to postpone development of plantation forests and will further destroy the natural forests;
e) The forestry industry’s deficit of Rp 1.484 trillion per year from illegal logging and disasters will be unstoppable;
f) The lowland forests in Sumatra will be lost by 2009, lowland forests in Kalimantan lost within the next five years, and lowland forests of Papua will be lost within the next fifteen years;
g) We will lose the basis of non-pulp industries, which would otherwise contribute US$ 4 billion in future foreign exchange. With the forests gone, hundreds of thousands of workers in this sector will lose their jobs in the next seven years.
The Government of Indonesia’s Commitment to Forestry Reform
At the ninth CGI meeting from 1-2 February 2000 in Jakarta, the Government of Indonesia via the Minister for Forestry and Plantations declared eight government commitments during the forestry session, as follows: (1) a moratorium on the conversion of natural forests; (2) closure of debt-laden industries; (3) elimination of illegal forest logging; (4) restructuring of timber processing industries; (5) recalculation of the value of forest resources; (6) linkage of reforestration programs with industrial capacity; (7) decentralization of forestry administration; and (8) formation of a national forestry program.
In its November 2000 action plan, addenda to these commitments included: (9) tackling forest fires; (10) restructuring tenurial rights; (11) taking inventory of forest resources; and (12) improving the forest management system.
The twelfth step would entail fundamental change in forest resource management to become more sustainable. To execute its commitments, the Government of Indonesia formed an Inter-Departmental Committee on Forestry through Presidential Decree No. 80/2000 on 7 June 2000, responsible for coordinating and implementing all government commitments in the forestry sector.
Stages of the Moratorium on Logging and Implementation of Forestry Reform
The Moratorium on Logging is merely a process, and not the end goal. It offers an opportunity to carry out reform planning and implementation of government commitments in the forestry sector. The Moratorium on Logging is also the initial step for these reforms.
Steps of the Moratorium on Logging could be implemented over three years in the following stages:
Stage I: Stop the issue of new permits
A stop on the issue or renewal of new forestry concessions, work contracts, and plantation permits, as well as releasing an import policy for the timber processing industry. A moratorium on permits is an absolute requirement of, and simultaneously the first stage in, the implementation of a Moratorium on Logging in Indonesia.
Reform commitments performed at this stage could include commitments #1 (a moratorium on the conversion of natural forests) and commitment #10 (restructuring of tenurial rights).
Stage II: Thorough evaluation of forestry industries’ performance
Within 2 months of the Moratorium on Logging being implemented, a stop on forestry concessions would cause problems, primarily for those whose credit will be disrupted and who are handled by the National Bank Restructuring Agency. Debt must be repaid by the owners and law enforcement applied to problematic industries if necessary. At this stage, evaluation of the assets held by problem industries must be carried out through independent third parties as due diligence.
At this stage, the Government could implement commitment #2 (closure of debt-laden industries) and commitment #5 (recalculation of the value of forest resources).
Stage III: Salvaging the most threatened forests
Within 6 months, the Government must stop all timber logging in Sumatra and Sulawesi, the two islands on which forests are most threatened, and restructure the forest areas in Sumatra and Sulawesi, as well as managing social problems that have arisen as a result of the Moratorium on Logging by re-employing workers in tree-planting and forest monitoring projects, such as has been done in China.
During this third stage, the Government could perform commitment #4 (restructuring the timber processing industry); commitment #6 (linking reforestation programs with industrial capacity); commitment #7 (decentralization of forest administration); and commitment #3 (stop on illegal forest logging).
Stage IV: Temporary stop on all forest logging and resolution of potential social problems
Within one year of the Moratorium on Logging being implemented, the Government could stop all timber logging activities in Kalimantan. Handling of social problems that have arisen so far and during the Moratorium on Logging could be carried out through a national policy, while a Protocol for Conflict Resolution and Standard for Ecological Service needs to be developed for regional areas as a forum under ongoing development.
During this period, the Government could also formulate a policy that provides incentives to development of downstream industries for superior commodities, which aim to absorb the workforce from the forestry sector while simultaneously contributing added economic value.
During this stage, reforms could be implemented that carry out commitment #12 (improving the forest management system) and commitment #8 (formation of a national forestry program).
Stage V: Temporary prohibition on forest logging throughout Indonesia
Within 2-3 years: a stop on all timber logging in natural forests for a stipulated period throughout Indonesia. During this period, logging would only be permitted in plantation forests or forests that are managed by local communities.
During this stage, the Government could carry out commitment #9 (tackling forest fires) and commitment #11 (taking inventory of forest resources).
During the Moratorium on Logging, timber industries could continue to operate by importing timber raw materials. Continuing to use timber raw materials from domestic sources would essentially be suicide. To facilitate monitoring, the types of imported timber should be different to timber types available in Indonesia.
Destructive Logging and Deforestation
Rully Syumanda
Jakarta, 10 April 2007
The deforestation problem in Indonesia is spreading. Illegal and destructive logging is a major cause. In addition, conversion of forest areas for the development of oil palm and the pulp and paper industry has been substantial. Since the beginning of this decade, as much as 2.8 million ha of Indonesia’s forests have been lost each year to illegal and destructive logging. This has led to US $4 billion or 40 trillion rupiah in losses to the State per year.
If we put two and two together, forest conversion and the pulp and paper industry are also causal factors in the rising rate of deforestation. We know that some 15.9 million ha of natural tropical forest has been cleared for forest conversion. The conversion of forests for oil palm development is a contributing factor to the increase in deforestation in Indonesia. From being prime land, 15.9 million ha of natural tropical forests have been cleared. On the contrary, there has been no meaningful increase in planted land area. Plantation area has only increased to 5.5 million ha in 2004, from 3.17 million ha in 2000. More than 10 million ha of forest have been abandoned after the ‘harvest’ of the wood crop growing there.
Similarly, the pulp and paper industry have also brought problems. This industry needs at least 27 million cubic meters of timber each year (Department of Forestry, 2006). Since plantation forests can only supply 30 percent of the total demand for pulp, this industry continues logging activities in natural forests, harvesting some 21.8 million cubic meters in order to fulfill its annual requirement. The timber obtained from natural forests is owned by company affiliates or taken from the concessions of its partners. This is not mentioning plywood or other trades, for which only 25% of timber requirements are supplied by plantation forests.
The negative impacts of forestry crime in Indonesia are described above. Economic losses from forestry crimes such as illegal logging, conversion of natural forests, and so on, are calculated to reach 200 trillion Rupiah. This loss does not include ecological disasters caused by illegal logging activities, such as floods and landslides, which now occur frequently in all corners of the Archipelago.
WALHI deduces that the ecological degradation caused by forestry crimes is caused, at least, by two major factors: (1) differences in the outlooks and value systems upheld by the community, the forestry department, and the government (both local and central); and (2) erosion of the judicial process due to corruption, collusion and nepotism. At this point, enforcement of the law is inconsistent.
Inconsistency in the judicial process is caused by the viruses of corruption, collusion and nepotism, which intricately bind the immediate interests of law enforcers (and even bureaucratic officers) throughout the judicial process, starting with the police, attorneys and the judiciary. The result is that anti-illegal logging operations in Papua Province (March 2005) failed to catch top-rung criminals or their protectors in the police force and military. From this operation, 186 suspects were arrested. But, until January 2007, only 13 suspects had been successfully prosecuted and not one syndicate leader has been caught. From the 18 major cases that have reached court, all accused have been released.
Furthermore, differences in the outlooks and value systems upheld by the community, the forestry department and the government (both local and central) have been a major factor in the increasing rate of forestry crime. From the community’s perspective, forests function to protect people from high winds, drought and erosion. The forestry department also recognises the ecological functions of the forests; however, illegal clearing and logging are allowed to continue in accordance with the economic calculations maintained by the forestry department. Similarly, the government’s stance also draws from economic aspects of forests rather than its ecological functions. For them, the forests are a resource with abundant natural resource wealth that must be extracted for the national income. Unfortunately, the development policies that are implemented do not favour forest sustainability.
As we track the rate of forestry crime (illegal logging, conversion of forests without replanting, the unlimited thirst of the pulp and paper industry for wood), it is clear that the government needs to halt several forms of forestry crime that have the potential to trigger a series of ecological disasters, such as floods, landslides, and drought. In addition, community involvement (especially the traditional community) in securing forest conservation is highly necessary. Moreover, the seriousness of all law enforcers (starting with the police force, attorney, to the judge) is crucial to stopping deforestation associated with forestry crimes. Without the serious involvement of all parties in carrying out surveillance, it is quite possible that Indonesia’s forests will be completely cleared in the not-too-distant future.
Finally, deforestation as a consequence of illegal logging is caused, at least, by three major factors, that is, the lack of acknowledgement by the government of people’s rights to manage their forest resources, widespread corruption in various sectors of forest resource management, and the large gap between supply and demand. If these three factors are not immediately overcome – make no mistake – Indonesia’s forests will be rapidly cleared within a short timeframe.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Regulation on Land Acquisition
Snowballing from the Infrastructure Summit 2005 in January, in May the government issued a presidential regulation (Perpres No. 36/2005) on land acquisition; a regulation many people see as a threat to people’s rights to their land.
The Indonesia Infrastructure Summit 2005, which took place in Jakarta, agreed to a Declaration of Action on Developing Infrastructure and Public Private Partnerships. The declaration was signed by the Coordinating Minister for Economic
Affairs Aburizal Bakrie, World Bank’s Vice President Jemal-ud-din Kassum, Director General of Southeast Asia Department of Asian Development Bank Shamshad Akhtar, Chairman of Indonesian Trade Chamber M. Hidayat and delegates from 19 countries.
At the summit, the government said it needed Rp 1,305 trillion for the development and the improvement of the infrastructure. To meet the need, the government invited domestic and foreign investors to participate in infrastructure projects.
In the first stage, the government has offered 91 projects worth Rp 205.5 trillion to the investors. To back the projects, the government pledges to issue 14 regulations (Media Indonesia, Sunday, 22/05/05).
In May, the government issued Perpres No. 36/2005 on land acquisition for development of public facilities. The regulation met with protests from people who think the regulation strengthens the government’s repressive and authoritarian efforts because the regulation allows the government to revoke people’s property rights to land (Perpres, Chapter II, Article 2(b)). People also see the regulation as the extension of the summit, which is deemed to work in favor of the investors rather than the public.
Walhi’s executive director, Chalid Muhammad, said the Perpres could justify eviction that is often carried out with violence, in the name of public interest. The Perpres could also ignite confrontation between people who lose their rights to their land and the government. “Therefore, the regulation could cause instability among the society. On top of that, it also could lead to violation of human rights,” Chalid said.
The implementation of the Perpres would likely deprive people of their source of livelihood. People who depend on earnings from forest resources or on sidewalk stores, for example, would be among the possible victims.
“We are afraid the government will use the Perpres to evict the people who are been dependent on the forests. The government would have an excuse to use forest for the benefit of investors, who would likely strip the forest to meet their industrial need,” Rully Syumanda, a Walhi campaigner on forestry said in a press conference on Wednesday, June 21.
The Perpres, besides violating a decree of the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) on land conflict settlement, also showed that the government was being confused in solving land problems, he added.
“The government has to annul the regulation because the content is against the people,” Usep Setiawan, deputy secretary general of Konsorsium Pembaruan Agraria (KPA) said.
He added that the deliverance of the regulation was premature because it should have been issued after the House passed the bill on land conflict settlement, which is mandated in the MPR’s decree (Tap MPR) No.IX/2001 on land reform and natural resources.
The decree, supported by another decree (Tap MPR No.V/2003), recommends the government and the House to deliberate: (1) Revision of the bill of land reform, (2) bill of land conflict settlement, (3) bill of natural resources management. Therefore, Walhi’s Post of People Against Eviction has organized a movement to challenge the Perpres.
“Considering the danger the Perpres poses, Walhi and other NGOs, united under the Coalition of People for Anti-eviction Movement, invite the public to participate in efforts to reject the Perpres,” Khalisah Khalid, the coordinator of Walhi’s post said.
“Walhi has opened posts at 24 of Walhi’s regional offices to launch a campaign against the Perpres,” she added. “We have scheduled September 20 as the day when we will submit the public support list to the Supreme Court, as a request for judicial review.”
Orang-utan Face Extinction as Rainforest Destroyed for Palm Oil
| JAKARTA / LONDON - September 22 - The Orang-utan is facing extinction due to the destruction of rainforest in Indonesia and Malaysia to set up oil-palm plantations, new research reveals. The ‘Oil for Ape Scandal’, published today Septemeber 23 by Friends of the Earth and the world’s leading orang-utan conservation groups, concludes that without urgent intervention the palm oil trade could cause the extinction of Asia’s only great ape within 12 years [1]. Palm oil is found in many products on supermarket shelves, from bread to margarine, lipstick and soap. Despite being warned for years by environmental groups that oil-palm plantations are associated with rainforest destruction and human rights abuses, the report finds that most UK companies don’t even know where their palm oil comes from. The report finds that almost 90 percent of orang-utan habitat in Indonesia and Malaysia has now been destroyed. Some experts estimate that 5,000 orang-utan perish as a result every year. The researchers found that oil-palm plantations have now become the primary cause of the orang-utans’ decline, wiping out its rainforest home in Borneo and Sumatra. New evidence shows that orang-utan rescue centres in Indonesia are over-flowing with orphaned baby orang-utans rescued from forests being cleared to make way for oil-palm plantations. The Indonesian Government is now planning to convert a large part of Tanjung Puting National Park, the world’s most famous protected area for orang-utan, into an oil-palm plantation. Research in the UK by Friends of the Earth found that at least 84 per cent of UK companies are failing to take effective action to ensure they do not buy palm oil from destructive sources and not one single UK supermarket knows where the palm oil originates in the products it sells. The story of corporate failure on palm oil is repeated across Europe. The European Union is the world’s biggest buyer of palm oil. Two weeks ago the United Nations published the Kinshasa Declaration, an action plan backed by the UK Government to save the world’s great apes from extinction [2]. The Indonesian Government signed on to this agreement but so far the Malaysian Government has failed to do so. Friends of the Earth and the orang-utan conservation groups are urging both governments to adopt and implement the declaration and end the conversion of orang-utan habitat into oil-palm plantations. They also say that the failure of European companies to take action shows that they cannot be trusted to act responsibly. They are calling on European Governments and the European Commission to legislate to stop European companies acting in such a damaging way. Ian Redmond, Chairman of the Ape Alliance, said: “Governments that provide a market for palm oil must legislate to make their corporations responsible and accountable for their impacts. If not, it is we who will have to explain to our children that the orang-utan became extinct, not because of a lack of knowledge, but because of corporate greed and a lack of political will.” Rully Syumanda of WALHI/friends of the earth Indonesia said: "We cannot win the battle to save the Indonesian rainforest while companies in consuming countries continue to buy palm oil from sources linked to human rights abuse and species extinction. The Governments of these countries must legislate and force these companies to stop acting so destructively." Research by Friends of the Earth shows that the forest fires which ravaged the island of Sumatra in August, and continue to burn today, were mostly set by palm oil companies clearing land to set up their plantations. It is estimated that one third of the orang-utan population on Borneo was killed by the forest fires of 1998. Dr Willie Smits, Founder of the Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation, aid: “The rate of loss of orang-utan has never been greater than in the last three years, and oil- palm plantations are mostly to blame.” Professor Biruté Galdikas, founder of the Orangutan Foundation International, said: “The orang-utan is endangered because of habitat loss. Today the greatest threat to orang-utan habitat is the continued expansion of oil-palm plantations. Palm oil is the greatest enemy of orang-utan and their continued survival in the wild." Dr Ian Singleton, Scientific Director for the Sumatran Orangutan Conservation Programme, said: “We have already lost huge areas of orang-utan habitat and tens of thousands of orang-utan to the palm oil industry. Now there are reports of an “oil-palm fence” which will stretch 845 kilometres along the border with Malaysia in Borneo, crossing through orang-utan habitat. The problem is truly immense.” PICTURES of orang-utan can be downloaded from: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/images/orangutan_report/ FOOTAGE (Broadcast quality) of orang-utans and oil palm plantations is available from the press office at Friends of the Earth with thanks to the Orangutan Foundation. Interviews with leading orang-utan scientists and campaigners are available. NOTES: [1] The report, The Oil for Ape Scandal – How palm oil is threatening the orang-utan, is published by Friends of the Earth together with the Orangutan Foundation, the Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation and the Sumatran Orangutan Society as members of the Ape Alliance. For a copy of the summary or full report please go to: Summary: www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/oil_for_ape_summary.pdf [2] The Kinshasa Declaration on Great Apes was signed on 9th September 2005. The signatories included range states for great apes as well as the European Commission and the following donor countries: Belgium, France, Italy, Sweden, United Kingdom and the United States |
Friday, June 22, 2007
THREE ROOTS PROBLEM OF INDONESIAN FORESTRY
Table 1. Flood and Landslide in 2000 – 2006
The flood and landslide were also causing indirect impact toward the local economy. The road being broken off has made thousand of people in the farm area were not able to market their crops and that leads to the level that retailers were also lose their income.
Other than the loss caused by flood and landslide, the inequitable direction of forestry policies was also causing unsettled conflicts up until today. Since 2000 until 2007 for example, more than 300 conflicts in the forestry sector took place.
Grafic 1. Frequency of horizontal conflict in forestry sector
Government’s policy with inequitable direction in the era of new ordo was also failed to be realisticly responsed by new goverment post now ordo. Various outcome policies were infact not able to heal the wound in the forestry and the industry itself. Each year, Indonesian forest was hit by the practice of illegal logging as a result of large capacity of production in the forestry sector. It was assumed that in the last five years that wood produced from illegal logging has reached 23,323 million of meter cubic per year. It has created the loss of state in the amount of 27 quintillion of rupiah per year. As in the phenomenon of gunung es, the real number was of course way bigger than that. In 2003, Department of Forestry itself has assumed that in the same year approximately 36,4 million of meter cubic were illegally log.
Although the Operation of Preserved Forest was able to repress the urge on doing illegal logging, however it was still considered a failure. Approximately each year, only 8 percent of wood as a production of illegal logging were succesfully detained.
Grafic 2. Comparison between illegal logging and haul
In the economy sector, the companies in the forestry sector with billions of dollar investment were not only causing misery for Indonesian people. Paradigm that put foreign and domestic investation in the front, has forced the people to subsidize productive areas they owned to the elites in the forestry sector. The improve of welfare hoped to occur from the trickledown effect, was in fact has turned its direction. People subsidize the state/entepreuneur. Flood, landslide, the emerged of new pest, conflicts of human– animals and the cut to access of forest as natural resources were parts of the impact of development in the forestry sector.
In 1998, more than ten conglomerates in the forestry sector were failed on paying their debts and that condition has urged the government to take over the debts, through National Banking Recovery Agency (NBRA), and considered them as state’s responsibility. Once again, Indonesian people have to bear the debt that weren’t theirs. Unfortunately, approaching the end of BPPN’s working period and in the effort of delivering any number of income for State Budget, NBRA further issued a policy of selling the non performing loan. Including non performing loan in the forestry sector. The value of selling the non performing loan at the moment was only 20 percent from total debt.
Table 2. The big ten of company’s debt in forestry sector
Thus, the government has given subsidy in the amount of 80% to the forestry debtor who bought the relevant non performing loan with a price of 20 percent of total debt. If the debt was Rp.100, then the debtor was only has to pay Rp.20. The remaining debt was bear by the Indonesian people. Unfortunately, at that moment the government has full authority in decreasing the capacity of production of companies that no longer owned the relevant HPH. However, it was never be done. Again, for a reason of the drastic reduction of foreign exchange of the state from forestry sector
All stories of the industry extraction based on abovementioned areas, have their relationship with the necessity of world market. Quite high demand from world market has urged Indonesia and the world markets to shut their eyes on what was happening in Indonesia.
Grafic 3. Export of Indonesian Gergajian Wood and Plywood, 2002
It was such a waste giving opportunities to the government to hold various initiatives in the framework of repairing the Indonesian forestry sector. The government’s initiative was never touched three fundamental issue faced by forestry sector: (1) lack of acknowledgement of people’s right, (2) corruption on every level and (3) the large gap between supply and demand.
1. LACK OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PEOPLE’S RIGHT
Since ages ago, in whatever history book in Archipelago, interaction between the people and forest as natural resources was always existed. Indonesian people in the beginning of their civilization has specific relationship with the forest, both as hunters or as collectors of ingredients gained form natural forest.
In the eldest record, fourth century, the first kingdom in Indonesia, Mulawarman, tribes in Kalimantan were living and forming an equilibirium relationship with natural forest suuround them. The large amount of ingredients and food mostly gained from the forest was basicaly the indication of the relevant correlation.
In 2000, CIFOR has predicted that around 48,8 million of Indonesian people were living inside and around the forest. Most of those people were practicing usahatani, both subsistence and comercial between gogo rice and yearly plant. Various forest products were also collected to be sold and consumed at home, including rattan, honey, resin, leaves and fruits that could be consumed, including wild animals and fish.
It was assumed that approximately 7 million of people in Sumatera and Kalimantan are depending on natural rubber plantation spreading in the area of 2,5 million of hectares. Only in Sumatera, almost 4 million of hectares areas were managed by local people in the form of various natural fruit plantation (that is plantation with various species of fruits merged with natural forest plants) without any help from the outside.
In spite of not having written certificate of the land, the indigeneous people understood the traditional form of managment as an inherited traditional right that was recognized specificaly in article 18 of Indonesian Constitution.
Although the government has recognized the existence of the society along with its control system of areas (regulated in Act No 5/60 regarding Agragrian matters and Act on Forestry Principal Regulation No 5/67 that further renewed with Act on Forestry Principal Regulation No 41/99), however it was also strictly stated that the opportunity in demanding the right of forest concession and ulayat right on the areas exceeding national interest was never permitted.
This could be understood. It was of course impossible to put one’s interest in the front of state’s interest. That was the logical issue. However, the “logic” issue became absurd when the paradigm of forestry development has emphasized it on the speed of foreign and domestic investment. The government has invited investors from almost everywhere to invest their money on Indonesian natural forest areas. Whatever logic was considered, of course it would never find the existence of local people who lived their simple lives around the forest and on the other hand still owned sufficiently large financial sources that could be benefited to managed the forest. The people were used to live and build the equilibirium with forest as their surrounding. Taking only what they really need. There was no intention in capitalising the profit from natural forest that has supported their lives.
Although the government was kind of hoping on the existence of trickledown effect of each activity made by the investor in the area, however this was never happened. In short time, people did feel it (despite the fact that one group of people has lost their land and its supporting economy). Tens of people were further able to run economical activities in the area. For example, distributing food or other needs, and gained an opportunity to get a job – despite the fact of educational issue, the people were only became labours. But still they gained economical profits. In short term, while the exploitation process was performing, the village has shown its heart beat. In long term, while the concession was ended, the forest shall lose its land vertility, the people shall lose their access to the forest comodity existed before the concession and it was often closed by horizontal conflicts, and new pest were emerging added by threat of flood and landslide.
Up until this moment, the government never at once corrected its background of thinking. Claim by the government was strictly regulated in the relevant regulation where traditional forest is state’s forest that happened to be located in the territory of traditional law society. Meaning, if there was a society who authorized and managed the forest long before the state was born and further intended to manage and take advantage of it, they should first ask for permission to its new ”owner” – the state – the government.
Once again, the mistake was that regarding status determination, the government has acted similarly with back then in the era of Netherland, without any due process or without any meaningful compensation. Hundred of hectares of forest were further claimed as state’s forest, and that lead to the condition that state (read: government) has all the right to transfer the hak guna atas lahan to the parties considered would give direct economical impact. Even though the determination process of state’s forest obligated limitation system of the areas in term of avoiding the possibility of overlapping with people’s areas. Although up until this very moment, the limitation system was only applicated to only less than 20% of the entire natural forest.
With such method of forced expropriation of natural forest resources from the society, it has led to the activity of extraction and creating various dimension of conflicts. The extraction of forest, that first was aiming to increase the people’s welfare along woth giving an extra value to economy development in Indonesia, finaly showed its failure for not achieving its firs aim, which was to increase people’s welfare. Basicaly, development in Indonesian forestry sector would be stated as successful if it was able to maintain its existence and the ecological support. And it would stated as a failure if its existence was not able to increase people’s welfare as one of its main goals. Don’t put the blame on anything if the jealous society further taking the last pieces of cake in group.
2. CORRUPTION
Law enforcement if forestry sector in Indonesia was not smoothly running. Although all the aspects related with forestry criminal acts were available: the institution of legal officers, officers and the regulations. The prime reason were colution and corruption, including the legal officers themselves. Corruption has spread in almost all levels of beucracy and the institution of court/police department. Since the era of Soeharto, corruption has got into the beaucracy system of this country and has become the leading authority of all illegal activities and political decisions. Nowadays, corruption has become the first reason of the lack of kaw enforcement in the forestry sector.
Decentralization of authority that was first hoped to eliminate the seed of separatism and decrease the jealousy of central – regional, turned into a place where corruption propagated. War against corruption was not as simple as it may sound, although it was very required. Corruption has given lot of people advantages and there were so many important actors involved.
Corruption was indeed has losen the trust of society toward state and has increase people’s opinion that the government has failed on bearing its role. Minister of Forestry in 2000 has stated:
”The spreading of corruption has urged many parties who has connection to hold illegal practices in forestry sector without any anxiety at all. The people who were involved including companies, civil government, legal officers and member of House of Representatives”
Corruption took place in the region has found its form when decentralization given the regent a full authority in managing its natural resources. The forms were various. It was mutualism relationship between regional government and company. The government has made the company an ATM regarding the necessity that could not be covered by Regional Budget, including personal interest. The company fulfilled the goverment’s interest and received repayment in the form of ease of licensing and security matter.
The relationship between company in forestry sector with other sectors (oftenly the ones who have connection with regional mass media) was far more complicated. The relevant company given a contract of wood distribution to the company experting in the field of mass media. As a substitution, mass media would be an effective media for the campaign on ”The Sustainable Development” conducted by the company. Including various social activities held by the relevant company. A party where Minister of Forestry in the era of SBY-JK came from was in fact had placed someone in the key position from one of the largest pulp and paper company in Riau, as a treasury. Was there any advantage taken from the position? The thing was that the relevant company was responsible for a large amount of debt and that condition has concerned the creditors of a possibility of losing their money if the company was stated bankrupt. The only way to make it pay the debt in credit was the access to the forest so that the enterprise would always have raw materials in term of delivering dollars. It might be predictable of how far this mutualism shall prevailed.
All forms of corruption and colution in the national level in the era of Soeharto, could be found in the smaller but wider scale in each region with forest as its natural resource. It was public’s secret that regent has given an amount of forest concession to guarantee the loyalty of his supporters, to fund his party’s activities and as a reward for hispolitical friends on the help he received so that he could sit in the top position. Corruption has also made the company capable in fulfilling its own necessity. In whatever forms. They were also able in hiring police and military department to repress the conflict they gained with society. The state’s officers that should have acted as a mediator in settling the conflicts, right now they are starting to help the company saving the company. Although if it means to violate human rights.
The involve of military and police department in the wood bussines was long intertwined. This scheme was the scheme played by Soeharto to guarantee their loyalty. It was also since the era of Soeharto that military and police department with private sector were mutualy influenced each other for doing jungle extraction. Military and police department has taken advantage with the presence of entepreuneur in the form of donation to buy a number of extraction tools that were indeed expensive at the moment. The entepreuneur taken advantage of the military presence for they were able to press regional government to ease on all matters along with assuring their access to the forest. Including acted as bodyguard if any conflicts occured with the people.
Police and military department in the level of soldiers has faced one issue related with the low salary they had received and the welfare level that was way below standard since ages. And the amount has reached hundred of thousand. It was obvious that they will not abandoned the opportunity when the company offered them what they couldn’t get from the state, even though it means of becoming company’s bodyguard. And when there was sufficient amount of capital, they would look for civilians to hold any logging activities in natural forest. Regardless the location. Nobody were brave enough to forbid it. The figures of military/police officers in the era of Soeharto were feared off for they did not want to be dealing with the institution that put muscle in front of brain, not for they being obedient to the regulation or government.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CORRUPTION PRACTICE OF BUSSINES
ON THE HOLDER OF IUPHHK ON NATURAL FOREST :
- Not holding the limitation system and arrangement of conservation areas,
- Not considering the importance of local society’s agreement regarding the implementation of limitation system
- Unseriously holding the activities on protecting the conservation areas in the concession areas
- The capitalization was not re-applied on the forest managment
- Not conducting financial audit by public accountant or financial report was not sufficient enough to be the basis on valuing the fund alocation regarding the natural forest managment
- Conducting capitalization and re-investment but never touched the issue of increasing the capital in the form of tegakan hutan
- Suspend the Reforestation Fund and the Provision of Forest as Natural Resources
- No longer proportionaly providing fund for the activities of forest managment
- Not holding any investment for the activities on the improvement of human resources and the managment of conservation areas
- Not making any work plan within certain period of time, both for long term plan and a five years plan.
- Various bussines corruption related with the measurement of growth, riap and Petak Ukur Pemanenan
- There was no compatibility between the plan of crop managment and the realization.
- Committment on the increasing role of the society and the provisioning of work opportunities were just a plan and a written committment
- Implementation on the role mechanism of the society applied unilateraly by the managment unit
- The working opportunity and training were only directed to the fulfillment of workers/labours and field operators.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CORRUPTION PRACTICE OF BUSSINES
ON THE HOLDER OF IUPHHK ON FOREST OF PLANT :
- Not arranging and settling the system of area limitation,
- Quantity and quality of installed pal batas, was not sufficient enough to guard limitation of right
- Ignoring the possibility of the existence of areas belong to local society or traditional society in the conservation area.
- Working areas system was only conducted unilateraly on paper.
- Leaving the local society behind and ignoring the potensial conflict with people’s areas in the system of areas in the field works
- Not settling the system of working areas up to the level of affirmation
- Not holding the marking of ineffective areas limitation and only holding the marking of effective areas limitation (block of yearly working plan).
Corruption was finaly had weakened the legal officers themselves. Cases that put regional government and large companies as suspects often dissapeared. Attorney General, police department and judges involved have used this situation to improve their welfare. Direct involvement of military/police department and indirect support from the government and other legal officers regarding this situation has succedeed in delivering the company to a position with very powerful influence to influence local politics and its jurisdiction. A senior forestry officer has admitted in 2001 that there were only less than 10 percent of forestry crimes could make their ways to court. Whether they were settled or not, it was another number.
In such condition, it would be hard for us to rely on the regulation to repair the forestry sector. Instead of makin an improvement, forestry sector was still attracted many parties to be exploited, from military, police officers, government authorities, member of House of Representatives and even the legal enforcing officers.
3. GAP BETWEEN SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Since the beginning, Indonesia has been designed to fulfill the necessity of raw materials and became a commidity to northern countries. The Letter of March 11th was not only given full authority to Soeharto, it was also a turning point where Indonesian economy was participated by the foreign. The northern countries were suddenly ordering on whatever activities that should be hold by Indonesia. Entering the 21st century, Indonesia was not only had to fulfill the necessity of northern countries, it was alos had to fulfill the necessity of China, Japan and India. Million of hectares of forest were opened and replaced with exotic plats and further extracted and had CPO, paper, plywood and gergajian wood as the outcomes to fulfill thier necessity. The reason of this situation was not only the abovementioned issue, but also the paradigm of economy development in Indonesia, based on the economical effort based on the areas and foreign exchange as the outcome of continuous extraction of natural resources that was maed as the indicator of economical development.
Post decentralization, the issue was getting more complicated. Policy of IPK in the amount of one hundred hectares was then used by the regional government not only for filling regional treasury but also to fill the cash of parties and as “remembrance” for its supporters. The issuance of Government Regulation No 32/2002, was not only being disobeyed but also being understood as one way of slipping off the regional authorities. It was soon that regional sentiment was put in front. Slipping off licences issued by the central government by giving larger license from the requirement and even on the areas that were previously burdened by rights.
Post decentralization was also marked by debt of forestry industry that has to be borne by Indonesian people. The burden that further urged the speed of extraction on Indonesian natural forest and conversion process from wood to money, has ease the increase of process of production capacity, expansion of concession and even became a star of the forestry industry itself.
Post decentralization was also provoked new issue regarding the coordination between central and regional. There were so many informations and changes in the uppercourse and downstream of the industry that were forgotten to be informed to central and that has led to the condition where the department related with the industry in forestry sector has issue a very large number, with large gap with the reality. Let alone the Department, even the province dinas has difficulty in knowing the Plan of Raw Materials Fulfillment existed in the level of regency.
Meanwhile, regarding the micro industry with wood as raw material, it was also not perfectly coordinate between the Department of Industral Affairs with Dinas in the region. There were so many reports regarding the industrial development that could not reached Jakarta and there were so many distortion of information between the Department of Forestry and the Department of Industrial Affairs, where the latter also had the authority in increasing the production capacity of industry even if it was relate to forestry sector.
With the chaos coordination, the forestry industry in the regions were keep on struggling. Part of it went into the regional cash and some other went into the pockets of the winning parties of the election.
Along with that, the damage in the Indonesian natural forest was increasing each year. In 1950 up to 1985, the number of damage has reached 32,9 million of hectares or equal with 942 thousand of hectares per year. The authorization of 70 percent of world plywood market in the 80s, has urged the loss of forest in the area of 45,6 million of hectares or with average deforestation of 5,7 million of hectares fores per year (1985 – 1993). This was the highest number of deforestation ever in Indonesia. As in the phenomena of gunung es, this number could be higher than what it may seem. Up to 2004, the critical land in the forest has reached 59,17 million of hectares and critical land outside the forest area has reached 41,47 million f hectares. Most of the damaged areas were spread along in 282 river basins .
Table 3. Gap Between Supply and Demand
Grafic 5. Comparison between capacity of production and demand in wood industry
Sunday, June 17, 2007
LAND OF A THOUSAND FIRES
Inherited Sin from Government Failure to Secure People’s Right to their Environment.
During the El Nino disaster in 1997/98 twenty five million hectares of forest burnt around the world. Since then society is more aware that forest fires can obstruct development due to the enormous impact on the ecosystem through carbon emission increases and loss of biological diversity. More than 2.67 billion tons of carbon dioxide was released into the atmosphere by the fires in 1997/98. This is equal to 40 percent of total carbon emissions for the world that year.
This briefing paper is a summary of reports on forest and land fires in Indonesia from 2001 to July 2006.
The causes of the Indonesian fires in 1997/98 were various . In Jambi and Riau, fires were started by oil palm plantation concessionaires. In South Sumatra, fires were started in damp terrain by small farmers. In South Kalimantan, the One Million Hectares of Rice Project had become the main cause of smoke exported to Malaysia and Singapore. In West and East Kalimantan, fires were caused oil palm plantations and forest concession holders. Although the El Nino weather system created the drought, the widespread smog and enormous carbon emissions were both caused by fires lit intentionally to clear forests for plantation development.
In the following years, forest and land fires in Indonesia were not as massive as in 1997. But the annual fires in Kalimantan and Sumatra continue to generate smog that blankets southern Southeast Asia and release large amounts of carbon.
In 2001, the number of fires or hotspots recorded by satellite in Sumatra and Kalimantan from January to August was very low – only 3,200. The annual number of fires since 2002 has consistently been between 40,000 and 50,000. Riau Province holds the record for the highest number of fires, followed by central Kalimantan, West Kalimantan and South Sumatra.
Hotspot is the title given to NOAA satellite imaging product to shows the number of forest fires in a given area. The NOAA satellite is 850 Km above the earth and circles every 100 minutes. Data from NOAA can be received almost every day. The Control Center for Forest and Land Fires (Pusdakarhutla) in every province has direct access to NOAA satellite data. The public can receive hotspot information two days after the fires are documented.
NOAA is equipped with an Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer. AVHRR determines surface temperatures by detecting short infrared rays. Each hotspot pixel is 1.2 km by 1.1 km, and is a minimum temperature of 420º C in daytime and 370º C at nighttime. In cloudy conditions, hotspot detection is not possible.
Hotspots in Sumatra and Kalimantan
Source: Tabulated from NOAA satellite, Dbase WALHI 2006
Table 1. Number of Hotspots July 2001 – May 2006 in Sumatra and Kalimantan.
Send email to roelly@walhi.or.id for this image
A hotspot reading of 420º Celsius during the day in a given area is impossible to obtain if that area does not include a large fire. Heat reflection off a large factory roof during the middle of the day will not produce heat of more than 257º Celsius. The total area of burnt forest and land in Indonesia for the last six months (January to August 2006) is 27,612 mill acres [I don’t believe this number. In hectares this is 10 million hectares!] . The average area burnt each year since 2002 is 2 million hectares.
Forest Burning
Forest burning is a regular practice used by forestry and plantation companies in Indonesia. It’s entitled in the name of burning, not fire or conflagration, because the fires are deliberately started. Indonesian forest includes damp rain forest which cannot be burnt accidentally. In many cases, the burnt regions are in preparation process for plantation development. Uncontrollable fire often spreads from plantation areas to secondary forest. Destructive logging also creates the condition for wild fires, by breaking the forest canopy so that sunlight enters the forest, and by leaving a lot of dead plant matter on the forest floor.
Forest burning is a result of errors of forest and land policy and management in Indonesia. This inherited sin began in 1980s, when large scale plantation industry were first established and used forest burning to clear areas for plantations. Since then, dry season forest fires are a regular event.
Forest and land burning and worsening natural forest health is the result of massive forest exploitation since the 1980s. This blunder of forest management has become the main cause for natural forest damage including forest and land fires.
At least three chronic forest management errors in Indonesia stimulate forest fire practice. Firstly there is a large gap between supply and demand; natural forest and forest concession only supply 25% of the demand for industrial wood from wood processing industries, which require 60 million m3 per year. This happened when the government allowed too many wood processing factories to be established without a sustainable wood supply from natural forests or plantations.
Secondly, big opportunities were given by the government to concessionaires to convert forests into large scale monoculture plantations such as oil palm and pulp wood plantations. The government also created conversion incentives by giving IPK (Forest Concession License) to plantation entrepreneurs and Reforestation Fund to concessionaires.
Thirdly, law enforcement has failed to control the illegal practice of using fire to clear forest land for plantation establishment. For plantation companies, fire is an easy and quick way to prepare land for plantations, and with minimal law enforcement, there was no reason for companies to stop this destructive practice.
Forest and land burning is also seen by companies as the easiest way to soil pH and make the soil more productive. About half of the soils in Kalimantan and Sumatra have a pH range of between 3 – 4 which is too low for agriculture. By burning forests with low pH soils, the residue ashes will raise soil pH up to 5 – 6 so cultivation will be possible. PT. Adei Plantation & Industry admitted in court that one reason it set fire to its concession area was to raise the soil pH level.
El Nino is related with forest drought and fire. However, it is important to underline that El Nino is not the cause of forest fires, but rather as necessary condition in forest and land fire. The attempt by government and industry to blame traditional swidden farming, in which small areas of secondary forest are burnt in a regular cycle, for the widespread fires is also wrong. Even in high El Nino years, swidden fires did not spread widely through the forest.
Since 2001 it has been acknowledged that fires started on lands belonging to the inhabitants only reached 20 percent from the total of burnt areas. Within that 20 percent, less half were occurred on farm lands using swidden agriculture or shifting cultivation system. The remaining fires caused by inhabitants occurred on abandoned logging areas.
Hotspot region in Sumatra-Kalimantan 2001 – 2003
Send email to roelly@walhi.or.id for this image
Government policy has denied society’s rights to access and control activities on their customary land, and has led to conflicts between communities on one side and government and concessionaires on the other side. These conflicts over land, which can harm both parties, are often left unresolved. Fair mediation or compensation is rare to impossible for communities to obtain, as the government typically takes the side of the concessionaire in land disputes.
The evidence that plantation concession areas were cleared with fire can be observed from indications in the field. Without having to discover a can of gasoline and a match or lighter, seeing piles of wood and debris in rows already indicates that the particular concession holder is preparing to use fire to clear the land. This method of piling up debris to be burnt is often used by concessionaires as one way to minimize the risk of fire spreading to adjacent areas. Several plantations in Sumatra or Kalimantan practice this method. Timbers up to 20 cm in diameter, along with other debris are stacked in rows.
The use of this method destroys the argument from concessionaires that they clear the land using chemicals or organic materials. The stacks of timber in rows would need a great amount of chemicals or organic materials to break them down, which are contrary to the profit-oriented approach of concessionaires.
In 2004, WALHI Riau brought legal charges against 36 concessionaires where there were indications that they were using fire to clear forest lands. WALHI collected evidence that more than half of the companies had stacked wood and debris into piles before fires started on their concessions. Unfortunately, the charges were never heard in court, as the judge concluded that WALHI did not have the authority to make charges.
Unwise Policy
The Indonesian Government has never taken serious action against those who start forest fires, although since 1997 it has carried out various studies and investigations into the causes of fires. UNDP has supported a Forest Fire Disaster Management Action Plan but with little results. ITB Forestry Faculty together with Forestry Department and ITTO have produced numerous plans for combating forest fires, but these have not been adopted by the government.
Meanwhile, the 1999 Forestry Act does not give adequate attention to combating forest fires. For example, the proposed ban on the use of fires to clear forest areas in the end was weakened to exclude concessionaires that have obtained permits for fires (section 50 clause 3 d). In comparison Malaysia has put into effect a clear policy prohibiting the use of fire to clear forest, with fines of up to 500,000 Ringgit (approx US$140,000) and up to five years in prison for both the land owner and the concessionaire found guilty of using fire to clear forests.
Other Indonesian Government regulations relating to forest also fail to sanction companies using fire to clear forests (PP No.6/99 on Forest Concessions and Forest Crop Harvests on Production Forest). Law No.23/97 on Biological Environment Management and Law No. 41/99 both do not giving a mandate to develop a Government Regulation (PP) on forest fires. Likewise Law No 18 on plantations does not include an administrative sanction for concessionaire who conduct land clearing using fire.
Policies to put out fires rather than stop them being lit
Government initiatives on forest fires prioritize activities to detect and control fires rather than efforts to prevent them in the first place. For example, government programs have emphasized infrastructure provision for firefighters and creating a system for fire detection. Meanwhile, not one policy or law enforcement activity is directed towards preventing the use of burning to clear forests. There are indications that concessionaires have become parasites inside the government body. The concessionaires gain benefits by minimizing land clearing costs while the government turns to concessionaires for official and non-official funding for regional development.
In 2003, Bapedalda, the provincial planning office in Riau collected evidence related to fire activities in 2001 that had occurred in 10 plantation and forest concessionaires in Riau. However, none of these companies were prosecuted. In 2005, when Walhi questioned why the investigations did not lead to prosecutions, Bapedalda Riau responded that the evidence had been lost!
The need for a new approach to stopping forest fires
What needs to be done to stop forest fires in Indonesia? WALHI calls on the government to immediately take action to:
- Stop issuing new licenses for land conversion, especially in forest areas.
- Create a regulation that prohibits concessionaires from using fire to clear their lands, and sanction all parties who start fires.
- Revoke concession licenses for companies that use fire in the land clearing process.
- Put into effect punishments for environmental crimes, especially for those who start forest fires.
- Prepare and release a manual on land use management without the use of fire, and distribute widely to companies and communities.
- Put into effect positive economic incentives for concessionaires who conduct land clearing without using fires.
Further Information: Rully Syumanda +6281319966998
2008 Olympics: Plans to Sacrifice Rainforest Should be Aborted
May 18, 2006
Jakarta (Indonesia), May 18, 2006 - Only days before a May 16-18 Beijing meeting to prepare the 2008 Olympiad in China, Friends of the Earth International calls on the Government of China and the International Olympic Committee to save Indonesian forests from being destroyed for the Beijing Olympics.
Friends of the Earth International is calling on the People's Republic of China and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to immediately abort plans to use 800,000 cubic meters of Indonesian Merbau timber for the construction of sports facilities for the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing.
A state-owned Chinese company plans to invest one billion US dollars in the construction of a timber processing plant and in the purchase of Merbau timber in the province of Papua in Indonesia.
Indonesian Forestry Minister Malem Sambat Kaban has already indicated his consent for this plan. The Indonesian Government, however, is well aware of the destructive impact of industrial logging in West Papua. In March 2005, the Indonesian President ordered a moratorium on most logging operations in West Papua, due to widespread theft, corruption and environmental damage.
"It is outrageous that China wants to construct its Olympic facilities from tropical timber from rainforests. Important areas of the largest remaining rainforest in Asia would be destroyed in order to manufacture floors for Olympic buildings," says Chalid Muhammad, the Director of WALHI/Friends of the Earth Indonesia.
"It is the International Olympic Committee's responsibility to stop these plans immediately. The destruction of humanity's last remaining natural forests is not in line with the Olympic spirit", he added.
"In fact, building Olympic sports facilities with tropical timber from old-growth forests would clearly be in breach of the Olympic Charter",says Chalid Muhammad, the Director of WALHI/Friends of the Earth Indonesia.
"The International Olympic Committee has to act now. Otherwise it would jeopardize its credibility and reputation", he said.
Chapter one of the Olympic Charter contains a clear comittment to environmental responsibility and sustainable development: "It is the role of the IOC to encourage and support a responsible concern for environmental issues, to promote sustainable development in sport and to require that the Olympic Games are held accordingly"(Olympic Charter, Chapter 1).
"The Olympic Movement throughout the world has to unite in an effort not to destroy this paradise for Olympic vanity. No sports venues should rely on tropical timber. For the last rainforests of the world, fair play is vital", says Chalid Muhammad, the Director of WALHI/Friends of the Earth Indonesia.
Instead of using 800,000 cubic meters of tropical Merbau timber, the Chinese authorities should follow the example of the Sydney Olympics Committee, which adopted a wood procurement policy for the construction of the Sydney Olympics venues that prioritised building designs that used little wood or used recycled wood and wood from plantations instead of wood from natural forests.
Background
The Chinese intend to process some 800,000 cubic meters of merbau timber in the Indonesian province of Papua and to export the processed timber to China. Merbau trees (Intsia spp.) are found in lowland tropical rainforests in South East Asia, often in coastal areas bordering mangrove swamps, rivers and floodplains.
In many parts of South-East Asia, Merbau is already depleted or too rare for industrial exploitation. The only region where large volumes of the tree still grows is the island of New Guinea, with the Indonesian part (West Papua) being the prime source of the mostly illegal merbau timber extraction for the world market. There are no plantations of merbau trees; all merbau timber comes from natural forests.
The World Conservation Union (IUCN) classifies Merbau as a "vulnerable species", while the World Conservation Monitoring Center classifies Indonesia's Merbau population as threatened.
The current deforestation rate in Indonesia stands at a shocking 35,000 square kilometers a year, and up to 90 per cent of all timber felled in Indonesia is obtained illegally. Friends of the Earth Indonesia wants a moratorium on logging, to save the remaining Indonesian forest.
The ancient forests of West Papua and New Guinea are home to more than 500 indigenous peoples and are amongst the most biologically diverse forests on earth.
Contact Persons:
Rully Syumanda, forests campaigner, WALHI/Friends of the Earth Indonesia. Tel: +62 217941672 Mobile: +62 8131 9966 998 or e-mail : roelly@walhi.or.id
Systematic Effort to “Downgrade Criteria” of Wood Legality Disregard Social Aspect
Rully Syumanda
Introduction
The Government of Indonesia, forestry business institutions and wood buyers in other countries responded to the issue of destructive logging by focusing on illegal logging and developing wood legality criteria. The government system developed in Indonesia in 2002 is known as BRIK (Forestry Industry Revitalization Body) criteria. However, these criteria did not receive a positive response from the European market or NGO support since it ignores many legality issues related to tenure and local communities.
Some conservation NGOs, the UK Government and the Government of Indonesia initiated discussions on developing a legality standard for Indonesian forestry which are more acceptable socially, economically and environmentally. The development of a standard for wood legality was based on a bilateral agreement between Indonesia and the United Kingdom. The process has been under development since 2004 with three draft versions of the criteria and indicators, numerous workshops and field tests. Unfortunately, the process of developing the legality standard has not been publicized widely, and has not systematically drawn on the society’s knowledge in building such criteria.
WALHI has observed a systematic effort of certain parties to downgrade the criteria of the legality standard, particularly social aspects (FPIC and Forest Zone Determination/Penetapan Kawasan Hutan), with the purpose to release timber for large scale forestry business. This paper tries to overview the mandate has been given to the small team and what they have been done as well as to compare the latest draft, 3.2 with draft 2 and to review the special study on the legality standard presented by Dr. Marcus Colchester in 2005 .
It is hoped that this paper will make everyone aware of what has and is happening in the process of establishing a legality standard for a fair and sustainable system forestry management.
Downgrading Criteria of Two Important Social Aspects
Two social aspects relevant to the forestry licensing processes are Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) and Forest Zone Determination (Penetapan Kawasan Hutan). These two aspects are important and should not be skipped, since they have a legal basis in the licensing of forest concessions.
1. Forest Zone Determination/Penetapan Kawasan Hutan is the process to prove that a particular forest zone is without any pre-existing rights or obligations, as mentioned in forestry law (UUK). It is a guarantee that there are no management overlaps in the forest area and that it is clearly designated as permanent forest zone/kawasan hutan tetap. Forest Zone Determination (Penetapan Kawasan Hutan) is conducted through a process that includes forest area designation by the Minister of Forestry, forest zone boundary determination (by local government and the community) and forest zone determination after the boundary has been defined (by the Minister). These processes are defined in various forestry regulations including UUK (Forestry Law), Government Regulation No. 44/2004 regarding Forest Planning, MoF Decree No 32/2001 and MoF Decree No. 70/2001 as well as other policies related to the existence of a Boundary Committee (community, Land Office/BPN, and relevant bodies as its members). It is also in line with one of priority policies of the Ministry of Forestry, which is forest zone consolidation/pemantapan kawasan hutan (speeding up the process of determining the forest zone).
Forest zone determination is followed by a process to align the working area boundaries of a Forest Management Unit (MU), to ensure the omission of unproductive lands and address local community claims over Forestry Management Unit areas as well as to estimate the annual allowable cut allocation of a given management unit.
How is the forest determination zone issue translating in the draft legality criteria?
From the first to the third version of the criteria, there have been some significant changes:
- Draft 1 clearly describes that the issue is important legality and is included in the first criterion (land acquisition and use right). It is clearly described that the legal means by which the area is designated as a permanent forest zone (kawasan hutan tetap) must be proved with means of verification of the Letter of Minister of Forestry regarding the determination of forest zone in the form of a forest group and proved with consistency of determination of forest zone with BATB document acknowledged by the community.
- Draft 2 downgrades this part of the standard by saying that the legal issue is the forest zone which has been delineated and proved with BATB (Berita Acara Tata Batas) document.
- Draft 3 further downgrades the issue to the license holders’ ability to show their IUPHK license. In contrast, there are numerous licenses issued over undesignated forest area as State Forest and the areas have no distinct boundaries, creating disorientation of the forest status between community land and the permanent forest zone/kawasan hutan tetap.
With the downgrading the of legality standard, it is clear that the standard is not sufficient to declare wood legality on the basis of land acquisition. It has to return to preceding status of the area designated as permanent forest/kawasan hutan tetap proved with means of verification, which requires a Ministerial Decree regarding the permanent forest establishment in the form of a properly comprised forest group and proved by consistency of the forest zone establishment with a community-recognized BATB document .
The delineation issue does not receive adequate attention by the government, although the issue often triggers conflicts with local communities. The delineation concept is an instrument that can potentially reduce environmental impact through change of land use into forest plantations.
- Macro and micro delineation is a single legal instrument in valuating and delineating forest plantation concession area.
- The instrument proportionally accommodates economic, ecological, social and ethical aspects.
- Forest areas referred to macro and micro delineation have assurance on which boundaries should be conserved and which areas should not be extracted in regards to community claim.
In a delineated area, all forest plantation concession holders – which are then approved and legalized by the MoF, have area certainty. Such conditions must be followed and further, can become the primary basis in accelerating forest plantain development.
Boundary determination of the Management Unit working area is also not properly addressed in the criteria and even completely disappears in the latest draft 3.2. Such boundary determination should be emphasized to guarantee that all working areas include only productive areas for forest business and do not occupy unproductive areas, such as irrigated and unirrigated agriculture fields, farmlands, settlements and roads. Such lands are required to maintain local community businesses, and should be protected from land claim disputes with the forestry management unit. This determination process is also to ensure that all working areas are exclusively inside permanent forest areas.
2. Free, Prior, Informed and Consent. The issue of FPIC is very important to ensure community consent for forestry businesses that will be developed in areas where communities have had customary use and management, of forests. Negotiations based on FPIC should take place in a region before the business starts and should be free of any kind of intimidation or repression . If FPIC from a community is not sought, there is no guarantee that a community has freely given its approval for a forestry business, without being subject to pressure from the military, police or other government apparatus. FPIC also ensures that the community recognizes the potential impact of the business, including environmental and social impacts as well as its legal consequences. It is clearly described in criteria 1 and 3 of draft 2, which is called as PADIATAPA (unforced approval based on baseline information).
How was this issue translated in the indicator criteria in version 3?
From the first to third version we can observe a systematic effort to downgrade the standard as follows:
- Draft 1 and the study conducted by Marcus Colchester in 2005 explained the importance of PADIATAPA process and required a guideline to run PADIATAPA. The issue was also proposed during the seminar in Hotel Salak (Bogor, 2005) to prepare the guideline in form of testable steps. However, it is not include in the following drafts. In draft 2 it is described weakly in criteria 3.1 with the addition of words that business can conduct the PADIATAPA. Elementary change has occurred in changing the PADIATAPA process from one that requires documentation of the approval process to merely demonstrating an effort of the forestry business to conduct a PADIATAPA.
- Draft 3 downgrades the concept of PADIATAPA further by only including consideration of community opinion (criteria 1 verifier 1.3). The change from community approval into community consideration is a radical downgrading that ignores the guarantee of local community consent for forestry businesses operating in their neighborhood.
The absence of the FPIC process, which is for instance found in FSC principle no 3, makes the criteria meaningless since it does not give a community the right to give their approval on the forestry business in the neighborhood. It is also can not guarantee that a community is consciously and without pressure recognizing and agreeing to all legal, environmental and social impacts on their customary lands. The issue should be repositioned by returning the PADIATAPA principle into principle no. 3 (Relationship with the community and Labor rights) as mentioned in draft 2.
Loss of Principles as the Spirit of Wood Legality Certification
Beside the principle and criteria, there is also a radical change in the development of version 3, which omits the seven Principles that support all the legality processes, which are:
- P1. Land Acquisition and Forest Concession (accommodated in version 3 partially)
- P2. Physical, Social and Environmental Impacts
- P3. Relationship with Community and Labor Rights
- P4. Law and Regulation regarding Timber Harvesting
- P5. Forestry Tax
- P6. Chain of Custody
- P7. Timber Processing
Those principles developed in draft 1 were rearranged by the small team, who seem to have acted beyond their authority. The team was only authorized to rephrase, restructure and reformat the standard by adopting common terminology, not to downgrade as well as omit essential issues.
Increased Tolerance of Illegal Activity
Another issue that should be considered is the effort of businesses involved in this process to give different emphasis to each verification point. This activity of business participants is strongly unacceptable. Adding weight to only some verification points promotes a system of gradual legality certification. The legal status of timber will finally be determined from a percentage of how many verifiers it meets. All parties should see this issue as a very serious problem. Legality could not be degraded. The final output of a legality evaluation is only two options: the operation and the wood it produces is either legal or illegal.
Sustaining the forest area can not be guaranteed while there is a grading in legality certification. The Legality standard should be considered as an effort to help producers and consumers to determine legality without regard to the current critical condition of forestry sector.
Closing Comments
- Keep reforming forest policy. It was identified during the transition (reformasi) era as well as in the TAP MPR no IX/2001 which mandated an examination of policy related to Agrarian and Natural Resources issues. The result of the policy examination should be followed by the withdrawal and revision of existing policies, and thus the policy will keep changing. Standard criteria of wood legality must be adapted with this transitional situation. It has been intensively discussed during preceding seminars and workshops. With such consequences, it will clearly promote changes towards upgrading the criteria and standard to match changes in legislation, not a downgrading of the criteria, as had occurred in the recent process.
- Trial for Small Team and LEI. Facilitating the process will become a trial for LEI and small team to work transparently, leaving aside other interests tow work towards fair and sustainable forest management. The process should be publicly monitored by various stakeholders or the institution’s credibility will be at risk.
- Field Work. Previous field assessments were not conducted transparently, as field teams did not present their findings to public meetings, and independent groups could not monitor the process. The field trial which is to be conducted in August 2006 can be structured to regain the lost trust by transparent approaches from the trial team and public presentations of their findings. Support to conduct independent verification from various stakeholders is also highly required.
- Two buried criteria. FPIC and Determination of Forest Zone (Penetapan Kawasan Hutan) must be revitalized within principles 1 - 4 re-established as in previous versions, to give protection to communities over forestry business seeking to operate in their neighborhood. Criteria 4 must be able to accommodate policy change such as the ratification of the covenants of EKOSOB and SIPOL in Indonesian law in early 2006. It is proper to change the effort from a downgrading to an upgrading of criteria and indicators and rearrange its means of verification.
- Authentication behind Paper Legality. In the effort to conduct field verification, a more credible means of verification is needed beyond administrative verification. Field verification should examine legality through process notes, interviews with key informants and other forms of cross checking. Means of verification of administrative credentials could be categorized as initial administrative means of verification to explore wider verification process through cross check process.
WALHI believes that if the abovementioned notes are considered and develop publicly, seriously and consistently by the small team, then fair and sustainable forest management can be achieved and will provide benefits to as many as possible, primarily to people living in and around the forest.
Further information:
Rully Syumanda, +6281319966998, roelly@walhi.or.id