Tag Archives: Indonesia forests

Deforestation: the mixed picture

slash and burn agriculture

In a new study of the Centre for Global Development (CGD), a Washington think-tank, Jonah Busch and Kalifi Ferretti-Gallon look at 117 cases of deforestation round the world. They find that two of the influences most closely correlated with the loss of forests are population and proximity to cities (the third is proximity to roads). Dramatic falls in fertility in Brazil, China and other well-forested nations therefore help explain why (after a lag) deforestation is slowing, too. Demography even helps account for what is happening in Congo, where fertility is high. Its people are flocking to cities, notably Kinshasa, with the result that the population in more distant, forested areas is thinning out.

Two of the countries that have done most to slow forest decline also have impressive agricultural records: Brazil, which became the biggest food exporter of all tropical countries over the past 20 years; and India, home of the green revolution. Brazil’s agricultural boom took place in the cerrado, the savannah-like region south and east of the Amazon (there is farming in the Amazon, too, but little by comparison). The green revolution took place mostly in India’s north-west and south, whereas its biggest forests are in the east and north.

But if population and agricultural prowess were the whole story, Indonesia, where fertility has fallen and farm output risen, would not be one of the worst failures. Figures published inNature Climate Change in June show that in the past decade it destroyed around 60,000 sq km of primary forests; its deforestation rate overtook Brazil’s in 2011. Policies matter, too—and the political will to implement them.

The central problem facing policymakers is that trees are usually worth more dead than alive; that is, land is worth more as pasture or cropland than as virgin forest. The benefits from forests, such as capturing carbon emissions, cleaning up water supplies and embodying biodiversity, are hard to price….The most successful policies therefore tend to be top-down bans, rather than incentives (though these have been tried, too). India’s national forest policy of 1988 explicitly rejects the idea of trying to make money from stewardship. “The derivation of direct economic benefit”, it says, “must be subordinated to this principal aim” (maintaining the health of the forest). In Brazil 44% of the Amazon is now national park, wildlife reserve or indigenous reserve, where farming is banned; much of that area was added recently. In Costa Rica half the forests are similarly protected. In India a third are managed jointly by local groups and state governments.

Top-down bans require more than just writing a law. Brazil’s regime developed over 15 years and involved tightening up its code on economic activity in forested areas, moratoriums on sales of food grown on cleared land, a new land registry, withholding government-subsidised credit from areas with the worst deforestation and strengthening law enforcement through the public prosecutor’s office. (The most draconian restriction, requiring 80% of any farm in the Amazon to be set aside as a wildlife reserve, is rarely enforced.)

Two developments make bans easier to impose. Cheaper, more detailed satellite imagery shows in real time where the violations are and who may be responsible. Brazil put the data from its system online, enabling green activists to help police the frontier between forest and farmland. Its moratoriums on soyabeans and beef from the Amazon, which require tracing where food is coming from, would not have worked without satellites…

The Forestry Ministry of Indonesia, [on the other hand] is rated the most corrupt among 20 government institutions by Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission in 2012. Some within government are hostile to anti-deforestation schemes, which they see as “foreign”, says Ade Wahyudi of Katadata, an Indonesian firm of analysts. Perhaps the biggest problem is the lack of a single, unified map including all information on land tenure and forest licensing: efforts to create one have been slowed by unco-operative government ministries and difficulties created by overlapping land claims.

Excerpts from Tropical Forests: A Clearing in the Trees, Economist,  Aug. 23, 2014, at 56

Deforestation in Indonesia: slowdown

Rafflesia

Indonesia’s president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, is not known as a conviction politician… On the environment, though, Mr Yudhoyono has been uncommonly courageous. In 2009, two years after world leaders met on the island of Bali to agree on a “road map” to slow climate change, Mr Yudhoyono pledged Indonesia to cutting its carbon emissions by at least 26% by 2020. Then, in 2011, he imposed a two-year moratorium on forest-clearing concessions under a $1 billion agreement with the Norwegian government. The money is meant to support a UN programme to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. On May 16th Mr Yudhoyono once again showed his environmental mettle: despite intense pressure from commercial interests, he signed a decree extending the moratorium for two more years.

This is good news for Indonesia’s forests, home to a dizzying diversity of wildlife, from endangered orangutans and rhinos to a Rafflesia that produces the largest flower on earth (1 metre, or three feet, wide). It is also a fillip for global efforts to combat climate change. According to a 2007 study by the World Bank, Indonesia is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases after America and China, mostly because of the destruction of forests and peatlands.

The moratorium excludes concessions leased before May 2011 and does not protect secondary forest. But Frances Seymour, a former head of the Centre for International Forestry Research now at the Packard Foundation in Washington, DC, says that the extension is important because it also identifies threatened peatlands for preservation. Indonesia’s peatlands are a vital habitat, partly because they are huge absorbers of carbon from the atmosphere, just like forests. The forestry minister, Zulkifli Hasan, claims the moratorium has slowed the pace of deforestation to 450 hectares (1,100 acres) a year, down from an annual 3.5m hectares in the late 1990s and early 2000s. That represents a very large cut in the carbon that would otherwise have been released into the Earth’s atmosphere.

Some of the biggest logging and plantation firms are starting to take their environmental responsibilities seriously, too. In February Asia Pulp and Paper, a subsidiary of the Sinar Mas Group, announced an end to all natural-forest clearance—a victory for Greenpeace and other environmental campaigners that had organised international boycotts of its products. Now the firm has opened its concessions to the Forest Trust, an environmental group, to ensure that future plantation development does not take place in forests, including forested peatlands. Its announcement followed a similar commitment in 2011 by Golden Agri-Resources, Sinar Mas’s palm-oil subsidiary.

Some of the old problems still bedevil Indonesia’s efforts to combat climate change. Environmental governance remains weak, the result of a decentralised government and conflicting laws and regulations. The president’s own task-force on climate change often fails to impose its will on ministries determined to defend their fiefs.

The forestry ministry is widely seen as corrupt, even by Indonesian standards, and officials have been caught selling permits to exploit forested areas. National development schemes, such as Mr Yudhoyono’s “master plan” to turn the country into one of the world’s ten biggest economies by 2025, do not always take account of the environmental impact. His government has yet to finalise a reference map of the country’s forests on which everyone can agree. Meanwhile, convincing local leaders of the case for preserving their forests remains a challenge.

The transparency introduced since Indonesia signed the original letter of intent with the Norwegians in 2010 has transformed the conservation debate. A constitutional court ruling on May 16th, for example, allows indigenous people to exercise their traditional rights over a forest. Mr Yudhoyono deserves credit for helping this freer debate to take place.

Indonesia’s forests: Logging the good news,Economist, May 25, 2013, at 40