Jonathan Wootliff Jakarta Post 29 Jun 10;
It’s ironical that the United States President’s postponed visit to Indonesia — as a result of the grotesque oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico — has delayed the signing of important environmental protection agreements.
Norway’s recent commitment to give Indonesia a billion dollars in return for introducing a moratorium on new forestry concessions, raised people’s expectations a similar deal would be forged between Presidents Barack Obama and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono during their discussions in Jakarta scheduled for last month.
Indonesia’s unenviable ranking as the world’s fourth largest greenhouse gas emitter is mainly a result of the poor state of the country’s forests which urgently require improved management.
Funds are badly needed if the government is to have any chance of tackling illegal logging, uncontrolled land clearance, fires and other threats to Indonesia’s rainforests.
Dramatic images of the millions of barrels of spewing crude from BP’s failed Macondo oil installation is certainly a good reason for President Obama to stay at home. The American people rightly demand their government ensures that everything is done to resolve this terrible crisis.
When catastrophe strikes, we want our leaders to act with decisiveness. However unrealistic, we expect government to come to the rescue with an immediate fix.
Unfortunately for the people and wildlife of the states of Louisiana, Alabama and Florida, even the world’s most powerful man is unable to stop the relentless of flow of oil.
Sadly, human-induced environmental disasters are not new. And, in spite of the hideous manifestations of the BP blowout, which occurred just two days before Earth Day, this is not the worst man-made calamity to have beset our fragile planet.
Bhopal and Chernobyl provide just two dreadful examples of the unthinkable impacts of industrial accidents. A thousand five hundred innocent lives were lost in 1984 when a US-owned factory in India leaked deadly chemicals into the atmosphere, and just two years later explosions at a Ukrainian nuclear power plant resulted in the deaths of more than 40,000 people.
In 1997, raging fires in Indonesia pumped caustic smoke into the air that enveloped much of South East Asia, reaching as far north as southern Thailand and the Philippines, with Malaysia and Singapore also badly affected.
An estimated area of 51,100-square kilometers was completely devastated. The lives and health of 70 million Indonesians were jeopardized and species already endangered, such as orangutans, rhinos, and tigers, were pushed closer to extinction.
These were among the worst blazes the world had ever seen and attracted widespread attention from news media, environmental organizations, and governments.
For over three months, dense, choking haze billowed from Indonesia’s forests. The international concern generated by the fires and haze brought massive global assistance, but little could be done to extinguish such overwhelming fire.
Forestry experts attributed negligence to the cause of Indonesia’s 1997 Armageddon, which cost an estimated US$4.5 billion.
They were left in no doubt that had the forests been properly managed with weak enforcement of environmental laws blamed for unbridled forest conversion, the catastrophe would have been avoided.
Attention was also drawn to the immense human and environmental costs borne by Indonesia and its neighbors, which came on top of economic hardship already being suffered because of the prevailing Asian financial crisis.
Environmental organizations concerned with Indonesia’s forests fear that memories are short and the events of more than a decade ago could quite easily reoccur. WHALI, Greenpeace and the Worldwide Fund for Nature are just three of many such groups highlighting a further deterioration of the state of the nation’s forests which has significantly increased the fire hazard.
They say that it is only a matter of time before the forests, made combustible because of unfettered conversion, will catch fire again, and this time on a far more devastating scale.
In spite of popular cries from ordinary American people for government to plug the oil-billowing hole on the more-than-a-kilometer-deep seabed in the Gulf of Mexico, in reality it is only the private sector that has the necessary wherewithal and expertise.
Arguably, we expect too much of government. It is often companies that have far more resources and skills to fix, but perhaps more importantly to avert such environmental calamities.
Indonesian oil palm as well as pulp and paper companies have a clear business interest in preventing fire.
Some of the major forestry operators claim to deploy sustainable practices that actively help to protect the forests.
While government is all-too-often impotent when it comes to conservation, large commercial players say that they provide the only feasible solutions to prevent the release of carbon dioxide and other climate-changing gases.
These companies state that unmanaged forests only accelerate the degradation and risk of fire, citing their on-the-round management techniques as key to curbing such destructive behavior as illegal logging and poor land conversion practices commonly undertaken by local people.
Savvy forestry businesses are coming out in support of effective and constructive regulation, target setting and guidance on acceptable operating practices.
They believe the UN’s program for Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Rainforest Degradation (REDD) can help to improve the state of Indonesia’s forests. And they welcome a deal between the Presidents of Indonesia and the US to help this happen.
In spite of the tensions between environmental organizations and the forestry industry, there is growing recognition that Indonesia needs a strong private sector to help overcome the massive challenges and ensure a sustainable future for one of the country’s most critical natural resources.
There is much room for improvement from commercial players in Indonesia’s forests.
But they can provide viable remedies. Business has the money and manpower to support the government’s ambitions to protect the forests from out-of-control destruction.
Companies can provide community development programs to provide good, alternative livelihoods to otherwise-illegal loggers.
Companies can provide aerial equipment to seek out hotspots and ensure rapid prevention resources to stamp out forest fires; and can provide education to farmers to dissuade them from slash and burn practices.
Companies can work with government to identify only areas with no important environmental values for commercial development; and can actively protect areas found to be of so-called High Conservation Values for ongoing conservation.
Companies have a clear business case for doing all of this.
Environmental advocacy and activist groups need to be working more closely with the private sector.
With more collaboration and less confrontation, there is surely an increased chance of securing the future of Indonesia’s forests. And government must play an active role in facilitating productive partnerships between all forest stakeholders
This country must learn from its environmental history.
The ravaging fires of the late nineties were Indonesia’s Deep Water Horizon.
Without increased effort to protect the nation’s forests, Indonesia could face an environmental catastrophe that would make the events in the Gulf of Mexico look like a spit in the ocean.
Jonathan Wootliff leads the Corporate Accountability practice at the consulting firm, Reputation Partners. He specializes in sustainable development and in building productive relationships between companies and NGOs. He can be contacted at jonathan@reputationpartners.com.
