ES&T
VIEWS
Getting to the Roots of Forest Loss LESSONS FROM INDONESIA BY
CHARLES
V. B A R B E R
W
hy are tropical forests— home to more than half the Earth's species and millions of indigenous people—still vanishing at the rate of at least 15 million hectares a year, despite a spate of official responses ranging from the Tropical Forestry Action Plan of the 1980s to the Forest Principles adopted at last year's Earth Summit? Why, in temperate zones with the lion's share of financial and technical resources, are forests increasingly threatened by airborne pollutants, biodiversity loss, and ill-judged land use schemes? Studies are conducted, meetings are held, and various policies and plans are proposed, but the world's forests continue to decline. Stemming this decline will require national policy changes because, as the Earth Summit made abundantly clear, governments view forests as sovereign resources and will resist international solutions that might erode sovereignty. We recently examined how forest policy might be reformed in two countries—Indonesia and the United States—which were chosen to reflect the emerging scientific and political consensus that forests everywhere are in trouble and that the North can no longer preach about tropical deforestation while
32 A Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 28, No. 1, 1994
- MAfu
AND NELS
C.
JOHNSON
......
ignoring its own threatened forests. In "Breaking the Logjam: Obstacles to Forest Policy Reform in Indonesia and the United States," a forthcoming research report of the World Resources Institute, we conclude that both nations must confront the legal, economic, and political relationships and institutions that lie at the root of forest decline. The forces that stymie attempts to reform forest policies—and the structural issues facing these two quite different countries—are not really so different. Three sets of issues are key to making forest management and use more sustainable: forest property rights regimes, the distribution of costs and benefits, and the nature of the political process for determining forest policies. Although we focus here on Indonesia, the need to address these issues is just as pressing in the United States and, we suspect, in most other countries. Like many countries, Indonesia is encumbered with forestry policies and practices established in an earlier era, and as a result is increasingly out of step with evolving perceptions of forests' true worth. For decades, forests were seen mainly as a source of timber and, once cleared, as an agricultural frontier. Only recently have forests' roles as
a home for indigenous peoples, a reservoir of biodiversity, and a vital part of the global carbon cycle and regional hydrological systems been w i d e l y — a n d officially—recognized. These values are harder to quantify than the basic commodity values that continue to drive forest policy and management, but a glance at Indonesia's tenurial regimes, division of costs and benefits, and forest policy-making processes can shed light on why reform is so difficult—and so necessary. "Forest tenure" is basically a bundle of rights to occupy or use forests under a particular system of law and authority, usually linked (at least formally] to duties, such as the duty of logging concessionaires to replant. Existing tenurial regimes impede forest policy reform in many ways. In Indonesia, where the Forestry Ministry holds exclusive jurisdiction over some three-quarters of the country's terrain, traditional systems of communal forest property rights have been replaced by timber concessions, development schemes, and official conservation areas that grant rights to a few actors and deprive all others— such as people living in or near forests—of a stake in the forest, thus removing incentives for stewardship. Insecure property rights have cre-
0013-936X/94/0927-32A$04.50/0 © 1993 American Chemical Society
Logs from state-run teak plantation,
ated a situation in which unsustainable commercial "mining" of the forest for its timber predominates. Most timber concessionaires have not adhered to the duties correspondent to their forest property right agreements, such as the duty to replant and to minimize collateral damage, and sporadic government monitoring and enforcement has been ineffective in curbing such abuses. Rights and responsibilities are thus out of balance and, in practice, concessionaires' de facto duties have dwindled to paying timber royalties that many analysts agree are far too low, despite recent increases. Much of this revenue is channeled into industrial timber plantations—no replacement for healthy natural forest in either ecological or economic terms, but rather another gold mine for forestry industry operators. Conflicts over forest property rights between local communities and outsiders have on occasion flared into violence, an ominous trend that appears to be increasing.
Java Island
A skewed distribution of costs and benefits also works against forest policy reform, because those who have reaped the benefits of forest exploitation have not paid the attendant costs. The sheer size and profitability of the forest products industry created by policy interventions in the 1980s have made it a powerful political force against policy change, depending as it does on cheap timber supplies. In Indonesia, the uncounted costs of logging such as erosion of the resource base, loss of biodiversity, and degradation of water supplies and systems have been visited on forest-dependent communities, the public treasury that must pay for erosion control a n d o t h e r lost ecological functions, and the citizenry at large, who are rapidly losing the many benefits of the country's great biological diversity. Yet, policy makers consistently undervalue the worth of intact forests and overestimate the net benefits from forest exploitation, a two-edged misvaluation that has led to underinvesting in forest
conservation and management. In Indonesia, as in most other countries, the nature of the forest policy-making process itself is the most fundamental obstacle to reform. Attempts at reform are bedeviled by a complex and incoherent bureaucratic forest management system, a bewildering and sometimes contradictory jungle of laws and regulations, top-down political debate that shuts out many stakeholders, and a jurisdictional and intellectual "sectoralism" inimical to an integrated view of economic activity in and outside of forest areas. Some policy makers in Indonesia are taking a second look at these structural impediments and, through some innovative pilot projects, are experimenting with community forest management, independent monitoring of logging concession performance, and other new approaches. Recent policy statements have also indicated a more accommodating attitude toward the customary land rights that cover millions of hectares in the for-
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 28, No. 1, 1994
33 A
est. By taking the following steps, Indonesia could build on these nascent changes and address the structural deficiencies in its forest policy-making process. • Give high-level political recognition to the legitimacy of participation by all the affected actors and interests. Government must a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t it is n o t a n d should not be the sole arbiter of forest policy, but s h o u l d e n s u r e that local communities and nongovernmental organizations have a say in policy decisions. • Increase public access to information relevant to forest policy decision making. At present, informat i o n is r o u t i n e l y w i t h h e l d from communities most directly affected by policy decisions. Even government officials in such other sectors as agriculture have little access to the process, and local officials are often i n s t r u c t e d rather t h a n consulted about forestry activities in their areas. • Initiate pilot efforts to m a n a g e forests at a regional scale that integrates different sectors and takes account of the social impacts of forest policies. Given that m a n y millions of people live on lands controlled by the Forestry Ministry a n d that
the value of forests goes far beyond timber, the current sectoralist approach is inadequate for managing the nation's forest heritage into the 21st century. • Remove obstacles to the empowerment and participation of disenfranchised groups with a stake in forest policy and build the capacity of t h e s e g r o u p s to p a r t i c i p a t e . In practice, this w o u l d mean more recognition of traditional land rights a n d l o o s e n i n g restrictions on the freedom to form organizations, hold meetings, speak out to the news media, a n d m a k e contact w i t h likem i n d e d g r o u p s a r o u n d the c o u n try—essential to designing effective policies w i t h broad-based support. Indonesia is not alone in needing to revise forest policies and the policy-making process itself if it is to manage forests sustainably in the 21st century. Anyone w h o has followed the forest policy debate in the U.S. Pacific Northwest can see parallels. Both countries need to clean u p their back yards, and their governments must accept that the time is past w h e n narrowly framed "forestry sector solutions" devised unilaterally b y g o v e r n m e n t agencies will improve the outlook for their forests.
Charles V. Barber is a senior associate in the Biological Resources and Institutions program at the World Resources Institute (Washington, DC). He holds a f.D. degree, an M.A. in Asian Studies, and a Ph.D. in jurisprudence and social policy from the University of California, Berkeley. He has been a consultant in Indonesia for the World Bank, the Ford Foundation, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and others.
Nels C. Johnson is an associate in the same program at the World Resources Institute and holds an M.S. degree from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. He was previously a research associate at the International Institute for Environment and Development/North America and for the U.S. Forest Service. With Charles Barber (and Emmy Hafild) he wrote "Breaking the Logjam: Obstacles to Forest Policy Reform in Indonesia and the United States," a forthcoming WRI research report.
For Those Involved in the Vital Field of Surface and Colloid Chemistry
Langmuir The ACS Journal of
Surfaces and Colloids
Each month, Langmuir subscribers receive broad coverage that brings together research from all aspects of the field: ultra-high vacuum surface chemistry and spectroscopy, heterogeneous catalysis, and all aspects of interface chemistry involving fluids, and disperse systems. Langmuir p u b l i s h e s p e e r - r e v i e w e d r e s e a r c h in: * "Wet" Surface C h e m i s t r y * "UHV" Surface C h e m i s t r y * D i s p e r s e Systems * E l e c t r o c h e m i s t r y * Surface Structure; t u n n e l i n g e l e c t r o n m i c r o s c o p y EDITOR William A. Steele, The Pennsylvania State University ASSOCIATE EDITORS A. Bradshaw, Max Planck Institute, Germany R.L. Rowell, University of Massachusetts J.T. Yates, Jr., University of Pittsburgh
34 A
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 28, No. 1, 1994
1 9 9 3 Rates U.S. Canada & Mexico Europe" All O t h e r Countries'*
ACS Members* N o n m e m b e r s 1 year 2 years 1 year $122 $ 68 $715 $164 $ 89 $736 $218 $116 $763 $244 $129 $776
* Member rate is for personal use only. " Air service included.
ISSN 0745-7463
For more information or to subscribe, write: American Chemical Society Member and Subscriber Services P.O. Box 3337 Columbus, OH 43210
In a hurry? Call Toll Free (800)333-9511 (within the U.S.), o r (614)447-3776 (outside the U.S.), o r Fax your order to ( 6 1 4 ) 4 4 7 - 3 6 7 1 .
