Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

Clearing Indonesia: is there hope for the world’s biggest logger?

What comes to mind when you think of Indonesia? For biologists like myself, Australia’s northern neighbour provokes visions of ancient rainforests being razed by slash-and-burn farmers, and endangered…

It’s a bleak picture, but there’s hope on the horizon. Bill Laurance

What comes to mind when you think of Indonesia?

For biologists like myself, Australia’s northern neighbour provokes visions of ancient rainforests being razed by slash-and-burn farmers, and endangered tigers and orangutans fleeing from growling bulldozers.

This reality is true, but there is also hope on the horizon.

Indonesia is a vast, sprawling nation, spanning some 17,000 islands. Among these are Java, Sumatra, half of New Guinea and much of Borneo.

Some of the planet’s most biologically-rich and most endangered real estate is found on this archipelago.

Today, Indonesia is losing around 1.1 million hectares of forest annually. That’s an area a third the size of Belgium, bigger than Australia’s Wet Tropics World Heritage Area.

With forest loss now slowing in Brazil, Indonesia has the dubious distinction of being the world’s deforestation “leader”. No nation is destroying its forests faster.

In Sumatra, where I visited recently, the world’s biggest paper-pulp corporations are chopping down hundreds of thousands of hectares of native rainforest to make paper and cardboard.

Some of these corporations also fund aggressive lobbyists, such as World Growth in Washington DC, to combat their critics and dissuade major retail chains from dropping their products.

In addition to rapid deforestation, large expanses of Indonesia’s forests are being selectively logged, with bulldozers used to extract the biggest trees from the forest. Much of this is illegal — the timber is effectively stolen and there are no environmental controls over the cutting operations.

Indonesia leads the world in deforestation. AAP

Aside from having serious environmental impacts, illegal logging is losing the Indonesian government up to $4 billion in timber royalties every year.

This all sounds pretty bad — but there are glimmers of light behind the storm-clouds.

The best news is that in 2010, Indonesia and Norway hammered out a billion-dollar deal to help save Indonesia’s forests and reduce atmospheric carbon emissions.

This is important because the destruction of tropical forests globally spews almost 5 billion metric tonnes of CO₂ into the atmosphere every year. That’s more than every car, truck, train, boat and airplane on earth combined.

Indonesia is the world’s third-largest producer of greenhouse gases (behind China and the US), with 85% of its emissions coming from forest destruction and degradation.

The funds from Norway are being used to enact a two-year moratorium on granting new licenses for clearing or logging of native forests and carbon-rich peatlands.

Some of these funds are also being used to establish a taskforce to zone and monitor Indonesia’s forests, and to introduce desperately-needed bureaucratic reforms. These are necessary so the Norway funds can be distributed equitably to different levels of the Indonesian government and people.

Doing all of this is a tall order, and there are still many hurdles in the way.

Forests are being replaced by palm oil plantions. Bill Laurance

For starters, a vast expanse of selectively logged forest in Indonesia — around 35 million hectares; an area the size of Germany — is being left out of the Norway deal. Even though these forests retain much of their biodiversity and carbon storage, Indonesia says they aren’t “natural”, and hence are being excluded. These forests might be cleared or re-logged at any time.

In addition, in the days just before the Norway deal was to be implemented, there was a landslide of new clearing and logging licenses granted. These totalled around 3 million hectares.

That means there is plenty of forest that can be exploited in the next two years, at which point the moratorium will have ended.

It also appears that many forests protected under the Norway deal are in steep or remote areas that are relatively safe from loggers, farmers and forest-pulpers. The most endangered forests — those remaining in the flatter lowlands, outside of national parks — are mostly excluded from protection.

To some people, this sounds a lot like business as usual in Indonesia. But it’s too soon to give up on the Norway deal.

If nothing else, the Norway deal has helped encourage Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to take a more pro-forest perspective.

Although under enormous pressure from industrial timber, oil palm and pulpwood interests in Indonesia, the president is urging reform at many levels.

Deforestation is a major threat to the endangered Sumatran tiger. Kevin1234

He is pushing hard to fight the scourge of illegal logging, and is sticking by a commitment to slash the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.

In his remaining three years in office, President Yudhoyono has committed to seeing the Norway deal succeed while also pressing ahead with rapid economic development — a vital priority in a populous and growing country where standards of living are often perilously low.

It is a difficult balancing act, and one that might yet fail.

One should bear in mind, however, that there might be a lot more carbon funds available in the coming years. Australia has already contributed over $200 million to help slow Indonesian deforestation and, with the Gillard government’s new carbon tax about to be enacted, there might even be more Aussie funding to come.

Add to this the potential for billions of dollars in additional carbon funding from Europe, the US and other countries, and suddenly the prospects for forest conservation in Indonesia don’t look quite so bleak.

If Indonesia can establish itself as a reliable partner and forest protector, it stands to reap some real economic benefits.

And it’d be brilliant to see Indonesia getting paid for conserving its forests, rather than just for cutting them down.

Join the conversation

8 Comments sorted by

  1. Phillip Lawrence

    PhD Scholar at University of Sydney

    This is an excellent description of the issues in Indonesia. However, like many commentary's on Indonesian forestry problem this overview fails to mention in detail that in addition to trees, tigers etc there is also the world's third largest developing world population of 238 million people. We in Australian are struggling to come to terms with dealing with 35 million by 2050 yet Indonesia is projected to have a population of 300 million by that date. In addition with rising sea levels it is…

    Read more
    1. Byron Smith
      Byron Smith is a Friend of The Conversation.

      PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh

      In reply to Phillip Lawrence

      I realise I am months late on this thread, but I am curious as to the source of your claim that Indonesia might lose up to 20% of its land surface to sea level rise by 2050.

      report
    2. daelv

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Phillip Lawrence

      All this travesty and no one advocates for Hemp production. Highest per acre for fiber and protein/oil. Naturally antimicrobic, fastest, easiest growing resource on the planet. Let's roll. (no pun intended)

      report
  2. Phillip Lawrence

    PhD Scholar at University of Sydney

    Byron,

    Thanks for the question, yes a bit of delay, but better late than never.

    There has been little research done specifically on Indonesia, which is why I said "likely that as much as 20%". There are many academic papers on coastal land loss due to raising sea levels. Perhaps ones that focus on the Asian region are a good start. Have a read of the following good papers:
    1. Global coastal hazards from future sealevel rise, Vivien Gornitz in
    Global and Planetary Change Vol 3, issues…

    Read more
    1. Byron Smith
      Byron Smith is a Friend of The Conversation.

      PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh

      In reply to Phillip Lawrence

      Thanks for these references, I'll take a look.

      Can I also ask what amount of SLR are you assuming/expecting by 2050? In my understanding, the present range of expected rise by 2100 is between something like 50-200 cm (with James Hansen being an outlier in arguing for up to 500cm), with rises likely accelerating each decade and so most of the rise coming later in the century. Thus, by 2050, we would see (considerably) less than 4/9ths of 50-200, which would be less than 22-88 cm. The upper end of this would already be very problematic, even catastrophic in many areas. But would it be 20% of Indonesian land mass lost? And by "lost", do you mean "subject to increased risk of flooding under storm surges + high tide" or "no longer habitable due to frequent flooding" or "permanently underwater"?

      report
    2. Byron Smith
      Byron Smith is a Friend of The Conversation.

      PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh

      In reply to Byron Smith

      PS I'm not highly familiar with Indonesian geography and perhaps my caricatured image of a somewhat mountainous (volcanic) island chain is misleading me into thinking that Indonesia is less vulnerable to SLR than many other places.

      report
  3. Phillip Lawrence

    PhD Scholar at University of Sydney

    Byron,

    I think there is a very wide range of predictions in regard to SLR. However, the major concern as outlined in papers on the topic is the impact of tidal surge which renders land effectively useless for agriculture. You are probably right that the most SLR will occur in the second half, so if that is correct and the prediction Indonesia could lose 20% of its land mass is going to occur 20 years later I don't think it adds any significant comfort to the issue.

    I travel to Indonesia a…

    Read more
    1. Byron Smith
      Byron Smith is a Friend of The Conversation.

      PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh

      In reply to Phillip Lawrence

      Thanks - that's helpful. After posting my previous comment, I went and looked up the situation in Jakarta and noted how much of the city is indeed quite low-lying. Despite doing quite a bit of reading on this topic, I hadn't ever heard it mentioned as one of the major cities with serious SLR issues, but it certainly seems to be.

      report