Review and Outlook, The Jakarta Post, December 22, 2011

The climate talks in Durban have just ended. The meeting not only hosted the 17th Conference of Parties (CoP-17) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change but also the 7th Session of the Conference of Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties (CMP-7) to the Kyoto Protocol.

After two weeks of negotiations, the delegations came up with a resolution called the Durban Platform. The platform orders the establishment of an Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action. This working group will be mandated to develop a legal instrument, which will be applicable to all parties. The “new” protocol, or legally binding agreement, is expected to be ready by 2015 and to be effective by 2020.

The Kyoto Protocol seems no longer feasible since the biggest polluters, namely the US and China, keep themselves away from legally binding agreements until the end of next year. Canada, one of the supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, just pulled out of the protocol’s commitments. The establishment of the Ad Hoc Working Group may benefit major polluters to delay their commitments in cutting their emissions; however, it may result in a more agreeable legally binding instrument.

Negotiations on climate change still have a long way to go. The Durban Platform may not be so historic. Nevertheless, there are still positive signs. At the beginning, there had been no expectation that the Durban conference would result in a new climate pact. This climate conference was also overshadowed by the economic crises faced by several European countries.

The other important result from the Durban conference was the initiation of the Green Climate Fund (GCF). The fund is designed to help developing countries mitigate, and adapt to, the possible impacts of climate change. This scheme could end up providing US$100 billion-a-year funding. The main challenge from the scheme, however, is how to prevent the GCF from becoming a negotiating tool for rich countries to buy off support from poorer nations.

Indonesia, like many other developing countries, faces an increasing challenge with climate change. Climate-linked agricultural problems, lack of coastal disaster management and the increase of carbon emissions due to deforestation are the prime challenges for this country that need to be addressed. With regards to deforestation, Indonesia is an avid supporter of the reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation plus (REDD+) scheme. During the Durban conference, no specific talks were held on the subject, although REDD+ financing is included in the GCF.

According to its mandate, the establishment of a governing body for the GCF is expected to be ready by mid-2012. It may well need another year until the required funding and the mechanisms for the GCF are available. Therefore, to guarantee a significant contribution from Indonesia toward the establishment of the GCF and climate change mitigation and adaptation, RI’s REDD+ should be hailed as a success story.

The success of Indonesia’s REDD+ projects may attract more developed nations to support the green scheme. However, there are still many things that have to be done to ensure success. In mid-2011, as part of the REDD+ scheme, a presidential instruction was issued ordering a two-year suspension on new permits to convert primary forests and peatland. However, the debate about the effectiveness of the forest conversion moratorium is still raging. Many of the parties involved do not fully believe that they will benefit from the temporary suspension policy.

Conservationists raised a concern about the exclusion of degraded secondary forests in the temporary ban. For them, the exclusion seems to be an open invitation to exploit secondary forests. The palm oil association, on the other hand, also expressed their opposition to the moratorium since it includes peatland. It is believed that a suspension on converting peatland will hold back the development of a promising “golden era” of oil palm. The challenge for the government is to prove that the temporary suspension really reduces the rate of deforestation.

As the temporary ban to convert primary forests and peatland is part of the RI-Norway REDD partnership, the other important issue for the Indonesian REDD+ program is the right to claim carbon emissions. If we refer to the Letter of Intent (LoI) in 2010 between the two countries, there was no clear point on this issue. This uncertainty could support a cynical view that the green scheme is only an exit strategy for developed countries to hoodwink developing nations.

The possibility that the REDD+ program will neglect the indigenous rights of traditional communities, which live in the forests, is another important element that needs to be addressed. The government has been given a mandate to serve their own people, not foreign interests. Therefore, the acknowledgement of indigenous people’s rights must be included as a key element if the REDD+ program is to be successful.

Ensuring the success of the REDD+ program should become one of the main points of attention for the government in its climate change programs in 2012. Our contribution through the green scheme may not only be significant for climate change mitigation, but also for conserving our remaining tropical forests. This will in fact provide us with further benefits of preserving our biodiversity and genetic pools.

The government, nevertheless, needs to rethink its willingness to fully embrace market and carbon-offset mechanisms to finance REDD+ projects. Naturally, the projects need large amounts of funding; however, they could easily turn into a new type of “green-washing”. Developed nations or private industries may need flexibility to fulfill their emission-reduction targets, but if they only shift their carbon responsibilities to developing nations, the scheme will not work. They won’t have kept their side of the bargain, namely to solely invest in green schemes. The GCF must be in one package with the new legally binding agreement to cut carbon-emission levels. Otherwise, our shared tasks and responsibilities to save the earth will remain a dream.

We believe that the earth has limits in supporting human life but the process toward the end might be able to be slowed down. Abdülhamid Çakmut, a Turkish Sufi master, once said, “We take care of our bodies to live a longer life. We should do the same for the world. If we cherish it, make it last as long as possible; we can postpone the judgment day.” In short, every nation must put more effort into preserving our shared habitat.

The writer is an ecologist at the University of Bengkulu and is an Australian Leadership Awards fellow.

The Jakarta Post, September 22, 2011  The Brunei Times, September 23, 2011

Forest fires and haze have become an annual problem for Indonesia. During the dry season, forest fires always occur, especially in Sumatra and Kalimantan. Haze covers the sky; causes problems for the transportation sector; reduces economic activities; and stimulates health problems.

The problem has not only become a domestic affair but also affects Indonesia’s reputation in other countries. Singapore and Malaysia are two of the most adversely affected foreign countries due to the smog generated from the forest fires. This is called negative externalities by economists. We might still remember how the Malaysian government sent hundreds of fire squads, called “Bomba”, to help Indonesia to fight forest fires in 1997. The forest fire tragedy that year was one of the worst forest fires in Indonesian history, in which the smog even reached Thailand and the Philippines.

The haze generated from this year’s forest fires is predicted to have negative effects on the SEA Games in South Sumatra, which will be held in November (The Jakarta Post, Sept. 10). This sporting event is not only under the spotlight due to corruption allegations in relation to the construction of the athletes’ complex, but is also dogged by environmental problems. This could produce negative images and a bad reputation for this country if the sports competition is disturbed by smog.

In the middle of the two-year forest-conversion moratorium program, forest fires are still a cause of deforestation. When it is burnt, vegetation, which in fact plays a role in balancing carbon in the atmosphere, contributes significantly to the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere. If the fires occur in peatlands, the quantity of carbon released is much higher than in other types of ecosystem.

Based on the pattern of forest fires in Indonesia, the intensity of fires is very much affected by the length of the dry season. When there is a long period of low rainfall, litter and vegetation become a perfect fuel for flames. The terrible 1997 forest fires, for example, occurred during a long dry season due to the El Niño cycle. With the possibility of prolonged dry seasons and climate change in the future, the threat of forest fires will also be more serious.

Fire is a friend and, at the same time, a foe for natural ecosystem-management. It can be utilized as a habitat-manipulation tool as well as a population-enhancement method. Controlled burning is applied to reduce the risk of uncontrolled fires in ecosystem management. In Indonesia, fire is employed in land preparation, which serves as a cheap and fast method of land clearing. However, the use of fire for agriculture has been blamed for forest fires.

Traditionally, “slash and burn” agriculture has been practiced by farmers in many places in Indonesia for generations. A study conducted in West Kalimantan showed that the application of slash and burn agriculture, in combination with land rotation, is ecologically sustainable and does not degrade soil conditions (Kleinmann et al. 1996). However, it requires that slash and burn techniques only involve a small number of farmers across relatively wide areas, so there is sufficient time for the ecosystem to recover. As agricultural practices tend to be more settled and agricultural areas are more limited, the application of slash and burn agriculture should be stopped because it is ecologically unfeasible.

The problem is that the use of fire as a land clearing method is also adopted by large plantation companies and forest-plantation management. The main reason is, of course, to reduce production costs. Nonetheless, with large areas being burned every year and low soil, air and vegetation moisture during the dry season, the application of fire for land clearing is likely to end up in uncontrolled fires. Unsurprisingly, from the total land affected by fires this year, more than 70 percent occurred in plantation fields.

The question is, “what has to be done to reduce the risk of annual forest fires?” It is certainly not an easy task, but effective measures have to be taken. The use of fire for land clearing which involves large areas, especially during the dry season, must be prohibited. Therefore, the establishment of more powerful legislation to serve as a legal foundation to tackle forest fires is needed. Existing legal instruments are not adequate to stop and punish companies or people who cause forest fires. Government Decree No. 41/2001, regarding action to control environmental destruction due to forest fires, does not have the teeth to penalize offenders. Furthermore, some aspects of this decree are linked to the 1997 Environmental Law, which has now been replaced by the new Environmental Law No. 32/2009.

The development of new technology provides more effective ways to anticipate and to reduce the risk of forest fires. Satellite imaging can quickly supply information on land and vegetation condition changes, which could provide real time information on forest-fire risk levels. It is more possible to detect the establishment of hot spots. Aerial photography can even provide legal evidence if companies intentionally burn forests. Preemptive actions to avoid massive forest fires could decrease the possibility of loss due to this disaster.

We can’t control the climate; hence, preventive measures, especially during the dry season, have to be taken. Cooperation between the ministry of forestry, agriculture and the legal system to tackle the problem must be improved. That’s if we consider forest fires to be a serious problem for this nation. Otherwise, we will see never-ending cycles of forest fires.

The writer is an ecologist at the University of Bengkulu.

The Jakarta Post, June 18, 2011

We have witnessed several tragedies in banking sector in Indonesia lately. Irzen Octa, the holder of credit card issued by a multinational banking company, died while discussing his credit card bill with debt collectors. Separately, Malinda Dee, a former Citibank employee, allegedly embezzled from her customers.

At the same time, our society has also been suffering from massive ecological calamities. Flash floods resulting from deforestation have become a never-ending story. Ecosystem catastrophes as a result of poor mining practices are commonplace. People in Sidoarjo just marked five years of misery caused by the Lapindo mud tragedy. There are clear signs that the balance of our natural ecosystem is in peril. The latest caterpillar population boom is also part of that indication. These are signs of significant disruptions to the natural processes.

Are these occurrences interconnected? There may not be a direct correlation. However, if we think about it, we will notice a similar paradigm supports both the banking sector tragedies and the ecosystem calamities.

The death of Octa reflected two things. First, when a person owes money they must pay for their current needs with future income. If the income is generated in the future, the debt can be paid. But if they fail to generate income, the result will be bad.

Second, we must beware of over consumption. Without strict regulations, and competition among banks to attract more customers, credit cards provide a perfect way to fuel a desire for consumption. Uncontrolled spending could be the consequence. The tale of Malinda Dee may supports this hypothesis. She allegedly embezzled to pay for a luxurious lifestyle that she allegedly could not afford on her salary.

Nature operates under a similar principle. Consuming natural resources means spending our savings. The best way to spend should follow the use of a debit card: we spend what we have. Unfortunately, the utilization of our precious natural resources in reality looks like the use of a credit card. With no long term perspective, utilization of natural wealth turns into over exploitation. We have to realize that all future savings that we currently consume must be covered by future profits.

Needless to say, the Earth is not an infinite resource. Natural resources will not last forever. When natural resources grow scarce it means that environmental carrying capacity is in danger. Consequently, our capacity to pay back our debt to nature is also diminishing. In the end, we all may suffer misfortune like a bankrupt credit card customer. When over exploitation has become the main philosophy of natural resource utilization, the natural system will no longer be sustainable.

Ecosystem tragedies, such as massive flash flooding, mining tragedies and population explosions, are a sign of mismanagement of the environment. The caterpillar population out-burst, for example, may not be due to a single factor, but it is a clear sign of a disruption in the ecosystem balance. The loss of the natural predators of caterpillars, monoculture agriculture and the migration of moths due to forest destruction show that there are some problems in ecosystem management.

If this is the case, we may say that there was past exploitation of the environment which produced debts that have to be paid now. If we do not pay these natural debts, ecosystem balance is at risk. With more changes in the ecosystem and climate, environmental tragedies may occur more frequently.

This series of ecological tragedies should become a wake-up call. We must be aware that environment’s carrying capacity has been exceeded. The absent of orientation to sustainably manage the ecosystem will result in an inability to pay back our future loans to nature.

The World Environment Day 2011 highlights the fact that nature has provided us with uncounted great services. We can continue utilizing those services if we spend them wisely and in an appropriate manner. The natural savings must be prepared so we will have some money in the “nature bank” to be spent in future. Just like an old man who plants a tree; it is not for himself, but to benefit another generation.

David Suzuki said that the ecosystem crisis would have a significant impact on humanity’s well-being. The law of nature is much more powerful than economic interests. One thing is important, he added, we have to be united as a species to respond to current ecological problems. The change has to begin with an individual with a full of imagination and belief to the generosity of nature.

The writer is an ecologist at the University of Bengkulu and an Australian Leadership Awards fellow.

The Jakarta Post, 30 April 2011  The Brunei Times, May 2, 2011

“All we have yet discovered is but a trifle in comparison with what lies hid in the great treasury of nature”, said Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, the father of microbiology. Van Leeuwenhoek discovered bacteria in 1676. More than three centuries later, there are still much that is unknown and undiscovered about bacteria.

What van Leeuwenhok said is also relevant to what has been happening in Indonesia. Caterpillar population explosions have occurred in many regions across the country after the first outbreak occurred in Probolinggo, East Java. There has been no single reason as to why the outbreaks have occured. The fact that the incidents involve more than one species of caterpillars is also interesting. There are many questions, such as why have only the numbers of caterpillars exploded and not the numbers of other insects that share the caterpillar’s habitat.

There have been many theories proposed to explain the caterpillar outburst. Damage to forest ecosystems from land clearing and natural disasters, for example, is believed to have contributed to the migration of moths from their natural ecosystem to urban and agricultural areas. On the other hand, the population of the caterpillar’s natural enemies, such as birds, has decreased significantly. The practice of monoculture farming also makes crops more vulnerable to pests and diseases. Climate change may have also contributed to the problem.

Among uncertainties of the outbreak causes, one thing is certain: not everything can be controlled by humans. As natural ecosystems deteriorate, disease or species outbreaks might happen anytime. The population explosion indicates that the ecological balance is in peril. The accumulation of a higher rate of human population growth and a decrease in the ecosystem’s capacity to support human lives has created ecological complexity.

Biodiversity is part of our life. The change in biodiversity will affect human lives, directly or indirectly. Humans are interacting, affecting and are affected by environmental processes.

Norman Myers identified 25 biodiversity “hotspots” in the world. Indonesia is one of them. These biodiversity hotspots only occupy 12 percent of the world’s terrestrial area, but are home to 44 percent of terrestrial plants and 35 percent of terrestrial vertebrates.

However, these biodiversity hotspots are challenged by a high rate of ecosystem exploitation. When overexploitation of an ecosystem occurs, a biodiversity crisis is the result. A biodiversity crisis means not only the loss of biodiversity, but also the uncontrolled expansion of unwanted species. If the population of a certain species erupts, it means that there is a problem in an ecosystem’s balance and processes.

The outbreak may not be totally negative. The caterpillar attacks might raise our awareness that we have done terrible things to our ecosystems and biodiversity. We hunt much wildlife, such as birds, which play a role as the natural enemies of pests.

Many agricultural practices do not consider environmental sustainability. The excessive use of chemicals destroys the habitat and kills beneficial organisms. Farming also tends to be more monocultural, which is not only making plants more vulnerable to diseases and pests, but also leaves no space for biodiversity to occupy the same habitat.

Another lesson from the caterpillar outbreak is in fact there are still small aspects of biodiversity that we have discovered. Andrew Beattie and Paul Ehrlich said that we are living on a little-known planet. Despite the belief that we have discovered most parts of the world, we actually just know about 10-20 percent of the species that share the world with us.

Therefore, what happens to our ecosystem provide a chance to study more about biodiversity. We can solve the problem, as well as improving our quality of life from biodiversity inspirations. The caterpillar outbreak might provide us insight as to what we might face under climate change. Studying biodiversity will also improve our understanding of the sources of food and medicine. As one a mega-biodiversity country, Indonesia actually could become a core region for biodiversity research.

The latest innovation by researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology proved the power of biodiversity inspiration. By mimicking photosynthesis in a leaf, they created artificial leaves. These artificial leaves, just like natural leaves, use sunlight to break water into hydrogen and oxygen. The process then creates electricity current in a separate fuel cell.

This is also the time to develop biodiversity-friendly agricultural practices. We need to rethink our use of chemicals in agricultural lands. We need agricultural practices that could contribute to the improvement of biodiversity, such as agroforestry or polyculture. Jean-Marc Thiollay, for example, found that traditional agroforestry in Sumatra has played a pivotal role in the conservation of rainforest birds.

The caterpillar outbreak has reminded us the important of biodiversity conservation. Components of biodiversity may provide answers for humanity’s problems in future. Biodiversity is our money in the bank. We have to spend it wisely for our current needs, so we still have some savings for our future lives.

The writer is an ecologist at the University of Bengkulu.

The Jakarta Post, April 23 2011

The intensity of natural disasters and weather anomalies across the globe seems to be increasing. We saw unusual winter in Europe which was caused by snow storm at the end of 2010. This event created massive chaos in the transportation sector across the continent.

The La Nina phenomenon in early 2011 had created more rain across the Pacific and the southern hemisphere. Flooding has been widespread from Brazil in South America to Australia. In Brazil, the recent floods claimed more than 500 casualties. Australia also experienced widespread flooding from the state of Queensland to Victoria. Brisbane suffered huge losses after the Brisbane River was filled by mega tons of rainwater. In Indonesia, flooding occurred in many places on all major islands, from Sumatra to Papua, killing many people.

Then we came the mega disaster in Japan when a powerful 9.0 magnitude earthquake, followed by a tsunami, struck the northern part of the country. Thousands of people were killed by the giant wave. We saw from the video footage how Sendai Prefecture was washed away by the massive water stream. That was not the end of the story, as Japanese people are shadowed by the possibility of nuclear disaster.

However, the world has been impressed by the positive reaction showed by Japanese people toward the disasters. Their attitude toward disaster has been magnificent. As described by Ika Inggas (The Jakarta Post, March 22), in the time of disasters, the Japanese people continued showing their discipline, solidarity and the spirit of ‘gambaru’, which means “do the best until the end.”

The Japanese have shown strong resilience in facing disasters. They have a great capacity to prepare themselves and to recover from the disasters with minimum help from external assistance. Japan has set a fine example of disaster preparedness, mitigation and recovery programs, especially from earthquakes and tsunamis. By observing the current situation and how people respond to natural disasters, the important thing is what we can learn from other experiences in dealing with disasters.

According to Siambabala Manyena (2006), there has been increasing attention paid to focusing on how disaster-affected communities prepare for and recover from disasters with minimal help from external assistance. Therefore, there is a need to highlight the importance of resilience rather than just vulnerability. But, where does the resilience come from?

Many believe that the Japanese character and mentality contribute significantly to their attitude toward natural disasters. However, I believe that most societies have their own strong mentality to face hardships and difficulties. Radar Panca Dahana (Kompas, March 23) asked a rhetorical question: “Are we as strong as Japanese people?” He then said we Indonesians have more than enough character and the mentality to be strong in facing calamities.

In terms of natural disasters, Kathleen Tierney and Michel Bruneau (2007) said that there were two important terms: disaster resistance and disaster resilience. Disaster resistance is the ability to provide pre-disaster mitigation measures, including structures, infrastructure elements and institutions that could minimize losses from a disaster. The next level is disaster resilience, which is more about “a concern for improving the capacity of physical and human systems to respond to and recover from extreme events.”

So, disaster resilience is actually not only about strong character or a certain mentality, but also the readiness and the preparedness to mitigate losses caused by disasters. As a country with frequent natural disasters, Japan has built massive mitigation programs. Buildings have to comply with earthquake mitigation structural standards. They also continue to educate their people about natural disasters. The combination of what the authorities have done to prepare themselves and a strong mentality toward dealing with disaster generate a resilient society.

The question of disaster resilience is actually not only relevant for less developed communities, but also developed nations. We may still remember the US authorities’ lack of preparation when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, when in fact, the activity of a hurricane is more predictable than an earthquake or a tsunami.

I’ve ironically been lucky enough to be directly affected by natural disasters in Australia. The last Category Five tropical cyclone Yasi, which struck north Queensland, was terrifying. My experience with tropical cyclones really showed that community resilience in the face of disaster is not just a matter of a mentality. “Queenslanders are tough,” said Queensland Premier Anna Bligh. However, the disaster mitigation and evacuation schemes provided by the government contributed significantly to easing the peoples’ feelings of uncertainty. People were kept informed about what was going to happen and they were directed to prepare for the worst scenario. The society is also continually educated about the natural disasters they may face in future.

Therefore, we can’t expect to build disaster resilient societies in our country without preparing the appropriate structures and infrastructure elements needed to face natural disasters. With an increase in the occurrence of disasters, our tasks are much more significant. Our lack of preparation will only create more pessimism and desperation. The authorities need to guide the people by taking appropriate actions and avoiding desperate reactions every time a disaster hits. Desperate reactions will only deteriorate a society’s strong mentality, which could then lead to communal pessimism.

We have to decide our own destiny by applying positive values and measurable actions to face natural calamities. As Mahatma Gandhi said, “keep my words positive, because my words become behaviors. Keep my behavior positive, because my behaviors become habits. Keep my habits positive, because my habits become values. Keep my values positive, because they become my destiny.”

The writer is an ecologist at the University of Bengkulu and an Australian Leadership Awards fellow.

The Jakarta Post, April 9, 2011  The Brunei Times, April 10, 2011

Amid news about a massive 9.0 Richter scale earthquake and a powerful tsunami that have hit Japan, there was little reporting about a flash flood that struck Pidie Regency in Aceh. Scores of people died, hundreds of homes were devastated and many residents were displaced (The Jakarta Post, March 14). Torrential rain around Halimon Mountain, a place where Hasan Tiro proclaimed the free Aceh movement in 1976, created an inland tsunami which washed away several villages in Tangse district.

When the governor of Aceh, Irwandi Yusuf, visited the location, he insisted that illegal logging was the main cause of the flooding. Illegal logging is truly a kind of forestry-related crime that has significant economic and ecological impacts. Thousands of hectares of forests have been damaged by this activity. As a result, environmental destruction has become worse and natural disasters such as flooding have become commonplace.

Aceh is repeatedly affected by flash flooding due to illegal logging. At the end of 2010, several areas in South Aceh were besieged by flooding. In 2006, this inland tsunami resulted in huge losses in Aceh Tamiang. Flash flooding due to deforestation is much scarier since logs are swept up by the water. Consequently, loss of life and properties is unavoidable.

Lowland areas are really in danger if forests in hilly areas are cleared. It is no wonder therefore that flash flooding has become a common phenomenon in Bukit Barisan Range in Sumatra. We also have not forgotten the catastrophic flooding in Wasior, Papua, due to similar circumstances as those in Pidie.

Illegal logging remains widespread and rampant in Indonesia. According to Luca Tacconi et al. (2003), it is possible that illegal logging is being carried out by legal forest companies. They may be illegally harvesting forests by abusing their legal concessions and forest management regulations and cutting forests outside of their concessions. Logging may even be occurring in protected areas. Aceh, home to the much of Sumatra’s rain forests, has been suffering massive forest destruction due to long-term forest concession exploitation.

However, illegal occupations by common people are also terrible. Some of the villagers are utilized by industries in order to get cheap wood. Others are cutting down protected and conservation areas for agriculture. The Pidie local government, for example, has been desperate to stop illegal logging by its people. In fact, a lot of illegally occupied forest areas were actually ecologically important for the ecosystem in Halimon Mountain.

The potential disasters that may happen due to illegal logging cannot be under estimated. In the last six months we have witnessed significant losses of human’s life because deforestation related flash flooding in Papua and Aceh. Will we let more casualties to occur in future?

Unfortunately, deforestation-related flooding frequently attracts less attention and is not properly addressed. In the case of the Pidie disaster, we have not heard about any response from the central government despite that the local government has said it is not able to provide all necessary funds to handle the disaster. In many cases, the handling of similar disasters, such as the one is Wasior, the only visible government response was a ceremonial visit.

Given the fact that deforestation and illegal logging rates are still high, it can be assumed that flash floods due to deforestation will continue to occur. The change in climate pattern will complicate the problem. The prolonged wet season with higher intensity of rain makes disasters to be possible to occur at any time all over the country.

Ironically, more often disasters do not prompt preventative measures. Even, natural disasters are often perceived as routine events. As one incident is usually followed by another and then forgotten, reaction to disasters has become banal, thus reducing our sense of the need to anticipate and to manage their effects. Contrarily, because disasters are common, we need institutions and social resilience to face them.

Alternative ways to anticipate more complicated problems regarding illegal logging and deforestation are also not well appreciated. A forest logging moratorium, which is hoped to be an effective way to reduce forest degradation, is just a dead concept. The plan to apply the forest logging moratorium, for example, as of January 2011 as part of the REDD+ (reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation) scheme has still not been implemented.

On the other hand, the lack of ecological literacy in our society and the need for land for agriculture has left community living around forest areas with no choice but to occupy forests. Local governments seem to be desperate to stop illegal occupation of forests. Regrettably, governmental programs to reduce such illegal settling, as well as improving community welfare, such as community forestry, are not well implemented. We understand the people’s need for land to sustain their lives. However, allowing illegal occupation and logging in flood prone areas does not save their lives; quite the opposite.

We need to seriously address illegal logging and occupation by companies as well as by the people by implementing proposed programs such as the logging moratorium and community forestry. We do not want the frequent events of natural disasters to create negligence and lack of awareness. The combination of state negligence in managing environmental resources and the society’s lacking awareness of ecological consequences will only produce more disasters in the future.

The writer is an ecologist at the University of Bengkulu and an Australian Leadership Awards fellow.

The Jakarta Post, Review and Outlook, December 20, 2010

Climate change has undeniably become one of the greatest global issues in decades. There is no such single issue that has brought so many countries to sit together to talk about the problem, even though from many different points of view and perspectives. Along the way, apprehensions about rising global temperatures, which initially were purely scientific, have now become more political (see Anthony Gidden, The Politics of Climate Change, 2009).

Early this December the climate change Conference of Parties (COP) 16 was undertaken in Cancun, Mexico. Although many are doubtful about the outcomes of the Cancun meeting, this COP is still an important milestone for dictating the future direction after the Protocol Kyoto ends in 2012.

Indonesia is also facing growing climate change challenges. For example, throughout 2010 we have been experiencing the real affects of climate variation. Unpredictable weather and a prolonged rainy season caused huge agricultural losses. Extreme weather also directly impacted the fishery sector. This weather anomaly is hypothesized to be linked with the very real and growing threats of climate change.

Global warming could potentially damage our economy. Agriculture in general is the backbone of the Indonesian economy, and consequently the devastation of this sector will significantly impact the nation’s economic capabilities for providing food security. Climate change is also believed to affect the health sector by causing conditions for certain tropical diseases to proliferate. As poverty reduction is one of Indonesia’s development focuses, global warming may complicate the severity of the problem.

Climate-linked agricultural problems have actually given a perfect simulation for Indonesia to prepare itself for the worst scenario. Authorities may prepare more appropriate plans if extreme weather continues in 2011. As the global warming problem is predicted to be much worse in the future, we desperately need a long-term plan for climate change adaptation. Vulnerable and important sectors, such as agriculture, have to be prioritized.

David Lobell et al. (Science, Vol. 319 2008) projected the impacts of climate change on food security in 2030. They predicted that the Southeast Asia region, including Indonesia, is among 12 regions which would be potentially vulnerable to food insecurity caused by global warming unless sufficient adaptation measures are taken.

According to this projection, insecure regions have similar fundamental characteristics: Lack of awareness of the possibilities of climate change impacts on food security and insufficient knowledge and understanding of the responses of food crops to climate variation. Consequently, essential policies and actions may not be taken.

Indonesia is actually not only among the nations most affected, but also significantly adds to global carbon emissions. Our total annual carbon emissions almost doubled within less than a decade, from just about 267 million metric tons in 2000 to 434 million metric tons in 2008. A large portion of these emissions come from the removal of flora, which serves as carbon stocks, from natural forest and the conversion of peatlands.

We believe that some land conversions are needed and unavoidable. We need land conversion to make a room for economic activities. However, a large portion of conversions are also illegal, unnecessary and poorly planned. This nation must have more controlled exploitation of natural resources, including forests. We need sustainable growth that could ensure long-term benefits and prosperity. Uncontrolled exploitation of natural resources will only lead to future suffering.

Therefore, our participation in nature-based solutions for climate mitigation and adaptation is the right pathway to follow. Indonesia’s active involvement in reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) is part of our shared responsibility to save our planet. The development of REDD to REDD-plus is a good sign of the changing paradigm on the plan itself. REDD-plus does not just view natural forests as carbon stock, but far more importantly, as natural ecosystem service resources. However, the development of nature-based solutions should not reduce developed nations’ responsibility to cut their emissions.

Tropical biodiversity itself is also vulnerable to climate change. There are many tropical species that live in a narrow habitat range. These species are especially vulnerable to temperature and habitat changes. On the other hand, species occupying extreme habitats have more capability to adapt. Thus, a plan such as REDD-plus not only gives us a chance to contribute to global warming mitigation, but also plays a significant role in conserving the tropical ecosystem itself.

In the World Development Report 2010 issued by the World Bank, there are several key issues needed to be addressed with regard to development and climate change. Those issues include the fact that economic growth alone is not equitable enough to reduce threats from climate change. The report also highlights that effective global climate management is needed. There is also a need to change behaviors and shift public opinion.

Indonesia needs to rethink its approach to development. Yes, we need development to provide more jobs and prosperity for the people. Nonetheless, we need to reconsider our manner of exploiting our natural resources, whether it has been aligned with a sustainable development approach or not. We need nature-based and climate-smart development policies.

Climate-smart policies, which means allowing growth to thrive with low-carbon emissions, could bring us more benefits in the future. As the main source of emissions in Indonesia is natural ecosystem degradation, the policy has to underline harmonization between growth and conservation of natural resources, particularly forests. Climate-smart policies would allow us to reduce our vulnerability to climate change, which would consequently enhance development. So, in 2011 we need to commit to building nature-based and climate-smart development. Surely it is time to share our burden of responsibility by acting now with measurable actions.

The writer is an ecologist at the University of Bengkulu and an Australian Leadership Awards fellow.

The Jakarta Post, November 2, 2010

Indonesia has become a land of tragedy. Just after the flood tragedy in Wasior, West Papua, an earthquake-triggered tsunami hit Mentawai Islands, West Sumatra. While we were still shocked by those disasters, Mount Merapi erupted. Hundreds of people have been killed in the recent calamities. Natural disasters have become a great challenge for Indonesians.

There are two impacts of disasters: Economically and psychologically. In terms of Indonesia’s economy, natural catastrophes damage property and stop economic activity, which consequently result in significant financial loss for the people. Furthermore, the series of natural disasters create more burden on the national budget to finance post-disaster rehabilitation. On a macro scale, the increase of natural disasters in this country directly multiplies the number of people living in poverty.

It is not only financially frightening; natural disasters are also psychologically horrifying. The shock due to natural calamities can create a very real terror. Earthquakes, for example, are terrifying because they are unpredictable, involving a large scale of area and associating with possibly another adversity: the tsunami. An earthquake is a tragedy, which implants uncertainty in the people’s minds. A study predicting the unfinished movement of the tectonic plate along the Ring of Fire adds to the horror.

There are two kinds of reactions that we frequently observe from the authority when disasters occur. If the cause of the disaster is a mixture between human factors and natural phenomena, the authority will blame the natural factor and deny its incompetency to minimize the human factor. With regards to the flood in Wasior, the government rejected the idea that deforestation had caused the flood, but rather blamed high rain-level intensity. It is understandable since if deforestation was the cause, the government would be criticized for its incompetency in preventing the cause of deforestation, such as illegal logging.

The recent flood saga in Jakarta is another example. Jakarta Governor Fauzi Bowo is never willing to admit that his administration’s failures to provide and improve the drainage system contribute to the constant floods in Jakarta. Rain is always to be condemned. Denying responsibility has become a main exit strategy for the authority to escape from criticisms.

When natural disasters, such as earthquakes, tsunamis and volcano eruptions, occur, the government frequently shows a kind of desperate reaction: That there is nothing that can be done to stop the disasters. This may not be totally wrong; however, there may be a lack of preparation in dealing with those natural crises.

What happened in Mentawai has shown us a real example of a lack of disaster management. The tsunami warning was canceled because there was no report of a potential tsunami in Mentawai Islands. In fact, the problem was that tsunami early detection warning systems were not established in Mentawai, one of the most vulnerable islands to tsunami. Consequently, hundreds of people were killed by the high waves that swept villages. We need to question the government’s commitment to provide disaster evacuation procedures and infrastructure. The long observation of Mount Merapi volcanic activity also has not resulted in a minimum number of casualties. There has to be a comprehensive evaluation on disaster management in this country.

As a nation, we have to raise more societal awareness of the fact we are living in a disaster-prone country. We are not only blessed by a natural resource rich land, but also a geologically unstable area and a number of volcanoes. Consequently, natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions may occur at any time. This condition is worsening since we are unable to protect our environment that may initiate human-induced disasters.

Therefore, the only choice we have is to prepare ourselves for the worst scenario and raise community awareness about the disasters. The state has to provide a reliable and appropriate disaster evacuation system and infrastructure. The government also needs to start listening to experts that have advised on potential disasters we face. It is sad to see the published studies that say the Mentawai plate may still move have not been followed by appropriate actions to build an early warning system in the island.

We have to seriously prepare this nation for the great threats of natural disasters. We are hoping that the government does not easily deny its responsibilities when disasters occur. Taking responsibility is absolutely not an easy thing; hence, denial is much easier to do. Denial is a self-defense mechanism, said Sigmund Freud. When unwanted things happen, denial is sometimes comfortable to commit, even though that will not solve the problem.

I believe that improving societal awareness on disaster management is not an easy task. Therefore, every component of this nation has to take shared but different responsibilities. The state has to be more serious in order to serve its citizens, which must be reflected by the government manners and actions. We citizens also have to contribute positively. Sadly some people commit cowardly acts such as destroying and stealing the tsunami early detection machine. If we do not take fundamental actions and responsibility, dealing with natural disasters will be more complicated in the future and we will be unable to prevent a huge loss of life.

The writer is an ecologist at the University of Bengkulu and an Australian Leadership Awards fellow.

The Jakarta Post, November 1, 2010

The 10th Conference of Parties (COP) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was held in Nagoya, Japan, from Oct. 18 to 29. Since the CBD was introduced in 1993, this convention is aimed at mainstreaming biodiversity conservation initiatives and sustainable use of biodiversity on a global scale. The CBD also intends to promote fair and equitable benefit-sharing of biological utilization, including genetic resources.

As a “mega-biodiversity” nation, Indonesia could become a key player in efforts to save global species. Indonesia could play a leading role in developing international policies that support conservation of tropical biological resources. Indonesia could also capitalize on expansion of international research collaborations to study biology and utilize natural products.

This strategic position, if well-played, may result in gigantic benefits for Indonesia. Remember, a large proportion of the plant and animal species that inhabit the Earth live in this tropical country. Successful conservation of biodiversity in Indonesia would make a significant contribution to combating the extinction of precious global species.

The richness of forest habitats and coral reef ecosystems in the tropics provides the world with incalculable biological capital. Unfortunately, most of this biological wealth has not been sufficiently studied, and as a result, there remains insufficient knowledge of their economic value. In addition to being an important part of the ecosystem, species diversity may serve as a source of income. The exploration, identification and utilization of biodiversity can lead to commercial benefits — presently referred to as “bio-prospecting”.

However, an inconvenient factor remains. Many commercial products, including medicines, are derived from traditional knowledge of tropical biodiversity, but are developed and commercially traded by giant companies based in developed countries. Ironically, there are no benefits for the people who traditionally have been developing and utilizing the same products. The great loss to countries that are naturally home to biological wealth has become one of the focuses of the current COP.

The ability to utilize species diversity for Indonesian interests must be improved. But at the same time, we are actually in a dilemmatic position. We contribute to the loss of tropical species. Inability to slow the rate of deforestation and prevent loss of coral reef habitats has been seen as the main cause of extinction of tropical species. With no real action, our diplomacy on biodiversity conservation will not be well-received in international forums.

The target to save biodiversity in Indonesia could be synergized with other programs. The negotiation on climate change mitigation, which includes preventing deforestation as an important part of the overall strategy, may become a good tool for saving tropical forest biodiversity. Therefore, Indonesia’s perspectives on REDD (reducing emission from deforestation and degradation) initiatives should be changed. This scheme should not be only perceived as a carbon trading mechanism that aims to reduce carbon emissions, but it has to include biodiversity protection as an integral component.

Indonesia is also actively involved in achieving the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). In terms of environmental sustainability, the objective of Indonesia’s MDGs is to synchronize state policies with sustainable development. Decreasing the rate of deforestation has been put in priority position. If this objective is achieved, it could notably contribute to the conservation of species diversity.

Indonesia frequently reacts negatively to international criticisms of the loss of tropical ecosystems. This is understandable because we need development in order to alleviate poverty. As a consequence, tropical ecosystems have been converted. This is actually the challenge of millennium development: Reducing poverty on the one hand goals: while saving the environment on the other.

This involves two interesting factors. First, we believe that the exploitation of biological resources will have significant effects on efforts to fight poverty. But in fact, the massive exploitation of natural diversity has not significantly minimized Indonesia’s poverty rate. The history of natural forest exploitation is a fine example. Before the golden era of natural forest concessions ended, its contribution to the improvement of the lives of people living around forests was not very real. On the contrary, massive exploitation created disasters. The recent flood in Wasior that killed hundreds of people was partly caused by deforestation.

The second factor is that the traditional methods of utilizing biodiversity also fail to uplift living standards. The living conditions of indigenous people in forest areas has become worse as these people become more marginalized. This is not only because of external factors, such as plantation expansion and forest exploitation, but also the increasing population. For example, reports recently found that more people from Anak Dalam tribe in Jambi are leaving the forests. Ironically, most of them then become beggars in the city.

In short, we have to think of a regime of utilization of biological resources that is sustainable and contributes to poverty alleviation. One approach is to increase bio-prospecting activities. Scientific exploration and research has to be prioritized. Local knowledge of biodiversity also must be accommodated. Development of biodiversity prospects will not only improve our awareness of the importance of biological resources, it will produce financial benefits as well.

The writer is an ecologist at the University of Bengkulu.

The Jakarta Post, October 14, 2010

There are two opposite directions characterizing urban development in this country. In one direction, the main feature of city development is the increase in number of buildings and shopping centers symbolizing economic improvement. Meanwhile, we are losing interest in creating more green areas. City parks and urban forests are not perceived as essentials. What are forest areas for in the middle of the city? That may be a question for many.

As the expansion of new malls, skyscrapers and other business-oriented constructions promise many more financial benefits, the authority, such as city councils, are easily issuing building permits. New shopping centers in fact create more traffic congestion, as well as conflicts with traditional markets. Those thriving new constructions have also increased the pressure on the land carrying capacity.

The authority, on the contrary, often does not think a space allocation for green areas as an urgent need. Jakarta, for example, just dedicates fewer than 10 percent of its areas for city parks or urban forests. Green areas are actually not only ecologically important, but also spiritually and aesthetically substantials. City parks can become a perfect escape for city dwellers from daily life routine.

Unplanned city development frequently does not take natural processes into account. Lack of green areas mean fewer catchment areas for rainwater. More concrete surfaces or lack of vegetation will create more disruptions to hydrological cycle where water cannot be absorbed by the ground. The result is droughts in the dry season and floods in the wet season.

A thriving city development also means a need for more supply of water. Unfortunately, urban development is not followed by an adequate expansion of water supply infrastructure. Hence, more people try to get access to deep groundwater, which can lead to excessive pumping. Excessive groundwater pumping has resulted in the collapse of the ground, as well as the drying up of rivers, lakes and springs.

As a result, our cities are in crisis. Floods in Jakarta, for example, are becoming worse. Over-extraction of deep ground water has destabilized the soil and the ground sinks. The recent event of road collapse in Jakarta has shown us a real threat underneath the city. The bad news is these problems are not only experienced by Jakarta, but also by many other cities in Indonesia. The UN has predicted that in 2030, more than 60 percent population will be living in urban areas. If we observe the current trend, it is not difficult to project what our cities will look like in the next couple decades. Most of the developments of our cities are not following the planned urban space arrangements. Human concentration in urban areas will complicate city life in future.

Sadly, when humanity becomes more urban, our concern on environmental services degrades. At the same time, human dependence on nature will not decrease. Emil Salim, in many of his publications, always emphasizes the interconnection between social structure and ecological system. A more diverse ecological system will be able to support a variety of social systems. When urban structures just facilitate the development of physical construction, without considering environmental capacity and ecological process, a very severe city crisis is just a matter of time.

Edward Wilson (1984) introduced a concept that he called “biophilia”, a connection between humans and nature and other species on earth. He said that humans have an original bond with nature as a basic aspect of humanity and an element of self-consciousness. Humans have an essential tendency to appreciate life and its process. Nature helps humans explore and affiliate with a life as a part of their mental development.

However, the development of technological society has pulled apart the connection between humans and nature. As said by Ke Chung Kim and Robert Weaver (1994), the development of technological humanity has raised a new belief about human domination and humankind is above nature. As the result, we humans tend to ignore the important of environmental services and the need to fulfill our “biophilia” desire. City development that only prioritizes the growth of financial infrastructure will wash an inner belief that we are an integral part of the ecosystem.

Furthermore, the expansion of massive materialism increases the consumption and manipulation of biological resources. The basic principle is then something is useful if it is financially beneficial. No wonder if then government policies do not support the enhancement of green areas as they may not be financially feasible.

The unwillingness to allocate more areas for urban forests and city parks in essence is a reflection of our blindness to human essential needs, which do not only require a fulfillment of financial needs. This is exactly what happens to our society now where we just appreciate tangible values and ignore intangible values. Ironically, the human inner need for nature is sometimes fulfilled by creating private parks, which are inaccessible to all community members. Consequently, it is even creating more gaps in society.

When a space for reflection, which one of them is a connection with the nature, is amputated, the society will move further away from substantial values of life. Society, which is always exposed to the interest of the transactional economy mindset, at the end will turn into a transactional society. Hence, it is not too exaggerated to say that the lack of concerns on developing and managing urban forests and city parks actually reflects the true face of our nation.

YANSEN

The writer is an ecologist at the University of Bengkulu.