No more living dangerously: Environment at a crossroads

The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Thu, 12/30/2004 9:00 AM | Opinion

Raphal Bill

There are numerous ways to present the main environmental issues in Indonesia, and the scope of problems in this, among the world's most biodiverse countries, is infinite. Since 2004 has heralded a new government administration, it is interesting, as an entry point, to look at what its environmental priorities are.

Does anybody care about the environment?

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono cares about the environment. His Agenda 100 Hari Pertama (First 100 Days Program) tackles four main issues that are without doubt critical to environmentally sustainable development in Indonesia.

First, access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation facilities. Only 50 percent of Indonesians have access to water from an improved water source and only 64 percent of Indonesians have access to basic sanitation facilities. In comparison to other continents, Asia has the lowest sanitation coverage, and within Asia, Indonesia has the lowest percentage of urban households with adequate sanitation.

Second, renewable energy. Commercial energy efficiency is decreasing, and the current rate of energy consumption will lead to verified national petroleum deposits being exhausted within the next 10 years, and greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to the global climate crisis, yet a majority of the population still does not have access to affordable energy sources.

Third, illegal logging. Over two million hectares of natural forest are cleared every year, and more than 75 percent of that occurs through illegal logging. In all likelihood, natural lowlands forests will be completely gone from Sumatra by 2005 and from Kalimantan by 2010, and plantations and logging forests may disappear by 2020 if current patterns persist. These practices have the potential to effectively destroy all forest patches from the face of Indonesia within a single human generation.

Last, illegal fishing. Whereas historically most marine resources were harvested by subsistence fishermen for local consumption, population growth, economic development and international integration have led to a shift from traditionally extensive practices to intensive cash-generating activities. De facto free-access to resources and lack of control over harvesting practices allow fishermen to apply the most efficient and least costly methods, such as illegal ""muro-ami nets"", cyanide and explosives.

In addition, illegally operating foreign commercial fishing vessels take advantage of relatively free access to Indonesian waters. As a result, harvests have taken on unprecedented proportions and are threatening both local livelihoods and marine ecosystems.

Indonesia is a country of multitudes, and the problems do not end with these four. However, most would agree that if these four issues were seriously addressed, then the new Government would be on target.

Why should the Indonesian environment be protected?

Environmental issues are of vital importance for Indonesia's poor, most of whom are heavily dependent on ecosystems - forest and woodland systems, dry lands, freshwater and marine systems -that sustain livelihoods, provide food and water supplies, and contribute to a stable climate.

The continuous degradation of previously healthy ecosystems inevitably leads to the loss of primary sources of food, ecological services (e.g. prevention of floods and landslides, water supply and purification, climate control, pollination), income and employment for millions of people. For example, 53 percent of all animal protein consumed in Indonesia comes from fish, and this percentage is even higher for coastal populations. It is therefore critical to protect the ability of ecosystems to provide long-term benefits to the poor, many of whom already live in threatened ecosystems.

In its analysis of the progress made towards achieving environmental sustainability in Indonesia, the Government of Indonesia's 2004 Progress Report on the Millennium Development Goals identifies four key determinants for sustainable development: economic crisis and reform, decentralization, globalization, and governance. I would like to share a few thoughts about each of them that may contribute to stimulating some much needed debate.

Although I would rather leave the economic debate to economists, I would like to ponder the supposed inextricable link between poverty and environment. Yes, unemployment, poverty and economic crisis often lead to more illegal logging, fishing and mining. Yes, the poor heavily depend on ecosystems. But the link between poverty and environment is not a simple one.

Alleviating poverty does not necessarily mean reducing the threat on the environment. Strong economic growth often leads similarly to continued environmental degradation, and poverty -- at least the way it is usually defined in monetary terms -- is in many cases associated with a preserved environment (which does not mean poverty is acceptable).

In a nutshell, poverty is often seen as both a root cause of ecosystem degradation and as its consequence. But this is often just as true of wealth and economic development. Much depends on the way poor and rich peoples live and develop, and on the development paths we choose. The unfortunate complexity of the poverty-environment nexus is too often ignored.

Decentralization of the governance of local resources has been identified worldwide as one of the most important measures for ensuring sound natural resources management and promoting sustainable local development. However, decentralization is known to carry opportunities on the one hand, but also risks and constraints on the other.

With decentralization, management of public affairs can be closer to people, with local government agencies have a better understanding of local issues and stakeholders. Decision-making can be less bureaucratic and can support real-time and adaptive management of environment and natural resources. At the same time, potential problems loom.

First, natural resources may be seen only as short-term sources of revenue rather than long-term assets, especially in the case of poor districts.

Second, decentralization may result in unclear distribution of power and conflicting priorities between different levels of governance. Besides its sub-optimal impact, this lack of clarity provides leeway to those who have a direct personal interest in natural resources over-exploitation, more often wealthy opportunists and mobsters than poor villagers.

Third, corruption itself can be decentralized rather than being tackled by decentralization. Instead of having one king, you have many, spreading the extent and scale of corruption. And finally, the capacity of local government agencies to deal with their new responsibilities so as to sustainably manage the environment is generally weak.

The opportunities offered by the decentralization process for sustainable development in Indonesia remain largely theoretical, as in many other parts of the world. Decentralization can lead to more locally sound environmental management, but this is not yet the case if one looks back on the last five years. Although pilot success stories are available, they remain exceptions, not the rule. On the contrary, the threats of decentralization are no longer theoretical: private companies, individuals and sectoral government agencies make drastic use of the unclear distribution of power; forests and marine resources are currently overexploited in many districts that desperately need funds.

Even in cases where strong political will and commitment have been expressed by local officials, the capacity to turn intention into practice is often not sufficient. To date, it appears that the risks of decentralization are more real than the opportunities.

Is decentralization bound to lead to accelerated environmental degradation? Time will tell. My concern is to see - in governmental and non-governmental organizations, medias, donor agencies - decentralization become more of an ideology than a tool to achieve an agreed set of results.

Decentralization is part of a political process, but what should underpin environmental management and keep decentralization on track are the objectives people agree upon, not the process itself. Decentralization for its own sake and without appropriate strategies is ideology when we need pragmatic principles to guide action. And because environmental degradation is often irreversible, there is neither time nor space for ideologies that do not deliver.

Regional and international integration, and the increase in regional and international trade it leads to, need to be looked at carefully from an environmental point of view. For example, there is a growing trend for a few countries like Indonesia to provide wood and wildlife to the rest of the world.

National logging industry and wildlife poaching are more and more export-oriented, and a few countries get a huge bite of the apple (e.g. 50 percent of Indonesian wood product exports went to China and Japan alone in 2000). Not only is the Indonesian forest feeding high-profit wood industries abroad, but to some extent so far, one could say that the better the forests are managed in the rest of the world, the stronger the incentives are for their overexploitation in Indonesia.

Because environmental governance is a very broad topic, I will focus on the enforcement issue. Jokingly poor performance in law enforcement is often said to be one of the main characteristics of Indonesia. This harsh statement is probably nowhere as true as in the environment sector. I will just make two points to conclude.

First of all, whichever environmental management options one considers (e.g. community-based management, economic and financial incentives, etc.), they are not alternatives to sound law enforcement. There is actually no alternative to a sound and consistent law enforcement system if the environment is to be managed sustainably.

This brings us to a common question in Indonesia: is democracy the best regime to deliver sustainable environmental management, and especially law enforcement? Isn't a democratic regime, with its inherent uncertainties, unavoidable changes of government and shifts of priorities, intrinsically less capable of long-term planning and law enforcement than a more authoritarian one? My opinion is that this question is biased and not truly relevant.

Enforcement of rules and laws, and accountability, should actually be seen as fundamental characteristics of a democracy. If Indonesian people collectively agree, through a democratic process, on a particular rule or set of priorities, for example relating to management of natural resources, then not enforcing this rule or not implementing these priorities mutilates democracy. Democracy without efficient regulations that are extensively and consistently enforced may have the color of democracy, but is not true democracy.

On the whole, it is hard to be optimistic when looking at the environmental situation in Indonesia. Readers who prefer to hear good news and success stories will be disappointed.

The end of year period calls for appraisals. 2004 in Indonesia has seen some of the most peaceful, successful and exciting democratic elections in world history, including local elections that should be a major step forward in the decentralization process. However, the harsh reality is that not only is the trend toward environmental degradation not reversed yet, but the pace of environmental degradation is accelerating year after year.

Nobody can afford to ignore that 2004 is worse than 2003, and unfortunately 2005 is very likely to be worse than 2004 unless decisive action is taken by the Government and the people of Indonesia. More than ever, Indonesia needs a democracy that delivers results matching collectively agreed-upon objectives. The new administration has immediately made environment an issue and has shown promising political will during the first 100 day period: now is the time to get things done.

Program Officer, Environment Unit, United Nations Development Program Indonesia (raphael.bille@undp.org)

(The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the UNDP.

Comments (0) | Post comment

A | A | A |