Forest stewardship: Sticks or carrots?

Ahmad Maryudi ,  Goettingen, Germany   |  Wed, 07/09/2008 10:48 AM  |  Opinion

According to a recently unveiled assessment by independent bodies, approximately two-thirds of concessionaires in Papua are poorly managing the region's forests. This heightens the widespread perception of failure on the part of Indonesia's forest management services. Even as some forests have been exploited at a far greater rate than they can regenerate, many of the forests that remain face further pressure from logging.

One therefore has to wonder about the effectiveness of existing forest stewardship programs, of both the regulatory and market-based variety. With respect to the former, Indonesia's government has promulgated various laws and regulations, supposedly to ensure the wise use of forest resources. The government has also prescribed standards and guidelines for use in managing forests as well as sanctions and penalties for noncompliance.

Unfortunately, such a regulatory approach requires both resources and enforcement capacity, both of which are argued to be clearly lacking in this country.

Various policies introduced have been under heavy criticism, the strongest claim being that the governmental regulatory approach remains a "paper tiger".

As a result, a market-based approach involving forest certification -- often nicknamed "green labeling" -- has gained global momentum with its promise of market incentives for price premiums. The idea is that as global awareness around forest loss and degradation grows, contemporary society -- principally wood product consumers -- will begin to buy products only from (certified) sustainably managed forests. More importantly, green labeling assumes that consumers will eventually accede to paying premium prices for their wood products.

Unfortunately, certification has not yet gained a strong foothold, even in regions where green markets are thought to have been developed, such as Europe. As a result, it has yet to contribute significantly to forest stewardship, for the following reasons.

First, although studies of consumers' perceptions consistently reveal that wood consumers are very conscious of the environmental issues associated with such products, they would nevertheless refuse to pay higher prices for products from certified forests. A price attribute is clearly more attractive to consumers than an environmental attribute.

It is difficult to provide quantitative data on certified wood consumption as a proportion of total global wood consumption. Nonetheless, according to a report by the UN Economic Commission for Europe and the UN Food and Agricultural Organization, in 2007 the estimated industrial roundwood from certified forests accounted for only 25 percent of the total global wood production of nearly 400 million cubic meters. The report also stated that growth rates in certified forest areas are declining.

Second, even if certification gained strong support from consumers by providing real incentives for paying premium prices, it is unlikely Indonesian forest companies will adopt the program. Only a few have been certified, with the majority remaining uninterested in the program.

To date, only three out of the more than 300 companies that manage Indonesia's national forests have done so. And these certified companies only cover an area of less than 1 million hectares of forest, compared to the more than 50 million hectares set aside for production.

Even though the government has offered forest companies a softer annual work plan policy, which allows certified companies to independently determine their annual allowable cut, it has so far failed to attract much interest.

Experience has taught us that most forestry companies are unlikely to remain in the forestry business for very long. Some analysts even describe them as "one-cycle" companies: They "mine" the timber and then switch their business. Thus, even if such companies refrain from certification, little impact would be felt across the industry -- unless mechanisms existed to punish their subsequent business activities for failure to meet certification standards.

The market-based certification approach is therefore unlikely to do more than promote the wise use of Indonesia's forests. Contrary to the claims made by some environmental activists, the regulatory approach, involving government intervention, therefore remains an important alternative.

However, if governmental regulations are truly to contribute to forest stewardship, preconditions should be set. A strong dedication to "forest welfare" (the greatest benefit going to the forests) remains an important ingredient of solid governmental policy.

Experiance has also shown that many of Indonesia's forest regulations favor big business. Moreover, very few policies have been introduced out of genuine concern for forest welfare, favoring instead rather different political, economic and social goals, such as economic development.

For instance, to attract forest investments and thus boost economic goals, a number of policies have been introduced, such as subsidies for forest processing services.

Unfortunately, these and other policies have created market distortions that have led to increased pressure on forest resources.

In addition, forest royalties and levies in Indonesia are set very low, so that forest companies can capture "superprofits". This clearly encourages rapid deforestation.

Furthermore, the royalty and levies system does not provide incentives to reforest logged areas. Instead, by paying royalties, companies can shift responsibility for reforestation onto the government. Yet, forestry companies should bear the responsibility of leaving forests in the same condition in which they were originally leased.

To sum up: Given increased promotion of market-based approaches to certification, it is clear that a strong forest-dedicated regulatory approach is needed -- if anyone is still interested in seeing the limited remaining "majesty" of Indonesia's forests.

The writer is a lecturer at Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta and a PhD candidate at Goettingen University, Germany. He can be reached at amaryud@gwdg.de

Comments (13)  |   Post comment
A  |   A  |   A  |   Mail to a friend  |  Printer Friendly Version |  Digg it!  |  Add to Del.icio.us!  |  Add to Reddit!  |  Stumble it!

BW van Assen (not verified) — Tue, 07/22/2008 - 9:30pm

Dear Pak Agus Sartono,

First, the answer to your inquiry can be found online, at the organizations mentioned in my earlier reply. If you believe this is important, please compile your own list.

Second, 'assume' is an abbreviation. It means to make an ASS of U and ME. Let's talk facts, not assumptions.

Third, comparing total number versus certified concessions is meaningless! I refer to a famous quotation: there are lies, damn lies and statistics. The crux being that statistics can be explained in various ways.

You suggest that few concessions are moving for certification. I don't challenge anyone on that, but find it a meaningless and simplistic factoid.

Understanding the reasons behind it is more important. Once one understands these reasons, it becomes apparent that relative many concessions are moving for certification.

The question is: are you interested in the complexity of the topic, or do you want another factoid? Do you want to challenge or confirm your own perceptions? And here we are back at my initial comment on the original article...

Salak manis,

Bart W van Assen

Agus Sartono (not verified) — Tue, 07/22/2008 - 2:42am

Mr. van Assen,

could you let me know the number of indonesian companies, which you said subtantially working toward certification? i assume not many..and how is their progress?

as far as my knowledge, there are approx. 350 (natural) forest companies in the country..

agus sartono (a_sartono77@ymail.com)

BW van Assen (not verified) — Sun, 07/20/2008 - 11:16am

Debating of the state of the forest in Indonesia or the Forest Stewardship versus the Indonesian Ecolabelling Institute is an emotive debate. One critic even laughs at my concerns, and supports the local initiative out of patriotism. Instead of continuing this emotive debate, shall we go back to the original article?

The article denounces forest certification, with a strong reference to the Forest Stewardship Council (07/09/2008, Forest stewardship: Sticks or carrots?). This is justified through flawed reasoning (extrapolation) and misleading generalities (national trends). Indonesia, with its vast social and biological diversity, cannot be captured through such an approach!

The article proposes ‘a strong forest-dedicated regulatory approach’, although it clearly identifies weaknesses in the current regulations. Indonesia’s diversity defies the idea of a miracle solution to the issues involved. All in all, this is a simplistic and populist article that is inappropriate of a PhD-student/university teacher. It should be based on science, not opinion. (Or the writer should avoid flaunting his credentials.)

This was the crux of my comment on the article, not a debate about the state of the forest in Indonesia.

There are serious problems in forest management here, but these are as diverse as the country itself. Solutions must therefore be diverse in nature as well. Forest certification and its – voluntary – spin-offs are only one of the many possible solutions. They go “one-on-one” with the forest managers and promote responsible forest management. This localised character of forest certification simply cannot be captured in national trends (or percentages).

Also, these initiatives are so diverse that they defy a general comparison, or ranking! The various “schools” of forest certification have resulted in various approaches and ideas. For instance, the Indonesian Ecolabelling Institute recognized the diversity of Indonesia and tried to address this issue systematically through the ‘Expert Panel II’.

But, the current political climate in Indonesia isn’t conducive for a constructive debate on the actual strengths – and weaknesses – of the various “schools”. Discussions are based on emotive beliefs that only elevate into the realm of religion. This realm comes with an unavoidable -isms: being it nationalism, simplism or populism.

It’s time to move beyond an emotive debate, and assess actual merits based on quantifiable observations and experiments (i.e. science).

BW van Assen

Mike (not verified) — Fri, 07/18/2008 - 5:11pm

mike again:

i inccidentally read the following book: Shadows in the Forest: Japan and the Politics of Timber in Southeast Asia by Peter Dauvergne, who maintains similar position as the writer about one-cycled forest companies in the book

cheers...

Mike (not verified) — Fri, 07/18/2008 - 5:01pm

hallo, hallo...

i am not skeptical, but i would argue the whole global society responsible for the poor forest management, particularly in the tropics..i would say that none of the approaches (regulatory and market-based) works..

not so long ago, it was alleged that a governmental buidling in Europe (we assumed that this region is environmentally concerned) was renovated using illegally sourced timber..what i would like to say, we're all telling a lie, when it comes into our interests..

look also at other environmental discussions and negotiations, such as climate change..the story is the same..governmental and societal entities doing the same..

if we're really concerned about forest loss and degradation, we should do something..yes, maybe we have done something, but again not enough!!!

so, to me both the writer and Mr van Assen warrant for appreciations. the writer expresses his frustation over the continuing (seem endless) forest degradation and the ineffectiveness of the current approaches tackling on the problems, whilst Mr. van Assen might be more confident about situations on the ground.

regards,
mike

Agus sartono (not verified) — Fri, 07/18/2008 - 12:28pm

sorry, i gave a wrong email. I can be reached at : a_sartono77@ymail.com

i would be happy to discuss with Mr. BW van Assen. FYI: i have worked more than 10 years in an Indonesian forest company, so i know the situations on the ground.

Kusumah (not verified) — Fri, 07/18/2008 - 11:56am

i would be more than happy if such arguments that many indonesian forest companies working toward certification. perhaps, Mr. BW van Assen needs to learn the simple calculation on their percentage to the total companies operating in Indonesia. simply none!!!!

Agus, Semarang (not verified) — Fri, 07/18/2008 - 11:40am

I was laughing at Mr.van Assen's comments. As an Indonesian, i would love to see that the LEI scheme accepted in the global markets. but i regret to see the contrary (even though he might be right that that LEI's standards might not be so different from FSC).

then, i would genuinely challenge him in this following way. assuming he's in the europe now as a consumer of wood products. i would put my money that he would say the same as many environmentalists in europe and their supporters that only FSC remains the "trusted" certifier in the world.

to me, it is clear that it is due he works in the project for certification in Indonesia.

Agus Sartono, semarang
can be reached a_sartono77@yahoo.com

BW van Assen (not verified) — Wed, 07/16/2008 - 9:24am

The author argues that the article is limited to the management of large natural forests, although this is not clear from the text itself. Also, this approach is artificial. The certification of all forest types (large versus small, and natural versus plantation forests) are irrevocably linked, not in the least due to pressure from international and national NGOs.

The author also denounces the standards of Indonesian Ecolabelling Institute, for having poor weak social and environmental benchmarks. Again, this is the author's own opinion and no hard evidence is provided to support this. FYI, the only independent review on this so far (by Alexander Hinrichs & Agung Prasetyo) concludes that these standards are up to par with the principles and criteria of the Forest Stewardship Council.

Time and again the author extrapolates data and opinions: from Papua to Indonesia, from regulatory to voluntary forest stewardship initiatives, and from one initiative to all initiatives in Indonesia. The author's own terminology (e.g. 'desperate') identifies him as highly subjective on the matter.

I agree that this mirrors the general situation in the country. But, talking about (subjective) generalities has not solved the specific problems in forest management (and certification) in the country. General solutions to general problems lead to a general status-quo... specific problems need specific solutions, not a vague proposal for a 'strong forest-dedicated regulatory approach'.

Ahmad Maryudi (not verified) — Mon, 07/14/2008 - 5:15pm

Thanks for the insightful comments. yes, you're right that 7 FMUs have been certified under the FSC, but some of them are not natural forests (and large scale) companies. as the articles mainly exercise the management of natural forests (see in the intro), i would maintain my positions.

Also, you are correct that some other companies have also been certified under the LEI. but only few argue that this scheme has strong social and environmental benchmarks.

Further, i have also worked in the Tropical Forest Trust for sometime. and i have witnessed how this organization is so 'desperate' in assisting some companies to engage in certification.

i would argue that this mirrors the general situations in the country.

12next ›last »

What's On

more
more
  • Salim / Who is Salim?
    09/02/2008 - 09/14/2008, Galeri Nasional Jakarta, Jl. Medan Merdeka Timur No: 14, Central Jakarta
  • Visual organic
    09/03/2008 - 09/11/2008, Philo Art Space, Jl. Kemang Timur 90 C, South Jakarta (Tel. 92705705, 7198448)
more