| Home > AusAID Projects > AusAID Archives > CIFOR |  |
'CIFOR received a lot of support from the Australian Government
particularly from an Australian Agency called the Australian Center for
International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). Australia helped to set up
CIFOR. CIFOR was first created in 1993 and it was an Australian Team that
put initial Seaford up and running. There are a number of Australian scientists
in CIFOR and they have very close relationship with many Australian
universities. CIFOR was invited to Indonesia by the Indonesian government.
The Indonesian Government has been very interested in getting foreign
support and scientific expertise to help their forest policy and forest
problems'.
Grahame Applegate and Luca
Tacconi both work for CIFOR and have recently written articles on
the topic of forest fires in Indonesia. here are their two latest articles
for you to read.
First of all we need to recognize there are different types of fires and that not all fires are problematic. There are fires that generate significant amounts of haze and those that generate much less. There are land-clearing fires lit on purpose for the establishment of plantations, which do not create significant haze if they are not on peat land. And there are fires burning out of control in areas that are supposed to be maintained as forests, such as those that occurred in East Kalimantan in 1997/98. These critical differences are not recognised in the Indonesian legislation (Regulation 4/2001) that forbids all forest and land fires. The legislation should be reviewed so that only harmful and unwanted fires are banned. In this way, the limited resources available to prevent and suppress fires could be used to for the really problematic fires. Certainly, this is not a revolutionary recommendation. Malaysia and other countries allow prescribed fires. Peat lands and haze Burning peat land contributed up to 90% of the smoke haze experienced during the catastrophic fires in 1997-98. We are seeing the same thing happening again in 2002. Over seventy-five percent of the hot spots identified on peat land in West and Central Kalimantan in August were on oil palm plantations, timber plantations and forest concessions. Recent media reports have regularly cited how the smoke haze is particularly affecting Pontianak. This is hardly surprising when you consider Pontianak is almost surrounded by peat lands and oil palm and timber plantations. Just as the Government has already legislated against the development of lands with peat deeper than three meters, so should it legislate against the use of fires for land-clearing on peat lands . But just changing the laws won't blow away the haze. The laws need to be enforced, and this is not occurring. This is not because fires are difficult to monitor and police. The fires now occurring in Indonesia are usually described as 'forest fires', giving the impression they are burning in remote and inaccessible areas. But this is not true. The fact that over seventy-five percent of the hot spots identified on peat land in West and Central Kalimantan were on oil palm plantations, timber plantations and forest concessions means that there are roads to access the areas. Inspections by government officials and the collection of evidence to prosecute those using fire illegally are viable. Once the law is revised, the Government must take firm action against companies that use fire illegally. This would show the Government is serious in enforcing the legislation and in implementing the recently signed ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution . The Government also needs to get tough with Government officials who seek to gain by turning a blind eye to illegal burning activities. Villagers While at the moment it is clear large companies are mostly responsible for the fires and haze currently affecting the region, this does not necessarily mean large companies will always be the only ones responsible. The 1997-98 experience shows that at least in some areas such as South Sumatra and East Kalimantan, small-scale livelihood activities by villagers in peat swamp areas were responsible for some of the haze-generating fires. Dealing with these sources of ignition will be even more complex than with those involving large companies. Small-scale livelihood activities by farmers and squatters are more disperse than those of companies, more difficult to monitor, and legislated changes to burning practices are virtually impossible to enforce. In these cases, only community-based initiatives have any likelihood of succeeding. So, what are the costs of inaction? According to a new CIFOR report funded by the European Commission, smoke haze in 1997-98 affected millions of people and cost Indonesia and its neighbours around US $800 million. In addition to economic and social costs from smoke haze in 1997-98, fires cost $2.5 billion to Indonesia, arising from burnt timber and other losses. Of this, East Kalimantan suffered losses totalling $2 billion. The figure for this season is not likely to be as high. Nevertheless, the question remains, how high must it be before the Indonesian Government, industry, non-government organizations and community groups begin seriously working together to put an end to this environmental, economic and social disaster? INDONESIA FEELING THE HEAT Indonesia's annual outbreak of forest fires result from a complex web of poverty, development and good-governance issues. Grahame Applegate from CIFOR, the Center for International Forestry Research in Bogor, looks at some of the main issues confronting Indonesia.
No sooner had the ink dried on the ASEAN Regional Haze Agreement last June when meteorologists announced El Nino was already well under way. It seems Indonesia and its neighbours are in for another six months of fires and smoke costing millions of dollars in economic losses, health costs and environmental damage. While the approaching El Nino is not expected to spark anything like the conflagration of 1997-98, fires have already started in Kalimantan and Sumatra. People in Pontianak are beginning to don facemasks while in southern Thailand residents are being advised on safety measures. We can expect any time now to hear calls for more fire fighting helicopters, fire trucks and perhaps even cloud seeding. These are all examples of the “suppression” response to Indonesia's fires - dealing with fires by extinguishing them, not preventing them. And they are all examples of shortsighted policy. Indonesia's commitment under the ASEAN haze agreement to work with its neighbours in monitoring and combating fires is commendable. But industry, local communities, and governments in Indonesia at all levels still need to do more to prevent fires rather than simply extinguish them. This may be stating the obvious. But without an agreed-upon approach by all players to solve the underlying causes of fires, international relations will continue to be strained as smoke chokes the region and Indonesia's development will continue to be hampered by the enormous social and costs that fires inflict - a cost estimated by CIFOR to be around $3 billion in 1997-98. The causes of fire are varied and the solutions are complex. Apart from the often legitimate but uncontrolled use of fire for clearing land, fires also result from accidents and arson. Both small farmers and large commodity producers use fire to clear land for gardens and rice fields, or for oil palm, pulp wood and rubber plantations. These fires generate much of the haze that covers the region and are often the cause of accidental fires that seriously compound the problem. Farmers, hunters and beekeepers clear undergrowth with fire, but the fires often escape into forests. Loggers also start fires accidentally, often through something as trivial as not properly extinguishing a cooking fire. If this happens in peatlands, the fires are almost impossible to put out. Underlying the causes of fires is a complex web of poverty, development and good-governance issues. A significant governance factor and also a potential cause of conflict is the lack of a fair system for allocating land resources between poor indigenous peoples, migrants seeking a living and corporations expanding their investments. Often the response to a perceived lack of equity is the use of arson to assert rights and drive competition away. One study in Lampung by CIFOR and the International Center for Research in Agroforestry revealed 400 hectares of oil-palm and coconut plantation were burnt down by the local community who claimed traditional ownership of the land. Poor communities across Indonesia often use arson to defend their perceived rights to land that companies have acquired under Indonesian law. It is a clash between traditional law and the law of the state that could add to existing levels of communal tension in Indonesia. Dealing with such complex issues and accommodating all forest stakeholders is one of the major challenges facing Indonesia. None of the researchers looking at the problem of fires claim to have found the complete answer. But it comes as no surprise that they generally agree where to begin - with the Government. Numerous useful policy recommendations have been made to national and regional governments. Common to these recommendations are the same two challenges that bedevil so much of Indonesia's efforts to care for its people - listening to all stakeholders and implementing and impartially enforcing fair and appropriate laws Specific fire-related policy advice includes replacing the current impractical and unenforceable zero-burning policy with one that allows land clearing by judicious use of fire where appropriate, but bans it during extremely dry years. It includes implementing better management of land clearing fires in peat lands. It also includes developing transparent systems that reconcile traditional land claims and modern law and thus discourage people from seeking their own searing brand of justice. And it includes spending money on fire prevention systems, and on land clearing machinery and training for farming communities - not wasting it on ineffectual fire-fighting equipment and suppression measures, such as the almost $1 million spent on cloud seeding in 1997-98. It is very clichéd but very true: prevention is better than cure. Even the best-equipped fire force in the world will still need the next monsoon to put out Indonesia's fires. Meanwhile the meteorological cauldron will be cooking up an even fierier El Nino to unleash on South East Asia. INDONESIA TERSENGAT PANAS Kebakaran hutan yang terjadi setiap tahun di Indonesia merupakan dampak kompleksitas jaring kemiskinan yang terkait dengan persoalan pembangunan serta tata kepemerintahan. Grahame Applegate dari CIFOR, Lembaga Penelitian Kehutanan Internasional di Bogor, membahas beberapa masalah utama yang dihadapi Indonesia itu. Belum lagi kering tinta yang menoreh nota kesepakatan negara-negara di Asia Tenggara tentang penanggulangan masalah asap (The ASEAN Regional Haze Agreement) pada bulan Juni lalu, para meteorologis mengumumkan serangan EL Nino tengah menuju dan siap menyapu kawasan tersebut. Nampaknya, Indonesia dan negara tetangganya dalam empat atau enam bulan ke depan akan dilanda kebakaran hutan yang menimbulkan asap tebal sehingga menyebabkan kerugian ekonomi jutaan dolar, membahayakan kesehatan dan mengakibatkan kerusakan lingkungan. Sementara El Nino tidak diharapkan menimbulkan kebakaran besar sebagaimana yang terjadi pada tahun 1997/1998, titik api sudah mulai berkobar di wilayah Kalimantan dan Sumatra. Penduduk di Pontianak mulai memakai masker penutup hidung dan di Thailand sebelah selatan, penduduk juga dianjurkan mengambil tindakan pengamanan. Ada kemungkinan sebentar lagi kita mendengar pemintaan penambahan jumlah helikopter pemadam kebakaran, mobil pemadam dan mungkin juga proyek pembuatan hujan. Semua itu merupakan contoh dari tanggapan “mendesak” untuk mengatasi kebakaran hutan di Indonesia dengan cara memadam api bukan mencegah kebakaran itu. Kondisi tersebut mencerminkan kebijakan yang berwawasan sempit. Komitmen Indonesia terhadap perjanjian ASEAN tentang asap melalui kerjasama dengan negara tetangga dalam upaya memonitor dan mengatasi masalah kebakaran hutan memang patut dipuji. Namun, kalangan industri, masyarakat dan instansi pemerintah lain di Indonesia pada semua tingkatan masih perlu berupaya lebih kuat lagi mencegah terjadinya kebakaran hutan ketimbang hanya mengambil tindakan reaktif untuk memadamkannya. Hal itu dapat digambarkan secara gamblang. Tetapi tanpa pendekatan yang sudah disepakati sebelumnya oleh semua lapisan masyarakat dalam upaya menghilangkan penyebab kebakaran di Indonesia, hubungan internasional akan tetap tegang seperti asap yang menyesakkan nafas di kawasan dan pembangunan Indonesia terus dibebani kerugian dan dampak sosial yang ditimbulkan akibat kebakaran itu, yang diperkirakan mencapai 3 miliar dolar AS pada 1997-1998. Penyebab kebakaran hutan beragam dan pemecahannya pun berbeda. Sebagian dari penyebabnya adalah pembukaan lahan dengan cara membakar, sebuah tindakan yang selama ini dianggap resmi tapi tidak terkendali. Kebakaran hutan juga kadangkala disebabkan oleh tindakan tidak sengaja maupun sengaja (arson). Baik petani kecil maupun pabrik pengelohan hasil hutan menggunakan api untuk membuka lahan bagi perkebunan, lahan persawahan, perkebunan kepala sawit, perkayuan dan pohon karet. Pembakaran yang dilakukan itu telah menimbulkan kepulan asap yang menyelimuti wilayah sekitar dan seringkali menyebabkan kebakaran tidak disengaja sehingga menimbulkan masalah serius. Petani, pemburu dan peternak lebah kadangkala membersihkan semak belukar dengan api yang kemudian menyambar ke hutan. Para penebang kayu juga sering secara tidak sengaja menyebabkan kebakaran akibat sesuatu yang dianggap sepele seperti tidak tuntas mematikan api unggun. Jika hal itu terjadi di wilayah lahan gambut, kebakaran akan cepat menjalar dan sulit dipadamkan. Namun, penyebab utama kebakaran hutan adalah kompleksitas jaring kemiskinan, persoalan pembangunan dan tata kepemerintahan. Faktor tata laksana pemerintah yang kurang serasi serta potensi penyebab konflik di tengah masyarakat adalah ketidak-adilan dalam alokasi hasil sumber daya alam yang dibagikan penduduk asli setempat, pendatang dan pabrik yang melakukan investasi di wilayah tersebut. Tidak jarang dilaporkan bahwa reaksi masyarakat setempat terhadap ketidakadilan itu adalah melakukan pembakaran dengan sengaja (arson) dalam upaa mencapai hak mereka. Sebuah penelitian di Lampung yang dilakukan CIFOR dan the International Center for Research in Agroforestry menunjukkan, 400 hektare perkebunan sawit dan pohon kelapa dibakar penduduk setempat yang menuntut kepemilikan tradisional mereka atas lahan tersebut. Rakyat miskin di seluruh wilayah Indonesia seringkali melakukan pembakaran (arson) untuk mempertahankan lahan yang mereka miliki pada saat pabrik telah menguasainya secara hukum. Itu sebuah benturan antara hukum adat dan hukum positif negara sehingga menambah ketegangan sosial di Indonesia. Mengatasi masalah kompleks itu dan dalam waktu bersamaan menampung kepentingan para pemegang HPH merupakan tantangan berat yang dihadapi Pemerintah Indonesia. Tidak ada satu pun peneliti, setelah melihat masalahnya, mengaku memperoleh jawabannya yang tepat. Tetapi sebaliknya, tidak heran mereka sependapat bahwa segala sesuatunya harus dimulai dari Pemerintah dulu. Sejumlah rekomendasi tentang kebijakan yang dianggap mujarab telah disusun, baik oleh Pemerintah pusat maupun daerah. Biasanya. rekomendasi itu dilandaskan pada dua masalah yaitu berkaitan dengan upaya pembinaan penduduk setempat dan pendekatan kepada pemegang HPH untuk melaksanakan sistem yang adil dan hukum yang berlaku. Ada saran menyangkut kebijakan kebakaran hutan adalah mengubah larangan pembakaran (zero-burning policy) dengan kebijakan yang membolehkan pembukaan lahan dengan pembakaran secara terkendali. Tapi, tindakan pembakaran itu tidak dilakukan pada musim panas. Tentu saja, kebijakan itu perlu didukung sistem pengelolaan pembukaan lahan yang bijaksana di lahan gambut. Disarankan pula upaya mengembangkan sistem transparansi sebagai upaya rekonsiliasi antara hak adat dengan hukum nasional sehingga penduduk setempat tidak lagi mencari keadilan dengan cara mereka sendiri. Diharapkan pula ada sistem pengeluaran dana bagi upaya pencegahan kebakaran hutan dan pembelian peralatan mesin bagi pembukaan lahan serta pelatihan bagi petani setempat, sehingga dana itu tidaik disia-siakan sebagai biayai memadamkan api atau membeli alat pemadam kebakaran, seperti yang pernah dikeluarkan sebanyak 1 juta dolar pada tahun 1997-1998. Memang sangat klise sekali tapi benar, pernyataan yang mengatakan bahwa pencegahan lebih baik dari pengobatan. Bahkan, regu pemadam yang dilengkapi peralatan canggih sekalipun akan membutuhkan waktu sampai musim hujan berikutnya untuk memadamkan kebakaran hutan di Indonesia. Sementara itu, ketel meteorology akan mendidihkan El Nino yang siap menyapu lebih panas lagi kawasan Asia Tenggara. For more information on this project's activities - Click Here |
 |
 |
 |
