Political collaboration between Indonesia and Malaysia has not always
been smooth and easy. Since the Confrontation era between 1962 and 1969,
relationships between these nations have generally been rather awkward. Still,
a recent study suggests that there is much to gain from increased and improved
collaboration between Indonesia, Malaysia and also Brunei Darussalam.
The study, published in the journal Nature Communications,
analyzed the costs and benefits of coordinated forest use planning between the
three countries on Borneo island.
The study reveals the
potential for Borneo to simultaneously retain about 50 percent of its land as
forests, protect adequate habitat for the threatened species, and achieve an
opportunity cost saving of over $43 billion.
The governments of
Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam have all made policy commitments
towards the use and development of Borneo’s forest resources. All three
governments are committed to maintaining between 45 percent and 75 percent of
their part of Borneo in a forested condition, and manage this through
protection or sustainable forestry. They also commit to protecting viable
populations of species such as elephants and orangutans, and minimize carbon emissions
deforestation.
At the same time,
however, the national governments on Borneo have goals for expanding their
plantation and timber industries. When juxtaposing these goals, it becomes
clear that fully achieving all policy goals is not possible, and that
trade-offs are needed.
The present study
assessed the optimal land allocation for achieving as many of the different
goals as possible. For this it looked at several scenarios: 1. The present
business-as-usual way; 2. Improved country-based planning; 3. Coordination
between countries in what is called the “Heart of Borneo”; and 4. Integrated
planning that ignores state boundaries and modifies existing land-use
allocation where possible.
The present way of
planning and implementing land use (“business-as-usual”) performs very poorly,
and would significantly fall short of national commitments to maintain half the
island under forest cover. Losing that much forest comes at a price, as was
shown in a range of other studies on, for example, climate impacts and flooding.
Surprisingly, the
much-celebrated Heart of Borneo solution is rather expensive. It does well in
the mountainous center of Borneo, but poorly in the coastal lowlands where
governments are free to develop plantations wherever they want.
The study indicates
that it would be best if Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei Darussalam worked
together on the management of their forest and land resources. Not only could
this collaboration reach many of the policy targets, it could also save the
three countries $43 billion through increased efficiency. That is not a small amount
of money for any of the states on Borneo!
Not only can major
cost savings be achieved. The international coordination approach could lead to
much increased carbon emission savings, for example, between 40 percent and 53
percent more than what could be achieved through the Heart of Borneo scenario.
Changing land use is
not easy. The international collaboration scenario requires the protection of
8.6 million hectares of land currently allocated to timber production, 4.3
million hectares of allocated oil palm land, and 1.3 million of un-planted
industrial timber concession land. Companies, however, have paid for licenses
on those lands and won’t easily give them up, even if new opportunities are
identified in other places that are better suited to plantation development.
Also, local
communities also increasingly claim land rights and rights to certain land
uses, and aligning community rights and responsibilities through national and
supranational planning and policies would require much negotiation.
Finally, governments
may on paper assign as much importance to their goals for protecting species
and habitats as for developing plantations, but the reality is that political
support for lucrative plantation opportunities is much greater than for
conservation. This situation is reinforced by the close and well-protected ties
between industry (e.g. oil-palm, forestry, mining etc.) and politicians.
It is therefore
obvious that major political will would be needed to push through new
legislation that benefits the individual countries more than the vested
interests that run them.
The findings regarding
the Heart of Borneo are surprising. While this initiative reflects the
sentiment of coordinated planning between the three countries that signed the
Heart of Borneo agreement, the resulting land use is far from optimal for
Borneo. Stronger and more geographically distributed efforts are needed to
avoid irreversible biodiversity loss, achieve equitable benefits among diverse
stakeholders, and maximize efficiency across multiple sectors.
It may be possible to
build on the Heart of Borneo agreement and expand it to all of Borneo. A
binding agreement on land-use could be developed to ensure that jointly
developed plans are implemented in each national jurisdiction. Such an agreement
could be facilitated by a regional intergovernmental platform (such as the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and should serve to give each
jurisdiction the confidence that their interests are being treated equitably.
Borneo-wide
collaboration is a not a new idea. A famous peace conference in Tumbang Anoi
(Central Kalimantan) in 1894 was a good example of Dayak representatives from
across the island coming together to address a common problem (warfare, slavery
and head-taking). The meetings took four months to complete but resulted
in a significant decrease in inter-tribal wars and raids. Borneo has been a
much safer place ever since.
Let’s hope that
leaders of Borneo once again recognize the benefit of working together to
develop the island’s resources, while maintaining the many local and
international benefits provided by its forests.
Erik Meijaard is a
conservation scientist coordinating the Borneo Futures initiative.
No comments:
Post a Comment