On May 7-11, CIFOR led a study tour through the provinces of West Sumatra and Riau in Indonesia. The trip, from Padang to Pekanbaru, covered a range of contrasting land uses from fishing, farming and small-scale agroforestry, to massive pulp and paper and oil palm plantations.
The pace of change has been particularly dramatic in Riau: forest cover has gone from 78% in 1982 to 33% in 2005. But other provinces and forests around the world are at risk as large scale investors seek more farmland. Will the "great sucking sound" coming from fast-growing global commodity markets leave room for diverse and resilient landscapes and communities? What livelihood options remain for people who have no formal land rights, who have seen their forest and river resources all but decimated, and are now stranded in an ocean of industrial-scale concessions? What chance does wildlife have of surviving what is known as the "forest and land use transition"? The elephants and tigers of Tesso Nilo National Park are certainly facing daunting odds. Will REDD+ do the trick? How about a tax on concessions to finance natural habitat protection? Could land reform level the playing field between investors and villagers?
We offer a set of photographs from the trip and two short interviews with CIFOR's Director General Frances Seymour. In return, please share your thoughts on these million dollar questions!
Comments
The question of forest law enforcement
Many developing countries legal framework and institutional structure is not strong enough to enable effective law enforcement and forest resource crime prevention. Weakness are created through legislation that creates overlapping management and control responsibilities between government agencies. This encourages excuses for not properly enforcing the law, or one agency diminishing its own responsibility by blaming another for not doing its job properly. Legislation that is drafted by legal people without having it tested in the drafting phase by those who would enforce it seems to me to be part of the problem. The result is that law enforcement agencies find that they do not have sufficient powers or authority, and in many cases conflicting responsibilities, because of the gaps and overlaps in the legislation.
Powerful and cashed-up organisations can use these deficiencies in a countries legal framework to exploit forests and forest resources with impunity while the 'mess' is in the process of getting sorted out. Add to that the potential this creates to corrupt officials to create obstacles to changing the law then the forest and forest resources is effectively 'gone' and those people who depend on it for their livelihoods are left to suffer.
Mike Dyson
FLEG Consultant
Australia
Post new comment