森林破壊に関するシティ大臣のツイートを理解することを学ぶ

Photo by Akshar Dave 🍉 on Unsplash

''...massive development must not stop in the name of carbon emissions or in the name of deforestation''. This post had made Siti Nurbaya's name trending on Twitter. Even though the pieces come from many writings that come from a unified whole series of information (threads).

Opinion information on Zero Deforestation and FoLU Net Carbon Sink 2030, began to play on that piece of tweet only. The photos are edited in such a way, plus narratives that are far from the initial context and substance.

The truth is disguised. Opinion dictions began to appear. Halal and haram, right and wrong, mixed up. As in one of the posts on Greenpeace's social media account, where in the opening sentence he wrote:

''...President Jokowi signed a commitment to end deforestation and land degradation by 2030....''... Similar sentences like this were even stated by foreign state officials, and published by foreign mass media. Opinion of diction is growing very wildly.

In fact, the Climate Change Summit or COP26 is still ongoing, dialogue sessions are still ongoing, and as of this writing, no agreement has been signed.

President Jokowi's statement at COP26 regarding FoLU net carbon sink 2030, which is increasingly being campaigned structurally and massively by foreign and domestic parties, is the same as Zero Deforestation 2030.

So when there was an official statement by Siti Nurbaya through her social media account, straightening out that FoLU Net Carbon Sink 2030 is not Zero Deforestation, netizens who are 'Most True with the flick of their fingers' immediately reacted.

The intention to streamline information to protect the sovereignty of the Republic of Indonesia from foreign pressure is no longer seen as educational information. The result of the edited piece of tweet and distributed by NGO social media in a chain, as if inviting netizens to join in cursing the incompetent Indonesian government! Want to cut down trees for the sake of building ambitions!

That's why I want to write long, taking on the role of providing a little educational information. This paper will be very, very heavy, and many technical terms 'heavenly language' are trying to be 'earthed'. So for those who are interested in continuing to read, you can prepare a cup of coffee and snacks first. For those who don't intend to read, that's also okay, as long as you don't invite discussion but use opinion diction that doesn't match Indonesia.

1. What is FoLU net carbon sink and Zero Deforestation?

FoLU net carbon sink and Zero Deforestation are two different entities. Gender difference. The difference is like earth and sky.

Zero deforestation or zero deforestation consists of two words. Zero means nothing. Deforestation means the permanent conversion of forest areas into non-forested land for human activities. So deforestation does not mean cutting down trees, but the landscape of the land as a whole.

So simply zero deforestation means that the forest and land area should not change the slightest for human activities. It can't be tampered with as it is in its original form. Any form that interferes with the existence of the forest area is totally prohibited from being disturbed by humans. Even if a tree accidentally falls due to human activity, then it is unlawful. Humans become environmental criminals. So roughly.

Meanwhile, FoLU net carbon sink consists of the words Forestry and Other Land Use/FoLU or forestry and other land uses. Net carbon sink means net carbon sequestration. This term was issued after various efforts of the last 6-7 years.

So FoLU Net Carbon Sink is simply emissions from the forestry sector and other land uses in 2030 which will be able to be absorbed cleanly, no longer affecting the release of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions.

So the clean ones are emissions from the forestry sector. It is not clean forest areas and land from human activities. The term net or negative emissions in FoLU net carbon does not mean bad or bad, but that carbon emissions are stored, not released into the atmosphere, such as emissions from forest and peatland fires.

If the emission is zero or negative, then there is a natural balance from the forestry sector or the FoLU Net Carbon Sink.

The simple simulation is something like this: There are several forest areas cleared to build road facilities for an isolated village, so the emissions from these development activities should not be more or even less than the Indonesian Government's NDC promise. So everything has been calculated with simulations, with the BALANCE keyword. The development must be balanced with the emission release.

2. What is NDC?

This stands for Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). This is the sweet promise of the Indonesian government to all the people of Indonesia and to the world's population, that this country will contribute to emission reductions of 29% with its own efforts, and 41% with international assistance.

Why should there be international assistance? So that not only Indonesia is pressured to reduce emissions, but foreign countries are busy adding emissions that damage the earth, but we Indonesians who are told to bear the burden for the people of other countries. That's not fair, especially for a developing country like Indonesia.

This sweet promise related to NDC was first conveyed at an international forum (agreement of countries) at the Climate Change Summit/COP21 Paris in 2015. This agreement was later ratified in Indonesia's positive law in the form of Law Number 16 of 2016 concerning climate change as a result of the Paris agreement.

So 29% and 41% are valid promises to be the big PR of the Indonesian government (central to regional). This promise must be immediately implemented in policies and on-site work, because if it is not realized by 2030, it will only be called imagery and rhetoric.

Well... let's get serious, let's go into more detail. Please read it carefully to understand better.

Of Indonesia's NDC targets, the forestry sector has the largest mandate, which is to reduce 24.1% of the total 41% of carbon emission pledges. Followed by the energy sector (15.50%), waste (1.40%), industry (0.11%), and agriculture (0.13%).

So, here is the key word of the government's statement that by 2030, the forestry sector and other uses will reduce emissions as promised in the NDC. This is what is then called FoLU Net Carbon Sink 2030. So what has been achieved is a reduction in emissions from the forestry sector and its land, so that it is not forest and land that cannot be done at all. Forests and land can still be used, as long as the emission is maintained, which means that the quality of the environment is also maintained.

3. Why do forest areas still have to be done for development?

This is a question that is often the subject of campaigns by environmental activists. That's a really good question, especially since the attention of Generation Z has now been directed towards loving the environment. We can see a real bright future for this Republic.

But unfortunately, this question sometimes stops just asking, but is not accompanied by looking at the facts on the ground that forest governance in Indonesia has already borne a very heavy burden.

Many protected forest areas have been encroached on, even thousands of people have been living in forest areas.

There are about 34 thousand villages, whose people live around and even in forest areas, living for generations, and most of them are still below the poverty line.

This village community is partly isolated, without getting the facilities that are their rights as citizens as regulated in the 1945 Constitution such as roads, electricity, telecommunications, education, etc. As a result, they have no alternative economic options to prosper. Poor for generations, even though living around abundant natural resources.

In addition, the environmental conditions are also very very heavy. The forest has already been encumbered with permits, controlled by large corporations, the license contract has been in effect for decades. It can't just be revoked, because the government, as the node of all interests, cannot act arbitrarily.

Peat is wet by nature, millions of hectares are forced to dry. On it planted acacia and oil palm. Millions of Indonesian people live from this activity. Both legal and illegal. They will live and die defending their garden. Even if they are disturbed, they are willing to take up machetes. If you are not very careful, then the potential for conflicts among the nation's children has the potential to turn into 'open war'.

The peat dome has been ravaged. On it is the business that feeds the stomachs of millions of Indonesian people. If not processed, the people are hungry. If it is not taken care of, at any time it can immediately smolder, becoming a fire and forest fire disaster and a smog disaster. Suffer together.

And there are many other problems. Many.

So if the term ZERO DEFORESTATION is used, how can the problems of the stomach and the livelihoods of millions of citizens be met? how to maintain the economy, security, environmental sustainability can be maintained in balance? how can environmental and forestry problems be solved?

Zero deforestation, which the international community has urged on Indonesia, is very unfair. The developed countries in the world seem to want to say to developing countries that own large forests, ''The important thing is that my people are healthy and breathe oxygen, your people's problems, you have to think of the solution yourself. The important thing is that you don't do anything to forest and land areas, okay, I'll give you money if you can get zero deforestation''.

So from here, the zero deforestation campaigns began to be obscured from their initial substance, predicted in various international meetings, campaigned by affiliated NGOs in that direction, regardless of the real conditions that exist in the Indonesian people themselves.

Meanwhile, the Indonesian government is of course obliged to be responsible to all its people according to the mandate of the law. The problems of our nation are not the same as the problems of other nations. How to solve our household problems, can not be equated with how to solve other households.

Therefore, in Siti Nurbaya's clipped tweet, it was stated that large-scale development must not stop in the name of deforestation. This post is indeed very easy to invite controversy, if you don't see it from the right point of view or sect.

Massive development here if the sect is zero deforestation, then it must have a negative connotation. Because deforestation is seen as just cutting down trees.

But if the deforestation school is interpreted as a unified landscape, then its management affiliation will lead to creating justice and prosperity for all Indonesian people through massive sustainable development.

Massive development can be interpreted as a way to build courage. Have the courage to build roads for isolated villages to move the economy, build telecommunication towers so that for example village children can learn creative economy from YouTube, build schools so that the children of the nation's successors will no longer have to traverse through temporary forests. they have equal and equal rights to education.

I have been to a very remote village in Riau. In tears, when children are barefoot, they have to go through the forest, through rivers, in order to be able to go to school in buildings that are made of wood, because school infrastructure is not allowed to be built because it is in a forest area. There is only one teacher, and even then, you have to travel about 7 hours by boat. So sometimes the teacher only comes occasionally, and doesn't even come at all on a rainy day, because there is no access to adequate road transportation. This condition is still widely found in remote parts of Indonesia in the 20th century when the rest of the world was already talking about traveling to outer space.

Not once or twice, I hugged the mothers who were crying hysterically complaining, because the gardens and lands inherited by their ancestors were taken arbitrarily by the company. They have nothing left. Life and death are already there, and even then, unscrupulous businessmen have taken it on the pretext of 'this forest area already has a permit from the state for us'. That license is decades old. But the people's land was long before the permit for the concession was granted.

If Indonesia agrees on Zero Deforestation according to foreign pressure as also supported by some NGOs, then the government certainly cannot attend to people's cases like this. The government is 'dead in style' because the forest area is locked up and nothing can be done about it, even if it is given to the people.

If zero deforestation becomes the school of development in Indonesia, then surely this country can hardly build anything else. Because many forest areas have been plotted by permits that have been issued since time immemorial. Want to build a road to the forest area. Wanting to build a school is prohibited because it is a forest area. Even wanting to install a telephone tower is prohibited because it is a forest area.

In addition, if there is zero deforestation, the government will certainly not be able to give social forestry permits to the people. Because social forestry was given from forest areas that were originally controlled by concessions and had the potential for conflict, the permit was later transferred to local farmer groups who had been marginalized.

So FoLU Net Carbon sink is how we are committed to maintaining the absorption of carbon emissions, without having to ignore the mandate of the 1945 Constitution to present equitable development for all Indonesian people.

Because what will be used for development is a forest area that has been burdened with 'past sins', then the permit is slowly given to groups of farmers who live around and within the area. It's time for the forest to provide prosperity without having the forest destroyed by greedy human hands. To manage it all, the role of FoLU Net Carbon Sink. No matter how big the construction is, the emissions must be maintained according to the NDC promise. Because if the emission is maintained, it means that there is no problem with the quality of the environment.

SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT, PROTECTED FORESTS, PROSPEROUS PEOPLE. So roughly.

4. But isn't Zero Deforestation very environmentally friendly?

Totally agree. Later it will continue to lead to it, because the contributor to emissions is not only from the forestry sector. The other biggest sector is energy, in which there are still problems with coal mining, transportation, electricity, etc.

Therefore, after calculating it, taking into account the national strategic needs and people's lifestyles (which it is impossible for all of them to suddenly want to walk or not take a plane), then for all sectors that contribute to emissions (forestry, energy, waste, garbage and agriculture), Indonesia targets Net-Zero Emission by 2060 or as early as possible. To achieve this target, it must be in line with technological developments, such as cars that used to rely on fuel, switch to electric cars, etc.

Now if nationally from the five sectors the promise in 2060 has only been achieved, then for the forestry sector or the FoLU net sink, it is much faster, the promise is in 2030. But the way is not simply to stop development immediately in various problematic forest areas as above earlier.

What is the use of our forests, large, wide, if it turns out that millions of people around the forest are poor, stupid, and backward. If there is no fair development, then our human resources will be of low quality, our nation will be very easily colonized. New technology will not be discovered. Our people will only be spectators in their own country. How unfair we as urban people are to millions of our brothers and sisters in the surrounding villages and already in the forest area, as if 'imprisoning' them in the name of ZERO DEFORESTATION AND LOVE THE ENVIRONMENT.

Whereas as long as we can maintain the emissions according to the promise to the NDC, the development is essentially sustainable, because there are already emission targets that have been set as standards. Sustainable development will not be achieved if the people are not included.

Therefore, since 2015, the government has no longer given permits to manage forest areas in large concessions. It's been enough for decades that permission has been given to them. Existing permits were then transferred to farming community groups in and around forest areas. They will be able to work without destroying the forest. For example, they raise cows, honey kelulut, fruit trees, etc., but the forest area is maintained. This is tantamount to providing opportunities for local wisdom to be involved in sustainable forest area management.

Before 2015, permits for the people were only 4 percent. How unfair. People around and in the forest being chased. They grow to eat, called land destruction, imprisoned. People suffer, poor as poor as possible. But now slowly ahead of 2015, Hutsos and TORA permits have been rushed. As of 2020, permits for the people have reached 18% or cover an area of 4.7 million ha, and will continue to increase as the target of 12.7 million ha is distributed to farmers.

Along with that, in order to maintain the balance of emissions, the water level of the peat soil is maintained, forest and land fires are overcome, environmental law is enforced, sustainable forest management is carried out, etc.

It is in all sectors that NGOs, the press, academics, law enforcement, and all of us should take part in guarding, so that the utilization of forest areas is truly managed by and for the people.

So even if there is a development that utilizes the services of the environment and forestry sectors for the benefit of mankind, which continues to multiply, then we all ensure that the amount of emissions must be truly balanced and will not damage the earth's atmosphere. The point is BALANCE.

5. Why doesn't Indonesia want Zero Deforestation by 2030?

Indonesia only became independent from the colonialists in 1945. Indonesia is now only 76 years old. Major corrections to forest governance policies were carried out in the field in 2016. Now it's 2021. This means that if we use the terminology of zero deforestation in 2030 (such as foreign pressure and some NGOs), it means that we only have time to build, catch up , free from ignorance, bring justice, solve environmental problems involving millions of people, only on the deadline of 9 years.

Even then, it is now the end of the year, entering 2022 means that there are 8 years remaining. Cut off the change of government period, suppose the effective time to build is 5 plus 4 years (with two more Presidents). Can we build it in just 9 years? Will the justice and welfare of the people around and within the forest area be completed within a period of 9 years? Please think with a clear heart, regardless of interests.

When the developed countries of the world 'force' us to zero deforestation, it is because they have finished building long ago. Their infrastructure is okay, their schools are all IT-based, their economy is solid, there is no intimidation of greedy businessmen to the common people, there are no conflicts that are ready to kill each other among citizens, and so on.

Foreign parties are indirectly trying to make Indonesia a primitive nation. You can't build anything while they're ready to build.

Then do they want to equate their condition with ours, by forcing us to use the terminology of zero deforestation? This is what the government says, that each country has its own household affairs, and has its own way of resolving them.

Therefore, the meaning of deforestation should not be seen in the small scope of cutting down trees. That's not the only meaning of deforestation. If zero deforestation 2030 is as foreign as the Indonesian government wants, then the simulation is something like this: if the status of a forest area changes its status is no longer a forest area because it is given to the people, it is called deforestation! If there is still a forest area whose access is opened to build roads and schools for the development of human resources for the Indonesian people, it is called deforestation! Even a tree behind a resident's house that is already living in a forest area is cut down to clean the yard, that is also called deforestation!

Are we fair with all the problems of our nation, must follow the terminology of other nations' version of deforestation? Is it fair for us to give health and well-being to the people of other nations, while neglecting the people and the welfare of the people of our own nation?

If we accept the word foreign, to take care of our great nation with all its dynamics, it means that we are opening ourselves up to being colonized again. How stupid would we be if that happened.

6. Can without zero deforestation, Indonesia's environmental quality can be maintained?

Therefore, for the forestry sector and other uses, we have made a promise that emissions from this sector will be net absorbed in 2030 aka FoLU net carbon sink 2030. So the carbon emissions really must be kept in balance, without ignoring the principles of sustainable development.

If emissions from forest and land fires can be suppressed, peat can be maintained, forests are sustainable with villagers who get social forest permits, seeds planted in the rehabilitation program begin to grow into trees, environmental criminals will begin to decrease along with strong law enforcement, economic justice for communities around forests is maintained, then all these results can certainly encourage carbon sequestration/storage in the forestry sector in 2030. This is where our participation is needed to carry out supervision. So don't ask for zero deforestation, but the people live in hunger, poverty, ignorance and backwardness.

Meanwhile, that was my long explanation. I've finished two cups of coffee. Hope it can be useful. Be careful of foreign terminology entering and destroying the direction of the development of the Indonesian nation. Independent!!!

Dr. Afni Zulkifli* Lecturer at the Faculty of Administrative Sciences (FIA) Lancang Kuning University Pekanbaru-Riau* LHK Policy Practitioner* Initiator of the Generation of Movers (GeRak)

VOI editors receive opinions, ideas and analyzes from readers regarding an event. The contents of the article are beyond the responsibility of the editor and are entirely in the hands of the author. Writing is not a description of the attitude of the editor. Please send your work to [email protected].