The recent haze in Indonesia is likely to be an important issue of discussion at the upcoming climate talks in Paris. Environmentalists are vehemently opposing the cutting down of tropical rainforests in Indonesia and Malaysia which are damaging ecosystem of these countries. The green brigade has been voicing its “concern” over the blind deforestation that occurs in the forests of these countries at the expense of development. Or so they lead us to believe.
Palm oil has been a major target in these lobbying tactics against development primarily because it is a soft target and so are the companies and countries producing it.
The question that begs to be asked is: Are the environmentalists justified in this opposition? Actual data does not support the transnational environmentalist arguments. Here’s why:
The Real Culprits? U.S. and EU
As per U.S. Environment Protection Agency, burning of fossil fuel is the single largest contributor of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) shows that between 1850 and 2012, U.S. was the biggest carbon dioxide emitter with a share of 27 per cent of cumulative global emissions, followed by EU which accounted for 25 per cent. Indonesia’s share stood at mere one per cent with the European Environmental Center in Amsterdam ranking Indonesia only at the eleventh place worldwide.
US and EU together accounted for a stark 52 per cent of global GHG emissions, yet NGOs put the onus of climate change on developing nations like Indonesia which is witnessing industrialization and growth of its economy, with palm oil being a large contributor to this economic growth.
Table: Comparison of U.S. and Indonesia
| Parameters | US | Indonesia |
| Forest Cover (2013) | 33.8% | 51% |
| Population Density – No. of people per Sq. Km. (2014) | 98 / Sq. Km. | 260 / Sq. Km. |
| GDP Per Capita (2014) | $54,070 | $3,630 |
| Agriculture Contribution to GDP (2014) | 1.4% | 13.7% |
| Population below Poverty Line (2014) | 15.1% | 11 % |
As can be seen from the table above, more than half of Indonesian land is covered by forests, while the population density of 260 is also very high, almost thrice that of U.S. Indonesia is not as industrialized as compared to U.S., hence the dependence on agriculture for contribution to its economy is almost six times compared to U.S. The data also shows that Indonesia has a lower population below the poverty line than U.S. Of the total employment in Indonesia, 35 per cent people are engaged in agriculture, hence, forestland being used for agriculture by Indonesia to meet the requirement of its people is justified and makes for smart economics.
Palm Oil and Poverty Alleviation
The tropical climate of Indonesia is suitable for palm oil cultivation, which provides it with a unique advantage for revenue generation and poverty alleviation. Between 2006 and 2014, poverty in Indonesia fell from 17.8 per cent to 11 per cent. This period coincides with Indonesia’s rise as the biggest palm oil producer. Hence, the role of palm oil industry in poverty alleviation cannot be ignored despite the rhetoric by green groups pounding out a different message.
The recently agreed upon Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of United Nations lay primary emphasis on eradicating poverty in all its forms. This was in congruent with the policy adopted by Indonesia regarding expansion of palm oil sector.
NGO Action and its consequences
Sighting the incidences of forest fires and haze, the international NGOs concerned with environment managed to exert pressure on the Indonesian government to amend its land policy. Indonesian Vice President Jusuf Kalla said that the government would improve land governance by halting issuance of land permits for converting natural forests into industrial forests. However, this policy change will come at a cost.
The decision will adversely impact palm oil production, which will render many farm workers and small producers out of job and will have serious consequences for the economy as a whole. Environmental commentaries in U.S. suggest campaigning in Brazil affected negatively the export economy, depressed the Brazilian currency, and hence halted development. Whereas, seen as an ecological victory, the negative impacts on society are ignored at great expense to the public.
The global palm oil demand is on the rise and this move will limit the production capacity of Indonesia and threaten its numero uno status. The NGO actions are aimed at stifling the growth of the economy and are in direct contradiction of the human right to uplift its standard of living. Policy officials in Indonesia will bear the political consequence of flawed green-economical group thinking.
Lessons from India
Since 2014, the Indian government has cancelled the licenses of Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) of NGOs including Greenpeace, Action Aid, Amnesty International and restricted the Ford Foundation and other foreign donors. The government stated that the actions of these NGOs were aimed at impacting its growth and development and would cost 2-3 per cent to its GDP. Similar losses are experienced in Malaysia and Indonesia.
Indonesia and India have a lot in common, especially the fact they both depend on agriculture for GDP growth. India’s steps in the direction of keeping its growth and security intact at the expense of pushing out foreign hands that aim at dissent were the right ones and Indonesia would do well to learn from them.
In Indonesia today, a clash of ecological paradigms with civilization is becoming a clash with economics at the expense of the people. The political leadership better take note, else this developing country that has the scope to move upwards will further go deeper into the hole of underdevelopment.
Umar Farooq is a Senior Economic Researcher at DAfz & Assistant Professor Rizvi Institute of Management Studies and Research in India
This article was originally published in Citizen Daily on 20th November, 2015.
http://en.citizendaily.net/indonesias-poor-land-policies-mean-palm-oil-may-lose-numero-uno-status/
Comments
Post a Comment