The Human Cost of Environmental Conservation:
The Sibajag Case*]
Nishita Trisal
Following a painstakingly slow six-month trial process, the Magelang Court on March 24, 2008 announced a guilty verdict in the case of Perhutani vs Mudek, a Temanggung man charged for illegal logging by the state forestry agency. Perhutani officials captured the 30-year-old wage laborer last September as he was returning from the forest near his home with small pieces of wood and some charcoal. Mudek’s punishment includes 11 months of jail time, six of which he has already served awaiting trial, and an additional month in jail or a payment of Rp 500,000. Defense lawyers from the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation-Semarang (LBH) say the verdict is yet another example of how the judicial system is wrongly focusing on criminalization rather than education.
Illegal logging is one of the most controversial issues in Indonesia, which is ranked third in the world in terms of area of tropical forest. Although numerous high ranking officials and companies have been charged with participating in the illegal practice, nearly all have been acquitted, and many have escaped the judicial system altogether. This environment of impunity is partially due to the wording and interpretation of the1999 Forestry Act, which defines illegal loggers as those who do not hold a permit to work in the forest. Those who do hold permits but cut or take larger quantities than are allowed usually go unnoticed or are said to have committed an administrative error. These individuals are not charged as illegal loggers, such as the recent acquittal of illegal logging suspect Adelin Lis, head of the Mujur Timber Group in North Sumatra.
“It is clear that the situation is not really environmentally just for the poor, marginalized people who live in the surroundings of the protected forest and who depend on the land to provide them with their subsistence needs, but instead favors those who have the permits, who don’t really need the land except for accumulation of capital,” says Benny Setianto, researcher and law professor at Soegijapranata Catholic University (UNIKA) in Semarang. “The law [1999 Forestry Act] was not simply meant to marginalize the community near the forest, but the way it is implemented to some extent creates marginalization of people, especially when you relate it to relate some of these corrupt things with the government in the forestry area.”
Mudek’s arrest last year came as a shock to the people of Sibajag, a peaceful mountain town in Temanggung, Central Java with a population of 600. For generations the community has been gathering wood from the forest for livelihood purposes without fear of prosecution. “I have lived in this community for 25 years and this is the first time that something like this has happened,” says Jumadi, Mudek’s father-in-law. “It was Mudek’s bad luck.”
But it was not just bad luck that led to Mudek’s imprisonment. Over the past several years, Perhutani has conducted numerous strategic raids against communities living in and around Java’s forests for traditional wood-gathering practices. In Sibajag, the agency claims that forest resources are being slowly degraded by the community’s improper use of the forest and their disregard for Perhutani policies.
“The community is arrogant. They know the rules but they pretend not to know. And they like to do everything as a mass. Everyone wants to be involved in these situations, like anarchism,” says Marino, the Perhutani-police official involved in Mudek’s capture.
Sibajag citizens say such accusations of knowingly flouting the laws are unfair and point to Perhutani’s failure to inform them about which areas are protected and which are not. According to Purwadi, the former secretary of the Sibajag Forest Community Group (LMDH) that works with Perhutani, the agency conducted socialization activities regarding its policies from 1999-2004, but did not give details about protected areas. He claims that since 2004 Perhutani has been barely involved with the community, until Mudek’s arrest.
Perhutani, which controls approximately two-thirds of Java’s forest area, is primarily responsible for managing and protecting the forest. It also exploits the forest for commercial purposes, resulting in significant profits for the agency every year. In March Perhutani announced expected profits of Rp 95.5 billion (US$10.4 million) for this year, lower than its Rp 111 billion intake last year.
In Sibajag, the paradox of Perhutani as a conserver as well as exploiter of the forest is a bitter reality. Community members note that while Mudek has been criminalized for collecting a small amount of wood for livelihood purposes, Perhutani in 2004 felled over 1,000 pinus trees near Sibajag. A portion of the profits from the project that were promised to the community has still not arrived.
Profit sharing with local communities is heralded by Perhutani as one of the ways it fairly distributes income garnered from the forest. This strategy is a part of the overall Community Based Forest Management approach (PHBM), implemented by Perhutani in the 1980s to decentralize forest management as well as to meet stricter international standards selling its forest products abroad. While Perhutani officials are eager to share PHBM success stories, public policy experts and advocates say that the initiative on a whole has yet to create significant gains for local communities in terms of rights or livelihood.
Marino, the Perhutani official, says he understands the economic limitations that motivate individuals like Mudek to take wood from the forest. According to him, Perhutani is planning an initiative to create special areas in which trees will be planted for community members to use for gathering wood and making charcoal. He did not offer any ideas as to how communities could secure their livelihoods while waiting for those areas to develop.
As for alternatives to criminalization that Perhutani could have pursued with Mudek, Marino is adamant that there was no other way for the agency to get its message across.
“Because the same problems are repeated every year, we have to be more strict. If we would have freed Mudek or give him just a light punishment, there will be more similar acts. We hope that this case will be an example for the rest of the community.”
Benny Setianto, the UNIKA law professor, disagrees. He believes that Perhutani could have worked within the scope of the more progressive 1997 Environmental Protection Act, which calls for environmental conservation efforts that genuinely consider the needs and limitations of marginalized communities.
“Of course there are some alternatives for Perhutani to deal with these kinds of situations. If Perhutani wisely uses the Environmental Protection Act instead of the Forestry Act, the agency will find it easier to be able to deal with these kinds of ‘illegal loggers.’ There will be a possibility for mediation rather than criminalization.”