The Impact of Globalization on Deforestation in Indonesia

Introduction

Indonesia is a nation which has one the largest areas of tropical forests in the world. These forests more important to control the world climate and also has a role within Indonesian society with people who live and dependent on them. Unfortunately, these forests have been subject to logging and clear felling. It has been claimed that this process of deforestation is accelerated by globalization. Menotti (1999) believes that “globalization pushes governments to unrestricted global investment in new access [sic] to unexploited industry … It is the consequence of global competitive [sic] which has led governments everywhere to abandon forest protection laws and regulations as the demand for paper products increases a predictable result of proliferating fax machines, photocopiers and desktop printers” (Menotti, 1999). Deforestation problem will obstruct the development process in Indonesia because of the destruction of many natural resources and the trigger of social problems. This essay argues that deforestation is a negative effect of globalization which has caused mass land degradation and land disputes, and also has threatened the local identity on some indigenous people.

Globalization

Globalization is defined, by Keigherm & Lowery (1998) as “a process of global integration in which diverse peoples, economies, cultures, and political processes are increasingly subjected to international influences, and people are made aware of the role of these influences in their everyday lives”. Therefore globalization has improved the relationship between many nations. Imai (2006) believes that “…globalization of economy has weakened the individual states' control over their societies; thus, globalization promotes civil liberties and, eventually, democracy through socioeconomic development.” This means that globalization has become a vital part of a nation’s economy has created political stability in certain regions and enhanced development.
However, globalization can be also understandood as a “social process in which the constraints of geography on social and cultural arrangements recede, and people become increasingly aware that they are receding.” (Kunitz, 2000) Thus, globalization will create its own identical culture and threaten other minority cultures. This is one of the disadvantages of globalization. Garland (2006) claims that “languages and cultures will simply cease to exist, and people will instead choose "global" cultures and languages that will transcend boundaries.” This will threaten the existence of local cultures and values in every country, especially in developing countries. For instance, in Indonesia, globalization will impact on the distinctiveness of some indigenous people and also the national culture which could be replaced by global culture.


Globalization in Indonesia

It has been suggested that Indonesia has experienced globalization since 1967. Pilger (2001) argues that the former president Soeharto initiated the globalization by using military dictatorship which was violently which result the death of about a million of people and the legacy of sweatshops and corruption. Soeharto used the term of development as the next step to globalization era. At that time “the physical construction and the delivery of physical inputs (seeds, credit, cleared land) have been financed by international donors” (Li, 1003) to help the development of Indonesia and converted much of its agricultural areas to industrial areas. As a result, “the industrialization grew rapidly, following the adoption of more liberal economic policies, at more than ten per cent per annum in most years until the economic crisis erupted in 1997.” (Feridhanusetyawan, 2000)
Furthermore, during the period of 1967 to 1997, Indonesia was named as one of the leading industrialization nations in East Asia (McNally, 1998). The remarkably change of that periods was influenced by the growth of goods production, the industrialization structure, international orientation of commercial and industrial efficiency. Feridhanusetyawan (2000) believes that the open trade and politic policies from Soeharto is the major reason of the fast transformation into industrialization.
Consequently, industrialization has given many advantages to Indonesia society. It has created a stable economy and reduced poverty, the economic growth has led to an increase real income and expenditure, and the improvement of rural economic development. (Feridhanusetyawan, 2000).
However, globalization has spoiled the balance of the ecosystem and accelerated deforestation. Menotti (1999) claims that another pillar of globalisation is competitive subsidisation, which is given to industries by the government, to legitimate the industries destroying forests and to build major infrastructures.
In addition, the process of forests destruction is mainly done by “logging operations and an expansion of shifting agriculture (the practice of clearing a plot of land, cultivating it for a short time, then abandoning it for a new plot)” (Lamblin & Geist, 2003). This practice includes migration into new areas such as transmigration program, and a gradual transition from shifting agriculture toward more permanent agriculture in certain areas. It is claimed that this has been done in development term program under the Soeharto regime (Li, 2003). Afterwards, “the state forest throughout the region has been transformed into open access” (Lambin & Geist, 2003) and this worsens the deforestation problem.


Indonesia Deforestation Problem

Globalization of the economy leads governments in each region to become more competitive and to provide an abundance natural resource. Unfortunately, governments tend to neglect their responsibility to conserve land and forests. Menotti (1999) believes that “one of the major driving forces behind globalization is the removal of government restrictions on foreign investment, providing new access to resources previously unexploited by industry.” He also argues that due to globalization governments abandon forest protection laws and regulations (Menotti, 1999). Thus, “Indonesia government did not demonstrate a strong willingness to intervene, conservation activists and social forestry projects have made little headway in halting deforestation” (Lambin & Geist, 2003).
As the beginning of the globalization period made development progress became the priority which caused deforestation. At that time Indonesia government initiate the term for "development" in New Order era. Tania Murray Li confirmed that :
The particular meaning of “development” is established by downplaying its nationalist-era connotations of awakening (membangun) in favor of construction (also membangun), and further reducing the connotations of the latter from the potentially dynamic project of nation building to the more solidly directive operation of building the nation's infrastructure and physical plant (Li, 2003)

This “development” program has given authority incautiously to some loggers or companies to exploit forest within Indonesia regions. Consequently, they shifted from one concession (a forest area allocated by the government to a timber company for tree harvesting) to others, then, after having depleted forests of their valuable species, shifted from one region to the other regions within Indonesia (Lamblin & Geist, 2003).
An Indonesian environmental group states that (Knight, 2001) “Hundreds of thousands of hectares of Indonesia's remaining forests were clear-cut in order to feed the nations rapid expansion of pulp and paper production during the last decade …” (Knight, 2001). Moreover, Indonesia which owns about 10 percent of the world's rain forests, is losing approximately nine hundred thousand hectares of forest every year (Dauvergne, 1993).
Although deforestation is getting worse the urgency of development is still important for many Indonesians. They believe that “the need for development (pembangunan) - for more production, agricultural lands and foreign exchange etc. - is of greater urgency than the necessity for wildlands” (McCarthy, 1998). The development progress is claimed as the best way to improve infrastructure throughout Indonesia. It also contributes to increase equality and prosperity for all Indonesian, for instance in creating new jobs, better education opportunity, and health facilities.
However, this period of development triggered mass anger of people who were unable to access state resources and the anger of those whose land, forest, and other means of livelihood are appropriated for state or private schemes (Li, 2003). Government used its authority and policies to take over most of lands and forests, which was occupied by local people. Government also blamed local people as the caused of land degradation, by using swidden system (“A form of agriculture that involves cuffing back and burning off vegetative cover, which temporarily enriches the soil; growing crops until the soil produces lower yield; then moving on to clear trees for another plot” (Dauvergne, 1993)) then forced them to move to other areas. During the period of 1972 to 1982 about ten thousand native families were resettled as they were blamed for the swidden which had destructed the forest (Dauvergne, 1993). As a consequence they loose their right and income on forests exploitation.
In addition, government's transmigration projects which moved an estimated 3,600,000 people from Java to the outer islands by 1987 threatened the forest and conservation program and also the existence of indigenous people (Dauvergne, 1993). This caused the land dispute between indigenous people and government, and endangered their local identity. For example in Dayak Longhouse communities in Kalimantan (Dauvergne, 1993). They were forced to resettle in government villages and leaving the forest while on the other hand government gives permission for forest exploitation to new migrant.
Another example is the land dispute between Dayak Bahau communities and two logging companies in Kalimantan (Elsam, 2001). Since 1992, their traditional live altered dramatically when those companies were permitted by the government to exploit Matalibaq forest. The Dayak Bahau communities lost their right to manage the forests for farming, fishing and traditional logging. Government and the companies had an agreement without the involvement of Dayak communities. Even tough the land ownership was compensated, the lost of materials is priceless.
Therefore, globalization in Indonesia accelerated deforestation and caused the nation lost many areas of green forests. On the other hand, globalization affects some indigenous people as their live become pushed by the needs of wildlands, woods and mines for manufactures and industries. McCarthy (1998) predicts that their ways of life are likely will not to last longer as their traditional rights are ignored and difficult to survive.



Conclusion

Globalization in Indonesia in the period of 1967 to 1997 has created remarkable economic growth which has reduced the poverty rate and built infrastructures throughout regions. Unfortunately, globalization has also influenced the investment in forest and logging, and government failed to manage this exploitation. Consequently, deforestation is one of the negative impacts of globalization and has ruined the conservation of the ecosystem. Furthermore, globalization has spoiled the relationship between indigenous people and government, and threatened those people’s local identity.