The Risks of Handing Out Forest Concessions
Monday, March 3, 2025
The government’s plan to hand out concessions on conservation forests contradicts the target of lowering emission. Is this an attempt at greenwashing?
arsip tempo : 174753955437.
THE Forestry Ministry’s plan to hand out concessions on conservation areas confirms the false orientation of environmental policies. Business and economic interests seem to be prioritized over real commitment to forest restoration.
Forestry Ministry’s Directorate-General of Natural Resources and Ecosystem Conservation is formulating a draft ministerial regulation on the restoration of conservation areas. The restoration scenario being proposed includes giving out 30-year or longer forest restoration concessions.
The Forestry Ministry claims this scenario is a solution that mutually benefits the government and businesses. The government would benefit from the restoration of damaged conservation areas, such as national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, by concession holders. Meanwhile, concession holders benefit from carbon credit—the right to emit carbon—that can be traded.
Carbon trading’s mechanism allows companies to purchase permits to produce emission as compensation for reducing carbon elsewhere. Carbon credit should be reflecting real reduction to emission. But, in many cases, carbon credit has only become a compensation tool without truly reducing pollution. Instead of reducing their own emission, large companies only need to buy carbon credit to create the illusion of sustainability.
The government’s plan contradicts the commitment to reach the target of net zero emission in 2060. Fact is, Indonesia’s carbon emission continues to rise. According to the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), Indonesia’s carbon emission reached 41.6 billion tons in 2024, or 1 billion tons higher compared to the previous year. Ironically, Indonesia continues to provide ease to those who produce emission, giving them the opportunity to continue polluting the environment as long as they can make up for it under the carbon offset system by purchasing carbon credit.
But another threat lies behind the concession scenario: misuse and hidden interests. The carbon trade offers great potential for profit. It is only understandable that many companies say they are ready to restore conservation areas. The government seems to have rushed to accommodate their interest by formulating a rule of play that opens the door to further exploitation.
This is clearly the government’s way of relinquishing responsibility for protecting forests. Conservation areas’ restoration should not be traded with the private sector purely for economic gain. The private sector should, of course, be allowed to be involved in restoration efforts, but the involvement must abide by strict conservation principles, not to legitimize greater environmental destruction.
The government should have reassessed the regulation plan more carefully and transparently. Conservation forests are the lungs of this country and the world. Do not let the ambition for short-term profit end in the destruction of invaluable ecosystems. It is a different story if the government is, in fact, deliberately practicing greenwashing—claiming that a policy is environmentally friendly when it is actually damaging the ecosystem.
