In February this year the Indonesian Moslem Council (MUI) issued a fatwa on deforestation, declaring the activity as haram or forbidden. A commendable act by a religious institution which is rarely at the forefront of issues like this. It is hoped that the fatwa will discourage many illegal loggers in this Moslem-majority country. How impactful, though, will this fatwa be? And when it comes to cutting trees on a massive scale, who is actually the biggest culprit?

Let’s get something straight. Complex, systemic issues require equally complex, systemic solutions. And deforestation is one of such issues. The problem lies deep within the system itself and it goes hand in hand with various other systemic issues, such as poverty, mismanagement and/or misgovernment, and something akin to national pride.

Forests are not only cut for their timber or to clear the land to make room for, say, cattle farming. Increasingly, trees are razed level with the ground because there exist other commodities in the area which garner higher price points on the market. For the past few years in Indonesia, this commodity has been nickel. One of the ingredients in the making of Lithium-ion batteries which are needed in most electric vehicles and solar panels, its ores can be found in the Earth’s crust in various regions across the world. The largest reserves in the world, though, are in Indonesia and, yes, within those tropical rain forests.

The irony of this — if it isn’t obvious already — is that in our effort to become green by driving an electric car or powering our house with solar panels, we actually have to, well, cut trees and clear forests. In the past we humans have never faced such a dilemma with other minerals, such as coal. The choices have always been either/or. Green and environmentally friendly on one side; dirty and environmentally destructive on the other. It is only in the past five, ten years that this dichotomy gets blurred.

The islands of Borneo (Kalimantan) and Sumatra have always been notorious for deforestation where tens of thousands of hectares of rain forests which are home to some of the most critically endangered species, such as orangutans and rhinos and hornbills, are continually converted into coal mining, oil palm plantation and industrial pulpwood plantation. All within legal frameworks and with the nod from the related ministry. According to the report issued last year by Auriga Nusantara, the provinces of West Kalimantan, Central Kalimantan, and East Kalimantan are the top three most deforested provinces in the country thanks to those deforestation agents. But with the world’s increasing demands for electric vehicles and solar panels and thus nickel, the title of the most deforested province may soon shift to South Sulawesi where most of the nickel deposits in the country are concentrated. One report suggests that so far forests the size of Singapore have been cleared and converted into open-pit nickel mine sites — this quoted size is likely to be an understatement — and half a million hectares more is to meet the same fate within the next few years. Indonesia, as a whole, may be categorized as HFHD (High Forest, High Deforestation) as can be seen in the diagram below.

Forest and land use mitigation and adaptation in Sri Lanka — Aspects in the light of international climate change policies (Eskil Mattsson, Ph.D Thesis, IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, March 2012)

But a close view into this archipelago will reveal that not all islands are HFHD. Two particular ones in the Wallacea region such as Sulawesi and Maluku are still HFLD (High Forest, Low Deforestation) but are feared to now undergo a massive transition to be HFHD. At this point alone the deforestation alarm should start ringing. But before we go further down the rabbit hole, what does nickel have to do with a sense of national pride? A lot.

During debates between vice presidential candidates earlier this year, one contender asked his opponent if the opponent is perhaps anti-nickel due to the fact that one person in his campaign team often champions LFP (Lithium Ferro-Phosphate), a type of battery which is nickel-free. The question, which was met with cheers from the audiences, carried some insinuation that the opponent perhaps deserved to be questioned whether he has the nation’s best interest at heart. Indeed, the big narrative that has gained momentum among the populace ever since the government’s ban on nickel ores export last year is that if someone criticizes clearing of forests to make way for nickel mining, she must be anti-nickel. The old chasm between two opposite choices of green, environmental-friendly or dirty, environmental-destructing now manifests itself as a rigid line which divides the nation into two: pro-nickel and thus a nationalist .. or else.

Nobody should be forced to make such a choice. A true nationalist will have their nations’ interests at heart and that means considering an issue from all possible aspects. Although the current government’s policy to only export processed nickel is well-intentioned, excessive nickel mining without considering market dynamics and the environment can backfire as it may saturate the market and drive down the price, all the while pushing us deeper into the climate crisis.

Indonesia Nickel Heartland Wants to Be Greener Link in EV Chain (Annie Lee, Bloomberg, 24 July 2023)

But hasn’t the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) prepared some strategies to mitigate the glaring trend of deforestation which is now moving eastward and entering new territories of HFLD? This is where the complexity begins.

One of the key findings in Greenpeace Indonesia’s report issued last year states that “The government of Indonesia is determined to continue with a policy of planned deforestation. This is despite having now exceeded the deforestation ‘quota’ for 2013–2030 that it established when the FOLU Net Sink 2030 policy was first formulated.” Clearly Greenpeace Indonesia does not pull punches in their criticism against some of the MoEF’s policies. Another key finding is even more scathing: “A central premise of the FOLU Net Sink 2030 policy is flawed — carbon emissions from natural forest loss cannot simply be offset through short-term carbon sequestration by industrial monoculture timber plantations.”

A prominent environmental group with offices around the world, it is only natural that Greenpeace is vocal in their stance against deforestation. They can afford to be so. But advancing economic growth in a country where almost ten percent of its people still live below the national poverty line is invariably among the most pressing targets of any President. It is no surprise. Short-term economic needs trump long-term environmental needs. Every. Single. Time.

Add to the complexities, frequent mismatch in the directions which Ministerial offices take, bureaucratic gridlock among divisions within each office itself, and silo mentality which often plague bureaucrats in emerging countries, all paved way into the intricate jungle of governmental laws where what is missing in the articles matters as much, if not more, than what is spelled out. In short, the recipe for status quo when it comes to massive scale of deforestation. This demands the next question: cui bono. Whoever is trying to benefit from the status quo, those illegal loggers who usually clear forest to open new areas for their farms seem to be the least likely of them all as can be seen below.

It is no secret that economical access to nickel and other minerals (and, really, any commodity with high market demand) have always been concentrated in the hands of a few conglomerate groups. In the name of national economic interest, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of hectares of forest in Indonesia will vanish within the next few years. It is time we start putting the right price tags on nature’s riches for the benefit of Indonesian people themselves. It is also about time the biggest deforestation agent listens to the MUI fatwa.

“They took all the trees and put ’em in a tree museum
And they charged the people a dollar and a half to see them.”

(Big Yellow Taxi — Joni Mitchell)

‍