吉打州州务大臣阿兹占在6月18日宣布批准了在吉打比都（Pedu）、慕达（Muda）及阿宁（Ahning）三个集水区的伐木申请。
上述三个集水区位于吉打东北区，其中慕达森林保留区还是著名的旅游景点，上述集水区顺流汇集成的慕达河，为槟州提供的80％的水源。此外，吉打州的水，也是吉打数千农民、玻璃市、浮罗交怡岛人民、经济活动的命脉。一夜之间，阿兹占成了众矢之的。
森林与水源可说是一切人类活动的起源，除了石油，也可说是我国最宝贵的天然资源。这场森林与水源之争，也让许多环境问题在媒体上获得额外的版位，包括在森林蓄水区伐木不仅犯法，也将导致区域性暖化、旱季缺水、雨季洪水泛滥的严重后果。
中央未缴付1亿
据了解，阿兹占出此下策，主要是由于中央政府没有兑现承诺，缴付当年吉打州政府答应不伐木所应获得的1亿令吉。如果吉打州的森林门户开放，能为吉打带来额外的160亿令吉，何乐而不为？
阿兹占“最经典”的谈话，是将保护森林与宠溺小孩相提并论。他说：“我们太过沉溺于保护森林，不砍伐他们，我们让树木自然枯萎，它们死亡后、倒下，甚至影响其它生物的生长。”
他还说：“树桐是老天爷送给我们的礼物，我只是要用它来赚钱。”
环境价值难估算
槟州首长林冠英当然无法苟同阿兹占的说法。他说，若吉打州政府要以木材赚钱，但最后却造成环境破坏、损害人民利益，那将得不偿失。他也致函吉打州务大臣，希望对方认真考虑收回批准伐木的决定。
从经济角度来计算，吉打州或许会说：为什么要我保住森林，平白失去160亿令吉的收入？我们得知，槟州人民的平均用水量超过全国每个人的平均用水量，如果人民再不节约用水，那些用水量高的人是否应该多付一点水费，以示对环境的补偿？
在环境课题里，我们其实很难将天然资源按照传统的经济学，将之量化，然后算出成本、供求的价值。吉打州若选择短期内赚取160亿令吉，但它必须承担一切风险，除了环境恶化后无可估计的“善后损失”，政治上，它很有可能失去与周边州属的友好关系、也失去人民的信赖。
Transboundary natural resources have always been at the root of disputes throughout human history.
Kedah Menteri Besar Azizan Abdul Razak’s decision to approve the logging of the forest reserves surrounding Pedu, Muda and Ahning-an area covering 122,798 hectares- has triggered a barrage of criticism from environmental groups as well as neighbouring states.
The people’s concern is not unfounded. Logging will change rainfall patterns, degrade the ecosystem, destroy the area’s rich bio-diversity. It will also be detrimental to the people as this particular water catchment area supplies water for irrigation, domestic and industrial use to Kedah, Penang and Perlis. In fact, 80% of Penang’s water comes from Kedah.
The Kedah government has claimed that the federal government had failed to honour its agreement to compensate the state government RM100 million for sparing the forest reserve from being logged. If the state government goes ahead with the decision, it would bring a hefty RM16 billion.
Azizan has even compared forest conservation with ‘pampering children’. He said: “We are too obsessed with preserving the trees that we don’t cut them. We leave the trees till they get old and rot. The trees die and fall and affect the growth of others.”He also contended that“Timber is God’s gift, and I want to make money from it.”
What more, Azizan explained that the state would initiate a form of sustainable logging practice in which only three trees would be chopped for every hectare of the forest reserve, how is he going to convince people that his enforcement team will not be able to cut down a forth tree, or more?
In his response to the logging plan, Penang Chief Minister was quick to express his disagreement over Azizan’s views, lamenting that logging activities in water catchment areas was problematic and could jeopardize projects under the Northern Corridor Economic Region. A letter was sent to urge Azizan to reconsider his decision.
If we look at the issue using conventional economic approach, Kedah would probably ask: What are you asking me to keep a forest which will make earn us RM16 billion?
However, when it comes down to Penang’s high water usage, is it rational to control water usage by imposing a higher water tariff on consumers to compensate for the loss of the environment?
On environmental matters, it is very difficult to find a way to quantify our natural resources (so-called common goods), and price its value by conventional cost-and-benefit, supply-and-demand models.
If Kedah insisted on cashing in on the forest reserves, it will have to bear the risk as well as the external cost of environmental degradation. Politically, not only could it jeopardize the relations with the other states, but also the people’s trust in the state government.
No comments:
Post a Comment