Published in
Merdekareview.com on 26 Oct 2006
十年前入学的孩子，记忆中已经累积一段天空蒙蒙胧胧的记忆。每逢西南季候风吹，蓝天突然被遮挡，空气中还偶而弥漫着刺鼻的焦味。印尼周边国家如马来西亚、新加坡、汶莱、泰国受烟霾困扰，一眨眼，竟已10年。
不久前，在东南亚各国强烈要求下，印尼总统苏西洛宣布该国将在近期内，寻求国会通过认签《东协跨国界烟霾污染协定》。如果印尼最终认签这项协定当然是好事，但这桩“好事”有多好呢？印尼认签了协定，我们的海滩在明年这个时候还可以一片“碧海蓝天”吗？
翻回过去一个月，我国与印尼领袖针对烟霾的回应。印尼领袖说：“除非风向转变，否则我们也无能为力。”我国的领袖也祈求天降雨去烟霾。两国政府甚至互相指责对方的种植公司及伐木活动是烟霾的罪魁祸首，然后我国政府公布：“印尼拿不出名单，证明没有大马公司涉及”。看来看去，两个东南亚的老大哥，都没有把话说完。
听起来，烟霾好像变成了自然灾害，谁也不必负责，下雨过后自然会有新鲜空气。我不禁打了个冷颤，两个都是贪污贪出名堂的国家，人民这辈子也甭想知道谁在烧芭了。
让我们一起搞清楚：烧林的是哪一群人？火耕种植原是传统农民的种植方式，火耕在全世界许多人口散居、腹地辽阔的地方，是一种让土地有机会休息、积累肥料的“永续性”种植方式。传统农民或群体一般上求自给自足，因此，火耕范围很小，他们依赖森林资源，不至于把几千万公顷森林烧光，还将烟霾“输送”到邻国。
这种传统的“永续性”生产方式，却在印尼70年代土地改革中被破坏。一些原本散居的传统农民被聚集起来，让路给一些大规模种植及生产的投资者。
大规模种植业者主要是油棕业者，还有咖啡、可可。印尼政府曾经说过，扑火工作艰难，主要是很多林火热点位于沼泽林。沼泽林是稀有的生态区，一般上是保护区，为什么会变成种植区不在话下。然而，可以想像财力雄厚、并拥有政治势力的大规模种植公司，为了盈利不惜破坏环境。
如果说伐木业是目前全世界最赚钱的行业之一，为什么种植公司不选择伐木然后卖掉赚钱？印尼多年来的伐木活动已经毁掉许多原始热带雨林，这些公司近年来“趁风势”所烧的森林主要是没有经济价值的次生林，或是伐木后的“残余林”。另外，由于印尼政府征收橡胶树桐的砍伐及出口税，未有政策奖掖应用橡胶树桐的公司，所以，很多老橡胶林也因此“葬身火海”。
资料显示，1997年的霾害中，印尼政府提控至少167家涉及非法烧林活动的公司，然而，审讯过程繁锁冗长，到了2000年只有一家公司罪名成立被处罚。发展中国家法制不健全、执法不严的问题，往往让这些大财团有机可乘，通过剥削自然环境积累资本。对财团来说，在发展中国家“钱”可以解决的问题都不是问题。
认识印尼在遏止烧林活动的能力后，那我们要问，认签了《东协跨国界烟霾污染协定》能改变多少？目前，我们听到的是马、新、泰、汶已经放话：早一点签署，我们可以早一点启动拨款机制。
的确，协定中列明东南亚各国在监控、评估、预防及回应的合作方向，比如：交换资讯、技术、专才。而印尼在认签这项协定后，需在国内制订有助于解决烟害的政策及修改法令。但印尼最终是否会揪出非法烧林的公司，这还需取决于他们国内的政治意志。做为一份“指导性”协定，就算烟霾继续或恶化，根据协定中第27条文，各国也只能“通过友好地咨询及协商解决。”
许多针对环境问题设计的跨国性或国际性协定，纵使在认签国修正了国内的法令后，也因国内本身的司法、执法、教育、经济、民众参与度等问题，成了无爪的老虎。
至此，笔者不想制造一种“都是印尼政府、种植业、伐木业的错！”的印象，因为印尼人民本身也深受烟霾困扰。经济活动是一种人与人之间的互动，当非法烧芭活动进行时，我们是否在入口、消费着源自于印尼烧芭活动的商品？如：家具木材、食物油、化妆品等等，间接成了烧芭活动的帮凶？
就算“没有大马公司涉及烧芭活动”是一句真话，我们也有权利知道自己是否正在掏腰包购买“烧芭财团”的产品，政府必须公布：国内什么集团与“烧芭财团”有商业关系，让这些典当环境赚钱的利益集团，承担更多社会责任，为环境遭破坏付出更多补偿！
必须做的事真的太多了，如果只祈求老天爷降雨，恐怕老天爷也不会同情不动脑筋的人。假使印尼认签了《东协跨国界烟霾污染协定》， 虽然值得掌声鼓励，但那只是小小的一步。
Do something, don’t just pray for rainfall
Young Malaysians who entered school ten years ago all remember a period of time when the sky was often shrouded by haze during southwestern monsoons. Every time a southeast wind blew the blue sky disappeared, and occasionally saturated the air with a stench that irritated the nose. Countries neighbouring Indonesia, like Singapore, Burnei and Thailand have been disrupted by low visibility and choking haze for ten years.
Not long ago, Indonesia was urged by ASEAN countries to promptly ratify the ASEAN Transboundary Haze Agreement. Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said earlier that Jakarta would ratify the treaty. It would be good news even though the Indonesian government is the last ASEAN country that finally ratified the treaty. However, will Indonesia's ratification make a difference? Are the mechanisms in the treaty effective enough to overcome the annual smog?
How did the Malaysian and Indonesian leaders respond to this issue recently? Both prayed to God for rainfall. They also condemned each other for allowing their logging and plantation companies to practice slash-and-burn as a cheap and illegal means of land-clearing. In the end, the Malaysian government claimed that "the Indonesian government was unable to provide us the list of company names; therefore, no Malaysian company is involved in burning the forest." Neither of them has provided us the whole story.
It seems like nobody is willing to admit responsibility for the haze pollution. It has become a type of natural disaster - I trembled at the very thought of it. We can never know who is burning the forest, causing health and environmental degradation.
Let us figure out, who is burning the forest. In traditional agriculture fire has been used as a tool to clear the lands. Slash-and-burn has been extensively used in many places by traditional farmers. Sustainability of fertile soil can be expected in such a relatively, small-scale operation. Traditional farmers often demand and ensure their self-reliance and self-sufficiency in such operations. They rely on the resources of the forest; it is unlikely of them to destroy the vast area of forest until the smoke and haze is “exported” to their neighbours hundreds of miles away.
Such a "sustainable" mean of land-use has changed since the land reform of Indonesia in 1970s. Traditional agriculture has given way to forest conversions for the expansion of agricultural lands, settlements and tree crop-based large-scale plantations.
Those large-scale plantation companies mainly grow oil palm, coffee and cocoa. The Indonesia government once mentioned that fire suppression is difficult and costly as most of the “hot spots” are located in peat-swamp areas. Peat-swamp areas are so rare that they are usually protected as ecological reserves. We should question how these reserves were converted into agricultural land. From here, we can see how those companies undermine the environment in order to make profits.
Logging is one of the most profitable industries, but why didn’t the plantation companies just cut down the timber and sell it off? In fact, tropical forests in Indonesia have been destroyed after many years of logging activities. Most of the burning areas are unproductive over-logged forests and jungle rubber. In addition, the Indonesian government imposes heavy export taxes on sawn rubber timber. There are no incentives to encourage these companies to process and utilize rubber woods; therefore, the rubber timber are always goes up in smoke.
Some research shows that, in 1997, at least 167 companies were prosecuted for illegal slash-and-burn activities. However, only one company was sentenced. The dysfunction of the legal system and its weak implementation in developing countries can be easily taken advantage of as opportunities for those financial groups to accumulate capital at the price of environmental degradation.
What will be done if the Indonesian government ratifies the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution? Recently, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Brunei have urged Indonesia to promptly ratify the treaty, which would allow the group to work out and put a regional firefighting fund into operation.
There are various provisions in the agreement for each party to adhere to its obligations in terms of monitoring, assessment, prevention and response. If Indonesia ratifies the treaty, they will need to amend or formulate some policies to tackle the smog. Under Settlement of Disputes (Articles 27), the agreement states: “Any dispute between parties as to the interpretation or application of, or compliance with, this agreement or any protocol thereto, shall be settled amicably by consultation and negotiation.” As the agreement lacks an effective dispute settlement mechanism, the effectiveness of the measures to prevent and control activities that cause haze pollution still depends on the political will within the Indonesian government.
In fact, there are many international treaties which are designed to combat the environmental problems. However, after they were ratified by the relevant countries, domestic problems in legislation, implementation, education, economics and public participation, amongst others, has always undermined commitment to the agreement.
In the end, we should not only blame on the Indonesian government, plantation companies and logging companies. Indonesian people themselves are also suffering. Economics activities are interactions between human beings. When the forest is burning, are we not consuming the products made of the materials from the burning forests, and thus do we not become the accomplices of these illegal activities?
Even if we assume that “no Malaysian company is engaged in burning the forest”, we still have the right to know whether we are buying products from corporations which are involved in illegal burning. We should demand that these corporations fulfill their social obligations by paying compensation for degrading the environment and the health of their fellow Malaysians.
Even if the Indonesian government ratifies the treaty, it does not mean that the haze pollution problem will be solved next year. It will be just a small step.
#
