logo
Indonesia food plan risks 'world's largest' deforestation

Indonesia food plan risks 'world's largest' deforestation

News2423-04-2025

Indonesia's plans to plant vast tracts rice to ensure food security and sugar cane for biofuel could be the wprld's largest deforestation project, warn environmentalists.
Deforestation is already underway, by late last year, an area larger than Paris had been cleared.
Indonesia's government says the land targeted is degraded, already cultivated or in need of "optimisation".
For climate change news and analysis, go to News24 Climate Future.
An Indonesian soldier gives a thumbs up as he crosses a rice field on a combine harvester in remote Papua, where a government food security mega-project has raised fears of mass deforestation.
Keen to end its reliance on rice imports, Indonesia wants to plant vast tracts of the crop, along with sugar cane for biofuel, in the restive eastern region.
But environmentalists warn it could become the world's largest deforestation project, threatening endangered species and Jakarta's climate commitments.
And activists fear the scheme will fuel rights violations in a region long plagued by alleged military abuses as a separatist insurgency rumbles on.
The project's true scale is hard to ascertain; even government statements vary.
At a minimum, however, it aims to plant several million hectares of rice and sugar cane across South Papua province's Merauke. One million hectares is around the size of Lebanon.
Deforestation linked to the plan is already under way.
By late last year, more than 11 000 hectares had been cleared - an area larger than Paris - according to Franky Samperante of environmental and Indigenous rights NGO Yayasan Pusaka Bentala Rakyat.
That figure has only increased, according to analysis by campaign group Mighty Earth and conservation start-up The TreeMap.
Their work shows areas cleared include primary and secondary natural dryland and swamp forest, as well as secondary mangrove forest, savanna and bush.
READ | Tentative tree planting 'decades overdue' in sweltering Athens
"Usually, deforestation is a product of government not doing its job," said Mighty Earth chief executive Glenn Hurowitz.
"But in this case, it's actually the state saying we want to clear some of our last remaining forests, carbon-rich peatlands, habitat for rare animals," he told AFP.
Indonesia's government says the land targeted is degraded, already cultivated or in need of "optimisation", dismissing some areas as little more than swamps.
Tragedy
Environmentalists argue that misunderstands the local ecosystem.
"In South Papua, the landscape and the ecosystem is lowland forest," said Samperante.
"There are often misconceptions or even belittling" of these ecosystems, he added.
Mapping done by Mighty Earth shows the project threatens a broader ecosystem range - including peatlands and forests the group says should be protected by a government moratorium on clearing.
"The tragedy in this project," said Hurowitz, "is that Indonesia has made so much progress in breaking the link between agricultural expansion and deforestation."
"Unfortunately, this single project threatens to undermine all progress."
Indonesia has some of the world's highest deforestation rates and Papua retains some of the largest remaining untouched tracts.
Indonesian think-tank CELIOS says cutting down so much forest could derail Jakarta's plan to reach net-zero by 2050.
READ | Global warming is a security threat and armies must adapt - experts
For President Prabowo Subianto's government, criticism of the project ignores Indonesia's agricultural and economic realities.
He has made the scheme a priority, visiting soon after taking office.
In January, he said the country was on track to end rice imports by late 2025, and reiterated its energy independence needs.
The agriculture ministry did not respond to AFP's request for comment.
In Papua, planting is in full swing. In the region's Kaliki district, AFP saw farmers supported by soldiers tending rice paddies in recently-cleared land.
"This location used to be like the one on the right here. Non-productive and neglected land," said Ahmad Rizal Ramdhani, a soldier serving as the agriculture ministry's food resilience taskforce chief, at an event lauding the project.
That characterisation is disputed by Mighty Earth's satellite analysis, which found that at least two areas in the region cleared for rice overlap with government-designated peatland.
Indonesia's military is heavily involved in the project.
Local farmer Yohanis Yandi Gebze told AFP soldiers gave him "tools, agricultural equipment and machinery" for rice cultivation.
Speaking not far from Ramdhani's event, he praised the military.
"I see them cooperating with the people very well," he said.
Cannot refuse
Others say that is only part of the story.
Indonesia officially seized Papua, a former Dutch colony, in a widely criticised but UN-backed vote in 1969.
It has since been accused of abuses in a decades-long separatist conflict in the region.
"The community feels intimidated," said Dewanto Talubun, executive director at Merauke-based environmental and rights group Perkumpulan Harmoni Alam Papuana.
"Not all members of the community agree with this project, and they cannot directly refuse," he told AFP.
Samperante too reported local fears.
"Almost every day a human rights violation occurs," he said.
The defence ministry told AFP the military had the resources and "high discipline" to accelerate the food project while securing "stability and security" in the region.
However, there are significant doubts about the project's viability.
"Soils in Merauke are likely too acidic and the climate too extreme... to grow rice," said David Gaveau, founder of The TreeMap.
He warned that draining Merauke's wetlands for agriculture risks turning the area "into a tinder box" - a fate seen elsewhere in Indonesia.
Critics do not dispute Jakarta's food security needs, but said crops should be grown elsewhere on abandoned agricultural land.
"It should be done in places that are capable of absorbing it," said Hurowitz.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Launch of mandatory Ontario Greenbelt review months overdue: internal docs
Launch of mandatory Ontario Greenbelt review months overdue: internal docs

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Launch of mandatory Ontario Greenbelt review months overdue: internal docs

Ontario appears to be months behind launching a mandatory review of the Greenbelt, and opposition politicians and environmentalists are asking for a wide-ranging and transparent study of the protected lands to preserve their future. A mandatory 10-year-review of the Greenbelt Plan, which created the protected zone from development, was to have started earlier this year. As of late March that review had not formally begun, according to documents obtained by CBC News through a freedom of information request. Civil servants warned new Municipal Affairs Minister Rob Flack that the process should have started on Feb. 28, the day after Ontario elected the Ford government to a third term. "To date, (the Ministry) has initiated internal policy research and analysis, including developing possible approaches to consultation and Indigenous engagement," civil servants told the new minister in a March briefing note. The Greenbelt was created in 2005 to protect farm land and some of the most ecologically sensitive areas of the Golden Horseshoe region. The law provides environmental protection and specifies where development should not occur. The Greenbelt has been the subject of scandal for the Ford government since 2022, when it announced it would swap 15 pieces of land from the protected area and open them up for development. Reports from the auditor general and integrity commissioner found that the process to select lands was rushed and favoured certain developers. The property owners with land removed from the Greenbelt stood to see their land value rise by $8.3 billion, the auditor general found in her own Greenbelt investigation. Ford reversed course after heated public outcry and the RCMP continues to investigate the matter. WATCH | Ontario's 4 major parties say they would not build housing on the Greenbelt: The legislation that created the Greenbelt requires a review every decade. That involves consultations with municipalities within the protected area and members of the public. It also requires the government hear from its own Greenbelt Council, a body of 10 representatives it appoints to meet regularly and provide advice to the minister on land use planning related to the protected area. But the civil servants say that as of March, the council only had one member and no chairperson. According to the Greenbelt council's website Monday, the sole remaining appointee's term expires on June 24. Seven members of that body, including former Toronto mayor and PC cabinet minister David Crombie, resigned in 2020 in protest over changes the Ford government made to the powers of conservation authorities. But the civil servants are also clear about the parameters of the review — it's not meant to shrink the protected zone. "Amendments shall not have the effect of reducing the total land area of the Greenbelt Plan," the briefing note says. Minister Flack's office did not respond to questions from CBC News on the status of the review or the Greenbelt Council. The briefing note puts the Greenbelt review at the top of a list of early priority decisions for the minister, labelling it a "medium" operational and reputational risk for the government. Given the political trouble the government has had with the Greenbelt, NDP environment critic Peter Tabuns said he's not surprised work on the review has been slow to progress. "The fewer times the word Greenbelt is uttered in public the better for them," he said. "Having a really minimal review push through quickly would probably be politically the easiest thing for them." While the review may seem like a simple formality, it's needed to help strengthen the protected zone, Tabuns said. He urged the government to consult widely on how to strengthen the law. "Every 10 years you've got to look at it to make sure it's in good shape," he said. "To make sure it's protected in the hope that any future attack will be blunted." Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner said he's concerned the province has nearly reached the halfway point of the year and hasn't made any meaningful progress on the review. "I think it is critically important for public confidence that this review take place, that it be rigorous, and it be designed in a way to ask questions about what we can do to strengthen the Greenbelt," he said. In light of the scandal, the government should use the review as a way to bolster public confidence in its management of the Greenbelt, Schreiner said. "I would say to the government, this is an opportunity to help you move forward in terms of the Greenbelt scandal and the public opposition that flowed from that, to say, 'We learned a lesson, and we're going to conduct a Greenbelt review, and we're going to do it in a way that talks about how to strengthen the Greenbelt,'" he said. The review must be expansive and the government must consult widely, said Tim Gray, the executive director of Environmental Defence. The last study, done a decade ago, took years and was substantive, he said."It is important that we do a check in and upgrade it where necessary, expand it where necessary, and address threats to it where it's necessary," Gray said. Tony Morris, conservation policy and campaigns director at Ontario Nature, said he's concerned the government will want to perform a quick review that "tinkers at the edges." "It's critical that the process be transparent and it be science-based," he said. "It must be open to Indigenous communities and all stakeholders to actually be involved and feel like they're being heard, which means that it has to be a well thought out process with appropriate timelines."

US government sparks outrage with controversial decision on massive stretch of public land: 'We won't stay silent'
US government sparks outrage with controversial decision on massive stretch of public land: 'We won't stay silent'

Yahoo

time5 hours ago

  • Yahoo

US government sparks outrage with controversial decision on massive stretch of public land: 'We won't stay silent'

A sweeping environmental decision is raising major concerns about the future of America's wild spaces. The federal government is moving to roll back protections on a massive stretch of public land in Alaska, potentially opening the door to more dirty energy development in one of the country's most sensitive ecosystems. The U.S. government has announced plans to reverse a major public land safeguard, opening up 23 million acres of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) to oil drilling and mining. The move would undo a December 2023 executive order from President Joe Biden that had blocked fossil fuel development in this remote Arctic region. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced the change on June 2, arguing that the earlier protections hindered energy independence, according to reporting by the Guardian. Burgum was joined by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and Energy Secretary Chris Wright, showing the administration's full-court press in favor of dirty energy expansion. But environmental groups say this shift prioritizes corporate profits over public health and natural heritage. "The Trump administration's move to roll back protections in the most ecologically important areas of the Western Arctic threatens wildlife, local communities, and our climate," Kristen Miller, executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League, explained in a statement. The NPR-A provides essential habitat for caribou, polar bears, and migratory birds, and it's been central to the food, culture, and way of life for Indigenous communities for generations. Opening up this much land to oil and gas drilling could add more pollution to our air and water and disrupt fragile ecosystems. The NPR-A is the largest single stretch of public land in the country and helps keep air clean, protect biodiversity, and support the cultural and economic traditions of local communities. Do you think America does a good job of protecting its natural beauty? Definitely Only in some areas No way I'm not sure Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. More fossil fuel development also adds to the heat-trapping pollution that's warming our planet and straining public health systems. We've already seen backlash to similar Arctic projects, like the Willow Project, a major drilling proposal approved in 2023, which sparked widespread opposition over its long-term risks. Conservation advocates are gearing up to fight back by preparing lawsuits, and grassroots campaigns are gaining traction. "The public fought hard for these protections," Miller said. "We won't stay silent while they're dismantled." At the local level, Utah's push to save the Great Salt Lake is showing what dedicated community action can achieve, and it's inspiring similar efforts nationwide. New York now requires all-electric new buildings, while California is phasing out gas-powered cars. These efforts cut harmful pollution and help speed the shift toward cleaner, healthier energy. You can take part by reducing home energy waste, switching to electric appliances, or choosing a clean electricity plan. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.

Mi'kmaq band drops legal case on N.S. lobster fishery
Mi'kmaq band drops legal case on N.S. lobster fishery

Hamilton Spectator

time12 hours ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Mi'kmaq band drops legal case on N.S. lobster fishery

HALIFAX - A Mi'kmaq band has dropped a legal case alleging Ottawa was violating its treaty rights in the lobster fishery, after hopes were raised of a historic deal. Last December, the lawyer for Sipekne'katik First Nation told Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice John Keith that discussions with Ottawa to settle the matter were 'moving to a conclusion.' Keith gave the parties until June 16 to finish the mediation, but said at that point the case would carry on before the courts. However, a letter to the courts sent June 6 by Sipekne'katik's lawyer Nathan Sutherland dropped the case without any further explanation. Neither side has provided an update on the status of negotiations for a new agreement. Chief Michelle Glasgow, the leader of the Indigenous community about 70 kilometres north of Halifax, didn't reply to a request for comment. Band members had argued their 'moderate livelihood' lobster harvest outside of the regular season is permitted by a 1999 Supreme Court of Canada decision, while non-Indigenous commercial fishers have contended it threatens stocks and fails to recognize how the courts have maintained Ottawa's right to regulate. The original lawsuit was launched by the band in 2021, seeking a declaration that current federal regulations infringe on its treaty right to fish. The Unified Fisheries Conservation Alliance, a group that represents commercial fishers, said in a news release Monday that the discontinuing of the case is a 'major victory' for its members. 'It is an acknowledgement by Chief (Michelle) Glasgow and Sipekne'katik First Nation that the rights to the illegal out-of-season lobster fishing ... are not a treaty protected right, it is poaching, plain and simple', said Colin Sproul, president of the group. Meanwhile, the group said they will be pursuing separate legal action, filed in August 2024, asking the provincial Supreme Court to determine the rules and limits to be applied to Sipekne'katik First Nation's fishery under the Marshall decision. The Supreme Court of Canada's 1999 Marshall decision said the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy bands in Eastern Canada could hunt, fish and gather to earn a 'moderate livelihood,' though the court followed up with a clarification saying the treaty right was subject to federal regulation to ensure conservation. In September 2020, the Sipekne'katik First Nation issued five lobster licences to its members, saying they could trap and sell their catch outside the federally regulated season. In the months that followed there were confrontations on the water, rowdy protests and riots at two lobster pounds, one of which was razed by arson. According to a letter the band's lawyers sent to the court last December, seven federal officials — including the regional director of the Fisheries Department — attended weekly mediation talks in the legal case, with 10 representatives of the First Nation participating. 'The progress made to date and moving forward from our 25 years of impasse is immeasurable,' wrote Ronald Pink, the lawyer at the time, in the 2024 letter to the judge. The talks were also described by lawyers last December as being extensive, with former senator Dan Christmas and retired federal mediator Barney Dobbin guiding discussions. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 9, 2025. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store