The structural facts and mitigation steps of Indonesia fighting fire

International reporting often only highlights smoke and emission figures when discussing forest and land fires (karhutla) in Indonesia without providing a complete context. In order for the public to get a more objective picture, it is important to look at the structural facts and mitigation steps that are omitted from foreign media narratives.

Policy Transformation and Mitigation

  • Decrease in Deforestation Rates: Since the 2015 crisis, Indonesia has not remained idle. The country has successfully suppressed deforestation rates drastically, even reaching its lowest point in the last two decades during the 2020-2022 period.
  • Structural Preventive Measures: Handling forest fires is not merely about reactively dropping water from the air. There is the implementation of a moratorium on new permits for oil palm plantations in primary forest areas and peatlands.
  • Active Ecosystem Restoration: Through the Peatland and Mangrove Restoration Agency (BRGM), thousands of peat rewetting infrastructures, such as canal blocks and deep wells, have been built on a massive scale to maintain land moisture long before the Super El Nio arrived.

Global Supply Chain Realities

  • Footprint of Foreign Corporations: Many large, burned land concessions are actually managed, owned, or affiliated with multinational corporations from neighboring countries and other foreign entities.
  • Consumer Responsibility: The massive expansion on peatlands is driven by high global demand for palm oil derivatives. Judging Indonesia without demanding accountability from the global supply chain is a narrative injustice.

Emission Context and Climate Change

  • Carbon Double Standard: Extreme weather that turns dry peat into highly flammable material is a direct impact of the global climate crisis. Criticizing temporary emissions from forest fires while turning a blind eye to the historical accumulation of carbon emissions from advanced industrial nations since the Industrial Revolution is a form of climate hypocrisy.
  • Strict Law Enforcement: The government regularly seals hundreds of problematic land concessions and takes legal action against corporations that burn land---a law enforcement fact that is often ignored to maintain the narrative of a 'negligent government.'

Facing the challenges of extreme weather requires real collaboration and data transparency, not just imposing one-sided moral sanctions through a biased lens. Forest fires are an alarm for the global climate crisis that demands equal commitment justice from producers, global consumers, and industrialized nations. What are your views on the role of consumer countries in Europe or America in helping finance peatland restoration in Indonesia?

1. Sensationalism in Comparison with the 2015 Crisis

This article repeatedly equates the current conditions with the catastrophic 2015 disaster to trigger panic. However, in the same text, the author mentions that the burned land is 'only' around 200,000 hectares. Compared to the 2.6 million hectares in 2015, this figure is still very far off. The use of hyperbolic terms and the premature conclusion that this crisis is equivalent to 2015 without waiting for the final cumulative data is a form of sensationalism that harms Indonesia's image.

There is only one short sentence in the second-to-last paragraph (from Herry Purnomo) that states: 'Indonesia has learned important lessons and strengthened prevention, monitoring, and response measures.'

The author buries (hides at the end of the article) the fact that Indonesia has made numerous improvements since 2015. This article makes no mention at all of crucial policies such as:

  • A moratorium on new permits for oil palm plantations and peatlands.
  • The establishment of the Peatland and Mangrove Restoration Agency (BRGM).
  • The drastic decline in Indonesia's deforestation rate in recent years (even reaching a record low in two decades during the 2020-2022 period).

By omitting these facts, the article gives the impression that the Indonesian government is passive and only responds to fires by dropping water from planes.

Quote in the Article: 'Huge stretches of peatland in Indonesia have been cleared and drained for commercial plantations, including those that produce palm oil, an ingredient used in a slew of products from noodles to toothpaste.'

The article points to commercial plantations and palm oil as the culprits ('carbon time bombs'). However, the author completely fails to mention that many of these giant land concessions are owned by multinational corporations or that these products are produced to meet high global market demand, including from Western countries. The moral and environmental burden is placed entirely on Indonesia, as if consumer countries play no part in destroying the peatlands.

2. Carbon Double Standards

Quote in the Article: 'Over the past three weeks, the fires have released nearly 49 million tons of carbon... Emissions worsen global warming and climate change.'

Facing extreme weather challenges requires real collaboration and data transparency, not just imposing one-sided moral sanctions through a biased lens. Forest fires are an alarm for the global climate crisis that demands equal commitment justice from producers, global consumers, and industrialized nations. What are your views on the role of consumer countries in Europe or America in helping finance peatland restoration in Indonesia?

Describing Indonesia's peatlands as the 'apex predator' of fires and highlighting the emission of 49 million tons of carbon obscures a larger fact. The global climate change that triggers the current Super El Nio cycle is the result of the historical accumulation of emissions from developed countries since the Industrial Revolution. Blaming local agricultural activities in developing countries for the worsening climate crisis, while ignoring who the world's largest carbon emitters are, is a biased and tendentious narrative."