Indonesia’s plan to convert over 2 million ha of conservation and indigenous lands into agriculture will cause long-term damage to the environment, create conflict and add to greenhouse gas emissions, according to a feasibility study document for the Papua region mega-project.

The 96-page presentation reviewed by Radio Free Asia was drawn up by Sucofindo, the Indonesian government’s inspection and land surveying company.

Dated July 4, it analyses the risks and benefits of the sugar cane and rice estate in Merauke regency on Indonesia’s border with Papua New Guinea and outlines a feasibility study that was to have been completed by mid-August.

Though replete with warnings that “comprehensive” environmental impact assessments should take place before any land is cleared, the feasibility process appears to have been a box-ticking exercise. Sucofindo did not respond to questions from RFA, a news service affiliated with BenarNews, about the document.

Even before the study was completed, then-President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo participated in a ceremony in Merauke on July 23 that marked the first sugar cane planting on land cleared of forest for the food estate, the government said in a statement.

Jokowi’s decade-long presidency ended last month.

Excavators destroy villages
In late July, dozens of excavators shipped by boat were unloaded in the Ilyawab district of Merauke where they destroyed villages and cleared forests and wetlands for rice fields, according to a report by civil society organisation Pusaka

Hipolitus Wangge, an Indonesian politics researcher at Australian National University, told RFA the feasibility study document does not provide new information about the agricultural plans.

But it makes it clear, he said, that in government there is “no specific response on how the state deals with indigenous concerns” and their consequences.

The plan to convert as much as 2.3 million ha of forest, wetland and savannah into rice farms, sugarcane plantations and related infrastructure in the conflict-prone Papua region is part of the government’s ambitions to achieve food and energy self-sufficiency.

Previous efforts in the nation of 270 million people have fallen short of expectations.

Echoing government and military statements, Sucofindo said increasingly extreme climate change and the risk of international conflict are reasons why Indonesia should reduce reliance on food imports.

Taken together, the sugarcane and rice projects represent at least a fifth of a 10,000 square km lowland area known as the TransFly that spans Indonesia and Papua New Guinea and which conservationists say is an already under-threat conservation treasure.

Military leading role
Indonesia’s military has a leading role in the 1.9 million ha rice plan while the government has courted investors for the sugar cane and related bioethanol projects.

The likelihood of conflict with indigenous Papuans or of significant and long-term environmental damage applies in about 80 percent of the area targeted for development, according to Sucofindo’s analysis.

The project’s “issues and challenges,” Sucofindo said, include “deforestation and biodiversity loss, destruction of flora and fauna habitats and loss of species”.

It warns of long-term land degradation and erosion as well as water pollution and reduced water availability during the dry season caused by deforestation.

Sucofindo said indigenous communities in Merauke rely on forests for livelihoods and land conversion will threaten their cultural survival. It repeatedly warns of the risk of conflict, which it says could stem from evictions and relocation.

“Evictions have the potential to destabilize social and economic conditions,” Sucofindo said in its presentation.

If the entire area planned for development is cleared, it would add about 392 million tons of carbon to the atmosphere in net terms, according to Sucofindo.

That is about equal to half of the additional carbon emitted by Indonesia’s fire catastrophe in 2015 when hundreds of thousands of acres of peatlands drained for pulpwood and oil palm plantations burned for months.

Indonesia’s contribution to emissions that raise the average global temperature is significantly worsened by a combination of peatland fires and deforestation. Carbon stored in its globally important tropical forests is released when cut down for palm oil, pulpwood and other plantations.

In a speech last week to the annual United Nations climate conference COP29, Indonesia’s climate envoy, a brother of recently inaugurated president Prabowo Subianto, said the new administration has a long-term goal to restore forests to 31.3 million acres severely degraded by fires in 2015 and earlier massive burnings in the 1980s and 1990s.

Indonesia’s government has made the same promise in previous years including in its official progress report on its national contribution to achieving the Paris Agreement goal of keeping the rise in average global temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius.

“President Prabowo has approved in principle a program of massive reforestation to these 12.7 million hectares in a biodiverse manner,” envoy Hashim Djojohadikusumo said during the livestreamed speech from Baku, Azerbaijan.

“We will soon embark on this programme.”

Prabowo’s government has announced plans to encourage outsiders to migrate to Merauke and other parts of Indonesia’s easternmost region, state media reported this month.

Critics said such large-scale movements of people would further marginalise indigenous Papuans in their own lands and exacerbate conflict that has simmered since Indonesia took control of the region in the late 1960s.

Republished from BenarNews with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Prominent environmental groups in Aotearoa New Zealand are less than impressed with what they describe as underwhelming budget investments in climate, but an expert says the government has taken a multifaceted approach.

Among the announcements yesterday was $402.6 million to expand the duration and scope of the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme, $120 million to expand EV charging infrastructure, $100 million fund to help councils invest in future flood resilience, $24.7 million to improve data on impacts of climate change and adaptation and mitigation, and $167.4 million in building resilience to future climate events.

It came on the same day the World Meteorological Organisation said global temperatures were now more likely than not to breach 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming within the next five years.

Forest and Bird said the budget did little to tackle climate change and turn around biodiversity loss.

“Keeping New Zealanders safe is clearly a ‘bread and butter’ issue, yet the government’s lack of investment in nature-based solutions is putting us all at risk,” chief executive Nicola Toki said.

“What we looked for but have not found, is meaningful investment in nature-based solutions to climate impacts. And our biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions, agriculture, has not yet been priced more than 30 years after New Zealand promised the world it would cut emissions.”

The government’s $6 billion infrastructure-focused National Resilience Plan needed to prioritise investment in areas like river catchments, forests, and wetlands — otherwise it might even affect people’s ability to get insurance in the future, Toki said.

Insulation and heating retrofits
Electricity Networks Aotearoa chief executive Richard Le Gros said the association, which represents New Zealand’s 27 electricity distribution businesses (EDBs), supported the focus in the budget on decarbonisation initiatives as well as insulation and heating retrofits.

“We welcome the government’s greater investment in public EV charging infrastructure throughout the country,” Le Gros said, adding it would help reduce household energy bills and encourage a green transition.

Greenpeace climate campaigner Christine Rose was critical of the government for missing the chance to implement radical change in farming, climate solutions, transport, and energy.

“While it’s positive to see that half-price fares remain for some, we needed bolder and more visionary strategies, including significant investment in expanding rail and making public transport fares free for all,” Rose said.

“We welcome the funding boost for home insulation and heat pumps, but are disappointed not to see significant investment in locally-owned renewable energy.

“This would end our dependence on oil, gas and coal, and also reduce the power bills of everyday New Zealanders, addressing both the cost of living and climate crisis.”

Long-term behaviour change
University of Canterbury professor Bronwyn Hayward said the budget appeared “deceptively simple” but, for example, allowing children to use public transport for free was not just about increasing bus use, it would also ease family budgets and instigate long-term behaviour change.

“Critics of the government will rightly point out there is now less money available to spend on climate resilience due to the crash in carbon pricing, and yet a sizable new spend of $1.9 billion has been allocated in this budget for climate resilience alongside the $1 billion pledged for cyclone recovery,” Hayward said.

“This, together with spending on retrofitted housing, new homes, prescription charges and school lunches all contributes to the social infrastructure that communities will badly need when facing ongoing climate risk.

“We need to join the dots when we talk about climate budgets and see how many of the wellbeing initiatives are also very real investments in climate resilient futures too.”

While making transport more equitable was important, University of Auckland School of Architecture and Planning senior lecturer Timothy Welch said the focus should also be on the infrastructure’s resilience as more intense and frequent weather events could be expected.

“New funding for maintaining public transport service and workforce development is important, but we need more funding to expand our public transport networks and help drive down transportation emissions.”

Research, science, and tech
Universities New Zealand welcomed the announcement of $55 million for research fellowships and an applied doctoral training scheme, as well as the allocation of $451 million for multi-institutional research collaboration hubs in the Wellington region focused on health and wellbeing, oceans, climate and hazards, advanced manufacturing, biotech and energy futures.

However, it said it was unfortunate to see funding for the Centres for Asia-Pacific Excellence had been discontinued.

Professor Hayward said integrating science agencies based in Wellington was important, but it omitted “arts and imagination”.

“The climate crisis will bring repeated, cascading and compounding weather events that will test our resolve and tear at the fabric of our society. These are not challenges which can be fixed by science or investment in infrastructure alone,” Professor Hayward said.

“We need the arts, alongside sciences to help imagine a low-carbon economy in fair and just ways,” she said.

“While government could justifiably argue its attention to digital screen industries is a creative investment in ‘a high-wage low emissions and creative economy’ we also need a wider vision for the deeper integration of arts and sciences, one which helps us imagine new ways we might yet flourish in a climate challenged world.”

Addressing inequities
Environmental consultant Andrea Byrom said it was heartening to see some of the tertiary investment addressing long-recognised inequities, with dedicated fellowships and awards for Māori and Pacific people and a boost to provision of Mātauranga Māori in the tertiary sector, and applied postdoctoral fellowships.

Byrom also applauded trialling apprenticeship training in the tech sector and boost to research fellowships and PhDs.

“The historical gap in funding for these types of fellowships, particularly at postdoctoral level, has resulted in much of Aotearoa New Zealand’s best and brightest talent heading offshore — sometimes never to return.

“Hopefully these fellowships will stem that flow.”

Malaghan Institute director Graham Le Gros said the investment in science and innovation recognised the sector’s value to the country’s resilience and prosperity.

“From building resilience in the face of future pandemics to investing in biotech, innovation and talent to help move New Zealand to a high-wage economy, we can rejoice in some much needed infrastructure so that all New Zealand scientists have a place to really focus their energy and attention,” Le Gros said.

“The multi-institutional research hubs will increase collaboration and productivity, allowing us to work together to tackle some of New Zealand’s most pressing challenges and opportunities.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Estonia may lie a continent and an ocean away from the two biggest polluters in the world – China and the United States – but the nation cannot lay claim to climate innocence. Having mined oil shale for 100 years, Estonia now has energy independence, but it has come at a cost. Kendall Hutt investigates.

Celebrating 100 years of oil shale mining may represent a proud moment for Estonia, but this doesn’t compare to what the country has lost, many environmentalists say.

The backbone of Estonia’s electricity production may have allowed the Baltic nation to escape from beneath the Soviet yoke and become energy self-sufficient post-independence in 1991, but most observers remember that this has come at a cost: the environment.

“In terms of ecology it’s a total disaster. From the point of view of state economy this is something to be proud of,” says Professor Mait Sepp, research fellow in physical geography at the University of Tartu.

“We have lost our wetlands, we have lost our streams.”

Many of Estonia’s environmental organisations agree, with more than 15 percent (504.6 km²) of the country’s Ida-Virumaa region severely damaged by the oil shale industry.

Mihkel Annus of the Estonian Green Movement says the sector still stamps the largest ecological footprint on the nation, despite European Union (EU) regulations.

’40 years like a volcano’
Perhaps the greatest reminder of this footprint will be the country’s ash mountains, huge piles of solid hazardous waste that mar Estonia’s relatively flat landscape.

“These will probably stay as the remnants of our fossil-fuel dependent past for centuries from now, as well as the land that has been excavated and already been exhausted,” says Annus.

Harmful to the environment due to the poisonous gases and various contaminants they emit into surface and groundwater, these mountains are not only viewed as an ecological disaster.

They have also dealt a blow to the country’s pockets.

It cost the government more than 36 million euros (about NZ$44.4 million) to close the infamous ash mountain in Kohtla-Järve, which stood approximately 170m above sea level before it was closed and made environmentally safe in 2015.

Estonia’s current environmental headache is the Kukruse ash mountain, which one official from the Ida-Viru County government describes as a 40-year-old “volcano”.

Hardi Murula, head of development and planning for the county government, says they have been engaged in ongoing talks for the past three to four years on how best to “neutralise” the mountain, but that no consensus has been reached.

“No one can guarantee during the restoration process that the pollution can be stopped.”

The closure of ash mountains throughout Ida-Virumaa is largely seen as positive despite the challenges, with one of the mountains in the former oil shale town of Kiviõli converted into an adventure centre in a joint industry-government project.

Piret Väinsalu of the Estonian Fund for Nature says the restoration of land is rather impossible, however.

“You can try to restore it into something, but it will always be there as a ‘heritage of oil shale age’.”

Legacy pollution
But government, industry and environmentalists do not see eye-to-eye on the source of this environmental damage.

Minister of Environment Marko Pomerants says much of the environmental impact is related to “legacy pollution” of the Soviet-era.

“Fortunately, most of the major negative effects are a thing of the past and the current oil shale sector has remarkably reduced its harmful practices for the environment.”

He says environmental concerns today largely involve emissions, although these have decreased since 2002.

Timo Tatar, head of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communication’s energy department, agrees.

“Talking about environmental damage, one can say, that oil shale environmental impact has significantly decreased due to heavy investments into new combustion technologies as well as emission control.”

Official 2014 data by the European Commission shows Estonia currently stands as the second highest emitter, per capita, of greenhouse gases in Europe, however, and its far from carbon-free history occupies a blight on their climate change record.

Although the EU’s Emissions Trading System allows the country to sell-off its emissions because they are lower than the country’s massive levels at 1990, things are far from rosy, especially in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate change agreement.

In light of this, environmentalists Annus, Väinsalu, and their colleague Aleksei Lotman, a marine conservation expert with the Estonian Fund for Nature, do not share officials’ view.

Although they agree the oil shale industry is “very much less polluting” than it was 30 years ago, they say making oil shale “environmentally friendly” is not enough.

To call current improvements by the oil shale industry so is “over-optimistic to say the least”, Lotman says.

A question of commitment
They are therefore critical of industry and government and feel both have failed to act effectively.

Väinsalu, who serves as the Estonian coordinator for the international non-profit network EKOenergia in her role with the Estonian Fund for Nature, says the government does “just enough” to be on a good list for Estonia’s European partners, while it simultaneously supports oil shale interests by lobbying for greater industry exemptions.

“Instead of understanding the need to find an alternative route and exit the oil shale era our government just supports the industry in every way possible.”

Eesti Energia, Estonia’s state-owned energy enterprise, refutes such claims and says it has taken several steps to reduce the environmental impacts of its operations.

“Today we can produce more energy from oil shale than in the past with less environmental impact,” says Eesti Energia.

Eesti Energia says introductions in new technology have been responsible, although physical changes have also occurred.

Among these was the 2008 closure of the ash field at their Balti power plant near Narva, in Estonia’s east.

The project took three years to complete and resulted in 570ha being made safe for the environment.

In 2013, Eesti Energia’s sister company, Enefit, opened a 17-turbine wind park on the former ash field.

“Our main focus lies in replacing fossil fuels with cleaner fuels,” Eesti Energia says.

The company adds it already does so through its use of water, wind, and biomass.

Annus, however, as a member of one of Estonia’s most influential environmental organisations, feels industry may not have been as cooperative as it makes out.

“Whether they would make their processes more environment-friendly voluntarily, is questionable.”

He says this is because the oil shale industry has been put under increasing pressure by tightening EU regulations.

“They have been forced to take action to meet the set concentration values of emissions, changing the technology of landfilling of solid and hazardous waste, limiting water pollution, and so on.”

Annus adds much of Estonia’s oil shale industry happens behind closed doors, which further calls into question their transparency.

“A lot of the region has also been blocked off from the public eye.”

Kaja Peterson, director of the Stockholm Environment Institute Tallinn Centre’s (SEI Tallinn) climate and energy programme, says Eesti Energia has, in fact, been rather open.

“I think Eesti Energia has been very flexible because they reformed and created a new sister company, Enefit Renewable Energy.”

She points out, however, that Eesti Energia is gradually transitioning to renewables and oil shale, unfortunately, still forms the majority of their operations.

Fossil free future?
This seeming unwillingness on the part of officials to divest from oil shale has led to serious doubts about Estonia’s renewable future.

While the government and oil shale industry remain positive, environmentalists and researchers are sceptical.

They claim there is no direct investment or clear political will in renewables by the government, only some will to diversify.

“There have been measures to promote sustainable energy, but the indirect subsidies for fossil fuels have still been greater,” Annus emphasises.

Annus feels Estonia is lagging behind a large portion of their EU counterparts and trendsetters, while Tatar and Pomerants celebrate Estonia reaching its Renewable Energy Directive target – 25 percent of renewables in final energy consumption – well before the 2020 deadline.

“Since the political target has been achieved there is no political motivation to increase that,” Peterson says.

Peterson’s colleague, Lauri Tammiste, SEI Tallinn’s director, says the shift to a low-carbon economy remains on the official agenda.

He highlights plans by the government to reach 50 percent of renewables and lower CO₂ emissions by 2030, although there will be a challenge.

“The main issue is, how to actually deliver these goals and ensure successful transformation with biggest possible environmental, economic and social benefits.”

When asked whether Estonia would have a fossil free future, Sepp was adamant he would not see change in his lifetime.

“No. Not in the near future.

It’s very convenient to use this old system. You have one system which works and to build a new one …. takes a lot of money and a lot of effort. Some very critical changes must happen to change this system.”

It seems clear, for the time being at least, that Estonia’s energy future remains far more carbon intensive than environmentalists would like.

Feature article by Kendall Hutt; photos by Essi Lehto and Lukas Rusk. The assignment was part of the Inclusive Journalism Project collaboration between journalism schools in New Zealand and Scandinavia.