Facing up to the facts: Billions go up in smoke in Indonesia’s worst ever burning season

Indonesia’s economy took a US$16-billion (S$22.5 billion) hit this year from forest fires that cloaked Southeast Asia in haze, more than double the sum spent on rebuilding Aceh after the 2004 tsunami, the World Bank said Tuesday, meanwhile the Economist reports that previously forest-clearing accounted for most anthropogenic carbon emissions. Now it causes around 10%—a decline that led many at the UN climate summit in Paris to focus their efforts elsewhere. But halting deforestation is very important. Indonesia has, in effect, downgraded the REDD+ agency it set up in a deal with Norway, and failed to spend most of the billion dollars that the Norwegians provided. Read more

Fires cost Indonesia $22billion, twice the tsunami bill: World Bank

Straits Times and AFP reports (15 December 2015):

JAKARTA – Indonesia’s economy took a US$16-billion (S$22.5 billion) hit this year from forest fires that cloaked Southeast Asia in haze, more than double the sum spent on rebuilding Aceh after the 2004 tsunami, the World Bank said Tuesday.

The fires and resulting haze are an annual occurrence caused by slash-and-burn land clearance. But the blazes in 2015 were the worst for some years, causing air quality to worsen dramatically and many to fall ill across the region.

In a quarterly update on the Indonesian economy, the World Bank said the fires had devastated 2.6 million hectares (6.4 million acres) of forest and farmland across the archipelago from June to October.

The cost to Southeast Asia’s biggest economy is estimated at 221 trillion rupiah (S$22.1 billion), equivalent to 1.9 per cent of predicted GDP this year, it said.

In contrast, it cost US$7 billion to rebuild Indonesia’s westernmost province of Aceh after it was engulfed 11 years ago by a quake-triggered tsunami, with the loss of tens of thousands of lives, the bank said.

Haze hits the region again in 2015

“The economic impact of the fires has been immense,” said World Bank Indonesia country director Rodrigo Chaves.

Fire has long been a popular way of quickly and cheaply clearing land on Indonesia’s Sumatra island and the Indonesian part of Borneo, to make way for lucrative palm oil plantations.

But the fires burn out of control and produce noxious haze during the months-long dry season, particularly when started on carbon-rich peatland.

The World Bank said that if every hectare burned in 2015 were converted to palm oil, the value would be about US$8 billion. Indonesia is the world’s biggest producer of the oil, used in numerous everyday goods from biscuits to shampoo.

“So on the one hand 16 billion dollars cost to the public, on the other hand, eight billion dollars – lots of money – to a handful of individuals,” said World Bank environmental specialist Ann Jeannette Glauber.

The estimated costs are based on an analysis of the types of land burned and take into account the impact on agriculture, forestry, trade, tourism and transportation, as well as short-term effects of the haze such as school closures and on health.

More than half a million people suffered acute respiratory infections in Indonesia, while many in neighbouring Singapore and Malaysia also fell ill.

Source:

www.news.asiaone.com/news/asia/fires-cost-indonesia-22b-twice-tsunami-bill-world-bank#sthash.JOttHuNa.dpuf

Forests and climate change

Hope for the trees

Modest progress has been made on saving forests—it needs to accelerate

The Economist (19 December 2015):

Rays of light in the forest

UNTIL the 1960s, forest-clearing accounted for most anthropogenic carbon emissions. Now it causes around 10%—a decline that led many at the UN climate summit in Paris to focus their efforts elsewhere. Though Norway, Germany and Britain said they would make a billion dollars a year available for averting tropical deforestation until 2020, America, France and Japan refused to chip in. Australia trumpeted a pro-tree plan of its own, but has not pledged more money for it. There was little mention of Indonesia’s devastating wildfires, or of a 16% uptick in deforestation in Brazil.

Yet the 10% share hugely understates the importance of forests to the fight against climate change. Just as shrinking forests contribute to global warming, growing ones can counter it. During the 2000s tropical forests are estimated to have sopped up and stored carbon equivalent to 22-26% of carbon-dioxide emissions from human activity. Ending tropical deforestation and letting damaged forests recover could cut net emissions by almost a third, creating a space for industrial emissions to fall more slowly.

The Paris agreement failed to create mechanisms, such as carbon markets, that could generate the much larger sums necessary for conservation on that scale. That was expected; on a more realistic measure of progress, forests did pretty well. Reducing deforestation and forest degradation—REDD+, in the jargon—has finally been enshrined as a mainstream climate policy. Over 60 countries included it in their commitments. It got its own clause in the final deal, with an approving nod to ways of designing and running REDD+ schemes agreed on in previous climate talks. Schemes can be funded publicly or privately, with payment for success in leaving trees standing.

Whether REDD+ can fulfil its potential remains unclear. By one measure, the net global deforestation rate has fallen in recent years. Yet, despite improvements in monitoring tropical deforestation and establishing baselines against which it can be measured, REDD+ probably played a minor part. Brazil dislikes the idea of “offsetting”—letting other countries or even firms emit more in return for paying to keep its trees standing. Indonesia has, in effect, downgraded the REDD+ agency it set up in a deal with Norway, and failed to spend most of the billion dollars that the Norwegians provided.

Rich countries say this shows that what is mainly lacking is political will. Those with tropical forests retort that the failure to cough up the large sums they were once promised vindicates their wariness. Both are right: for now, REDD+ is almost as notional as it is necessary.

Source: www.economist.com/news/international/21684140-modest-progress-has-been-made-saving-forestsit-needs-accelerate-hope-trees