I guess a well-balanced mixture of both. Today's Financial Times article on "Indonesia uses military to accelarate deforestation", written by A. Anantha Lakshmi and Diana Mariska, Jakarta, as
well as by Steven Bernard, London, points out that on the one-hand side it is a necessity to "prevent the cutting down of trees and the destruction of forests" - as states the President of
Indonesia, Prabawo Subianto - and on the other side of the story, it is vital for the world's fourth most populous nation to ensure food and energy security. For the latter reason, the Indonesian
government is planning to cultivate rice and sugar on 3mn hectares in the eastern province of Papua. Five the times of London is the size of the planned project. "Since the clearing of the
forest, the military has been actively involved", that's what Ariston Moiwen said, a resident whose family land has been taken over for rice cultivation. The so-called food estate project is
critized sharp by environmental group leaders such as Glenn Hurowitz: "It's hard to justify this project from any perspective ... environmental, climate and the wellbeing of local communities".
Experts further state that the loss of forests for mining and palm oil production, which in turn results in soil degradation, intensifies the risks of flooding and landslides. However,
campaigners are convinced that is does not require Indonesia to sacrifice its nature to expand food production.
What comes first, who measures the risks and the advantages so that the balance is positive for all: for the human beings, for the nature and for the climate as such?
