For decades, deforestation has been treated as the central problem. It’s measured in hectares lost, monitored through satellites, and addressed through conservation programs, carbon mechanisms, and development interventions. Yet despite billions of dollars invested, forests continue to decline. What if we have been diagnosing it wrong? Deforestation is not the disease. It is a symptom. The deeper problem is the erosion of governance over territory, over resources, and ultimately, over the future itself. To see this more clearly, it helps to begin not with global statistics, but with a people and place, like Namblong, in Indonesian Papua, an Indigenous territory spanning more than 52,000 hectares (128,500 acres) that’s governed by a tribe of 44 clans. Around 42,000 hectares (almost 104,000 acres) remain forested as a living landscape shaped by generations of customary governance. When oil palm concessions entered this territory with legal permits, a fundamental question emerged: Who decides the future of this forest? Is it the company holding the concession, the government that issued it, or the Indigenous community whose identity and survival are inseparable from the land? Deforestation outside of Manokwari, West Papua, Indonesia. Image by Rhett A. Butler/Mongabay. This question points to a broader reality. Across Indonesia, and much of the world, Indigenous territories have been systematically stripped of effective governance. They are treated as empty land available for extraction or intervention. Concessions are issued, projects are introduced, and external solutions are layered onto landscapes that already have their own systems of authority Even well-intentioned efforts often…This article was originally published on Mongabay

From Conservation news via This RSS Feed.