Raja Ampat: beauty to protect, or potential to develop?
Read this from a neutral position.
From what I've picked up so far, a lot of people are against it because they don't want nature destroyed, and they want Raja Ampat to stay a tourist destination and nothing else.
I don't agree with that.
I'm writing this through my own lens, as someone born and raised in Timika, Papua. If you don't know Timika, you definitely know Freeport. A small town in Papua that the Creator made with beauty and gold.
Oh yes, Freeport. The gold (the natural resource) is taken from Timika, Papua, and then the smelter that processes it is in Gresik, East Java. That became one of the key points in my argument: Raja Ampat, beauty to protect, or potential to develop?!
Another one: oi, if I want to go home to Timika, Papua, whether from Bali or Jakarta, a return trip costs Rp6.5–7.5 million!
I've done a few road trips between Bali and Java, and it's so easy to get from one place to another because Java's infrastructure is good. But who knows how much nature was destroyed to build it.
Development brings a lot of change to the environment, society, the economy and politics.
Development means that, like it or not, wherever it happens, humans will sacrifice nature!
Personally, I don't want Papua to be just a "forest" region, or what people call the lungs of the world. That's like swallowing Western propaganda! The kind that wants the status quo. That's more international politics, but you could say the pattern is the same.
Every city in the world should be the lungs of the world. Don't put that weight on Papua alone. Okay, maybe there's the idea of "sustainable development", but that's for another post. Please, put your trash in the bin first, then talk about destroying nature.
Raja Ampat was given incredible natural riches! Then the Creator came along and gave even more: nickel. A resource that could take Papua out of its "comfort zone". Or maybe nothing changes (see Timika).
Imagine if that resource were managed properly and given back to the people of Papua who need it. Building transport by land, air and sea, so plane tickets aren't that expensive. Building distribution routes, so you stop asking me, "Indomie costs 10k in Papua?! Petrol really costs 100k?" The bigger the city, the cheaper things get.
I was a little happy when Indonesia took over Freeport back then. Yes!
But annoyed when the smelter was put in Gresik, East Java, because there wasn't enough infrastructure in Papua. And maybe because building that infrastructure in Papua would never pay back, since "the gold is running out soon" (correct me if I'm wrong).
So it was okay in 1996 to "destroy" land in Gresik and build a smelter. But not in Papua?
Okay, maybe that's a stretch.
But look at the news about BYD building a factory in Subang, West Java. I didn't see anyone complaining about destroying nature, the soil, the green land. Or maybe West Java is already so un-green that it's fine?
Or the Trans-Java toll road, which ate up and destroyed who knows how much green land?!
"But that's different. That's for people's transport needs in Java, and people in the east feel the benefit too."
Oh please. Development always damages nature, and development and good management benefit everyone. If nickel gets processed in Raja Ampat, friends in Java will feel it too. Freeport's gold comes from Papua, and yet most of its top management are people from outside Papua.
So it's fine to damage nature in Java but not in Papua? Or maybe the damage just isn't as bad as when it's Papua?
"But it's different. Raja Ampat is already beautiful, why wreck it and take from it?"
Okay, Raja Ampat is an amazing place for nature trips, but did you know it's pretty expensive to get there?
If there were a factory or some other development, it might get more affordable. Maybe.
"It's different, in Raja Ampat it's a mine taking the resources." Resources are there to be managed. The money from managing them goes back to the people. I have a blog, so I manage the blog and turn it into a money-maker.
Raja Ampat was given natural beauty plus natural resources. So manage them. Lots of people eat from that, lots of families live off it.
Personally, I'm fine with building, and with managing Indonesia's natural wealth.
What I'm not fine with, and still cynical about to this day: there's no way the money from those resources goes back to the people.
Maybe if the Asset Forfeiture Bill ever passes, there'll at least be some optimism about letting the government manage our natural wealth.
Joe