By Kusnandar & Co., Attorneys At Law – Jakarta, Indonesia
The
recent meeting between Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto and King Charles
III of the United Kingdom is more than a moment of high-level diplomacy or a
ceremonial exchange between two leaders. Behind the handshakes and formal
smiles lies an important commitment: cooperation to improve and restore 57
national parks across Indonesia. In an era marked by climate change,
biodiversity loss, and increasing ecological disasters, this agreement carries
significance far beyond international protocol.
National
parks are often viewed as protected spaces reserved for conservationists,
researchers, or tourists. In reality, they are essential life-support systems.
Indonesia’s national parks protect watersheds, regulate climate, preserve
biodiversity, and sustain the livelihoods of millions of people living around
them. When these ecosystems are degraded, the consequences are immediate and
far-reaching—floods become more frequent, droughts intensify, wildlife
disappears, and communities lose their sources of food, water, and income.
The
commitment to restore 57 national parks sends an important message:
environmental protection is no longer a side issue but a central pillar of
national and international policy. King Charles III, long known for his
environmental advocacy, brings moral authority and global attention to this
effort. For Indonesia, partnering with the United Kingdom strengthens not only
technical capacity but also international credibility in conservation efforts.
What
makes this cooperation particularly meaningful is that it goes beyond abstract
promises. Several conservation initiatives are already underway, including
ecosystem restoration in areas such as Way Kambas National Park, which plays a
critical role in protecting endangered Sumatran elephants. There is also
attention to forest and landscape restoration in Aceh, reinforcing the idea
that conservation must be grounded in real, measurable actions—not just
diplomatic statements.
However,
optimism should be accompanied by realism. Restoring national parks is not
merely about funding or foreign partnerships. It requires strong governance,
consistent law enforcement, and meaningful involvement of local communities.
Without transparency and long-term commitment, even well-funded programs risk
becoming temporary projects that fail to address structural problems such as
illegal logging, land encroachment, and weak oversight.
This
is where the broader meaning of the Prabowo–Charles meeting becomes clear. The
agreement reflects a growing recognition that environmental protection is
inseparable from social stability and economic resilience. Healthy ecosystems
reduce disaster risks, support sustainable tourism, and provide long-term
economic benefits that far outweigh short-term exploitation. In this sense,
conservation is not an obstacle to development—it is a prerequisite for it.
Equally
important is the role of communities living near national parks. Conservation
efforts that exclude local voices often fail. Restoration must go hand in hand
with improving livelihoods, respecting indigenous knowledge, and ensuring fair
access to resources. When people see tangible benefits from conservation, they
become its strongest defenders.
At
a global level, this partnership also highlights the importance of shared
responsibility. Climate change and biodiversity loss do not respect national
borders. Cooperation between countries—especially those with historical,
economic, and political influence—can help set stronger global standards for
environmental governance.
Ultimately,
the agreement to improve 57 national parks should not be remembered as a
diplomatic headline, but as a turning point. Its success will be measured not
by official statements, but by healthier forests, cleaner rivers, protected
wildlife, and safer communities. If implemented with integrity and consistency,
this cooperation could serve as a model for how diplomacy can move beyond
symbolism and contribute meaningfully to the protection of our shared planet.
Protecting
nature is not an act of charity toward the environment—it is an investment in
humanity’s future.
By K&C - January 22, 2026
No comments:
Post a Comment