Pemilu 2009 dan Siapa Peduli Lingkungan

Ahmad Maryudi, Detik 23.03.09

Pemilu 2009 sudah semakin dekat. Tirai masa kampanye resmi pun telah dibuka. Akan mencapai klimaksnya dalam beberapa hari mendatang. Para parpol dan calon legislatif (caleg) semakin intensif menawarkan berbagai visi dan janji untuk memikat hati pemilih.Walaupun ada puluhan partai dengan ribuan caleg nampaknya isu yang diangkat relatif seragam dan terfokus pada isu sosial dan ekonomi seperti: pertumbuhan ekonomi, pengangguran dan lapangan kerja, mutu pendidikan, penegakan hukum dan pemberantasan korupsi. Sedikit, bahkan bisa dibilang tidak ada, yang mempunyai visi kebijakan lingkungan.

Padahal permasalahan lingkungan juga menjadi salah satu masalah pelik bagi negeri ini. Kejadian banjir, longsor, illegal logging, kerusakan dan kebakaran hutan, kerusakan terumbu karang dan lain sebagainya sudah menjadi 'menu' kita sehari-hari. Implikasinya pun tidak sebatas aspek ekologis. Namun, sudah bisa dinilai secara finansial dan jumlahnya pun tidak kecil. Contoh kecil saja estimasi biaya untuk pengerukan endapan erosi waduk Gajah Mungkur untuk menanggulangi bencana banjir di luar jangkauan APBD Jawa Tengah. Partai HijauBeberapa waktu silam Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa (PKB) pernah mendeklarasikan dirinya sebagai sebuah


Partai Hijau
Tidak sekedar warna bendera dan afiliasi religi mayoritas konstituennya. Partai ini menyatakan akan punya dedikasi dan perhatian pada isu lingkungan. Setelah deklarasi tersebut PKB pun secara sporadis menggelar berbagai 'peduli lingkungan'. Namun, tidak lama, spirit pro lingkungan tersebut seperti menguap entah ke mana.Sebelumnya, sekitar akhir 90-an, pun sayup-sayup sempat terdengar terbentuknya Partai Hijau. Namun, partai ini seperti hilang ditelan bumi.

Bagi mereka yang berharap akan ada perubahan positif dalam kebijakan lingkungan di negeri ini tentu sangat berlebihan jika berharap ada partai hijau seperti di beberapa negara maju. Mereka membangun real green platforms, serta secara konsisten tak kenal lelah menyuarakan 'kehijauannya'. Isu-isu kearifan ekologis terus diangkat. Tak terlalu peduli akan suara dan jumlah kursi yang akan diperoleh dalam parlemen.

Sebagai contoh di Jerman upaya Die Gruene (The Greens) untuk memperjuangkan environmental welfare sudah dimulai awal dekade 1970-an untuk menyuarakan isu polusi dan energi nuklir. Mereka baru 'menuai' hasil sekitar sepuluh tahun kemudian. Tepatnya pada tahun 1983. Partai ini untuk pertama kalinya masuk dalam parlemen (Bundestag) setelah mendapat suara di atas 5%, ambang batas minimal untuk bisa masuk parlemen. Belakangan dukungan untuk partai ini terus menurun.

Namun, itu tidak serta merta memudarkan 'warna hijau', karena doktrin dan platform partai telah terpatri kuat. Dengan sistem politik dan kepartaian saat ini tentu tidak ada satu partai pun di tanah air yang akan tetap bertahan jika gagal mendapatkan dukungan. Yang sering terjadi adalah mendirikan partai baru dengan cita rasa yang baru pula.Menjaring Konstituen BaruBisa dipahami keengganan untuk membangun partai berhaluan hijau di negeri ini. Kalkulasi politik apa pun tentu tidak merekomendasikan hal ini. Saat ini isu lingkungan semata belum cukup atraktif menarik minat pemilih.

Namun, sebenarnya parpol di tanah air bisa secara cerdas untuk mencoba sedikit berani keluar dari tema-tema kampanye 'konvensional' untuk menjaring konstituen baru tanpa harus meninggalkan visi dan kebijakan utama partai. Environmental niches sebenarnya pelan-pelan sudah mulai terbangun. Banyak civil society groups di tanah air yang bergerak dalam advokasi lingkungan. Untuk kalangan yang cukup environmentally concerned seperti ini sudah tentu isu lingkungan akan sangat mengena.

Untuk calon pemilih lain topik lingkungan bisa diintegrasikan dalam isu sosial ekonomi lain. Seperti pengelolaan sumber daya alam (misal hutan) yang lebih mengedepankan equity dan social justice. Isu seperti hutan kemasyarakatan tentu cukup atraktif bagi masyarakat desa hutan. Patut dicatat ada lebih puluhan ribu desa hutan di tanah air dengan puluhan juta rakyat yang hidupnya sangat tergantung pada eksistensi hutan. Sudah jelas bahwa sebenarnya isu lingkungan bisa dikelola sebagai additional comparative advantages sebuah partai, untuk menjaring calon pemilih di luar core constituents. Dan, sayangnya hal ini tidak dilirik oleh satu partai pun.

Mari kita cermati bersama. Apakah ada partai yang mempunyai visi dan janji politik yang pro lingkungan. Bagi yang mengharapkan perbaikan dalam pengelolaan lingkungan di tanah air mungkin hanya bisa berharap. Siapa pun nanti yang mendapatkan kepercayaan untuk menjadi wakil rakyat bisa pelan-pelan perhatian yang lebih serius terhadap lingkungan. Tidak seperti yang terjadi di masa-masa silam. Salah satu penyebab hancurnya lingkungan adalah tiadanya komitmen politis yang memadai. Aspek lingkungan hanya menjadi prioritas ke sekian, di belakang tujuan-tujuan lain. Pada akhirnya, lingkunganlah yang akhirnya menjadi korban. Kebijakan lingkungan tidak harus selalu trade off (saling mengorbankan), dan bisa disinergikan dengan kebijakan sosial dan ekonomi.

Persistent Primordial Romanticisms

The approvals for conversions of some protection-dedicated forests into city centers, as well as the continuous uses of other conservation areas for mining sites have just been brought to the public attention in the front pages of some Indonesian media. Not long before, thousand cubic metres of valuable timber smuggled to other countries. Those have added the long lists of forest problems. Rampant commercial logging, forest fires and sour conflicts between forest business and local/ indigenous groups are only a few of the many others to mention.

It becomes evident that the Indonesian forest sector is experiencing so-called “policy inflation and capacity collapse” syndrome. The sector is congested with dozens of problems, despite appealing promises on wise uses of the resources, which perhaps could be found in every single page of ‘tiger paper’ official documents.

Some might have been childishly giggling on the ‘impotency’ of Indonesian foresters in the national multi-sectoral negotiations. Some others might be left frustrated since Indonesian foresters -altogether with their South fellows- are left as spectators, unable to resist aggressions of interests from the North in the international forest dialogues.

Yet, Indonesian foresters, especially those are in the governmental apparatus, somehow are in the long dreams about ‘primordial orgasms’. Every single forester, or those involved in forestry activities, perhaps could observe a ‘disclosed public secret’ of the two-horse race between ‘Dermaga&Co’ and ‘Bulaksumur Alliance’, competing for strategic structural posts.

When the New Order Regime was still in power, the rivalry was perhaps only for the Forestry#1. Currently, while the post is extremely unpredictable, depending on the outcomes of ‘mutual transactions’ between/ amongst political parties, the battlefields shift to the various Tiers/ Eselons in the Ministry.

Sadly, the two apply similar strategy what scholars in the political science describe as “zero sum politics” -that one’s gains does mean the other’s loss-, rather than positive competition for the common goods. Either from “Chinese whispers” from internal sources -particularly from those feel aggrieved have been left out- or from critical observations, it is not uncommon when one gets strategic posts, then he/ she bring own squad, sweeping aside most of the rival’s armada under the posts.

That might have not been the concerns if the new is more enthusiastic and more progressive, has better visions and platforms, bringing the fresh air to the more problem-congested forest sector. Unfortunately, it appears that that might not be the case. It is not unusual that the new cabinet sweep away the former altogether their policy, without seeing any robustness of the policy.

Some could argue that it is the consequence as the policy has not brought real impacts to heal the chronic forest problems, but it should be understood that the impacts of a particular policy might be can only be seen after decades. People will hardly see the immediate impacts of any policy considering the magnitude of the problems. The continuously changing forest policy would result in uncertainties on ‘forest welfare’.

For the sake of the stewardships of the forest resources, therefore, there might not be options, but to rediscover foresters’ ‘corsa spirits’, which suggest that one’s burdens and pains should be carried by the others; and in sum ‘all for one, one for all’. The spirits have long been embedded in the forest professions, but have somehow gone in the sky.

While the world’s foresters apparently are united to prevent the increasing pressure from non-forest interests, the national foresters should move away from own political interests, instead of bringing the political interests of the whole foresters and the resource.

There is no more room for primordial romanticisms, as the foresters are now dealing with the more complex forest problems. The team up between the best professionals assembled in the two best forest schools in the country would be a perfect start. Let’s wake up to fight against the massive forest loss and degradation as well as the marginalization of forest-dependent people.

The paradox of empowerment in community forestry

The Jakarta Post, 14 March 2009
Ahmad Maryudi

Community forestry has been widely promoted as a potential approach to improved forest management and conservation strategies. It emphasizes improving local communities’ socioeconomic well-being, promoting social justice and giving equitable access to the forests.

Interest in its implementation has increased significantly. More than one-tenth of the world’s forests are managed by communities, and this figure is expected to rise 50 percent by 2015.

In Indonesia, a staggering 2 million hectares of Java’s forests and some forestlands in other regions are now jointly managed with forest user groups through different community forestry programs.

The enthusiasm about community forestry has been linked mainly with the premises that ‘forest communities’ are closely attached to the surrounding forests, not only for their daily livelihood but also for cultural and even religious lives.

So it is believed that their meaningful involvement will provide a sound platform for better forest planning and management, from which the people should benefit more.

In the program, local forest users play an important role in the common decision making procedures and implementation of forestry activities. As such, empowerment of the people is sounded throughout.

Empowerment is indeed a tricky and multifaceted term; but it refers to lifting the capacity of disadvantaged individuals so that they can actively participate in matters affecting their lives.

In general, empowerment should encompass the following features: Self-control, independence, authority, and self-determination. In short, being empowered means ‘one can do what they want to do’.

In regards to forest use, strong empowerment of forest communities implies that the communities are allowed to use the forests according to their needs, ideally without any regulations.

In a more pragmatic term, it means free access.

Indeed this means risks to the forest resources, as is generally argued by the proponents of exclusive state control. Hardin’s monumental essay, The Tragedy of the Commons also cautions the likely resource degradation caused be free access. Nonetheless, community forestry supporters argue that if the main premise of community forestry ­– that the close attachment of forest communities will promote wise usages – is met, then there should not be concerns over resource degradation.

In practice, the contrary has however been witnessed — community forestry programs have become restrictive and punitive to the people, particularly direct forest users. Forest users are now facing complex permit systems to gain access to their land, for various ‘technical rationales’, e.g. management plans, forest biodiversity, allowable cut, cutting cycle and so on. If such rationales are not met, then usage is prohibited. These measures have clearly caused hardships to the people in accessing the forests.

In addition, formal agreements usually require the group ­– as a legal partner to the forest managers­ – to control the behavior of the members (direct forest users). It has been found everywhere that detailed rules and strict punitive measures are set in place. These include penalties for noncompliance. Those violating the rules have to pay fines and can even find themselves excluded from the group.

Through these ‘institutionalized’ restrictions and punishments, forest managers exert more control over the forests, without directly ‘confronting’ forest users. All the risks are now transferred to the few people sitting on group committees or boards.

Indeed, through legal agreements, forest communities are supposedly entitled to benefits which, unfortunately, are solitarily defined by forest managers. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the benefits flow directly to forest users. Cases show that such benefits are captured by the group’s boards.

In conclusion, it is beyond a doubt that community forestry is an innovative policy. It has set a comprehensive blend of environmental and socioeconomic as well as political objectives.
It can support strategies for poverty alleviation and is well-placed in regional development goals. In addition, community forestry is highly relevant to the far-reaching decentralization policies, shifting the focus of forestries from national to regional and even community levels.

Nonetheless, a limited impact on livelihoods has been achieved to date due the artificial empowerment. To achieve the initial objectives of community forestry, policy makers and forest managers should explore innovations beyond the current practices and genuinely reestablish the rights of local communities regarding forest resources.


The writer is Executive Director of the Institute for Forest Policy and Environmental Studies (IFPES), currently conducting PhD research on Community Forestry Policy at the Goettingen University. This is his personal opinion.