The Jakarta Globe, 25 October 2009
The Copenhagen climate summit, hoped to produce a successor to the soon-to-expire Kyoto Protocol, is just around the corner. While many developed nations have yet to make any meaningful commitments (principally the United States, the world’s biggest carbon emitter that has a mandate to reduce emissions), Indonesia’s delegation will head to the conference with the proud distinction of having vowed to cut emissions by at least a quarter of current levels by 2020.
For those expecting concrete efforts to tackle global warming, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s announcement at the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh last month came as a pleasant surprise for several reasons. First, Indonesia had been one of the main global emitters without any emissions reduction target, due its status as a non-Annex 1 country under the Kyoto agreement. Substantial cuts in the country’s emissions would provide a more solid platform to reduce global carbon emissions. Also, this reductions goal — if met — would cement our country’s position as a climate leader that began with our leadership role in the 2007 Bali conference on climate change.
Nonetheless, skeptics remain unsure about how the country can meet such an ambitious goal. According to analysis by the National Council on Climate Change, our country emit 2.3 gigatons of C02-equivalent gases in 2005, mainly from the forestry and agriculture sectors as well as power generation, industry and transportation. If we assume that the figure hasn’t risen since then, meeting our pledge would mean emissions need to be trimmed by some 0.6 gigatons.
Despite the promises of wiser energy policies, the reduction is unlikely to stem from the industry and transportation fields, as over the next few years economic development will remain the focus of national policy. Emissions from these two sectors will likely be business as usual, leaving them at current levels at best. Given the recent global economic slumps, one can expect similar scenarios in even economically advanced nations. Some “climate champions” such as Japan, Germany, Poland and Italy are now seen hesitant to take a stand in pledging cuts.
Given these demands, our government is apparently expecting to garner a good deal of emissions savings from the forestry sector, mainly from REDD-schemes (reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation) and perhaps from reforestation projects. The former promotes avoided emissions while the latter works by absorbing carbon already in the atmosphere.
It is quite difficult to obtain reliable analysis on emissions that stem from deforestation and degradation due to methodological issues. Also, the National Carbon Accounting System, being introduced to measure levels of carbon and other greenhouse gases, has yet to publish official reports. Nonetheless, a rough approximation can be projected from global estimates of carbon emissions from deforestation and degradation.
According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the world loses 13 million hectares of forests annually, emitting 0.8-2.4 gigatons of carbon. Assuming a deforestation rate in Indonesia of one million hectares a year — and the rate is far higher if the data of several environmental advocacy groups are used — carbon emissions originating from our nation’s deforestation and forest degradation might reach 0.15 gigatons a year.
In addition, emissions from forest fires need to be taken into consideration. One study published in Nature in 2002 concluded that forest fires in 1998 released at least 0.8 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere, although we can assume that forest fires in Indonesia do not indeed reach that magnitude. All of this means that sustainable forest management — management that results in neither deforestation nor forest fires — can only avoid a fraction of SBY’s reduction commitment. Add to that the fact that our country seems hapless in controlling forest degradation and fires.
The government regularly launches counterproductive forest policies, putting more pressure on the currently degraded natural forests. For example, it encourages the expansion of pulp and paper industries with raw materials from natural forests in order to compete with “plantation giants” from Northern Europe and North America.
In addition, the expansion of palm oil plantations emits carbon in two ways: first, by conversion of natural forests into agricultural land, and second, by using burning to clear land as it is the cheapest and “most effective” technique. In fact, recent forest fires have been occurring mainly around plantation areas. Taken all together, these factors make meeting the targets more elusive.
There may be a case for saying that a reduction in carbon peat emissions is possible. Indonesia is home to massive peat swamps — about 20 million hectares in all — that store carbon underground. If the landscape is altered, the covered carbon will be emitted when the peat is exposed to the air. Nonetheless, estimates on the carbon stored and the current level of emissions due to land-use changes are rather limited. Research and studies are on the way, but scientists are not yet confident about producing solid data. In addition, given the continuous land-use changes in the country, principally into plantations, one can expect limited avoided emissions from this area.
A second emission reduction scheme through afforestation and reforestation looks similarly unpromising. According to a report by the Forestry Ministry, between 2003 and 2007 approximately four million hectares of degraded forests and non-forest areas were rehabilitated through reforestation programs. The emerging problem, however, lies in evidence that it takes years for the “new forests” to effectively absorb atmospheric carbon.
Clearly, Indonesia needs to be careful in setting targets on emission reductions, as the rough analysis reveals that many possible emissions mitigation schemes do not add up to meet SBY’s targets. Equally important, the current forest-related policies do not favor efforts to avoid future emissions. Indeed, the country has no mandate to set any targets on carbon reduction. But if our delegation arrives in Copenhagen without proper analysis and detailed plans to meet the promises, we might be in for an embarrassing time. More importantly, delegates should not sign an agreement that requires mandatory emission cuts merely for the applause of other nations.
Tuesday 27 October 2009
Strengthen forest governance to save the forests
There might be few will disagree that Indonesia’s forests have severely been depleted, but strong disagreements are there on what the underlying factors of the depletion are. Some argue it is due population explosion, illegal logging, and conversion; while greedy commercial logging is also often cited. And indeed still some many more! Perhaps each of us has own explanation on the downward trends of the forest resources.
Nonetheless, much attention has recently put on the governance and institutional aspects that the institution of government is no longer expected to have the sole control over the forests. The monopolized control of the state is thought to lead to corrupt and rent seeking behaviours which are believed to be the decisive causes of the deforestation.
As such, there have been pushes for shifts away from centrally administered and top-down regulatory policies to multi-stakeholder decision making processes, involving civil society and market institutions. However, the current access and control of forest resources in the country rarely reflect ‘negotiation processes’ among such different actors. The forest governance remains a distance prospect since regulation and formal institutional mandates mostly still give strong mandates to the (central) government on controlling the forests. A lion’s share of the forests continues to be at the state disposal, i.e. owned and used by the government.
It is not to say that non-state institutions and the civil society in general were left as spectators in the policy processes. Many local, national and international multi-stakeholder fora and networks have been created, aiming to fostering the Indonesian forest policy. They are indeed involved to various degrees, and are often consulted during the forest policy development. However, how decisions are made is a different reality that the interests on the state are mostly promoted.
Recent attempts to the ‘internationalization’ of the national forest policy through intergovernmental negotiations did not produce meaningful outcomes. A global forest convention, which was strongly advocated to regulate the national forest policy, has never been in place. In addition, the ‘coup’ for forest control by (international) NGOs through market-based instrument of forest certification and labelling do not give much cause for optimism, due the combination of factors including the limited interests of forest enterprises, and the limited signals on the promoted market incentives. It is hoped through the mechanism that behaviour of individual forest companies to be regulated by independent certification bodies. As a result, control and regulation on the forests are still largely by the state forest authority.
Decentralized forest governance has similarly produced unsatisfactory outcomes, since the lower (local) administrations are similarly corrupt that they are not accountable to both the central government and the people. As a result, some degree of control on the forests which was transferred to local administration has been taken back by the central forest authority.
Therefore, holistic reforms on Indonesian forest governance must be done in order to save the remaining forests and ensure sustainable forestry, for the future generation. The reforms should be able to create good forest governance, which is transparent, open, and informed forest policymaking process, which should be based on two foundations strong participation of civil society, and accountability and ability of those in bureaucracy.
Good governance in the forests also requires clear clarification on the relationships, the rights and responsibilities among different forest stakeholders, civil society, government institutions and even direct forest users. Scholars argue that the goal of forest conservation and management has not been met during the conflicts amongst the forest stakeholders. The crying needs to involving different stakeholders should particularly be focused on those directly and heavily affected by how the forests are used.
It is not only the clear clarification for the different nature of stakeholders; the reform should also touch the different agencies within the state, which have strong relationships with the uses of the forests, such as forest, agriculture and mining departments. It is important to harmonize their respective policy. Some other issues to promote good forest governance within the state agencies include accountable decision-makers, improved monitoring on the forest uses, and strong law enforcement.
Transitions are indeed needed due the diverse interests at different level, locally and internationally, reflecting the spectrum of stakeholders. Such transitions are also needed considering the current magnitude of forest problems. More importance, the forest sector is now facing the rapidly changing world with several emerging issues, e.g. climate change. This poses a tricky challenge as interests on and stakeholders of the forests can become even vary.
Nonetheless, much attention has recently put on the governance and institutional aspects that the institution of government is no longer expected to have the sole control over the forests. The monopolized control of the state is thought to lead to corrupt and rent seeking behaviours which are believed to be the decisive causes of the deforestation.
As such, there have been pushes for shifts away from centrally administered and top-down regulatory policies to multi-stakeholder decision making processes, involving civil society and market institutions. However, the current access and control of forest resources in the country rarely reflect ‘negotiation processes’ among such different actors. The forest governance remains a distance prospect since regulation and formal institutional mandates mostly still give strong mandates to the (central) government on controlling the forests. A lion’s share of the forests continues to be at the state disposal, i.e. owned and used by the government.
It is not to say that non-state institutions and the civil society in general were left as spectators in the policy processes. Many local, national and international multi-stakeholder fora and networks have been created, aiming to fostering the Indonesian forest policy. They are indeed involved to various degrees, and are often consulted during the forest policy development. However, how decisions are made is a different reality that the interests on the state are mostly promoted.
Recent attempts to the ‘internationalization’ of the national forest policy through intergovernmental negotiations did not produce meaningful outcomes. A global forest convention, which was strongly advocated to regulate the national forest policy, has never been in place. In addition, the ‘coup’ for forest control by (international) NGOs through market-based instrument of forest certification and labelling do not give much cause for optimism, due the combination of factors including the limited interests of forest enterprises, and the limited signals on the promoted market incentives. It is hoped through the mechanism that behaviour of individual forest companies to be regulated by independent certification bodies. As a result, control and regulation on the forests are still largely by the state forest authority.
Decentralized forest governance has similarly produced unsatisfactory outcomes, since the lower (local) administrations are similarly corrupt that they are not accountable to both the central government and the people. As a result, some degree of control on the forests which was transferred to local administration has been taken back by the central forest authority.
Therefore, holistic reforms on Indonesian forest governance must be done in order to save the remaining forests and ensure sustainable forestry, for the future generation. The reforms should be able to create good forest governance, which is transparent, open, and informed forest policymaking process, which should be based on two foundations strong participation of civil society, and accountability and ability of those in bureaucracy.
Good governance in the forests also requires clear clarification on the relationships, the rights and responsibilities among different forest stakeholders, civil society, government institutions and even direct forest users. Scholars argue that the goal of forest conservation and management has not been met during the conflicts amongst the forest stakeholders. The crying needs to involving different stakeholders should particularly be focused on those directly and heavily affected by how the forests are used.
It is not only the clear clarification for the different nature of stakeholders; the reform should also touch the different agencies within the state, which have strong relationships with the uses of the forests, such as forest, agriculture and mining departments. It is important to harmonize their respective policy. Some other issues to promote good forest governance within the state agencies include accountable decision-makers, improved monitoring on the forest uses, and strong law enforcement.
Transitions are indeed needed due the diverse interests at different level, locally and internationally, reflecting the spectrum of stakeholders. Such transitions are also needed considering the current magnitude of forest problems. More importance, the forest sector is now facing the rapidly changing world with several emerging issues, e.g. climate change. This poses a tricky challenge as interests on and stakeholders of the forests can become even vary.
When those we are after cheating
Just turning to May, a scandalous Indo-German research project dominated German papers as some scientists in the Stability of Rainforest Margins in Indonesia (STORMA) indicated several publications as “submitted to journals”, but no manuscripts were unfortunately available.
Explained in its website, STORMA project aims to analyse processes contributing to the stability of rainforest margins and to develop integrated concepts of sustainable land use. Largely funded by the Collaborative Research Centre of the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft/ DFG), this project has been executed since 2000 by two Indonesian universities and two German partner universities.
The damage done might not be anywhere near that of Jon Sudbo, whose fraudulent medical papers could have risked the health of the patients. Still, many were shell-shocked, as was the President of Georg-August-University Goettingen, one of the German participating universities. The university then quickly took some appropriate measures, reviewing related publications, including dozens of doctoral and master thesis produced from the project.
Nonetheless, questions still remain principally what motivates scientists to manipute their research and, more importantly, what should we do then to prevent such cases, at least to limit the occurence.There is no homogenous motives explaining scientific frauds, but in STORMA case, the following might explain. The scientists might have been driven by pressure, either to meet the pre-defined targets or even to exceed such targets. In either possibility, the involved scientists seem to impress the funding agency (DFG) for the project extension. Should the frauds have not been found, STORMA was about to be extended to the fourth phase (2009-12).
To prevent further frauds, without any doubt, although those involved in the intentional scientific misconducts should be treated fairly, they on the same time should experience with hard punitive measures. Not only have they damaged employers’ reputation, as admited by the President of Goettingen University, but also spoiled the reputation of science itself. As scientists, they have to be aware of their inherent responsibilities; i.e. promoting scientific honesty, by not doing so-called FFP:’ fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism’. The harsh measures would limit scientists of risking themselves of engaging in such frauds and are equally important as promoting good conduct of research.Such measures should also be complemented with robust monitoring systems, including periodical reviews on any on-going research. Collaboration work with other institutions, if possible worldwide, might also be useful as partners can act as a ‘control’, although this proved unworkable in STORMA.
More importantly, to prevent further scientific frauds, there should be reforms of culture in the research institutions. Currently, as STORMA case reveals, scientists are merely recognized for the number of publications they have produced, the number of research projects they have been in charge of and so on. Richard Horton of the Lancet , responding to Sudbo’s case, insists that scientists should be rewarded for: “the total life of what it means to be a scientist”, i.e. mentorship, education and training.
To the Indonesian context, ensuring scientific honesty is highly appropriate at least for the following reasons. First, scientific misconducts are thought as not uncommon in the country, mainly due the poor rules. There are a number of allegations that some have conducted FFP. The common allegations include producing publications by using others’ ideas without appropriate and sufficient acknowledgements.Unfortunately, they were rarely investigated so that the alleged scientists ‘enjoy’ the positions they should not keep, should had the otherwise (proper) measures been done. This can encourage further misconducts by others. Either they would intentionally do, due the ‘soft consequences’; or they do not simply realize that their conduct contravene good scientific practices as the previous similar conducts suggest such so.
Secondly, the country is yet to have a sound scientific code of practices, therefore the development of such a code is the paramount of importance. Once the ethical code is developed, then dissemination to scientists should be regularly done. To sum up, it would be a kind of exaggeration saying that scientists are the true defender for honesty. But they are clearly one of those who we are after for honesty.
Explained in its website, STORMA project aims to analyse processes contributing to the stability of rainforest margins and to develop integrated concepts of sustainable land use. Largely funded by the Collaborative Research Centre of the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft/ DFG), this project has been executed since 2000 by two Indonesian universities and two German partner universities.
The damage done might not be anywhere near that of Jon Sudbo, whose fraudulent medical papers could have risked the health of the patients. Still, many were shell-shocked, as was the President of Georg-August-University Goettingen, one of the German participating universities. The university then quickly took some appropriate measures, reviewing related publications, including dozens of doctoral and master thesis produced from the project.
Nonetheless, questions still remain principally what motivates scientists to manipute their research and, more importantly, what should we do then to prevent such cases, at least to limit the occurence.There is no homogenous motives explaining scientific frauds, but in STORMA case, the following might explain. The scientists might have been driven by pressure, either to meet the pre-defined targets or even to exceed such targets. In either possibility, the involved scientists seem to impress the funding agency (DFG) for the project extension. Should the frauds have not been found, STORMA was about to be extended to the fourth phase (2009-12).
To prevent further frauds, without any doubt, although those involved in the intentional scientific misconducts should be treated fairly, they on the same time should experience with hard punitive measures. Not only have they damaged employers’ reputation, as admited by the President of Goettingen University, but also spoiled the reputation of science itself. As scientists, they have to be aware of their inherent responsibilities; i.e. promoting scientific honesty, by not doing so-called FFP:’ fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism’. The harsh measures would limit scientists of risking themselves of engaging in such frauds and are equally important as promoting good conduct of research.Such measures should also be complemented with robust monitoring systems, including periodical reviews on any on-going research. Collaboration work with other institutions, if possible worldwide, might also be useful as partners can act as a ‘control’, although this proved unworkable in STORMA.
More importantly, to prevent further scientific frauds, there should be reforms of culture in the research institutions. Currently, as STORMA case reveals, scientists are merely recognized for the number of publications they have produced, the number of research projects they have been in charge of and so on. Richard Horton of the Lancet , responding to Sudbo’s case, insists that scientists should be rewarded for: “the total life of what it means to be a scientist”, i.e. mentorship, education and training.
To the Indonesian context, ensuring scientific honesty is highly appropriate at least for the following reasons. First, scientific misconducts are thought as not uncommon in the country, mainly due the poor rules. There are a number of allegations that some have conducted FFP. The common allegations include producing publications by using others’ ideas without appropriate and sufficient acknowledgements.Unfortunately, they were rarely investigated so that the alleged scientists ‘enjoy’ the positions they should not keep, should had the otherwise (proper) measures been done. This can encourage further misconducts by others. Either they would intentionally do, due the ‘soft consequences’; or they do not simply realize that their conduct contravene good scientific practices as the previous similar conducts suggest such so.
Secondly, the country is yet to have a sound scientific code of practices, therefore the development of such a code is the paramount of importance. Once the ethical code is developed, then dissemination to scientists should be regularly done. To sum up, it would be a kind of exaggeration saying that scientists are the true defender for honesty. But they are clearly one of those who we are after for honesty.
Environmental movements need new directions
Environmental movements in Indonesia have touched every corner of the contemporary society particularly since the downfall of New Order government, more intensive than ever. Due the more democratic and open national polity, fellow activists enjoy substantial ‘freedom’ to raise such issues as rampant commercial logging, illegal logging and smuggling, forest fires, low recognition of indigenous rights, social conflicts, and forest conversion.
Numerous mailing lists have been created to discuss the problems. Various advertising and scientific materials for raising public awareness have been published as well. ‘Environmental stickers’ have been placed in canteens, students’ billboards, traffic lights and all possible free-spaces that one wonders whether anyone can count them. Even demonstrations and ‘street-actions’ have taken place across regions to protest poor environmental management. All are dedicated for the promotion of environmental stewardships.
While such efforts have substantially raised awareness among civil society on the magnitude of the problems, degradation of environmental qualities continues. The movements are yet to find a firm grip in that ecological values have not seriously been considered in the regulations yet. In fact, environmental issues are still not so salient on national agenda; the country’s environment-authorities continue to make environmental policy on their own sphere, beyond the reach of the activists.
Examples are well-documented. Still in the very early of the reform era, when NGOs were in the peak of euphoria, the state authorities passed barely its own draft for the new forest law. Even in these days, despite efforts against monoculture plantations, the government has on the other hand targeted massive plantations to nearly ten million hectares until the next five years. Also, notwithstanding the intensive campaign on moratorium logging, excessive exploitations continue on many parts of the country’s forests. And there are many others that one might not be able to identify every single one.
Apparently, environment-activists have not yet been successfully able to convince the policymakers to adopt on their policy, or in many instances fail to prevent the implementation of particular policy they work against. The problem lies on their apparent ineffective strategies.
Most of the efforts have been focused on pressing problems to be recognised -as a matter of urgency-, are more directed at civil society in general, not the government. Fellow activists might assume that the increasing awareness of civil society will put pressure on the decision makers to adopt/ implement certain forest policy. In fact, the ‘policy flavours’ of the decision makers might not necessarily reflect the needs and urgency within civil society as evidence clearly reveals.
Indeed, raising awareness among civil society on environmental and forest problems is quite important, and will still as ever since environment-related problems become increasingly diverse and complex. Nonetheless, while continuing such efforts, activists might need to diversify the strategy to also focus on the policymakers. Over years, activists have tended to blame the government poor policy in managing the environment. Rarely do they see the government institutions as partners to solve problems. This might have created persistent resistance and ignorance from the government.
Environmental activists clearly need to make compromises with governmental institutions. Avner de-Shalit (2001) in Environmental Politics also points out that ‘never accept compromises’ is the first of his ten commandments to fail in environmental campaign. So, it is not always correct to say ‘fight brings results’. It is also not to say that the activists rarely offer solutions, but they used to offer partial proposals focusing only on environmental goals, so that the decision makers were reluctant to adopt as they might have also preferred on economic outcomes.
Therefore, the activists should offer concrete proposals that conservation packages can go hand-in-hand with economic objectives. They are much more than just aware that sustainability has been defined as compromised notions of different interests.
It is essential for them to also switch their strategies into interest lobbies, pursuing more formal public policy procedures and mechanisms, such as hearings in the parliament. It is the time now for activists to do more political dialogues with regulation and decision makers. Environmental movements should now be more and more institutionalized. Diani and Donati (1999) in Environmental Movements: Local, National and Global similarly suggest environmental groups to draw legitimacy and respectability rather than the display of strong disruptive potential. They need not to always blame the government on environmental problems, but need to come and collaborate with them in order to discover ideal solutions for the problems.
Success stories are also there, particularly the more-economically advanced nations, such as Germany. The Green Party has in fact forged a strong coalition with the Social Democrat Party (SPD), which is clearly has different ideological foundation with more emphasis on business interests. By collaborating with SPD, the Green Party was able to attach its agendas in the national policy.
At this moment, efforts toward linking environmental activists and decision makers in the formal mechanisms are emerging in Indonesia. For example, business groups, the government and NGOs as well as have worked together to develop sustainable standards on forest management, regarding green certification. But they are apparently far from sufficient. Therefore, such efforts should be further enhanced. The success story of fellow activists in other countries should provide impetus for local NGOs to collaborate with the authorities to find more compromised solutions.
To sum up, many have placed high expectation on the environmental efforts to outrun the forest loss and degradation and to promote forest conservation and sustainable management. They will be disappointed to see the derailment of environmental objectives in the national forest policy only because inappropriate strategies. So, don’t let them down!
Numerous mailing lists have been created to discuss the problems. Various advertising and scientific materials for raising public awareness have been published as well. ‘Environmental stickers’ have been placed in canteens, students’ billboards, traffic lights and all possible free-spaces that one wonders whether anyone can count them. Even demonstrations and ‘street-actions’ have taken place across regions to protest poor environmental management. All are dedicated for the promotion of environmental stewardships.
While such efforts have substantially raised awareness among civil society on the magnitude of the problems, degradation of environmental qualities continues. The movements are yet to find a firm grip in that ecological values have not seriously been considered in the regulations yet. In fact, environmental issues are still not so salient on national agenda; the country’s environment-authorities continue to make environmental policy on their own sphere, beyond the reach of the activists.
Examples are well-documented. Still in the very early of the reform era, when NGOs were in the peak of euphoria, the state authorities passed barely its own draft for the new forest law. Even in these days, despite efforts against monoculture plantations, the government has on the other hand targeted massive plantations to nearly ten million hectares until the next five years. Also, notwithstanding the intensive campaign on moratorium logging, excessive exploitations continue on many parts of the country’s forests. And there are many others that one might not be able to identify every single one.
Apparently, environment-activists have not yet been successfully able to convince the policymakers to adopt on their policy, or in many instances fail to prevent the implementation of particular policy they work against. The problem lies on their apparent ineffective strategies.
Most of the efforts have been focused on pressing problems to be recognised -as a matter of urgency-, are more directed at civil society in general, not the government. Fellow activists might assume that the increasing awareness of civil society will put pressure on the decision makers to adopt/ implement certain forest policy. In fact, the ‘policy flavours’ of the decision makers might not necessarily reflect the needs and urgency within civil society as evidence clearly reveals.
Indeed, raising awareness among civil society on environmental and forest problems is quite important, and will still as ever since environment-related problems become increasingly diverse and complex. Nonetheless, while continuing such efforts, activists might need to diversify the strategy to also focus on the policymakers. Over years, activists have tended to blame the government poor policy in managing the environment. Rarely do they see the government institutions as partners to solve problems. This might have created persistent resistance and ignorance from the government.
Environmental activists clearly need to make compromises with governmental institutions. Avner de-Shalit (2001) in Environmental Politics also points out that ‘never accept compromises’ is the first of his ten commandments to fail in environmental campaign. So, it is not always correct to say ‘fight brings results’. It is also not to say that the activists rarely offer solutions, but they used to offer partial proposals focusing only on environmental goals, so that the decision makers were reluctant to adopt as they might have also preferred on economic outcomes.
Therefore, the activists should offer concrete proposals that conservation packages can go hand-in-hand with economic objectives. They are much more than just aware that sustainability has been defined as compromised notions of different interests.
It is essential for them to also switch their strategies into interest lobbies, pursuing more formal public policy procedures and mechanisms, such as hearings in the parliament. It is the time now for activists to do more political dialogues with regulation and decision makers. Environmental movements should now be more and more institutionalized. Diani and Donati (1999) in Environmental Movements: Local, National and Global similarly suggest environmental groups to draw legitimacy and respectability rather than the display of strong disruptive potential. They need not to always blame the government on environmental problems, but need to come and collaborate with them in order to discover ideal solutions for the problems.
Success stories are also there, particularly the more-economically advanced nations, such as Germany. The Green Party has in fact forged a strong coalition with the Social Democrat Party (SPD), which is clearly has different ideological foundation with more emphasis on business interests. By collaborating with SPD, the Green Party was able to attach its agendas in the national policy.
At this moment, efforts toward linking environmental activists and decision makers in the formal mechanisms are emerging in Indonesia. For example, business groups, the government and NGOs as well as have worked together to develop sustainable standards on forest management, regarding green certification. But they are apparently far from sufficient. Therefore, such efforts should be further enhanced. The success story of fellow activists in other countries should provide impetus for local NGOs to collaborate with the authorities to find more compromised solutions.
To sum up, many have placed high expectation on the environmental efforts to outrun the forest loss and degradation and to promote forest conservation and sustainable management. They will be disappointed to see the derailment of environmental objectives in the national forest policy only because inappropriate strategies. So, don’t let them down!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
