Jakarta Post, Tue, 04/27/2010 8:35 AM | Opinion
Illegal logging has long been identified as a prominent forest problem with detrimental impacts — ecologically, socially and economically.
It is now targeted by the Judicial Mafia Taskforce amid numerous controversial verdicts favoring the suspects (The Jakarta Post, April 19, 2010: “Taskforce sets sights on illegal logging mafia allegations”, also April 8, 2010: “SBY orders taskforce to tackle illegal logging”).
To tackle illegal logging, investigating those alleged to have been involved in the judicial process favoring the suspects is important.
The process nonetheless occurs after the damage has been done. Problems of illegal logging are extensive in that the country’s forest systems cannot effectively prevent illegal logging.
A closer look on “forest processes”, which might have contributed to favoring illegal activities, is
therefore not less imperative than the former.
By definition, there are two forms of illegal logging. People might need not further explanation on timber poaching by unauthorized loggers, but they might raise their eyebrows knowing that illegal logging, as a matter of fact in our country, is often wrapped in legal processes that hence cannot easily be detected.
In general, management plans are set in place to ensure how much and where timber can be legally logged from the forests, but they are often abused.
For instance, some logging activities occur outside the approved compartments, or the actual harvest is beyond the set limits.
A prominent example is illegal logging by Adelin Lis’ companies, which were granted legal forest utilization licenses.
His forest management companies were found to be logging trees in protected areas in Mandailing and Batang Gadis National Park of North Sumatra, which both restrict logging activity.
As reports suggest, despite only securing an annual harvest limit of 50,000 cubic meters, its downstream industry processed nearly 1 million cubic meters.
In most cases, violence on the management plans should not be hard to detect nonetheless. It then becomes difficult to track down when the annual harvest limits are set and officially approved by forest authorities beyond the capacity of the forests to regenerate themselves.
It is not uncommon that forest officials conspire with forest companies to raise the harvest bars, allowing the companies to harvest more, of course illegally.
Technically, they are those who are appointed to check whether the management plans are sound enough, but field inspections are often insufficient, if not non-existent. Reports also suggest that legal harvest licenses are “on-sale” to undertake in illegal activities.
The message here is again that tackling down on illegal logging should also touch the governance system of the Forest Ministry. Models of licenses and approvals might not be best anymore.
Being objective, too many requirements and pre-conditions incurred to forest companies, on the one hand, create hospitable environments for corrupt officials to benefit from circumstances in which forest companies are no wish to comply with.
On the other hand, being burdened with formal and informal fees, the forest managers are likely to compensate to more harvests from the forests.
This becomes a vicious circle and all contributes to persistent illegal logging in the country.
There is an increasingly apparent need of simplified, but of course effective, surveillance systems on forest companies.
Approaches on independent assessments, which have been recently implemented, generate a glimpse of enthusiasm and optimism, but indeed have no guarantee as well.
Recently, the Forestry Ministry has exercised the implementation of regular inventory systems imposed on forest companies to monitor the forest condition from time to time.
It is an innovative experiment, but as said, this will burden the forest companies more.
Hence, this innovation should be followed with the removal of some overlapping, and ineffective requirements to limit people’s desire for compensation from the forests.
It is perhaps well-worth for forest companies practicing wise forest operation and management to experiment with incentive-based approaches.
The incentives can vary from having reduced financial obligations on harvesting timber from forests to a simpler bureaucracy processes, which certainly leads to lower management costs. Such lowered financial burdens should draw interest from managers.
Friday, 11 June 2010
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
Emissions Cuts Make Sense, But Yudhoyono's Numbers Don’t Add Up
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.
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.
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!
Thursday, 30 July 2009
To Create Healthy Forests, Put Them in The Hands of People Who Need Them
By Ahmad Maryudi (The Jakarta Globe, 28 July 2009)
Community forestry has widely been heralded as a way to achieve sustainable forestry, particularly in the developing world. Its introduction in Indonesia was mainly inspired by models in Nepal and India. The approach is meant as an alternative to “scientific” industrial-scale forest management, a system widely perceived to result in forest loss and degradation while failing to contribute to the economic development of local residents.
The main value of community forestry is that it should involve local forest users and inhabitants in the decision making and implementation of forestry activities. The perceived failures of industrial forestry in the developing world have often been attributed to the lack of local people’s involvement. Jack Westoby, a former director of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s forestry department and once a proponent of large-scale forestry, later said “forestry is not about trees, it is about people.”
Community forestry aims help forest dwellers out of poverty. Some of the poorest households in the country dwell in or near forests. An estimated 40 million people — nearly a quarter of the country’s population — live in forest villages, and many of them depend almost entirely on forests for subsistence. Some are from indigenous groups living traditional lifestyles. Many more use forests for essential fuel for cooking and heating.
Some current community forestry programs (HKM), such those implemented in some Indonesian islands, and colloborative forest management programs (PHBM) in almost all of Java’s forests, aim to achieve just such goals. But while such programs have been hailed for offering better benefits to forest residents, one can opine that it is the forestry officials who benefit most from these actvities. Some wonder whether these programs are truly aimed at the welfare of forest communities.
Over the years, forestry officials have failed in many of their reforestation efforts, often losing their investment in the early phases. Even if the officials were able to cultivate the stands, experience has shown that they are powerless in preventing their logging by forest residents or outsiders. The massive blight of illegal logging toward the end of the 1990s suggests that forest officials will continue to lose trees if management approaches do not involve forest dwellers.
In community-based programs, forest residents are expected to replant, cultivate and protect stands of new growth. It is rather obvious that officials benefit from these programs in two ways. First, they can reduce or even avoid the cost of “raising” the forests until they are ready for harvest. Second, they claim most of the harvest, a prize that cannot be guaranteed without the cooperation of the community. This has led some critics to refer to PHBMs as “Pengelolaan Hutan Berbiaya Murah,” or “Low-Cost Forest Management.” Such schemes are even more exploitative than previous social forestry programs, which have been said to be no more than “land for labor” deals.
To be fair, forest authorities today offer better economic incentives from the sales of forest products. In PHBM programs, Perhutani, the state forest enterprise in Java, pays a 25 percent share, while HKMs in regions such as Gunungkidul (Yogyakarta) are likely to offer 40 percent. It is an improvement on the past, when social forestry programs offered such limited economic benefits as temporary access to forestland for agricultural cropping and nontimber forest products.
However, experience tells us that proceeds from forest sales are rarely enjoyed by direct forest users. Communities have to wait for years to obtain economic benefits because it takes 40-60 years for stands to reach the harvest stage, depending on the species. Cases have shown that forest officials are reluctant to switch long-rotation species to fast-growing ones.
Even if communities have already received a share of the harvest sales, this money is rarely seen by direct forest users. Gempol, a forest village in Randublatung, Blora, has received about a billion rupiah ($100,000) from the forest authority over the past five years. Less than 5 percent of this sum has been allocated to direct forest users.
In addition, forest resource users are now facing increased difficulty in accessing the forests. In the past, they might have been allowed access for grazing, collecting wood for fuel or even cutting timber for small-scale construction, albeit illegally in the eyes of forest officials. Now, complex permit systems are being set in place that force communities to fall in line.
On the bright side, there are a few exceptional cases. Communities in Krui, Lampung, have been given access for harvesting and collecting both timber and nontimber products, mainly dammar resin. In return, the community has to maintain tree stands in the dammar agroforest area and pay tax on timber and other products that are extracted for commercial purposes. Elsewhere, a community forest in Sungai Utik, West Kalimantan, has successfully obtained a forest stainability certificate from the Indonesian Ecolabeling Institute. Still, public forest access in both cases must be officially approved, and there signs of improved livelihoods are scant.
Community forestry programs have yet to genuinely involve forest dwellers in decision making, leaving local stakeholders left out of discussions on delineating borders, deciding where to plant, choosing species, scheduling rotation cycles and so on. Instead, all decisions are dictated from the top down.
“Bottom-up” schemes tend to include ideas on using faster-growing species that would more quickly benefit users due to short harvest cycles. In addition, the needs of other agricultural spaces in forests are rarely taken into account because of the way they impinge on space for timber species. In Banyumas, Central Java, a proposal to plant coffee in a part of the forest set aside for agriculture failed. Proposals to thin the forest canopy to allow more sunlight to reach crops are often denied, as in the cases of Purworejo and Wonosobo, also in Central Java.
It remains true that programs are still heavily controlled by the state. Prior to implementation, forest dwellers are required to organize in a legally registered group, without which they are prevented from engaging in the programs.This contradicts regulations that encourage local communities to decide what is best for them. Within forest villages, there are several social organizations that could be employed instead of establishing a new entity. Some analysts even accuse the requirement to establish such groups of being a strategy to control political dynamics within communities.
Despite the best efforts to involve communities in forestry, positive outcomes for forest dwellers have yet to be realized. Despite promising schemes to share profits with local residents, they still only enjoy limited economic benefits, far less than they deserve to compensate for their efforts in caring for the forest.Policy makers and forest managers should explore ways to genuinely address forest dwellers’ needs and improve public access to forest resources. And the handful of successful programs should be used as models for ushering in new initiatives for forest communities around the country.
Community forestry has widely been heralded as a way to achieve sustainable forestry, particularly in the developing world. Its introduction in Indonesia was mainly inspired by models in Nepal and India. The approach is meant as an alternative to “scientific” industrial-scale forest management, a system widely perceived to result in forest loss and degradation while failing to contribute to the economic development of local residents.
The main value of community forestry is that it should involve local forest users and inhabitants in the decision making and implementation of forestry activities. The perceived failures of industrial forestry in the developing world have often been attributed to the lack of local people’s involvement. Jack Westoby, a former director of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s forestry department and once a proponent of large-scale forestry, later said “forestry is not about trees, it is about people.”
Community forestry aims help forest dwellers out of poverty. Some of the poorest households in the country dwell in or near forests. An estimated 40 million people — nearly a quarter of the country’s population — live in forest villages, and many of them depend almost entirely on forests for subsistence. Some are from indigenous groups living traditional lifestyles. Many more use forests for essential fuel for cooking and heating.
Some current community forestry programs (HKM), such those implemented in some Indonesian islands, and colloborative forest management programs (PHBM) in almost all of Java’s forests, aim to achieve just such goals. But while such programs have been hailed for offering better benefits to forest residents, one can opine that it is the forestry officials who benefit most from these actvities. Some wonder whether these programs are truly aimed at the welfare of forest communities.
Over the years, forestry officials have failed in many of their reforestation efforts, often losing their investment in the early phases. Even if the officials were able to cultivate the stands, experience has shown that they are powerless in preventing their logging by forest residents or outsiders. The massive blight of illegal logging toward the end of the 1990s suggests that forest officials will continue to lose trees if management approaches do not involve forest dwellers.
In community-based programs, forest residents are expected to replant, cultivate and protect stands of new growth. It is rather obvious that officials benefit from these programs in two ways. First, they can reduce or even avoid the cost of “raising” the forests until they are ready for harvest. Second, they claim most of the harvest, a prize that cannot be guaranteed without the cooperation of the community. This has led some critics to refer to PHBMs as “Pengelolaan Hutan Berbiaya Murah,” or “Low-Cost Forest Management.” Such schemes are even more exploitative than previous social forestry programs, which have been said to be no more than “land for labor” deals.
To be fair, forest authorities today offer better economic incentives from the sales of forest products. In PHBM programs, Perhutani, the state forest enterprise in Java, pays a 25 percent share, while HKMs in regions such as Gunungkidul (Yogyakarta) are likely to offer 40 percent. It is an improvement on the past, when social forestry programs offered such limited economic benefits as temporary access to forestland for agricultural cropping and nontimber forest products.
However, experience tells us that proceeds from forest sales are rarely enjoyed by direct forest users. Communities have to wait for years to obtain economic benefits because it takes 40-60 years for stands to reach the harvest stage, depending on the species. Cases have shown that forest officials are reluctant to switch long-rotation species to fast-growing ones.
Even if communities have already received a share of the harvest sales, this money is rarely seen by direct forest users. Gempol, a forest village in Randublatung, Blora, has received about a billion rupiah ($100,000) from the forest authority over the past five years. Less than 5 percent of this sum has been allocated to direct forest users.
In addition, forest resource users are now facing increased difficulty in accessing the forests. In the past, they might have been allowed access for grazing, collecting wood for fuel or even cutting timber for small-scale construction, albeit illegally in the eyes of forest officials. Now, complex permit systems are being set in place that force communities to fall in line.
On the bright side, there are a few exceptional cases. Communities in Krui, Lampung, have been given access for harvesting and collecting both timber and nontimber products, mainly dammar resin. In return, the community has to maintain tree stands in the dammar agroforest area and pay tax on timber and other products that are extracted for commercial purposes. Elsewhere, a community forest in Sungai Utik, West Kalimantan, has successfully obtained a forest stainability certificate from the Indonesian Ecolabeling Institute. Still, public forest access in both cases must be officially approved, and there signs of improved livelihoods are scant.
Community forestry programs have yet to genuinely involve forest dwellers in decision making, leaving local stakeholders left out of discussions on delineating borders, deciding where to plant, choosing species, scheduling rotation cycles and so on. Instead, all decisions are dictated from the top down.
“Bottom-up” schemes tend to include ideas on using faster-growing species that would more quickly benefit users due to short harvest cycles. In addition, the needs of other agricultural spaces in forests are rarely taken into account because of the way they impinge on space for timber species. In Banyumas, Central Java, a proposal to plant coffee in a part of the forest set aside for agriculture failed. Proposals to thin the forest canopy to allow more sunlight to reach crops are often denied, as in the cases of Purworejo and Wonosobo, also in Central Java.
It remains true that programs are still heavily controlled by the state. Prior to implementation, forest dwellers are required to organize in a legally registered group, without which they are prevented from engaging in the programs.This contradicts regulations that encourage local communities to decide what is best for them. Within forest villages, there are several social organizations that could be employed instead of establishing a new entity. Some analysts even accuse the requirement to establish such groups of being a strategy to control political dynamics within communities.
Despite the best efforts to involve communities in forestry, positive outcomes for forest dwellers have yet to be realized. Despite promising schemes to share profits with local residents, they still only enjoy limited economic benefits, far less than they deserve to compensate for their efforts in caring for the forest.Policy makers and forest managers should explore ways to genuinely address forest dwellers’ needs and improve public access to forest resources. And the handful of successful programs should be used as models for ushering in new initiatives for forest communities around the country.
Preserving the 'Green Triangle'
By Ahmad Maryudi
The Brunei Times (Sunday, July 12 2009)
THE Golden Triangle is often referred to the "notorious" border zone between Myanmar, Thailand and Laos. The area was once the world's most prolific supplier of opium. However, the world has now found a new "Golden Triangle", which is hailed to be very essential for the survival of human beings and the planet. It is transboundary highlands of Borneo, which covering not less than 20 million hectares across Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia and Malaysia — often referred to as the Heart of Borneo. HoB is one of the only three grand blocks of rainforest remaining on Earth, apart from those of the Amazon and Congo.
According to WWF, the area offers a variety of landscapes, not only tropical rain forests, but also mangroves, peat swamps and freshwater swamp forests, lowland dipterocarp forests, ironwood forests, heath forests and montane forests. It contains a golden global treasure, the mega-biodiversity with abundance of endemic species, flora and fauna. Also worth to mention, the Heart of Borneo is home of some millions indigenous people, most notable Dayak.
However, the forest tracts are severely threatened by various (notably commercial) activities. For decades, forests have been under pressure of rampant logging. Between 1985-2000, more timber were hauled from Borneo (particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia) than a sum from Amazon and Africa. These days, logging activities move further into the most remote areas. The forest integrity is further fragmented with the constructions of roads and skid trails.
In recent years, forest conversions into "economically attractive" plantations, most notably palm oil, have exponentially expanded. Oil palm plantations in Kalimantan, the Indonesian part of Heart of Borneo, grew by approximately 10 per cent to nearly a million hectares between 2002 and 2003 and plans for further expansions of some million hectares have been approved.
Due to its importance, the border zone forest needs holistic management approaches before it is further depleted. The most important is common and coherent policy platforms of the three nations. The plan is not as simple as it sounds. The three countries have developed such approaches by signing an MOU on forest conservation, but it needs to be translated into more practical and executable actions. The "umbrella policy" to conserve the forest resources must consists of two-tier approaches; harmonisation between sectors in the respective countries and the creation of coherent trilateral policy.
The first approach proves to be a huge challenge, indeed. Intersectoral policy has rarely been successfully created. Different sectors such as forestry, industry, energy, and agriculture, promote their own objectives, which often contradict each other. Environmental goals in forest managements are still overshadowed by concerns for economic development. Sectoral policies which encourage massive expansion of palm oil plantations, clearly pose real threat to the conservation of the forests. At both Malaysian and Indonesian parts, legal and illegal logging are still rampant. Even for legal logging, it is still beyond the capacity of the forests to regenerate themselves. The decentralisation policy in Indonesia also appears to complicate the efforts toward the more coherent and intersectoral policy. Both provincial and district governments create and promote different policies from central government.
The second approach is no less-strenuous either. Forest conservation and management strategies vary greatly amongst the respective countries. The policy of one of these countries might even put pressure to the others. The simple example is the alleged transboundary timber smugglings, across Indonesian and Malaysian borders.
To create a coherent policy platform, the countries should work together more actively. They should promote more collaborative programmes on conservation and sustainable forest management. This should be supported by strong foundations such as effective information-sharing mechanisms. This is so far the weak point of the current trilateral collaboration.
The Brunei Times (Sunday, July 12 2009)
THE Golden Triangle is often referred to the "notorious" border zone between Myanmar, Thailand and Laos. The area was once the world's most prolific supplier of opium. However, the world has now found a new "Golden Triangle", which is hailed to be very essential for the survival of human beings and the planet. It is transboundary highlands of Borneo, which covering not less than 20 million hectares across Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia and Malaysia — often referred to as the Heart of Borneo. HoB is one of the only three grand blocks of rainforest remaining on Earth, apart from those of the Amazon and Congo.
According to WWF, the area offers a variety of landscapes, not only tropical rain forests, but also mangroves, peat swamps and freshwater swamp forests, lowland dipterocarp forests, ironwood forests, heath forests and montane forests. It contains a golden global treasure, the mega-biodiversity with abundance of endemic species, flora and fauna. Also worth to mention, the Heart of Borneo is home of some millions indigenous people, most notable Dayak.
However, the forest tracts are severely threatened by various (notably commercial) activities. For decades, forests have been under pressure of rampant logging. Between 1985-2000, more timber were hauled from Borneo (particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia) than a sum from Amazon and Africa. These days, logging activities move further into the most remote areas. The forest integrity is further fragmented with the constructions of roads and skid trails.
In recent years, forest conversions into "economically attractive" plantations, most notably palm oil, have exponentially expanded. Oil palm plantations in Kalimantan, the Indonesian part of Heart of Borneo, grew by approximately 10 per cent to nearly a million hectares between 2002 and 2003 and plans for further expansions of some million hectares have been approved.
Due to its importance, the border zone forest needs holistic management approaches before it is further depleted. The most important is common and coherent policy platforms of the three nations. The plan is not as simple as it sounds. The three countries have developed such approaches by signing an MOU on forest conservation, but it needs to be translated into more practical and executable actions. The "umbrella policy" to conserve the forest resources must consists of two-tier approaches; harmonisation between sectors in the respective countries and the creation of coherent trilateral policy.
The first approach proves to be a huge challenge, indeed. Intersectoral policy has rarely been successfully created. Different sectors such as forestry, industry, energy, and agriculture, promote their own objectives, which often contradict each other. Environmental goals in forest managements are still overshadowed by concerns for economic development. Sectoral policies which encourage massive expansion of palm oil plantations, clearly pose real threat to the conservation of the forests. At both Malaysian and Indonesian parts, legal and illegal logging are still rampant. Even for legal logging, it is still beyond the capacity of the forests to regenerate themselves. The decentralisation policy in Indonesia also appears to complicate the efforts toward the more coherent and intersectoral policy. Both provincial and district governments create and promote different policies from central government.
The second approach is no less-strenuous either. Forest conservation and management strategies vary greatly amongst the respective countries. The policy of one of these countries might even put pressure to the others. The simple example is the alleged transboundary timber smugglings, across Indonesian and Malaysian borders.
To create a coherent policy platform, the countries should work together more actively. They should promote more collaborative programmes on conservation and sustainable forest management. This should be supported by strong foundations such as effective information-sharing mechanisms. This is so far the weak point of the current trilateral collaboration.
Monday, 23 March 2009
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.
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.
Friday, 20 March 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, 14 March 2009
The paradox of empowerment in community forestry
The Jakarta Post, 14 March 2009
Ahmad Maryudi
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
