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!

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.

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.

Pemilu 2009 dan Siapa Peduli Lingkungan

Ahmad Maryudi, Detik 23.03.09

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persistent Primordial Romanticisms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The paradox of empowerment in community forestry

The Jakarta Post, 14 March 2009
Ahmad Maryudi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a more pragmatic term, it means free access.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Urgent: `Recovery packages' for our forests

Ahmad Maryudi
The Jakarta Post, 02/24/2009

Sometime around 400 B.C., Chinese philosopher Mencius stated that: "If the seasons of husbandry be not interfered with, the grain will be more than can be eaten. If close nets are not allowed to enter the pools and ponds, the fishes and turtles will be more than can be consumed. If the axes and bills enter the hills and forests only at the proper time, the wood will be more than can be used."

This become a famous rationale for wise stewardship of natural resources including forests; if the resources are exploited more than they can regenerate, detrimental consequences are experienced.

Today, the lesson is more than appropriate for Indonesia, as this country has suffered and indeed still is suffering from massive forest depletion.

It is widely referred to as the country with the world's highest rate of deforestation. Rampant, not necessarily illegal logging, has taken its toll on our forests.

In the first weeks of 2009, those who have been frustrated with the Indonesian forestry sector were faced with another bitter reality.

The Ministry of Forestry has reportedly reversed the decision banning pulp and paper companies from sourcing wood from natural forests. The decision will put further pressure on the country's natural forests.

The reversal was primarily aimed at supporting pulp and paper companies operating at their production capacities, amidst the slow establishment of plantations. This is to support the government's ambitious goals to compete with "pulp and paper giants" from Northern Europe and Northern America.

Over the past few years, the industry has expanded in Indonesia. According to the Wood Resources International, the production of the industries, mostly located in Sumatra, has increased and reached a peak at 5.6 million tonnes.

Indeed, there might be every reason to support the industries. They, which are export-oriented, boost national incomes, they might create more job opportunities and they are supposed to support regional development and so on.

But their expansions should go along appropriately with sufficient wood supply. It is well suggested that the aggressive expansion demands ever more wood fibre, which cannot be met by the sustainable production potential of the forests.

Unfortunately, the industry has relied heavily on wood from conversions of natural forests.

A modest estimation suggests that approximately half the wood entering mills originates from natural forests.

Indeed, plantations are supposed to be established on the cleared forestland, but the progress of plantations is very limited.

According to recent statistics from the Ministry of Forestry, less than 2 million hectares of pulp-plantations were established between 1990 and 2006.

Five times as much forest is cut down compared to the rate of successfully-established plantations, meaning that much of the felled forests are left destroyed.

Even the current demands for wood fibre are well-over the potential of the forest. The latest developments suggest that "pulping natural forests" will expand to other islands, as some major companies have secured licences.

Clearly, Indonesia's natural forests need to "breathe." "Recovery packages" are increasingly more important than "exploitation packages". Otherwise, they will soon disappear. This would be very unfortunate, since the forests are irreplaceable; they host a wealth of natural riches and are among the most diverse and biologically-rich in the world.

They provide clean air, water and a habitat for endangered wildlife and are required to maintain local as well as global ecological sustainability. In addition, the forests often provide some inspirations and are closely attached with the cultures of some communities.

Therefore, the forests deserve more appreciation than just their economic potential.

We should not need to wait for their extinction to understand how valuable they are for humans and the planet.

Exploitation is only justified on the premises that the resources can recover at an equal pace to the harvest, and without compromising the environmental, social, cultural and historical values of the forests.

We have an intergenerational responsibility in managing the forests. We might need to recall the cautious remarks made by forestry genius Hans Carl Von Carlowitz in the 18th century: "Wise forest managers therefore have to evaluate forests in a timely manner and take advantage of them to the fullest extent, but in a way that future generations can profit from them to the same degree as the current generation".

The pendulum swings to the other direction

Published by: The Jakarta Post, 17 October 2008

According to a new study published in the Sept. 11 2008 edition of London-based science journal Nature, old growth, or primary forests, continue to absorb carbon from the atmosphere. This contrasts with decades of thought that these forests are "carbon neutral", releasing as much carbon as they capture.

The finding will have big consequences.

Firstly, more urgency will be placed on the conservation of old-growth forests because leaving the forests standing now makes greater economical sense, not only ecological value. Scientists consistently argue that the value of captured carbon is thought to outweigh the value of harvested timber.

Up till now, calls for conservation of such forests are often opposed on economic grounds in regard to logging operations. Since economic gains from environmental services and values are still not clear, forest conservation of old forests could be logically deemed an "economic loss".

With a greater understanding of forests' important role in mitigating climate change, more countries, particularly industrialized nations mandated with emission reduction, will be interested in preserving the forests. Countries can now expect obvious economic gains, saving on climate change mitigation through conservation investments.

Secondly, the finding is likely to change the landscape of global climate change regimes. According to the Kyoto Protocol, preservation of the forests are not acknowledged as a mitigation scheme since the protocol only recognizes changes to the carbon stock by afforestation, reforestation and deforestation.

With the finding that carbon sequestration by old-growth forests is scientifically proven, countries like Russia, Canada, Australia and the United States will get some "fresh air" in their congested emissions. Those countries possess vast old forests.

They will without doubt urge the next frameworks of climate change regimes to provide "more credits" for leaving the forests untouched.

The study unveils that old-growth forests in Russia, Canada and Alaska, the United States, alone have the potential to absorb more than 1 gigatonnes of carbon annually, or about 10 percent of the global net uptake of carbon dioxide. If this new finding is elaborated at the next climate change negotiations, it will ease their mitigation burdens to some extent. Therefore, those countries will be more confident in meeting their emission targets.

Apparently, the pendulum will swing swiftly in favor of those countries, which ironically contributed to the bulk of past emissions. With a "healthier" carbon balance due the contribution of their old-growth forests, they are likely to reassess their investments on climate change mitigation.

Many mitigation schemes, like REDD-related projects, will be evaluated. Under REDD frameworks, Annex I (industrialized) nations can "buy" carbon budget emission reductions to meet their emission targets from developing countries.

The reductions are seen as a "positive" balance because developing countries are not mandated with any reduction targets.

In fact, some "North-South Alliances" on REDD are now emerging. Nonetheless, with the new development on the contribution of old-growth forests in their carbon balance, the developed nations might not need to invest in as much as they do. They could even expect more economic windfalls if their carbon balance proved a net positive.

On the other hand, the latest development might disappoint countries with expectations of tangible benefits. Indonesia itself, for instance, now actively collaborates with some industrialized nations, such as Germany and Australia, for REDD-related projects with such expectations.

Overall, the new scientific findings will provide some industrialized nations with more bullets in climate change negotiations.

If it is the case, the future landscapes of the climate change regime is likely to see more pressure on developing countries, like Indonesia, that are main emitters. Instead of economic payments, the countries could be burdened more with mitigation-associated costs. This would be a sour consequence.

The politics of deforestation

By Ahmad Maryudi
Published in The Jakarta Post, 6 October 2008

In the Guinness Book of Records (GWR) 2009 Edition released this month, Indonesia is once again referred to as the country with the world's highest rate of deforestation. Citing the FAO's State of the World's Forests 2007 (SOFO), the country has "destroyed" its forests at a rate of 1.8 million hectares annually during the period 2000 to 2005. Indonesia was also listed with the record in the previous edition.

Last July, Indonesia also placed poorly at 102 of 149 countries in the 2008 Environmental Performance Index published by Yale and Columbia Universities. The poor position is mainly due to the minimum score for forest management as deforestation in the country was seen as very massive.

Jakarta has been angered by such notorious images and subsequently questioned the validity of data and methodology used. It hit back that neither were based on scientific merit, and were only a "piece of sensationalism" for political agitation.

The Forestry Ministry officially released the country's annual deforestation in its 2006 Forestry Statistics of only 1.08 million hectares over the same period. Interestingly, the data was developed based on FAO's definition of forests -- the same data used in the GWR and SOFO 2007.

Judging whose arguments are scientifically sound should be based on precise use of some key terms, such as "forests", "deforestation" and "degradation". However, various attempts to define those terms result in unclear definitions. It is not uncommon for different agencies to selectively adopt, use and interpret different definitions and information depending on their tastes and values, even for tendentious purposes.

Let us start by recalling the definitions of important terms by some agencies. First, it is worth to compare the extent to which a particular canopy cover is classified as a forest. The FAO in its final definition in the Global Forest Resources Assessment Update 2005 uses "more than 10 percent".

On the other hand, environmental groups usually adopt more stringent criteria. For instance, Greenpeace in its "World Intact Forest Landscape" adopts "20 percent or more". Also in some cases, they do not refer to "plantations" as "forests", but "wood gardens". Clearly, due to the different definitions of "forests", the forest tracts a particular country has will be different.

It is also worth noting that there is a spectrum of values on "deforestation". First, instead of "deforestation" or "forest loss", such emotive terms as "assault" and "destruction", are nonexistent in the FAO and "forestry societies" across the globe, while they are employed by many environmental groups, to psychologically touch and raise concerns amongst contemporary society.

In addition, the FAO considers a particular forest tract deforested only if there have been permanent changes on the tree canopy cover below the minimum threshold, or if the tract is permanently changed into other uses.

Unless they permanently change the use, silvicultural activities -- including logging operations -- are not considered deforestation. Clearly the FAO adopts inputs from professional foresters, who generally believe that forest areas are expected to regenerate naturally or with the aid of silvicultural measures, depending on the system used.

This applies widely, no exceptions for particular regions. Thus, one should wonder if such changes are viewed differently, accordingly to different parts of the world.

So, which definitions, and consequently data and information, should we adopt? You can choose ones that suit your taste and values as well as purposes. But, if you had no ideas and asked me for recommendations, I would say that for certain reasons, the definitions, data and information of the FAO are not bad to start with.

First, referring to its website, the FAO has been monitoring the world's forests regularly at five to 10 year intervals since 1946. The Global Forest Resources Assessment is also based on data provided by its members in response to a common questionnaire. This means the data will be compatible and comparable across countries and time. Last but not least, FAO's data are regularly referred to even by those which in other occasions question their validity.

Kepedulian terhadap lingkungan masih parsial

Oleh: Ahmad Maryudi
Dimuat di Republika, 27 Agustus 2008

Kepedulian terhadap kerusakan lingkungan meningkat tajam pada tiga dekade terakhir telah memunculkan ‘histeria lingkungan‘. Penggunaan pestisida berbahaya, eksploitasi sumberdaya yang berlebihan, kerusakan hutan dan ozone, hujan asam, kepunahan species, perubahan iklim global, dan lain-lain, sudah menjadi menu bahasan sehari-hari, baik dalam kajian kajian ilmiah maupun perbincangan di warung kopi.

Mengingat multipel dampak yang mungkin ditimbulkan oleh kerusakan lingkungan, respon telah ditunjukkan beberapa elemen masyarakat, pemerintah dan bahkan kalangan bisnis. Societas modern telah menunjukkan beberapa aksi nyata, misalnya dengan boikot terhadap produk non-environmentally friendly dan dukungan terhadap partai yang mengusung green platforms. Berbagai media massa pun secara rutin mulai memberi ruang bagi isu lingkungan.

Dari sisi kebijakan, beberapa negara maju telah meluncurkan berbagai regulasi dan peraturan yang diyakini ‘ramah lingkungan‘. Kalangan bisnis pun tak mau ketinggalan. banyak perusahaan yang berlomba-lomba dalam menerapkan corporate environmental responsibility.

Sayangnya, ada beberapa kecenderungan yang menunjukkan bahwa kepedulian tersebut masih sangat parsial dan berorientasi lokal. Beberapa respon yang ada hanyalah dengan memindahkan masalah tersebut ke bagian dunia lain.

Contoh yang sering dimunculkan adalah dumping sampah dan berbagai bahan berbahaya ke negara lain. Demikian juga dengan ekspansi beberapa perusahaan multinasional yang memindahkan lokasi produksi ke negara dengan standar lingkungan yang relatif fleksibel.

Dalam hiruk pikuk politik climate change pun tidak ada bedanya. Untuk memenuhi target pengurangan emisi seperti yang dimandatkan Kyoto Protocol, beberapa negara menggalakkan penggunaan biofuel. Namun kebijakan ini tidak diimbangi produksi domestik yang memadai, sehingga mereka harus mengimpor dari negara lain. Hal ini tentunya akan menjadi insentif bagi negara lain untuk meningkatkan kapasitas produksi mereka.

Sayangnya, ada skema-skema ekspansi produksi yang justru mendorong pelepasan karbon ke atmosfer, seperti dengan konversi hutan dan lahan gambut menjadi perkebunan sawit untuk produksi biofuel. Dan justru, skema ekspansi seperti ini yang nampaknya akan ditempuh oleh beberapa negara.

Sudah barang tentu respon-respon parsial seperti di atas kurang memberi pengaruh positif secara global, karena secara kumulatif bumi masih menanggung jejak ekologis (ecological footprints) yang sama. Perbedaan minor hanyalah pada dimensi ruang saja.

Nampaknya telah terjadi miskonsepsi pemahaman terhadap slogan “think globally, act locally”. Mungkin saja, kebijakan dan aksi lokal tersebut dimaksudkan untuk menjawab masalah global, namun ternyata belum benar-benar think globally, karena kenyataannya akan memberikan solusi lokal saja.

Oleh karena itu, harus ada perubahan mainstream dalam berbagai kebijakan dan aksi. Untuk menjawab permasalahan-permasalahan global, solusi dan aksi lokal harus selalu berada dalam kerangka domain kepentingan global, yaitu dalam kerangka ‘satu bumi’.

Bentuk pengejawentahan sejati dari konsep “think globally, act locally” adalah perubahan gaya hidup masing-masing individu. Sulit untuk dipungkiri bahwa gaya hidup yang boros sumberdaya menimbulkan beban ekologis yang berlebihan pada bumi.

Daya dukung (carrying capacity) bumi ada batasnya. Mungkin saja ada yang berargumen bahwa kemajuan teknologi dapat mendorong efisiensi yang berimplikasi pada peningkatan daya dukung bumi. Walau demikian, sulit untuk berargumen bahwa bumi akan mampu memenuhi segala keinginan umat manusia, yang sepertinya tidak terbatas.

Yang menjadi pertanyaan sekarang adalah siapa yang harus merubah gaya hidup. Dalam hal ini, harus ada distribusi beban lingkungan yang fair dan adil. Prinsip-prinsip egalitarian yang mengedepankan hitungan-hitungan percapita perlu terus didorong.

Dengan segala perbedaan distribusi sumberdaya dan perbedaan gaya hidup yang mencolok diantara berbagai belahan bumi, harapan harus digantungkan pada mereka yang menggunakan sumberdaya alam untuk kemewahan hidup (luxury). Akan menjadi sebuah skandal dan pengkhiatanan besar terhadap kemanusiaan, jika kita terus mengharapkan mereka menggunakan sumberdaya alam hanya sebatas untuk survival.

Penulis adalah mahasiswa doktoral di Goettingen University, Germany