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

How to crack down on rampant illegal logging

By: Ahmad Maryudi

Published by: The Jakarta Post, 22 Agustus 2008

If you had the chance to see the documentary movie Timber Mafia released by Journeyman Pictures in 2002, you would have some idea of the massive scale of illegal logging in Indonesia.

Although efforts have been made to crack down on illegal logging in Indonesia, it appears the problem is getting worse. It is hard to get accurate data on its magnitude, because there are no accurate records on it.

Estimates indicate that approximately 70 percent of timber sourced from the country is illegally harvested, amounting to a massive 50 million cubic meters. A high-ranking government official said the annual loss from illegal logging accounts for between US$600 and $1,500 million.

This accounts for over 1.5 percent of the country's gross domestic product, as much as the contribution of "legal" forest products to the GDP. This loss is only assessed on the royalty that would have been paid if the timber had been legally harvested. Therefore, the total financial loss is much larger.

What are the underlying causes of illegal logging and how can we deal with it? Some analysts have mentioned market failure as a main cause. Markets for illegally-logged timber are so widely available, even in environmentally-concerned regions, that the legal markets can hardly function alongside the illegal ones!

The international marketing problem is undeniable and apparently beyond government control. While expecting improvements in global markets, we should also focus on government failures in dealing with illegal logging.

Domestically, it is evident that illegal forestry activities are strongly linked with underdeveloped regulatory frameworks and lack of enforcement capacity by governmental agencies, compounded by corruption and collusion between illegal loggers and officials in forestry and state agencies.

It is difficult to isolate these factors as they are interdependent.

From a policy perspective, some current regulations are thought to have encouraged illegal logging. These includes poor taxation and levy systems for timber products and poor regulation of forestry concessions, including soft penalties for violations.

Others point to corruption and collusion involving forestry officials. Although this is hard to prove at both institutional and individual levels, few would deny that it happens.

Given the trend to decentralization, local governments have become more influential, including in the granting of logging permits. There have been strong pointers to corruption and collusion in respect of the granting of logging concessions.

Evidence shows that in many cases illegal forestry activities are supported by state officials, including forestry officials and police, as well as military personnel.

Not so long ago, some middle-level forestry and police officers in a timber rich region were brought to Jakarta allegedly for supporting illegal logging. One might argue that these reflected individual or personal actions, but there were also institutional failures to control individual actions.

Unfortunately, efforts to crack down on illegal logging are further hindered by poor law enforcement. The limited number of forest rangers the forestry ministry can deploy are not enabled to proceed on the illegal cases they have discovered. Experience show that in many illegal logging cases the alleged suspects have been left unnapprehended, untried and unpunished.

To control illegal logging at domestic level the government can take the option to improve forestry industry regulations. More importantly, the regulations should provide sanctions against violations. Illegal loggers and those working with them can ignore the law with impunity because it is not backed by convincing sanctions.

Since illegal logging involves international trade, the government should be actively engaged in bilateral and multilateral agreements within and across regions, involving both producer and consumer nations. This should include exchanges of information on timber production, consumption and trade and collaboration on law enforcement between police forces at international level.

To sum up, Indonesia clearly suffers from illegal logging. While circumstances in timber markets also contribute to encouraging illegal logging, to a large extent the underlying causes are linked to governmental failures.

Therefore, the government needs to make substantial efforts to deal with the problem. Options for positive strategies include reform of the national forestry policy framework as well as promoting intergovernmental agreements against illegal logging.

Trafficking Kekayaan Hayati

Oleh: Ahmad Maryudi
Dimuat di Republika, 28 Mei 2008

Delegasi dari berbagai negara, organisasi, dan observer bertemu di Bonn, Jerman, dalam the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP-CBD IX) pada 19-30 Mei 2008. Salah satu tema penting yang dibahas adalah mengenai akses dan benefit-sharing pemanfaatan kekayaan hayati.

Isu yang berkembang adalah adanya tuduhan terhadap negara maju bahwa mereka telah menjarah kekayaan hayati negara lain untuk kegiatan komersial tanpa memberikan kontribusi yang nyata kepada sourcing countries. Tema ini menjadi terlalu berharga untuk dilewatkan begitu saja oleh negara kita.

Indonesia merupakan salah satu negara dengan kekayaan hayati tertinggi di dunia. Menurut Indonesian Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (IBSAP), kekayaan hayati yang dimiliki negara kita hanya kalah dari Brasil. Lebih detail lagi, Indonesia merupakan satu dari 17 negara yang dikategorikan sebagai negara dengan megabiodiversitas dan dua dari hanya 25 hotspot dunia berada di negara kita.

Sangat disayangkan jika kekayaan hayati tersebut dimanfaatkan oleh negara lain dan tidak memberikan kemanfaatan bagi bangsa dan negara sendiri. Banyak bahan hayati yang mempunyai potensi dalam industri farmasi, kosmetik dan perawatan tubuh, makanan dan minuman maupun suplemen.

Saat ini banyak negara maju mulai mengincar bahan-bahan alam untuk bio-medicine sebagai pengganti obat sintetis. Sebagai ilustrasi, pernah dilaporkan bahwa hampir 50 persen dari obat kanker yang beredar berasal dari produk alami. Selain itu, dengan kemajuan bioteknologi, satu spesies tanaman bisa menyimpan berbagai ragam genetis yang mungkin punya potensi komersial yang luar biasa.

Bisa dibayangkan betapa besar potensi yang dipunyai negara kita jika megabiodiversitas yang ada kemudian diberi sentuhan bioteknologi. Hal ini bisa menarik minat negara lain (baca: negara maju) untuk memanfaatkannya.Negara kita tampaknya belum memberi perhatian yang serius terhadap manajemen perlindungan kekayaan hayati nasional. Sebagai contoh, IBSAP, yang bisa dianggap sebagai kitab suci manajemen pengelolaan kekayaan hayati, belum secara eksplisit mengatur bagaimana penggunaan maupun lalu lintas dari kekayaan hayati nasional.

Kita biasanya selalu terkaget-kaget jika negara lain ternyata telah memanfaatkan kekayaan bangsa. Seperti halnya kasus reog, batik, lagu Rasa Sayange, bahkan sampai kasus tahu dan tempe, mungkin nanti kita akan kebakaran jenggot jika inventaris data genetis berbagai spesies meranti Indonesia dan spesies lainnya, justru dimiliki oleh universitas/ negara asing dan dimanfaatkan untuk kepentingan komersial mereka sendiri.

Ada indikasi yang kuat bahwa penjarahan tersebut juga terjadi di Indonesia. Tampaknya kita masih cukup permisif terhadap negara lain baik yang terang-terangan maupun yang menggunakan cara yang lebih elegan untuk menjarah kekayaan hayati kita melalui kerja sama penelitian.Banyak sekali peneliti asing yang bekerja di negara kita yang berpotensi untuk ikut mengambil peran. Mungkin kita tidak pernah sepenuhnya tahu apa yang dilakukan para peneliti asing di negara kita.

Bukan berburuk sangka, tetapi juga bukan ide buruk jika kita menyiapkan perangkat untuk menangkal hidden agenda mereka. Sebenarnya pemerintah juga cukup waspada dengan hal ini.
Beberapa waktu yang lalu pemerintah mengeluarkan PP 41/2006, yang di antaranya mewajibkan penelitian oleh lembaga asing harus dijamin dan didampingi lembaga dan peneliti lokal. Sejauh pengamatan di lapangan, hal itu belum cukup efektif untuk meminimalkan pencurian kekayaan genetis negara kita.

Insentif untuk berkolaborasi dengan lembaga asing bisa melenakan kesadaran lembaga dan peneliti lokal. Selain itu, banyak sekali negara maju yang menawarkan berbagai beasiswa bagi putra-putra bangsa untuk melakukan riset mengenai keragaman hayati Indonesia di negara mereka.Kibasan ijazah doktor dan master yang ditawarkan tentunya sangat menggoda. Jika tidak disikapi secara hati-hati, hal ini justru berpotensi untuk pemanfaatan data oleh mereka. Oleh karena itu, harus ada upaya untuk memproteksi pencurian data melalui skema-skema yang elegan ini.Duta-duta bangsa ini harus bisa mengambil peran yang nyata dalam melindungi bangsa dan negara kita dari jarahan negara lain. Lembaran sertifikat dari perguruan tinggi asing seharusnya tidak membutakan mereka. Harus ada riset protokol dan memorandum of understanding yang jelas mengenai penggunaan data dan hasil.

Beberapa waktu yang lalu kita terkagum-kagum dengan keberhasilan Menkes Siti Fadilah Supari yang mempermalukan negara adidaya Amerika Serikat terkait dengan penggunaan data genetis flu burung. Semoga momentum Supari ini bisa memberikan ekstra energi bagi delegasi Indonesia dalam COP CBD IX untuk memperjuangkan benefit sharing yang fair antara negara asal dan negara pengguna. Kekayaan hayati yang kita miliki harus memberikan manfaat yang sebesar-besarnya untuk kemakmuran bangsa sendiri, bukan orang atau negara lain.

Masalah dalam Implementasi Kehutanan

Oleh: Ahmad Maryudi
Dimuat di Jawapos, 17 Mei 2008

Peristiwa penembakan warga desa sekitar hutan di beberapa kabupaten di Jawa Timur oleh petugas keamanan hutan Perhutani menghiasi halaman media cetak dan elektronik nasional beberapa hari terakhir. Peristiwa ini menambah panjang daftar konflik berdarah antara masyarakat sekitar hutan dan Perhutani. Seperti dikutip banyak media, Syafruddin Ngulma Simeulue, salah satu anggota Komisi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia (HAM), menyatakan dalam rentang sepuluh tahun terakhir, 32 orang meninggal dunia dan 69 luka-luka karena konflik di hutan Jawa. Jika ditarik ke belakang, tak terhitung kasus ancaman, penganiayaan, dan penembakan terjadi sejak Perhutani diberi mandat mengelola hutan Jawa.

Kasus penembakan yang baru terjadi itu akan menjadi amunisi baru bagi para pejuang kehutanan masyarakat dalam advokasi Forest for People, untuk ’mengembalikan’ hutan kepada rakyat; memosisikan mereka lebih dari sekadar objek penderita dalam pengelolaan hutan, mendorong agar mereka dilibatkan secara aktif dalam pengelolaan hutan dan ikut mendapatkan manfaat pengelolaan.

Tidak dapat dimungkiri, pengelolaan hutan Jawa, salah satu pulau terpadat di dunia, memang tidak dapat dipisahkan dari fakta bahwa banyak masyarakat yang menggantungkan hidup pada hutan. Bahkan, sejak zaman kolonial Belanda pun, hal ini sudah berlangsung. Saat ini, ada 6.000-an desa sekitar hutan, umumnya merupakan kantong-kantong kemiskinan, dengan populasi lebih dari 30 juta.

Advokasi intensif yang dilakukan berhasil "memaksa" Perhutani meluncurkan berbagai program pelibatan masyarakat desa hutan dalam pengelolaan hutan, sampai termutakhir program Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat. Dalam beberapa aspek, walaupun masih kasuistis, program-program kehutanan masyarakat tampaknya cukup menjanjikan, terutama untuk skema akses terhadap lahan. Sebab, ada sebagian masyarakat "lapar lahan", sampai dengan skema bagi hasil untuk hasil tebangan, yang di masa lalu hal ini bagaikan mimpi.

Namun, berbagai program kehutanan masyarakat yang ada masih meninggalkan banyak masalah. Pertama, ada kecenderungan, tidak hanya di Indonesia, bahwa program-program berlabel "kehutanan masyarakat" hanya ditawarkan untuk areal hutan yang telah rusak, dengan potensi hasil hutan yang sangat terbatas, yang bagi pengelola sendiri bisa dikatakan nothing to lose jika harus dikelola bersama masyarakat. Untuk hutan dengan potensi yang cukup tinggi, tampaknya masih "sayang untuk dilepaskan".

Dengan kata lain, program tersebut bisa dikatakan hanya untuk mendapatkan cheap, bahkan free labor, untuk merestorasi lahan hutan. Ada yang menyebut bahwa kehutanan masyarakat hanyalah sebuah management system of last resort, yang tidak genuine untuk kepentingan rakyat.

Kedua, walaupun ada berbagai argumen yang menyatakan bahwa masyarakat "telah diberi cukup akses" untuk memanfaatkan hutan, akses-akses tersebut sangatlah terbatas. Produk hasil hutan yang bernilai tinggi masih dinikmati Perhutani. Hal ini mungkin bisa dibantah Perhutani, yang mungkin berargumen bahwa masyarakat mendapatkan sharing dari keuntungan tebangan akhir.

Selama ini Perhutani selalu mempromosikan telah memberikan bagi hasil sekian ratus juta atau miliar rupiah kepada masyarakat sekitar hutan. Namun, argumen ini lemah jika dikonfrontasikan dengan kenyataan bahwa masyarakat tidak cukup tahu mengenai mekanisme penjualan kayu dan seberapa sebenarnya keuntungan yang didapatkan dari hasil tebangan. Bahkan, untuk produk hutan minor sekalipun, seperti kayu bakar, masyarakat sekitar hutan kian susah mengaksesnya. Kasus penembakan warga di atas adalah salah satu buktinya.

Selanjutnya, power asymmetry di antara stakeholder masih tampak dengan jelas. Dalam skala mikro, ada kecenderungan bahwa hanya sebagian kecil dari masyarakat (local elites) yang menikmati manfaat program-program kehutanan masyarakat. Hal yang cukup ironis, karena mereka biasanya mempunyai status politis dan ekonomi yang lebih baik dibanding para petani miskin, yang benar-benar menggantungkan hidup pada hutan. Jika tidak diperhatikan secara serius, hal ini bisa memberi peluang bagi local elite melakukan deal-deal tertentu dengan agen eksternal (termasuk Perhutani) demi memupuk keuntungan pribadi.

Kuatnya Perhutani
Dalam konteks yang lebih luas, tidak perlu disangsikan betapa masih kuatnya Perhutani dan pemerintah. Arogansi aparat masih nyata tecerminkan di berbagai lini manajemen dan kebijakan. Program kehutanan masyarakat secara teori memberi peluang bagi masyarakat untuk ikut terlibat dalam keseluruhan proses perencanaan dan manajemen hutan.

Sayang, hal ini belum terlihat nyata di lapangan. Tidak hanya Perhutani, pihak lain seperti donor maupun beberapa "LSM nakal" pun mempunyai pengaruh sangat besar dalam menentukan proses kehutanan. Berbagai ide yang diadopsi dalam praktik-praktik kehutanan masyarakat umumnya merupakan agenda-agenda donor (asing). Juga sebagian LSM, yang mengklaim dirinya merepresentasikan masyarakat, tanpa pernah diteliti akuntabilitasnya.

Masyarakat desa yang benar-benar berharap akan manfaat hutan, tetap dan selalu termarginalkan. Mereka tetap tidak akan berdaya di tengah hiruk-pikuk politik kehutanan masyarakat.

Addressing food crisis, maintaining biodiversity

By: Ahmad Maryudi
Published by: The Jakarta Post, 26 May 2008

The world is facing a global food crisis with food commodity prices creeping up. Many believe this is a short term crisis but continuing evidence of higher international prices for food crops such as grains indicates these may be long-term trends.

In Food Outlook released by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in November 2007, soaring food prices are described as "unusual" since they affect nearly all major food and feed commodities.

This growing crisis has become a powerful social and political issue. Just recently the prime minister of Haiti was forced to step down due the failure to keep soaring food prices under control. Even in some developed countries, for instance the United States, the UK and Germany, food prices have become " the big issue" aside from fuel prices.

Ecosystems and biodiversity provide the basic necessities of life, such as food, water and air, and offer protection from natural disasters and disease by regulating climate and preventing floods and pests. Biodiversity loss disrupts ecosystem functions, making ecosystems more vulnerable to shocks and disturbances, less resilient and less able to supply humans with what they need.
Conserving global biodiversity will maintain the essential life processes of the earth, and help meet essential human needs, maintaining an hospitable environment for human beings.

Agriculture having profound impacts on global biological diversity

In the '90s, the Indonesian government converted more than 1 million hectares in Kalimantan (supposedly mostly peat-swamps, but including productive forests) into agricultural land, with very adverse environmental consequences, while trying to promote rice self-sufficiency.

The project failed to create the planned paddy fields, but become one of the biggest environmental disasters in Indonesian history. It devastated the biophysical and hydrological features of the peatlands as well as changing the area micro climate.

Apart from this project disaster the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (Walhi) records other conversions of biologically rich wetlands into agricultural land. Yet, conversions of forestlands into monocultural plantations (most notably palm oil) are still ongoing. Current food shortages suggest that conversions might take place at an even greater pace with more incentives to boost food production.

The latest example is a government regulation (PP N0.1/ 2007), which promotes investment, which might potentially lead to increased forest conversion.

This line of argument does not necessarily mean that forests and forestry should be completely protected from food security priorities. For centuries, forests and forestry have provided livelihoods for people living in the areas surrounding them.

In the last few decades access to forestlands and the resources within them has often been restricted to forest zone residents with attention focused instead on commercial production from scientific industrial forestry. It has been widely acknowledged, even by Jack Westoby, one of the main supporters of this strategy, that this has failed to promote sustainability or to result in "trickle down" benefits to local communities.

In Indonesia one of the main features of forestry programs is to provide local communities with spaces within forestlands to cultivate agricultural crops alongside the main forestry species.
Community forestry programs have massive potential in fighting hunger and alleviating poverty, particularly for the people living within and around the forest and when applied genuinely to the benefit of the poor. State-owned forestry company, PT Perhutani, manages nearly 3 million hectares of state forests in Java with at least 600,000 potential allocated to growing agricultural crops.

The application of agroforestry systems in Java's forests, which are mostly monocultural, will probably not lead to biodiversity degradation. Instead, it will improve diversity of species and even enhance the integrity of the ecosystem.

In addition, especially forests in the Outer Islands remain a vast pool of non-timber forest assets, which can be potentially extracted as food and beverage products. Sago palm, cassava, wild fruits, edible leaves are only a few examples of edible non timber products, which are abundantly available in forests.

Massive conversion of forests into agricultural land should be avoided. Instead, an appropriate combination of agricultural land cropping alongside forest species through agroforestry techniques can be seen as the priority option.

Stagnasi Negosiasi Perubahan Iklim Global

Oleh: Ahmad Maryudi
Dimuat di Media Indonesia, 6 Agustus 2008

Pada pertemuan di Jepang belum lama ini, para pemimpin negara ekonomi terkemuka di dunia yang tergabung dalam G-8 bersepakat untuk mendukung upaya mengurangi emisi gas rumah kaca (greenhouse gasses) sebesar 50% pada tahun 2050. Secara sepihak mereka menyatakan bahwa kesepakatan ini merupakan sebuah langkah penting dan strategis dalam kerangka perubahan iklim global (climate change). Sebaliknya, cukup alasan untuk berargumen bahwa kesepakatan tersebut merupakan sebuah langkah mundur dalam menghadapi malapetaka lingkungan dan kemanusiaan yang disebabkan oleh fenomena pemanasan global.

Stagnasi negosiasi

Hampir semua mafhum bahwa semenjak Protokol Kyoto diluncurkan, berbagai negosiasi internasional untuk climate change berjalan sangat lambat, kalau tidak dikatakan stagnan. Harapan sempat membuncah saat ratifikasi oleh Rusia, yang berarti bahwa syarat minimal bagi berlakunya Protokol Kyoto terpenuhi. Namun harapan terhadap negara maju untuk sungguh-sungguh berkomitmen menurunkan emisi karbonnya ternyata jauh dari angan-angan karena protokol tersebut bukanlah sebuah hard law. Padahal, kelompok negara G-8 ini merupakan kontributor utama emisi gas rumah kaca yang mencapai hampir 40% dari keseluruhan emisi dunia saat ini.

Berbagai negosiasi belumlah menyentuh akar permasalahan utama, yaitu tingginya emisi dari penggunaan bahan bakar fosil, utamanya untuk industri, transportasi, dan rumah tangga, yang mencapai sekitar 80% dari total emisi yang disebabkan oleh manusia (human-induced emissions).

Seperti yang telah dimandatkan dalam Protokol Kyoto, ada dua mekanisme penurunan konsentrasi karbon di atmosfer. Pertama adalah melalui upaya untuk menurunkan emisi global dan yang kedua melalui upaya mitigasi dengan meningkatkan kapasitas penyerapan karbon, seperti skema-skema reforestasi dan afforestasi. Namun fokus negosiasi lebih banyak dialihkan pada mekanisme kedua, padahal mekanisme pertama merupakan kunci utama dalam upaya memerangi climate change.

Demikian juga dengan negosiasi untuk penetapan target paruh kedua (Post-2012), yang dimulai semenjak Konferensi Bali 2007, kembali dialihkan dari inti permasalahan utama. Selain itu, target pengurangan emisi dari waktu ke waktu selalu diturunkan. Protokol Kyoto memandatkan pengurangan emisi bagi negara ekonomi maju (terdaftar dalam Annex I Protocol) secara kolektif sebesar 5% di bawah emisi tahun baseline (secara umum tahun 1990) sampai pada tahun 2012. Berdasarkan data inventory badan PBB untuk climate change, secara kolektif emisi negara Annex I pada tahun 2005 hanya sekitar 1,8% di bawah emisi tahun 1990.

Setelah target fase pertama sampai 2012 hampir dipastikan gagal dipenuhi, di Konferensi Bali, para negara setuju untuk mengurangi emisi sebesar 25%-40% sampai pada tahun 2020. Belum sampai Konferensi Bali berjalan setahun, G-8 kembali 'menawar' dengan mendorong target pengurangan emisi bisa dicapai pada tahun 2050. Sungguh menyedihkan memang.

Tekanan AS

Tidak perlu diragukan lagi, negara G-8 non-AS tidak mampu dalam menghadapi tekanan administrasi Bush. Padahal mereka, terutama yang berasal dari Eropa, cukup yakin terhadap target yang ditetapkan Protokol Kyoto maupun Bali Roadmap.

Argumen yang selalu dimunculkan adalah ada negara-negara kekuatan baru ekonomi dunia, terutama China dan India, yang saat ini juga termasuk negara emiter utama dunia. Namun, ada satu hal yang dilupakan bahwa negara majulah (G-8 dan yang lainnya), yang bertanggung jawab atas lebih dari 60% emisi masa lalu, dan hampir 40% dari emisi saat ini, yang akhirnya bisa mengantar mereka menjadi kekuatan ekonomi utama dunia.

Oleh karena itu, sembari mendorong negara kekuatan ekonomi baru tersebut untuk menunjukkan komitmennya, merekalah yang seharusnya berkewajiban mengurangi emisi secara nyata. Ini tidak bisa ditawar lagi. Jika tidak, berbagai negosiasi yang dilakukan tidak akan menghasilkan apa-apa, bahkan akan kembali memunculkan standoffs Utara-Selatan. Karena itu, ada harga yang sangat mahal yang harus dibayar oleh generasi mendatang.

Forest stewardship: Sticks or carrots?

By: Ahmad Maryudi
Published by: The Jakarta Post, 9 July 2008

According to a recently unveiled assessment by independent bodies, approximately two-thirds of concessionaires in Papua are poorly managing the region's forests. This heightens the widespread perception of failure on the part of Indonesia's forest management services. Even as some forests have been exploited at a far greater rate than they can regenerate, many of the forests that remain face further pressure from logging.

One therefore has to wonder about the effectiveness of existing forest stewardship programs, of both the regulatory and market-based variety. With respect to the former, Indonesia's government has promulgated various laws and regulations, supposedly to ensure the wise use of forest resources. The government has also prescribed standards and guidelines for use in managing forests as well as sanctions and penalties for noncompliance.

Unfortunately, such a regulatory approach requires both resources and enforcement capacity, both of which are argued to be clearly lacking in this country.

Various policies introduced have been under heavy criticism, the strongest claim being that the governmental regulatory approach remains a "paper tiger".

As a result, a market-based approach involving forest certification -- often nicknamed "green labeling" -- has gained global momentum with its promise of market incentives for price premiums. The idea is that as global awareness around forest loss and degradation grows, contemporary society -- principally wood product consumers -- will begin to buy products only from (certified) sustainably managed forests. More importantly, green labeling assumes that consumers will eventually accede to paying premium prices for their wood products.

Unfortunately, certification has not yet gained a strong foothold, even in regions where green markets are thought to have been developed, such as Europe. As a result, it has yet to contribute significantly to forest stewardship, for the following reasons.

First, although studies of consumers' perceptions consistently reveal that wood consumers are very conscious of the environmental issues associated with such products, they would nevertheless refuse to pay higher prices for products from certified forests. A price attribute is clearly more attractive to consumers than an environmental attribute.

It is difficult to provide quantitative data on certified wood consumption as a proportion of total global wood consumption. Nonetheless, according to a report by the UN Economic Commission for Europe and the UN Food and Agricultural Organization, in 2007 the estimated industrial roundwood from certified forests accounted for only 25 percent of the total global wood production of nearly 400 million cubic meters. The report also stated that growth rates in certified forest areas are declining.

Second, even if certification gained strong support from consumers by providing real incentives for paying premium prices, it is unlikely Indonesian forest companies will adopt the program. Only a few have been certified, with the majority remaining uninterested in the program.

To date, only three out of the more than 300 companies that manage Indonesia's national forests have done so. And these certified companies only cover an area of less than 1 million hectares of forest, compared to the more than 50 million hectares set aside for production.

Even though the government has offered forest companies a softer annual work plan policy, which allows certified companies to independently determine their annual allowable cut, it has so far failed to attract much interest.

Experience has taught us that most forestry companies are unlikely to remain in the forestry business for very long. Some analysts even describe them as "one-cycle" companies: They "mine" the timber and then switch their business. Thus, even if such companies refrain from certification, little impact would be felt across the industry -- unless mechanisms existed to punish their subsequent business activities for failure to meet certification standards.

The market-based certification approach is therefore unlikely to do more than promote the wise use of Indonesia's forests. Contrary to the claims made by some environmental activists, the regulatory approach, involving government intervention, therefore remains an important alternative.

However, if governmental regulations are truly to contribute to forest stewardship, preconditions should be set. A strong dedication to "forest welfare" (the greatest benefit going to the forests) remains an important ingredient of solid governmental policy.

Experiance has also shown that many of Indonesia's forest regulations favor big business. Moreover, very few policies have been introduced out of genuine concern for forest welfare, favoring instead rather different political, economic and social goals, such as economic development.

For instance, to attract forest investments and thus boost economic goals, a number of policies have been introduced, such as subsidies for forest processing services.

Unfortunately, these and other policies have created market distortions that have led to increased pressure on forest resources.

In addition, forest royalties and levies in Indonesia are set very low, so that forest companies can capture "superprofits". This clearly encourages rapid deforestation.

Furthermore, the royalty and levies system does not provide incentives to reforest logged areas. Instead, by paying royalties, companies can shift responsibility for reforestation onto the government. Yet, forestry companies should bear the responsibility of leaving forests in the same condition in which they were originally leased.

To sum up: Given increased promotion of market-based approaches to certification, it is clear that a strong forest-dedicated regulatory approach is needed -- if anyone is still interested in seeing the limited remaining "majesty" of Indonesia's forests.

The writer is a lecturer at Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta and a PhD candidate at Goettingen University, Germany. He can be reached at amaryud@gwdg.de