Kompas, 8 Desember 2009

Pertemuan Para Pihak Ke-15 (COP-15) tentang Perubahan Iklim di Kopenhagen, Denmark, terasa penting karena menentukan skema pasca-Protokol Kyoto 2012.

Namun, keraguan besar membayangi hasil yang akan dicapai. Komitmen negara maju untuk menurunkan emisi masih dipertanyakan. Posisi China dan India yang dianggap kunci dari negara berkembang juga belum jelas.

Hasil penelitian terbaru Maplecroft menambah amunisi China dan India untuk tidak terikat target penurunan emisi. Lembaga ini menyebutkan, emisi karbon China, yang secara total lebih besar dari negara lain, hanya 4,5 ton per kapita per per tahun dan India 1,1 ton. Ini jauh di bawah Australia dan Amerika Serikat yang 20,5 ton dan 19,7 ton per kapita. Terkait hal itu, Presiden Barack Obama merasa perlu berkunjung ke China dan akan menerima kunjungan Perdana Menteri India di Washington.

Inilah yang dikhawatirkan PM Denmark. Ia mengatakan dalam diskusi forum APEC lalu, ”Terkait faktor waktu dan kondisi tiap negara, lebih baik kita fokus penyelesaian yang mungkin daripada berlarut-larut pada hal yang tak mungkin.” Karena itu, kemungkinan yang terjadi adalah penekanan pada kesepakatan politik umum dan memundurkan pembicaraan yang lebih detail tentang target emisi, pembiayaan, dan alih teknologi.

Sektor kehutanan

Pembicaraan skema mengurangi emisi dari deforestasi dan degradasi hutan (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation/REDD) meletakkan sektor kehutanan di pusaran pembicaraan perubahan iklim. Bagi Indonesia, REDD merupakan agenda penting. Selain sebagai peluang untuk menyelamatkan hutan, REDD merupakan mekanisme penurunan emisi dari deforestasi. Indonesia berencana mengurangi emisi sampai 26 persen pada 2020.

Karena itu, fokus pada kemungkinan kesepakatan mengenai REDD merupakan langkah yang harus diambil pemerintah. Pertanyaannya, harus bergeser dari ”apakah” menjadi ”bagaimana” konservasi hutan menjadi bagian penting rezim perlindungan iklim pasca-2012.

Memang, kini hutan selalu dianggap sebagai masalah. Setelah menjadi sumber devisa selama beberapa dekade, hutan seolah berubah menjadi duri dalam daging. Dalam Rembuk Nasional, sektor kehutanan dianggap sebagai penghalang pembangunan. Menteri Kehutanan pun ikut berkeluh kesah terkait kondisi ini.

Padahal, hutan adalah korban pembangunan dengan perencanaan dan pelaksanaan yang buruk. Tak heran jika penyelesaian masalah tumpang tindih kawasan menjadi program kerja unggulan 100 hari menteri baru, termasuk menyiapkan perppu. Beberapa kalangan mengkhawatirkan perppu bakal menjadi jalan melegalkan pembukaan kawasan hutan tanpa izin sebelumnya.

Namun, masih ada kebimbangan terhadap REDD. Persepsi antarnegara tentang skema ini juga masih beragam. Perlu disyukuri perkembangan pembicaraan REDD menjadi REDD plus memasukkan variabel manajemen hutan berkelanjutan dan konservasi dan perbaikan stok karbon hutan. Namun perlu dicatat, ”konservasi” di sini sepertinya lebih terkait konservasi stok karbon. Perbaikan lahan gambut juga belum dianggap sebagai bagian penting REDD.

Mekanisme pembiayaan juga masih tanda tanya. Pilihannya adalah antara pembiayaan REDD melalui pasar karbon atau pembiayaan langsung ke pemerintah bersifat hibah. Grainger et al (2009) dalam esai di Current Biology Volume 19 menyebutkan, dua pilihan ini patut dipertanyakan. Pilihan kedua berisiko kegagalan program yang berorientasi proyek. Kekhawatiran juga muncul dengan keterbatasan sumber daya dan sumber dana, pemerintah negara berkembang hanya akan fokus menyelamatkan hutan dengan potensi karbon tinggi untuk memenuhi target REDD.

Alhasil, REDD mungkin menyelamatkan hutan yang menjadi target secara mikro, tetapi gagal menyelamatkan kondisi hutan Indonesia secara makro.

Di sisi lain, jika diserahkan sepenuhnya pada pasar karbon, nilai layanan jasa ekosistem akan terpinggirkan. Hutan direduksi dan hanya dinilai dari hitungan karbon yang diserap. Alhasil, yang penting adalah ”berkayu”, tanpa perlu memandang keragaman. Penyelamatan keragaman hayati akan terpinggirkan. Padahal, ada banyak nilai jasa lingkungan yang ditawarkan hutan dengan keragaman hayati.

Contoh, jasa lingkungan hutan menyediakan dasar kehidupan bagi banyak warga miskin. Hutan tropis juga diakui sebagai tempat hidup kebudayaan masyarakat adat yang kian cepat menghilang. Karena itu, jika diimplementasikan, skema REDD nasional harus memasukkan penilaian dampak terhadap keragaman hayati dan kepentingan masyarakat adat dan sekitar hutan.

Puluhan tahun kegiatan konservasi dan penerapan kebijakan hutan membuktikan, inisiatif penyelamatan hutan tergantung dari dua hal: sosial dan ekonomi. Skema yang akan menyelamatkan hutan adalah yang secara sosial layak dan secara ekonomi lebih menguntungkan ketimbang konversi lahan. Dapatkah REDD menjawab dua hal ini?

Yansen Dosen Jurusan Kehutanan Universitas Bengkulu; Australian Leadership Award Fellow

The Jakarta Post, 8 December 2009

Copenhagen will be at the center of attention these coming weeks. The Conference of Parties (CoP) 15 on climate change is an undeniably major event that will decide the next steps in mitigating global warming. Most climate change analysts agree this is a crucial meeting to discuss post-Kyoto Protocol actions.

However, there are still some doubts shadowing the possible outcomes of this meeting. The commitment of developed countries to reduce their carbon emissions is still questionable. The positions of the developing world’s two leading emitters, i.e. China and India, are also dubious. Given the fact that their emissions per capita are much lower than developed nations, they have a strong argument against setting themselves binding targets.

On the other hand, the US and UK are dealing with negative trends in public support on climate change. Last week, several media outlets posted news about the possibility that climate scientists have been manipulating global warming data. The headlines, titled “climategate”, exposed emails of East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit, which, if true, reveals fabricated data about global warming by respected scientists. This news circle becomes an ammunition for global warming skeptics to reject legislation regarding emissions regulations.

Australia is facing a similar kind of problem. Last month, the carbon trading bill was rejected by the Senate. As a result, Malcolm Turnbull was sacked as leader of opposition Liberal Party, largely due to his bi-partisan stance backing Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s planned emission trading scheme. Turnull has since been replaced by Tony Abbot, a staunch conservative who is seen as an opponent to emissions reduction.

It is understandable when Lars Rasmussen, Danish Prime Minister, said the meeting might only result in a broad agreement without any detail of binding emissions targets, financing or technology transfers.

However, we should be optimistic that this conference will bring about several good outcomes. In terms of the forestry sector, we expect that the Copenhagen Summit will seriously talk in greater detail about the inclusion of forest conservation as a fundamental part of global warming mitigation. Therefore, this meeting will be a milestone event for efforts to save rainforest ecosystems.

The eighth session of UN Forum on Forests, which took place from April 20–May 1, 2009, also discussed this urgent topic. The forum talked about two main issues: forests in a changing environment and means of implementation for sustainable forest management. One of the sub-themes was forests and climate change and preventing forest degradation.

Since the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) in developing countries scheme was discussed in CoP 11 in Montreal in 2005, the issue has been seen as an effective way to help developing countries to save their forests. On the other hand, it gives industrialized nations more breathing space in reducing their carbon emissions by off-setting carbon output by funding forest conservation projects.

Even though there are still some doubts regarding REDD, it should be viewed as one of the keystones of post-Kyoto Protocol. The recent development of REDD becoming REDD-plus, which includes sustainable forest management and conservation and improving forest carbon stock is good progress. The question is no longer “whether” but “how” REDD could be well-implemented. The upcoming summit hopes to come up with more detailed talks and recommendations about REDD.

However, there are still some questions regarding the scheme. One of the big questions is whether it really can save forest ecosystems in developing countries. Deforestation in many developing nations relate to many aspects, mainly economic and social problems. In many countries, such as Indonesia, this problem happens on a huge scale. Hence, ensuring this scheme benefits people directly related to deforestation should be the main focus if REDD is implemented. Indigenous people who rely on forests for a living should also be prioritized. Integrating REDD with community-based forest management would be an effective option to consider.

The mechanism also has to ensure that the scheme not only saves spots of forests included in the REDD project. This scheme should cover large areas of threatened forest ecosystems. However, it is in fact unrealistic to rely only on REDD schemes to preserve our forests. The Indonesian government and people must to do more than only utilizing funds that might come up from REDD. The fund should be used as a stimulant to push society in the right direction. The government must seriously invest on saving our rainforests. It will then give us the chance to put a stop to the wholesale destruction of the environment that we are currently witnessing.

The reduction of forests’ role to just mechanisms of carbon capture also risks the maintenance of biodiversity in tropical rainforests. If forests are viewed solely as carbon sinks, rehabilitation projects may neglect the importance of biodiversity.

This then relates to another question: what financing options are available? Grainger et al. (2009) in their essay in Current Biology (Volume 19) said the stakeholders are currently split on whether to finance REDD projects through carbon markets or to use either public funding or voluntary private funding to provide payments to governments. Both of these options have consequences.

The process to select the best option has to be based mainly on which alternative is the most appropriate way so the scheme can significantly contribute to tropical rainforest conservation. The combination of fairness and accountability on forest-related mechanisms will affect the willingness to pay on behalf of the industrialized countries.

However, it must be ensured that this scheme does not become a cheap exit strategy for large emitter countries. Therefore, as suggested by the Brazilian president, a cap should be placed on the amount of carbon that those large emitters could buy, in order to encourage emissions reduction policies.

Indonesia at this summit could show results from several REDD pilot projects being tried in the country. The Ulu Masen forest conservation project and Indo-nesia-Australia carbon partnership should serve as examples of our readiness to apply the REDD scheme. In short, whether forestry is a pretty issue in Copenhagen will depend on how us developing countries show our strong initiatives to save our remaining forest ecosystems.

The writer is a lecturer on Ecology at the Department of Forestry, University of Bengkulu, and an Australian Leadership Award Fellow

Perseteruan “cicak vs buaya” masih kabur bagaimana ujungnya. Belum selesainya penanganan kasus Bibit-Chandra, ditambah pengakuan terakhir Wilardi Wizard dalam kasus Antasari Azhar semakin membuat episode ini penuh kejutan. Tak kurang, energi bangsa tersedot untuk ini. Cerita program 100 hari pemerintahan Yudhoyono-Budiono tak lagi menarik bagi memori publik. Rakyat seakan menyaksikan dengan tegang rangkaian klimaks dan anti-klimaks yang bakal terjadi dalam pertunjukan ini.

Cicak vs buaya

Tak disengaja, pengistilahan “cicak vs buaya” seakan menyiram bensin ke api, membesar seketika. Langsung saja istilah ini mengigatkan kita pada kisah Daud vs Jalut. Nurani kemanusiaan memang cenderung membela yang lemah. Karena itu, kesalahan pertama pihak polisi sesungguhnya ketika memandang KPK sebagai pihak yang lemah (cicak).

Pengistilahan ini pun seakan menarik keluar arsip memori bawah sadar. Kenangan pelajaran moral yang diajarkan di dongeng-dongeng ketika kecil bergaung kembali. Lucunya, kebanyakan dongeng menggunakan hewan sebagai karakter simbolnya. Maka, kisruh ini seakan mengajak kita mendukung kura-kura yang diajak bertanding lari oleh si kancil yang licik. Atau, berbalik mendukung si kancil ketika berhadapan dengan harimau.

Inilah mungkin yang disebut dalam Psikologi Jungian sebagai ketaksadaran kolektif. Pikiran komunal yang tersimpan di relung bawah sadar masyarakat bangsa tersentak. Nilai-nilai moral dan etika yang secara tak tersadari tetap tersimpan baik dalam arsip-arsip pikiran dan tak tergerus waktu. Ketika keluar, nilai-nilai tersebut menjadi energi dahsyat untuk mendukung yang secara moral dianggap benar.

Tafsir ekologis

Penggunaan istilah “cicak vs buaya” yang pada awalnya dikemukakan pihak polisi menggelitik saya untuk melihatnya dari perspektif ekologi, hubungan antar makhluk hidup dan juga lingkungannya.

Menarik diingat, walaupun sama-sama berada dalam Kelas Reptil, cicak dan buaya tak terkoneksi secara langsung. Mereka adalah karnivora yang tak terhubung dalam jaring rantai makanan. Relung ekologi dan habitatnya pun berbeda, tidak tumpang tindih. Hasilnya semestinya tak ada kompetisi.

Pada kenyataannya, kondisinya memang lebih mirip “singa vs hyena” yang berada pada relung ekologi yang sama. Ketika ini yang terjadi, maka lahirlah persaingan memperebutkan sumberdaya dan pada saat yang sama mempertahankan teritorial.

Ada dua tipe kompetisi yang mungkin terjadi: scramble atau contest. Persaingan yang bersifat scramble membuat individu memperkecil relung ekologinya dan berbagi sumberdaya. Tak ada yang mendominasi. Tak ada komponen komunitas yang mendapatkan sumberdaya maksimal. Sebaliknya, pada kompetisi yang bersifat contest, muncul individu-individu dominan. Lahir juga individu-individu sub-dominan.

Jikalau benar ada persaingan pada institusi penegak hukum, sepertinya yang terjadi adalah contest competition. Kita bisa menilai dari pernyataan presiden beberapa waktu lalu yang menganggap KPK telah menjadi lembaga super. Sebagai lembaga extra-ordinary, KPK betul-betul mendominasi jalannya penegakan hukum tindak pidana korupsi. Bukan tak mungkin, ini membuat sumberdaya dan lahan para mafia hukum semakin mengecil. Padahal, KPK sesungguhnya lembaga yang tak perlu ada jika organ hukum berjalan dengan baik.

Alhasil, jika benar ada persaingan lembaga yang kemudian berujung pada kriminalisasi lembaga lain, alamat bencana di depan mata. Dalam hukum rimba, kompetisi hanya melahirkan korban yang berada di level bawah rantai makanan dan membiarkan yang kuat selalu berkuasa. Lagi-lagi rakyat jelatalah korban pertama.

Menurut begawan Ekologi, Eugene Odum (1971), unit yang meliputi semua organisme pada area tertentu berinteraksi dengan lingkungan fisik. Interaksi ini berujung pada terjadinya aliran energi yang mengarah kepada tingkatan trofik yang jelas dan munculnya keragaman biotik. Kemudian muncul siklus material antara bagian biotik dan abiotik dalam sistem tersebut. Sejalan dengan ini, sesungguhnya kita mengharapkan adanya aliran energi positif antar lembaga penegak hukum sebagai bagian dari unit kebangsaan Indonesia. Ujungnya adalah lahirnya kerjasama yang elok.

Kita semua menanti apakah akhir cerita kisruh ini akan seperti dongeng-dongeng yang sampai sekarang masih menjadi pengantar tidur anak-anak kita. Akankah ini berakhir seperti kura-kura yang menang bertanding lari dengan kancil karena kepandaiannya? Atau, akankah epilognya seperti singa yang kemudian bersahabat dengan tikus kecil yang menyelamatkannya dari jeratan pemburu?

Mungkin lebih baik kita bikin saja dongeng baru: persahabatan kedua makhluk tadi, “cicak cs buaya”. Tak hanya cicak yang kita minta bersatu, buaya pun kita minta mereformasi diri untuk mendukung langkah-langkah menumpas monyet-monyet korupsi.

Harian Kompas, 29 Oktober 2009

Kabinet Indonesia Bersatu jilid II telah dilantik. Sebagian besar pengamat menyayangkan dominannya politisi di kabinet ini. Janji presiden untuk menempatkan lebih banyak profesional tak terwujud.

Presiden memercayakan Menteri Kehutanan kepada politikus. Agaknya Presiden percaya, departemen ini tak memerlukan pemimpin cakap teknis, cukup cakap politis. Ini menggambarkan, pembuat kebijakan negeri yakin, sektor kehutanan tak menghadapi soal teknis. Kalangan rimbawan(ti) Indonesia berkeluh kesah dengan kondisi ini. Tak layakkah rimbawan(ti) menduduki posisi Manggala Wanabakti (MWB) 1?

Masalahnya, apakah Departemen Kehutanan harus dinakhodai orang kehutanan? Bisa ya, bisa tidak. Namun, sebagai departemen teknis dan di tengah kompleksnya masalah kehutanan Indonesia adalah tuntutan yang wajar jika orang yang berkutat dengan soal kehutanan diharapkan menjadi nakhodanya. Jika tidak, menterinya pun akan belajar dari awal. Memang, keberhasilan sektor ini tak hanya ditentukan oleh siapa yang menjadi menteri. Nakhoda yang cakap merupakan faktor amat penting.

Tantangan

Departemen Kehutanan unik karena memiliki teritorial. Sebagai institusi, departemen ini memiliki kekuatan hukum untuk ”menguasai” dan mendayagunakan area hutan Indonesia. Namun, privilese ini tak sepenuhnya menguntungkan. Tantangan pengaturan kewilayahan kian membesar pada era otonomi daerah seperti sekarang. Wilayah kerja antara pusat dan daerah yang sering tak sepenuhnya dipahami, ditambah ego teritorial, sering membuat program-program kehutanan tak berjalan baik. Masalah konflik perizinan kegiatan usaha di Taman Wisata Alam Tangkubanparahu dengan pemerintah daerah (Kompas, 26/10) menjadi contoh nyata.

Aneka masalah lain juga menghadang, misalnya pembalakan dan menurunnya tutupan dan produktivitas hutan alam. Ujungnya, selain deforestasi, produksi kayu juga menuju ambang kematian. Belum lagi jika berbicara kehilangan kekayaan keanekaragaman hayati.

Transisi pemberian kewenangan yang lebih luas kepada daerah untuk mengurusi hutan produksi juga belum berjalan baik. Jangankan berdampak positif, hal ini bisa berujung kerusakan hutan yang lebih parah. Dekatnya jaringan pengusaha dan birokrasi di daerah memberi kesempatan para pemain yang tak layak ikut menebas hutan tanpa standar.

Pada tumpukan masalah ini, inisiasi pengembangan silvikultur intensif di hutan alam merupakan terobosan bagus. Janganlah konsep ini layu sebelum berkembang. Perbaikan hutan alam merupakan kunci kesinambungan kegiatan kehutanan negeri ini. Keinginan untuk mengatur wilayah kehutanan dalam perencanaan yang lebih integratif juga terlihat dari rencana pengembangan Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan (KPH) yang tertuang dalam Peraturan Pemerintah No 6/2007. Namun, sekali lagi, sinergi antara pemerintah pusat dan daerah menjadi pokok penting keberhasilan program ini.

Kenyataan bahwa kemungkinan unit KPH ada di lintas administrasi (provinsi atau kabupaten/kota) amat membutuhkan koordinasi lintas pemerintahan. Maka, kepemimpinan Departemen Kehutanan dan koordinasi dengan daerah menjadi kunci keberhasilan program.

Selain itu, di tengah maraknya pembicaraan tentang perubahan iklim, hutan tropis kita seperti kembali primadona. Namun, jangan salah, kondisi ini bisa juga bermakna ganda. Di satu sisi ia menawarkan keuntungan, tetapi di sisi lain banyak hal yang harus dipertimbangkan.

Skema-skema mitigasi perubahan iklim yang lebih berpihak pada penyelamatan hutan tropis menjadi peluang besar. Ini menjanjikan peluang Indonesia untuk bisa menjadi pemain utama di pasar karbon dunia. Namun, dengan tudingan bahwa deforestasi hutan tropis menyumbang 20 persen peningkatan karbon atmosfer, kita bukan tak punya tanggung jawab sama sekali. Ketidakmampuan negara ini menunjukkan usaha nyata menyelamatkan hutan bisa beralamat pada terpinggirkannya Indonesia pada pentas negosiasi iklim.

Skema yang berkembang, terutama yang terkait hutan, bersifat hadiah dan hukuman. Ia bukan cek kosong. Apalagi saat ini rezim perubahan iklim masih dikuasai negara maju. Pertemuan para pihak di Kopenhagen, Denmark, akhir tahun ini jadi ujian pertama Departemen Kehutanan mendesakkan agenda penyelamatan hutan sebagai bagian utama paket perubahan iklim.

Karena itu, tak berlebihan jika pelaku kehutanan dan rakyat Indonesia berharap menteri baru mampu berbuat banyak, tak hanya menjadikan MWB 1 sebagai sapi perah parpol. Kita hanya bisa menyampaikan semoga hutan di bawah pimpinan Zulkifli Hasan menjadi ahsan (lebih baik).

Selamat bekerja!

Yansen Dosen Jurusan Kehutanan Universitas Bengkulu; Australian Leadership Award Fellow

The Jakarta Post, September 10, 2009 

The disasters just keep coming and coming. Dozens of people died and hundreds more were injured last week when a powerful earthquake hit West Java. This seismic activity was even shook the nation’s capital. These sorts of terrifying tremors undeniably haunt the life of people in Indonesia, from Sabang to Merauke.

The movement of the tectonic plates along the Ring of Fire, which engulfs the country, puts Indonesia in a precarious position. Unpredictable seismic activity, together with the risk of tsunami, cause great uncertainty. But this is not the end of the story. This year, there is also concern about the possibility of a prolonged dry season and perhaps even a drought because of the El Nino phenomenon and, all the while we still face the threat of the spread of the swine and bird flu.

It is not only natural disasters. The increasing negligence and unawareness of environmental problems has led to significant ecological disasters. The reoccurrences of major floods indicate the dismal attempts at watershed management and a failure to protect forest ecosystems. Slash and burn agriculture continues to be practiced as a cheap and easy way to clear land. Consequently, land and forest fires have become a chronic problem for this nation. The collapse of the Situ Gintung dam in Tangerang, West Java, several months ago gave solemn proof of our environmental negligence.

The majority of victims in these disasters are ordinary people. When the rubble is cleared, natural disasters leave people living under the poverty line, everything they had gone. These disasters pose a great challenge for this nation, especially its leaders. In this time of unpredictable crisis, leaders are not only pushed to do right thing, but also express sympathy. Leadership is tested when crisis hits, and what our elected officials do under pressure reveals their true character.

In his 2003 book Crisis Leadership, Gene Klann says there are three essential foundations for effective leadership under crisis: good communication, a clear vision for problem solving and genuine sympathy. When leaders visit the site of a disaster their ability to communicate is tested. They must show victims that they are important. But this communication must be followed up with the application of concrete solutions. However, emergency response efforts are not enough; anticipatory steps must be taken to prevent the unnecessary loss of life. Disaster management and preparedness measures must be taken seriously.

But it is sad to hear that our citizens still act irresponsibly. The theft of tsunami early detection instruments is a sad example of negligence and irresponsibility. We must contemplate our awareness as a nation. We need to build a more resilient nation and disasters can provide momentum for the development of this resilience.

We as a nation could learn from the Acehnese. They had to deal with military offensives for decades and there suffering only ended with great tragedy when the catastrophic 2004 tsunami killed thousands of people in the region. However, the society’s resilience was able to stem collective stress. They looked forward and rebuilt their land. This is what we should do as a nation. In short, if we would like to overcome our problems and become a great country, we have to be a strong nation with resilient citizens.

The writer is a lecturer of ecology at the University of Bengkulu

The Jakarta Post, July 18, 2009

Mining activities again claimed casualties. Tens of people were killed after a mining blast in Sawahlunto, West Sumatra, in June. The explosion of this private small-scale coal mine was initiated by the methane level in the mine. This tragedy added to the list of small-scale mining tragedies in the country.

However, it is not only small-scale mining; we have already seen destructive effects of large-scale mines. Lapindo Brantas mudflow disaster has not yet been resolved. Hundreds of families lost their homes due to this tragedy. The mud has also continued to spread. The accumulation of Mercury at the Buyat Bay, caused by gold mining of Newmont several years ago, is another example. The accumulation of this poisonous mineral still haunts the lives of people around that bay, where they depend on the bay as a source of water and fishing. This is not the end of the story. Coal mining in Kalimantan, for instance, has resulted thousands hectares of tropical forests being transformed into desert. Are we cursed by our abundance of natural resources?

Richard Auty (1993) introduced “the resource curse” term. In his book, Sustaining Development in Mineral Economies: the Resource Curse Thesis, he questioned why countries blessed with plenty of natural resources in fact having a very slow economic growth. This phenomenon occurs in many countries.

There is a paradox when abundance of natural assets do not result in prosperity. It is called “the paradox of plenty”, as coined by Terry Lynn Karl (1997). Resource-rich countries tend to perform so badly in terms of economic growth and to have high rate of poverty compared with countries without similar natural fortunes. Singapore is a clear example of this. With a relatively small terrestrial area and almost no natural resources, this country could become an Asian economic giant. On the other hand, natural resource-blessed Indonesia has lower income per capita.

Many developing countries depend on natural resources. One third of export from Africa, for instance, is natural products. Indonesia has a similar figure. Indeed, this natural wealth slowly but surely will disappear. This nation really realizes this reality. Indonesia once benefited from the oil booming in 80s. In that time, the rise of oil price made us laugh. There was no need to cover national budget deficit for oil subsidies. But now, we already become a net importer of oil. It is not only because of a lack of exploration of new oil sources, but in fact we do not have much oil left anymore. Unsurprisingly, Ambalat block is becoming a hot and sensitive issue.

Forestry sector is another example. Untill several decades, we thought that we were blessed by the existence of huge areas of tropical areas that we have. This earth’s lung was then commercially traded. The result was fantastic, i.e. Indonesia became a giant timber exporter. Timber provided a major income for the country. However, it was not too long till we suffered the consequences. No longer millions of logs produced; in reverse we have been suffering from ecological disasters due to forest ecosystem destructions.

We have probably been cursed! Rather than creating public wealth, the resources that lie on the top and beneath our land produce poverty and economic gaps between the rich and the poor. Resource-rich countries, said Joseph Stiglitz (2006), tend to become “wealthy countries” with poor citizens. Macroeconomic might indicate that Indonesia seems to be wealthy, but the poverty rate and unemployment figure continues to rise. Official figures from the government show that more than 100 million of Indonesians are living on les US$ 2 per day. On the other hand, we see that Indonesia’s rich people are among the wealthiest people in Asia and even in the globe. Unsurprisingly, many of Indonesia’s richest businesses are involved in the exploitation of natural resources.

The recent mining tragedy also reflects the lack of appreciation to human life. Work safety standard seems to be an unnecessary thing. Sadly, it does not only happen in small scale and privately managed mining activities, but also in large scale mines.

Furthermore, the failurel to equitably manage our natural resources means that the citizen’s life right and the right to be economically adequate seem to be neglected. If we look at the new Mineral and Coal Mining Act 2009, the access of people to the source of natural assets is still abandoned. Corporations still have a priority. Traditionally managed forests, for instance, are still being threatened with being converted if mining activities are proposed. People are also vulnerable to the negative environmentally effects of mining. In many places in Indonesia, mining activities are worsening public infrastructures. The permission of coal loaded trucks to pass crowded residential areas has resulted negative effects in forms of road accidents due to bad roads.

The equality and public-prosperity oriented principle have to become the main paradigm in managing our natural resources. Beside, companies operating and working in compliance with safety standard must be adequately-established and well-monitored. Without these, do not expect we can get a rid of the mining curse.

Yansen is lecturer on ecology at the Department of Forestry, University of Bengkulu; Australian Leadership Award fellow

Indonesian version of the post “The mining curse”

Tambang kembali meminta korban. Puluhan orang meninggal akibat ledakan yang dipicu kandungan gas metana di tambang batu bara milik rakyat di Sawahlunto pada Juni lalu. Tragedi ini menambah panjang daftar kecelakaan tambang skala rakyat.

Namun tak hanya skala kecil, kita pun telah disajikan dampak buruk pertambangan skala besar. Meluapnya lumpur Lapindo menyebabkan ratusan kepala keluarga kehilangan tempat tinggal. Sampai saat ini, persoalan ini belum tuntas. Area tutupan lumpur bahkan semakin meluas. Kasus pencemaran Teluk Buyat oleh Newmont pun masih lekat di ingatan. Para korban yang akhirnya kalah di persidangan hanya mampu merenungi nasib. Akumulasi logam berat di teluk ini tetap menjadi ancaman sampai masa mendatang. Menengok kasus lain, pertambangan batu bara menyebabkan ribuan hektar hutan tropis di Kalimantan berubah menjadi padang tandus. Apakah kita dikutuk oleh kekayaan sumberdaya alam yang dimiliki bangsa ini?

Kutukan sumberdaya alam

Richard Auty (1993) memperkenalkan istilah “kutukan sumberdaya”. Dalam bukunya Sustaining Development in Mineral Economies: The Resource Curse Thesis, ia mempertanyakan mengapa negara-negara berkembang yang kaya hasil bumi menunjukkan pertumbuhan ekonomi yang buruk. Ini terjadi di banyak negara. Ada paradoks dimana hasil alam yang melimpah tak membuahkan kesejahteraan masyarakat. Inilah the paradox of plenty, ujar Terry Lynn Karl (1997). Banyak negara yang diberkahi kenikmatan kekayaan sumberdaya alam tapi pertumbuhannya lambat dan kemiskinannya tinggi, dibandingkan dengan negara yang malah tak mendapatkan keberkahan yang sama. Contoh nyata ada di depan mata. Dengan area wilayah yang kecil dan hampir tanpa sumberdaya alam, Singapura mampu melesat menjadi raksasa ekonomi Asia dan dunia. Sementara Indonesia yang kaya hasil bumi berpenghasilan per kapita jauh lebih rendah.

Kebanyakan negara berkembang secara ekonomi tergantung dari sumberdaya alam. Sepertiga ekspor dari Afrika, sebagai contoh, merupakan kekayaan bumi. Indonesia pun demikian. Tanpa disadari, kekayaan ini semakin berkurang dan akan menghilang. Negara ini telah merasakan betul hal ini sebenarnya. Indonesia sempat dibuai dengan oil-booming pada dekade 80-an. Saat itu, kenaikan harga minyak dunia membuat kita tertawa. Tak terjadi defisit APBN untuk menutupi subsidi minyak. Sekarang, bangsa ini telah menjadi net-importer minyak. Bukan hanya karena tak ada ekplorasi baru, namun memang cadangan minyak yang semakin menipis. Tak heran jika isu Blok Ambalat menjadi isu panas.

Sektor kehutanan adalah contoh lainnya. Sampai beberapa dekade keberadaan hutan tropis yang demikian luasnya dirasakan bagai rejeki langit. Paru-paru dunia ini pun kemudian diperjualbelikan. Hasilnya fantastis! Indonesia berada di deretan terdepan negara-negara pengekspor kayu. Kayu pun menjadi sumber devisa utama sektor non-migas. Namun tak perlu menunggu lama, generasi kini sudah merasakan akibatnya. Sekarang, bukan limpahan kayu bulat yang diproduksi, tapi tragedi banjir berulang-ulang.

Kita mungkin memang dikutuk! Bukannya mensejahterakan, kekayaan bumi nusantara malah melahirkan ketimpangan dan kemiskinan. Perusahaan-perusahaan pertambangan multi-nasional membangun perumahan bak istana, sementara tak jauh dari situ berdiri sekolah rakyat berdinding papan tua dan hampir roboh.

Negara kaya sumberdaya alam, kata Joseph Stiglitz (2006), cenderung menjadi “negara makmur” yang dipenuhi orang-orang miskin. Indikator makro ekonomi mungkin menunjukkan negara ini makmur, namun indikator mikro berbicara lain. Angka kemiskinan tak juga berkurang. Kalau mengambil catatan resmi pemerintah misalnya, angka pertumbuhan yang mencapai 6,2 persen pada 2008 tak mampu memperbaiki nasib lebih dari 100 juta warga yang berpenghasilan di bawah Rp. 20.000 per hari. Disinilah ketimpangannya, kita mendapati orang-orang kaya Indonesia menduduki daftar orang-orang terkaya di Asia, namun di sisi lain kemiskinan menganga lebar di depan mata. Jangan heran, mereka yang kaya tersebut sebagian besar bergerak di sektor ekploitasi sumberdaya alam.

Murahnya nyawa manusia

Tragedi tambang terakhir lebih jauh juga mencerminkan betapa murahnya harga sepotong nyawa rakyat Indonesia. Keselamatan kerja sepertinya bukan merupakan hal esensi. Jangankan tambang rakyat, aktivitas profesional pun kerap melalaikan keselamatan kerja.

Dari sisi negara, hak hidup dan menjadi sejahtera warga negara juga terabaikan dengan ketidakadilan pengelolaan sumberdaya alam. Jika menengok ke Undang-Undang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara (Minerba) 2009, akses warga terhadap sumber-sumber kekayaan alam tetap terpinggirkan. Korporasi tetap menjadi primadona. Kekayaan alam turun temurun, semisal hutan adat, tetap terancam jika kepentingan pertambangan menginginkannya. Belum lagi melihat dampak lingkungan yang dapat ditimbulkan. Bahkan, di beberapa daerah, dizinkannya aktivitas pertambangan memakai sarana pra sarana umum, semisal jalan raya padat pemukiman, telah melahirkan dampak negatif berupa kehilangan nyawa sekaligus juga kerugian negara.

Orientasi keadilan dan kesejahteraan dalam pengelolaan sumberdaya alam mutlak diperlukan. Disamping itu, aturan-aturan operasi dan keselamatan kerja pertambangan juga harus diperketat. Tanpa itu, “kutukan tambang” tak akan menjauh.

The Jakarta Post, June 26, 2009

Concerns have been expressed regarding the presidential candidates’ lack of consideration of environmental topics. An editorial in the June 22, The Jakarta Post lamented that in the first presidential debate, the candidates’ responses to environmental problems, in this case the Lapindo mudflow tragedy, were disappointing. Economic issues have dominated the campaign season. This is understandable, as economic matters play a very substantial role in people’s lives. However, without paying attention to ecological sustainability, the hope for long-term economic prosperity can only be a dream.

But is this only their fault? I would argue not. As professional politicians, the candidates are fully aware of political market behaviour. They understand their dependency on voters. Voters are their consumers, as well as “the king”, even though this special position is only recognized during the election time. Because those leaders fully realize what their constituents want, environmental issues are not a major concern. They know that we citizens and voters are ecologically illiterate. Environmental subjects are not “sexy” or marketable. As a result, the importance of the sustainability as a foundation for natural resource-based economics is not a significant issue.

We could again look at, for example, the mudflow tragedy. The root of this problem was actually that the government failed to properly manage development. It is true that Lapindo caused the problem, but the government failed to monitor their mining activities. However, the government’s inability to deal with this significant environmental problem is not affecting the Yudhoyono administration’s popularity, as indicated by polls and surveys. Most of us have already forgotten the problem.

It would be worthwhile to rethink our understanding and commitment as citizens to the principles of ecological sustainability. The government’s lack of concern for environmental issues reflects our lack of awareness of ecological consequences.  Not surprisingly, ecological disasters keep occurring in this beautiful country. Consequently, development in this nation will not reach the sustainable ideal. In truth, the ability to create sustainable development and live harmoniously with nature is technically possible.

If we try to dig deeper, the lack of ecological awareness among the people can be attributed to the inability of our education system to instill environmental sensitivity. In a report by Kompas (May 29), it was revealed that many teachers could not answer many questions about environmental problems. But of course it is not totally those teachers’ fault. Our education system seems unable to develop healthy minds and souls and fostering environmental compassion is a symptom of this problem.

A good education, according to David Orr in his essay in Ecological Literacy (2005), is not simply a mastery of a subject matter, but also a cultivation of values. Education, he said, “has to deal with the timeless question of how we are to live.”

It is sad then, that when we look at our schools we see that our education focuses only on quantitative achievements. There is no appreciation given to other achievers, such as environmentally friendly students. This paradigm is not only present in schools, but is also implanted in parent’s minds. No wonder our leaders are concerned only with their quantitative popularity. The political process is an educational process. Its place as a field for the cultivation of values has never been seriously considered. It was not an exaggeration when Orr insisted that “the ecological crisis is in every way a crisis of education.”

Therefore, now is the right time to assess the capacity of our education system to raise ecologically literate citizens. If environmental education is offered to the stakeholders, they often argue that our school curriculum is full. But environmental education could be integrated to many subjects.

The main problem is actually that one important aspect of education has been neglected: education should be enjoyable. The rigid quantitative restraints of study have rendered schools unenjoyable for students. Therefore, education innovations must be made. In Laskar Pelangi (Rainbow Soldier) we saw how . Muslimah, the teacher, took her students to the beach for a science class. Michael Stone, in another essay, “Ecological literacy” (2005), told a similar story about a STRAW (Students and Teachers Restoring a Watershed) project. In this project, students of a local Marin County (USA) school reintroduced freshwater shrimp to a creek from which it had disappeared. From this project, students learned many things. They studied river ecology as well as zoology and botany. They even started to understand political science, as they had to liaise with local farmers in order to get support for the project. This was fun, but the students also learned many subjects in one project.

If we would like to raise people’s understanding of the threats of the ecological crisis, we have to begin with education, from elementary to tertiary. Environmental education means not just creating an ecologically literate society but also breeding leaders with an environmental vision. Maybe then environmentally sustainable development and a harmoniously existence with nature can become a reality.

The writer is a lecturer on ecology at the Department of Forestry, University of Bengkulu and an Australian Leadership Award fellow

Indonesian version of the post “Our ecologically illiterate presidential candidates”

Ada kerisauan yang besar tentang tak mencuatnya visi dan komitmen yang kuat para kandidat capres/cawapres saat ini terhadap isu lingkungan. Kerisauan ini perlu dijadikan bahan pemikiran. Selama masa kampanye, ekonomi tetap menjadi primadona. Tidak ada yang salah memang.  Ekonomi adalah tema pokok kehidupan berbangsa. Namun, tanpa visi kelestarian lingkungan, cita-cita kesejahteraan ekonomi hanyalah mimpi semu.

Namun, apakah ini sepenuhnya salah mereka? Sebagai pelaku politik profesional, para kandidat tersebut sangatlah menyadari sifat dasar pasar politik. Mereka pun sangat melek dengan posisi voters sebagai konsumer dan ‘raja’, walaupun dalam pasar politik Indonesia, keistimewaan ini hanya terjadi pada saat pemilu. Karena mereka menyadari keinginan para pemilih inilah, isu lingkungan tidak mengemuka. Para pemimpin tersebut tahu, rakyat negeri ini masih buta ekologis. Isu ini tak layak jual. Alhasil, tema keberlanjutan sistem lingkungan sebagai fondasi dasar keberlanjutan sistem ekonomi sumberdaya tak mencuat. Kalaupun ada, ia hanya menempati pinggiran lembaran-lembaran manifesto, poin tak penting kontrak politik atau catatan tambahan kampanye.

Kalau menengok kasus lumpur Lapindo misalnya, kegagalan pemerintah menangani masalah lingkungan dahsyat ini tak mampu membelokkan popularitas pemerintah ke titik nadir. Solidaritas sesama warga terhadap korban hanya berhenti pada petisi-petisi dan sumbangan kemanusiaan, tanpa dapat menyentuh substansi permasalahan—kegagalan negara mengelola pembangunan. Memang pengusaha yang menyebabkannya, namun pemerintah telah gagal mengawasi dan bahkan tak berdaya memaksakan solusi yang berpihak pada rakyat.

Maka, ada baiknya menengok kembali pemahaman dan komitmen warga bangsa terhadap kepentingan kelestarian lingkungan. Ketidakpedulian pemerintah terhadap isu lingkungan sesungguhnya merefleksikan sikap besar kita yang juga abai terhadap konsekuensi ekologis. Lebih jauh, ini adalah cerminan ketiadaan orientasi jangka panjang bangsa ini. Jika begini, bencana ekologis tak akan menjauh dari bumi nusantara. Pembangunan pun tak akan sampai pada cita-cita keberlanjutan. Padahal kemampuan menciptakan kehidupan yang lestari dan harmoni dengan alam, secara teknis, bukanlah mustahil.

Krisis pendidikan

Jika dilihat lebih jauh, ketiadaan kesadaran ekologis sesungguhnya juga berakar pada ketidakmampuan sistem pendidikan menyemai budi lingkungan. Banyak pendidik tak mampu memberikan jawaban-jawaban memuaskan tentang masalah lingkungan. Namun, ini sebenarnya bukan salah pendidiknya. Pendidikan di negeri ini memang tak mampu menjadi katalisator pembangunan akal budi, termasuk kearifan lingkungan. Padahal pendidikan yang baik, menurut David Orr di satu essai dalam Ecological Literacy (2005), bukan hanya sekedar penguasaan materi pelajaran, namun lebih jauh dari itu penyemaian nilai-nilai. Pendidikan, ia melanjutkan, haruslah berhubungan dengan pertanyaan tak berujung tentang bagaimana kita hidup di dunia ini.

Sedihnya, jika menengok sekolah-sekolah di penjuru negeri, pendidikan seakan tereduksi menjadi angka-angka kelulusan. Keberhasilan hanya dinilai dari akumulasi kuantitatif. Tak ada ruang pencapaian lain. Tak ada penghargaan bagi murid yang membuang sampah pada tempatnya atau senang menanam pohon misalnya. Paradigma ini tak hanya melekat di sekolah, tapi juga tumbuh berkembang di benak para orang tua. Alhasil, tak heran jika pendidikan seperti ini kemudian menghasilkan para pemimpin yang hanya terpukau dengan hitungan popularitas kuantitatif. Proses politik sebagai pendidikan yang berarti ladang penyemaian nilai-nilai tak pernah serius digarap.

Tak berlebihan jika David Orr mengatakan, “the ecological crisis is in every way a crisis of education.” Karenanya, ada baiknya kita melihat sejenak kapasitas pendidikan dalam melahirkan manusia Indonesia dengan kearifan lingkungan. Jika ditawarkan pendidikan lingkungan, para pembuat kebijakan akan beralasan bahwa kurikulum pendidikan sudah terlalu padat. Padahal pendidikan kesadaran lingkungan dapat diintegrasikan ke banyak subjek.

Permasalahan sebenarnya adalah bahwa kita telah menghilangkan satu fondasi dasar pendidikan, yakni bersifat enjoyable. Ketatnya target-target kuantitatif tadi tak menjadikan sekolah sebagai tempat yang dirindukan bagi siswa. Karena itu, inovasi-inovasi pendidikan harus terus digalakkan. Kita melihat bagaimana Ibu Muslimah membawa Ikal dan kawan-kawannya ke pantai untuk belajar Ilmu Alam dalam Laskar Pelangi. Atau, Michael Stone, dalam essai lain di Ecological literacy (2005), mencontohkan proyek STRAW (Students and Teachers Restoring a Watershed). Dalam proyek ini, sebuah sekolah desa di Amerika mengajak murid-muridnya terlibat dalam restorasi sungai. Tak hanya belajar ilmu lingkungan, para siswa juga belajar biologi tumbuhan dan ilmu politik dengan mengajukan proposal kegiatan dan berhubungan dengan para pemilik lahan. Hasilnya memang menakjubkan.

Jika ingin mengurangi ancaman krisis ekologi, kita harus memulai dari pendidikan, tingkat dasar sampai perguruan tinggi. Pendidikan lingkungan tidak hanya akan menciptakan masyarakat sadar ekologis, namun juga melahirkan pemimpin-pemimpin bervisi jauh kedepan dengan pembangunan berkelanjutan dan berharmoni dengan alam.

The Jakarta Post, June 18, 2009

People around the world have been besieged by the hysteria of the spread of H1N1 flu for the past few months. Even though the threat is not as imminent as first predicted, it is still a major concern. A distribution map of the disease, recently released by the World Health Organization, shows that affected people have been identified in four continents. The organization is working flat-out to deal with the problem.

Andrew Nikiforuk said in his book Pandemonium (2006) that biological invaders such as infectious diseases could easily spread across the globe. They would find three conditions which are unique to this era: a global economy, acute urban crowding and a high level of human mobility; conditions that did not exist in the era of our ancestors. Without proper preparation, a pandemic is just a matter of time, since the disease could spread into unknown territory. The anxiety is intensified because it is taking place in the middle of a global financial crisis. And Indonesia is still under threat from another kind of biological threat: bird flu.

However, in terms of ecology, this is not the only problem we face. Ecological disasters are commonplace right now. Just look at our own backyard, the Lapindo Brantas disaster, for example, has caused thousands of people lose their homes. Floods are everywhere. We recently witnessed the Situ Gintung dam tragedy.

But are pandemics and ecological disasters related each other? Well, I would say yes! In ecology, it is believed that natural populations are regulated by density-dependent factors. The main factors in density-dependency are competition to utilize resources, diseases and predation (see Clive Hambler, 2004).

Pressures on population are stronger as it grows and are weaker when it decreases. As human population booms, opportunities for diseases to develop also increase. There have been indications the development of the H1N1 flu virus was closely connected to the unhealthy, crowded urban environment and unhealthy practices in pig farming. Mexico City, where the virus initially developed, is in fact a vastly overcrowded city.

As population grows, the need for land increases. Consequently, ecologically important areas, such as forests, are converted into residential areas. The problem in many developing countries is these conversions are without proper regional and urban planning. We should, therefore, not be surprised by the disastrous results.

The series of ecological disasters, as well as disease development, are clear signs of the decline in human-supporting capacity. The decrease of the natural ability to support human lives, on the one hand, and a higher rate of human population growth, on the other, results in ecological complexity. As an integral part of the natural system, humans are interacting, affecting and are affected by environmental processes.

As the most intelligent creature on the planet, humans have been exploiting natural resources for their own benefit and industrialization has been speeding up the process. Globalization then serves as a very effective way to drive the world to jump on the same bandwagon: the race to exploit natural resources. There is nothing wrong with globalization per se. However, the ability of globalization to create desires rather than needs has made us guilty of overconsumption; consequently, we overexploit the resources, including the scarce ones.

However, would the earth be better off without humans? This is the main question behind Alan Weisman’s book The World without Us (2007). The answer, he said, might not be that it would be better off. What we really need today is to reduce the human ecological impact by slowing natural resource exploitation.

Another lesson from the recent H1N1 flu cases is that it shows the other face of globalization: the shared destiny of the world’s residents. Albert Camus once said that we are in the middle of an era where “no longer were there individual destinies; only a collective destiny, made of plague and emotions shared by all.” Globalization has not only created a global economy and politics, but it also has generated a collective destiny. We cannot completely avoid negative externalities.

Ecological disasters clearly indicate that every human strongly interconnects with each other. People living in one place might cause negative impacts, either directly or indirectly, for other people living far away. Illegal loggers in the highlands, for example, contribute to the floods in the lowland areas. Therefore, we need to work together to create a better world in which to live.

The series of Mother Nature disasters has an important message, i.e. the human-supporting ecological system is becoming more complex. As the human population keeps rising, this problem will become even more complicated. For Indonesia, this means the nation will face more challenges in the future. Then, the question will be have we prepared ourselves as a nation to overcome these future challenges? If we haven’t, we should be ready for the terrible prospect of our collective destiny.

The writer is a lecturer on ecology at the Department of Forestry, University of Bengkulu and an Australian Leadership Award scholar

(The picture is taken from http://newsitemstoday.today.com/files/2009/04/swine_flu_mexico-3.jpg)