Expanding the Piped Water Supply for Poor Households in Surabaya
A Case Study of a Project Proposal funded by
The World Bank in Indonesia

by
Hesthi Nugroho


Introduction
For more than a decade, funds have flowing in from international agencies to developing countries to assist with the development process of these countries. However, many of these projects are only for the interest of the international donors not in the interests of the local communities who usually become the target of their development projects. The project of expanding a piped water supply for poor households in Surabaya, which is funded by the World Bank is one example of these kind of projects. The objective is to increase the access of water supply for poor households who live in formal and informal areas (The World Bank 2008); however, the project planners have ignored several important factors in implementing this project.

This paper aims to analyse these factors, in which relate to political and institutional issues which have emerged during the implementation of this project. These factors are gender issues, environmental impact assessment (EIA), the form of public participation and social impacts of the project. From the discussion, it can be learnt that development projects that relate to the development of local communities should include women’s participation in the implementation process of the projects, as women usually suffer the major effects of change because of a project. Meanwhile, the project planners need to conduct serious EIAs to avoid delays and conflicts towards the projects. In addition, the social impacts need to be recognized as well, so that there will be no additional problems, which may spark bigger conflicts within the communities. Furthermore, choosing a suitable type of public participation is important because the voices and the visions of poor communities need to be heard. Therefore, in applying development procedures in their specialized areas will meet the interests of the whole community, which will also determine the success of the project. Nevertheless, the project planners of the expanding piped water supply project in Surabaya have so far ignored these factors above.

Explanation of the project
The expansion of the piped water supply is a project which commenced in 2008, being implemented in Surabaya, the capital of East Java Province, Indonesia and is expected to be finished in 2010 (The World Bank 2008). The objective of this project is increasing the access to piped water networks for poor households who are living in formal and informal areas in Surabaya, in which, the beneficiaries of this project will consist of about 77,500 people (The World Bank 2008). Meanwhile, the implementation of this project is divided into three main components; the in-fill connections to existing mains, expanding the connections to unserved areas, and to supply “master meter” connections to particular poor households (The World Bank 2008).

In this case, the outcomes, which have been expected from this project, are the change of average water use in connected households, the change in the water expenditure by connected households, the change in time spent in collecting water by connected households, the satisfaction of the households because of easy procedures, quality of services and cost of services (in which per household will spend IDR 700,000 or USD $78 for the first installation), and the change in the intensive utility for these poor households (The World Bank 2008). The stakeholders which will be involved in this project are, several officers from Perusahaan Daerah Air Minum Surabaya (PDAM, as known as the public water utility of Surabaya), as the representatives of donor recipients, the committee from Department of Public Works as the Scheme Managers, a particular local firm which will become an auditor of the project, and the World Bank staff as the supervisors of the project (The World Bank 2008). In this case, the poor households who live in the formal and informal area, who are to become the target of the project are not involved, at this stage as there will be notification via brochures when the project is about to be operated (The World Bank 2008). Meanwhile, the World Bank (2008) has insisted that there will be no major damage towards the pipe constructions in this project, nor the incident of land resettlement. Despite the fact that this project is to be operated in the second most highly populated area after Jakarta, of around four million people (BBC Indonesia 2007), yet the World Bank (2008) insists that there are no communities living on or near the construction site in the project area. However, this is clearly not the case, because there are communities living on the construction site, who will need to be resettled.

This essay will discuss and analyse several issues which are not explained well by the World Bank in the process of implementing the piped water project in Surabaya, which are gender issues, environmental issues, forms of participation, and social impacts of the project. The gender issue is important to be considered by the project planners because the issue of gender differences with respect to water lies in the access to and control of water (Zwarteveen 1997). In this case, women, as mothers and domestic caretakers, are the major water users for domestic purposes, however, this activity does not seem to be identified by the larger society, such as the government (Zwarteveen 1997). Meanwhile, environmental impact assessments are also important to be considered because this project will be operated in a high density population area and the project planners from the World Bank have overlooked some important points in regards to the environmental impacts, as environmental issues are always be political and generate controversy (Beattie 1995). Moreover, the form of public participation is another important point, because by knowing which form of public participation this project is into, the power of poor households to agree or disagree towards the operation of this project will also be known (Arnstein 1971). Furthermore, because of the operation of this project, the social impacts should also be noticed and considered as there would be privileged differentiation in accessing and using the water because not all the households would agree towards this project, as the access to water used to be free.

Discussion
Gender issue
For decades, there have been differences of priorities in regards to water use between men and women, which in domestic areas, women are the major users of water for productive and domestic purposes (Cleaver 1998). However, there has been a lack of formal recognition of women as water users in many parts of development projects, especially in water supply projects (Zwarteveen 1997). In most cases, women’s access to water has been mediated through their husbands or male relatives, as women’s voices are hardly be heard when they try to speak out in public meetings (Zwarteveen 1997). In addition, poor women are unlikely to be elected to participate in community decision making activities, which means women are obtaining access to water in informal ways (Zwarteveen 1997).

In the project of water supply in Surabaya, the project planners have neglected the role of women in implementing this project. This can be seen that in the implementation of this project, and the poor households are not considered to be part of the participation process (The World Bank 2008). The poor households will only receive pamphlets which are informing about the existence of the project, and an apology for the inconvenience during the construction (The World Bank 2008). As the project planners overlook the importance of involving the poor households’ communities into the participation process, especially women as the major water users, the development planners have also overlooked that the problem of water in Surabaya which is not only about the supply pipes but also about the quality of the water, which has been a complaint for so long by women[1]. The problem that has been faced by PDAM Surabaya overtime, is the problem of its water quality, as the main water source that has been used by PDAM, which is the Brantas River, is heavily contaminated nowadays, in which every day, there are around 330 tonnes of chemical waste being dumped into this river (BBC Indonesia 2007).

There are many complaints to PDAM Surabaya about this problem, especially from women, in which their children suffered diarrhea after drinking the water from PDAM, although the water has been cooked, or the complaints that the whole family suffered rashes after taking a bath using water from PDAM[2], and PDAM Surabaya has ignored these complaints. Thus, because of these problems, women are starting to purchase recycled water which is being sold privately from door to door, which is costing them IDR 9,000,00 or AUD $1[3] per litre. Meanwhile, in the informal areas, women in poor households are still using the water from the rivers for cooking, bathing, and doing the laundry as well as washing the dishes, in which the contamination in this river is also high in mercury levels (Silaban 2007). If the construction of the pipe expansion water supply comes to this informal area, it would not solve the problem either, as the water from PDAM is contaminated, the same as the water that they have obtained from the rivers.

Thus, it can be seen that for the expanding piped water supply to poor households who live in formal and informal areas, the project planners have ignored the contribution of women in this issue. In this case, the focus of formal institutions, arranged by the World Bank and PDAM Surabaya, for water supply to poor households have overlooked informal institutional arrangements in which women play the most important and major role (Cleaver 1998). Women, as the major users of water, need to be involved in formal decision making communities as well as recognizing their role and activities in formal access of water users’ organizations (Zwarteveen 1997). Therefore, their voices will be heard in public meetings, between the World Bank, the officers from PDAM Surabaya and the poor households’ communities, in which the problem is not about the piped supply but about the quality of the water supply, which the World Bank as the donor may overcome this problem by focusing its funded to the improvement of water quality from PDAM Surabaya.

Environmental impact assessment
According to Pritchard (1996) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a process to predict and evaluate the effects of series of actions to the environment, the conclusions that have been derived are being used for planning and decision making tools. In addition, Pritchard (1996) mentions that EIA is a process and not a product of a project, in which one of its aims is preventing the environmental degradation. Meanwhile, in conducting EIA, the environmentalists should not only consider environmental issues but also other issues such as social and health issues including the amount of compensation that would be given to those who suffer the impacts of the project (Beattie 1995). However, as the issue of the environment is always political (Beattie 1995), several project planners do not conduct the EIA in proper ways, such as not including public participation in planning and conducting the assessment (Shepherd & Bowler 1997). Moreover, there are also some particular information of environmental impacts in which the donor and the recipient state try to hide from the public as they want to defend their project and do not want to delay the operation (Shepherd & Bowler 1997).

In the case of the expanding piped water supply project in Surabaya, the World Bank as the donor as well as the supervisor, and the PDAM Surabaya as the recipient fund, do not conduct the EIA properly. There are several peculiar factors that have been raised by the World Bank, however they finally insisted that only minor and short-term environmental impacts would occur. For example, noise, dust traffic disturbance, materials and vehicles during the construction and after the construction the situation will come back to normal (The World Bank 2008). In addition, the World Bank supports their argument about minor environmental impacts by stating that there is no group of people who live in the construction area, therefore there will not be any people resettlement (The World Bank 2008). Nevertheless, these arguments by The World Bank and its environmentalists do not make sense at all. For example, the density of population in Surabaya is very high, being the second highest after Jakarta, in which almost four million people live in the area of 459.65 square kilometers (Bureau Statistics of East Java, 2008). In which, contradicts with the statement of no groups of people living in the construction area by the World Bank (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. A picture of downtown Surabaya[4], taken in 2002

Meanwhile, the World Bank (2008) does not explain further how would they solve the problem when the construction begins, as the water connection obviously will be shut down during the days of construction, which means that these poor households need another alternative of water resource. The development planners do not explain whether they would provide another alternative or let the households search by themselves. Another point that is not explained by the World Bank is what kind of compensation it is when the members of particular households have developed respiration problems because of the dust from the construction, whether the compensation would be in cash or the project planners’ committee undertake the costs of these people’s treatment in the hospital. In addition, the World Bank does not explain how the water waste of households will be managed during the construction of the project.

It should be noted that EIA is not a product but a process of a project (Pritchard 1996), and during the process of conducting EIA, the development planners need to include the public in the process of participation. In this case, not only particular public who hold the strong power of decisions but also the public who become the target of the project. With reference to the expanding piped water supply project in Surabaya, the World Bank (2008) does not include the poor households in the process of participation for EIA. It is clearly shown that the World Bank and PDAM Surabaya as the project planners do not want to delay their schedule in constructing this project and tend only to educate the poor households about the merits of the project (Shepherd & Bowler 1997). In addition, as Beattie (1995) mentions, environmental issues and EIAs are always political, the EIA in this project tends to be political as well. In this case, the development planners have ignored several important points such as public participation, in which it seems they are hiding major environmental impacts from the public. Besides that, the conduction of this EIA tends to become the complementary of the requirement in proposing the project and does not need to take the results seriously or into further consideration. Overall, these points above, the project planners have overlooked in conducting the EIA, and could spark conflicts within the poor societies or between the societies and the project planners.


Form of public participation
According to Arnstein (1971) public participation is a public power, in which the distribution of power enables the “have-not” citizens to become deliberately included in the future. The advantages of having public participation in implementing the project are the competence of the final decisions of the project is higher because it has already been publicly examined, the legitimacy of final outcomes is higher, and the project planners become more responsible in the implementation of the project (Webler, Kastenholz, & Renn 1995). However, these advantages solely depend on what kind of public participation has been implemented by the project planners, as to what Arnstein (1971) has stated that participation itself without the distribution of power will make the participation process is empty and frustrating for the powerless people. There are eight rungs on a ladder of public participation by Arnstein (1971), manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership, delegated power and citizen control.

In regards to the project by the World Bank in Surabaya, the form of public participation towards the poor households, which is being used by the project planners, refers to the combination of therapy and informing. In this case, the project planners do not include the poor households to participate in the project, the project planners only inform the poor households about the project through pamphlets (The World Bank 2008). This kind of approach by the World Bank is referred to as the therapy type in public participation by Arnstein (1971), in terms of that this project does not enable poor communities to participate in planning or in conducting the project. Meanwhile, the distribution of information about the project through pamphlets is referred to as the informing type of public participation, in which, there is only a one-way flow of information, from the project planners to the poor communities, without no providing channel for feedback (Arnstein 1971). Moreover, because these poor communities have no power on negotiation, they tend not having power to influence the project which should be designed ‘for their benefit’ (Arnstein 1971).

According to Bryant and Bailey (1997) as well as Arnstein (1971), the use of therapy and informing types of participation in expanding the piped water supply project in Surabaya relates to the unequal power between actors. The unequal relations between actors are becoming the key factors in understanding the pattern of human interaction (Bryant & Bailey 1997). In this case, the unequal power is related to the power that each actor possesses either in lesser or greater amount, which can influence the implementation process of the project and give the ‘desirable’ outcomes for the strong powerholders (Bryant & Bailey 1997). Meanwhile, according to Arnstein (1971), in dealing with public participation in the project, the powerholders, in this case the World Bank and PDAM Surabaya, have included racism paternalism and resistance to power distribution. While, the “have-nots” citizens, in this case, the poor households communities, have included their inadequacies in political and socio-economic infrastructure as well as knowledge-base about the project, their difficulties in organizing representatives who are accountable and can be trusted (Arnstein 1971). Nevertheless, this kind of public participation will bring ineffectiveness towards the implementation of the project, because one-flow of information and not enabling the poor households to participate will increase the chances of delays and opposition towards the project (Shepherd & Bowler 1997). In the end this condition will spark dispute and conflicts between the project planners and poor households’ societies, which the project planners are actually wanting to avoid when they put the project in place.

Social impacts of the project
Social impacts are the future consequences because of current actions that relate to social macro-systems, organizations and even individuals (Becker 2001). Social impacts are an important factor to be concerned with because the project planners could seek whether their intervention in poor households in Surabaya changes the outcomes and the institutions within this population (Newman, Pradhan, Rawlings, Ridder, Coa, & Evia 2002). The social impacts can be recognized by having community consultation in which the affected public is being invited (Momtaz & Gladstone 2008).

Because of the project planners in the project of expanding the piped water supply in Surabaya do not recognize the participation of poor households, thus, they do not have proper community consultation, which has led them in failing to recognize several social impacts of this project towards poor communities. One of these impacts is that the impact directly to the community, in which only particular households who agreed towards the project and have enough funds to pay for the first installation will obtain the privilege of having more water supply directly to their households. It should be noted that for the first installation, these households have to pay a very high price, which is IDR 700,000,00 or USD $78, in this case, majorly poor households cannot afford this amount of payment as their average income is IDR 150,000 to 200,000[5]. This condition will likely spark conflicts within the households and many of them will find illegal ways to obtain the same amount of water supply, such as stealing the connection of the water pipes and directing the water flows to their households (Polwiltabes Surabaya, 2008).

Meanwhile, the World Bank (2008) has mentioned that there will not be people resettlements towards the project, however, many poor households live in informal areas and most of them live illegally on the governments’ land, and sooner or later the government will evict them from this land[6]. In this case, the World Bank does not consider that constructing the piped water supply in informal areas would be a waste of time and funds as the poor households would be evicted from this area anytime soon. Besides that, as these poor households live in informal areas, it means that when their location is on the construction way, the government will automatically request them to move out to smoothing the construction process. This is because these poor households have no legal power in claiming their house position, while the government as the major powerholder will try hard to exert control power over these poor households (Bryant & Bailey 1997). Moreover, even if the poor households live in formal areas, a temporary resettlement cannot be avoided, as the density of population is very high and the construction of the project itself obviously needs a wider space to be conducted (see Figure 1). Furthermore, because such social impacts have not been considered by the project planners, it is unlikely that the project will bring benefits to the poor households but only bring more conflicts and disputes within the poor communities.




Conclusion
Despite many funds being donated by many international donors to developing countries for their development, most of these donors tend to simplify contextual reality of developing countries. These donors are only thinking how to fit their procedures and perspectives towards the projects that they have been funding, and do not realize that more problems will be created because of their projects rather than be solved.

The project of expanding the piped water supply for poor households in Surabaya, funded by the World Bank is one of these examples. Many failures have been found because the project planners from the World Bank as the donor and PDAM Surabaya as the recipient do not conduct proper participation and impact assessments. The failure of ignoring that the quality of water is the major concern of poor households has made this project worthless to be put in place. Not including women, as the major water users, to become part of their participation is also become a supporting factor of this failure. Meanwhile, the failure of not taking their work in EIA seriously has resulted in an absurd report. Moreover, implementing false public participation has made this project become worthless in the eyes of poor households as well as will spark more conflicts within poor communities. Furthermore, ignoring the social condition of poor households and charging a high price for them will also spark more problems in the reality context.

From this fact, it can be concluded that development projects, which relate mostly to the development of local communities’ households, need to realize that the inclusion of women is very important in decision making and the participation process. This is because women are the ones who are obtain majorly effected because of the project as they are the domestic carers (Cleaver 1998). In addition, environmental and social assessments have to be conducted seriously to avoid any environmental damage or social conflicts which emerge because of the project as well as to avoid an absurd result. Meanwhile, choosing the right type or form of public participation is very critical, in terms of voices from local communities being heard, which are important and crucial for the success of the project. Therefore, development itself is not only about words and procedures, but it is more about changing the reality of lives of the local people (Win 2004). In this case, a way to do this is by listening to local voices and their visions, so that the project will not create more problems than it solves (Win 2004).


References:

Arnstein, S.R., 1971. ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’, Journal of the Royal Town Planning Institute, pp. 1-6.

BBC Indonesia 2007, Menyusutnya Sumber Air, BBC Indonesia, viewed 2 June 2008,
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/indonesian/indepth/story/2007/12/071213_studentsurabaya.shtml>

Beattie, R.B., 1995. ‘Everything You Already Know About EIA (But Don’t Often Admit)’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 15, pp. 109-114.

Becker, H.A., 2001. ‘Social Impact Assessment’, European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 128, pp. 311-321.

Bureau Statistics of East Java 2008, Jumlah Penduduk dan Rumah Tangga Menurut Kabupaten/Kota tahun 2007, viewed 3 June 2008,


Bryant, R.L. & Bailey, S., 1997. Third World Political Ecology,Routledge, London.

Cleaver, F., 1998. ‘Incentives and Informal Institutions: Gender and the Management of Water’, Agriculture and Human Values, vol. 15, pp.347-360.

Momtaz, S. & Gladstone, W., 2008. ‘Ban on the Commercial Fishing in the Estuarine Waters of New South Wales, Australia: Community Consultation and Social Impacts’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol.28, pp.214-225.

Newman, J., Pradhan, M., Rawlings, L.B., Ridder, G., Coa, R., & Evia, J.L., 2002. ‘An Impact Evaluation of Education, Health, and Water Supply Investments by the Bolivian Social Investment Fund’, The World Bank Economic Review, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 241-274.

Polwiltabes Surabaya 2008, Curi Air PDAM, Dijual ke Pabrik, Polwiltabes Surabaya, viewed 4 June 2008,


Pritchard, D.E.,1996. ‘Environmental Impact Assessment: Towards Guidelines for Adoption under the Ramsar Convention’, the 6th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties in Brisbane, Australia, viewed 3 June 2008,
<http://ramsar.org/archives/archives_pritchard.htm>

Shepherd, A. & Bowler, C., 1997. ‘Beyond the Requirements: Improving Public Participation in EIA’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 725-738.

Silaban, T. 2007, Kali Surabaya Kritis, Beban Berat PDAM, Wordpress, viewed 2 June 2008,
<http://www.togarsilaban.com/2007/10/31/kali-surabaya-kritis-beban-berat-pdam/>

Webler, T., Kastenholz, H., & Renn, O., 1995. ’Public Participation in Impact Assessment: A Social Learning Perspective’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 15, pp. 443-463.

Win, E., 2004.’”If It Doesn’t Fit on the Blue Square It’s Out!” An Open Letter to My Donor Friend’ in Inclusive Aid: Changing Power and Relationships in International Development, Earthscan, London.



The World Bank 2008. Proposed Project Expanding Piped Water Supply to Surabaya’s Poor Households, viewed 26 May 2008,


Zwarteveen, M.Z., 1997. ’Water: From Basic Need to Commodity: A Discussion on Gender and Water Rights in the Context of Irrigation’, World Development, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 1335-1349.
[1] According to observation and research of the writer while working at Women Empowerment Organisation, Brawijaya University, East Java, Indonesia, about women and water in Surabaya in 2002.
[2] According to observation and research of the writer, about women and water in Surabaya in 2002.
[3]According to observation and research of the writer, about women and water in Surabaya in 2002.

[4] From personal photos’ collection
[5] According to observation and research of the writer while working at Women Empowerment Organisation, Brawijaya University, East Java, Indonesia, about women and water in Surabaya in 2002.
[6] According to observation and research of the writer while working at Women Empowerment Organisation, Brawijaya University, East Java, Indonesia, about women and water in Surabaya in 2002.

To whom the conservation project would give its benefits?
A case study of conservation project proposal by CIFOR Indonesia in Malinau,
East Kalimantan, Indonesia
by
Hesthi Nugroho

Introduction
The problem of deforestation and degradation is occurring in many tropical developing countries. The solutions to overcome these conditions cannot work well, and even failed. This is because the conflicts between governments and indigenous communities, in which the indigenous communities have felt marginalised, have affect the solution process to overcome the problem. The conservation project, which has been brought up to overcome this condition, is also being seen as a foreign project, which does not represent the rights of indigenous people in the current area, and tends to give their side to the government in legalising their action in forest extraction’s activities (Colchester 2007).

This paper will discuss and analyse the conservation project proposal in Malinau, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. The proposal project is being conducted by CIFOR (Centre for International Forestry Research) Indonesia, which is funded by ITTO (The International Tropical Timber Organisation) European Commission, The World Bank and MacArthur Foundation. This conservation project is interesting to look at, in terms of the approaches as well as the recommendations that have been delivered by the conservationists (CIFOR Indonesia). However, it does not consider the existence of the indigenous communities in Malinau who directly involve and depends on the forest resources. This type of conservation can be considered as an attempt by outsiders to gain control over land and forest resources, which at best will fail to develop local constituencies for conservation and at worst, will spark and increase conflicts (Sheil, Puri, Wan, Basuki, van Heist, Liswanti, Rukmiyati, Rachmatika, & Samsoedin 2006). In addition, by analysing this conservation project, one of the lessons that can be drawn is that to improve the planning of conservation forests, the conservationists need to integrate biodiversity inventories with information on how people value and view their natural resources, so that the conservation project will not only advance the management of forest land and forest resources but also successfully address the needs of indigenous people.

First, this paper will deliver background information of the proposed project in Malinau, Indonesia, then it will follow by the discussion of several issues that influenced the process of implementing the conservation project in Malinau such as actors and power, institutions and ecological context, while the conclusion will be drawn afterwards.

Background Information of the conservation project of Malinau,
East Kalimantan, Indonesia
Malinau is located in East Kalimantan, Indonesia and was established in 1999 from larger district, which is Bulungan (Wollenberg, Limberg, Iwan, Rahmawati & Moeliono, 2006). It lies along the border with forms part of Kalimantan and Serawak, Malaysia (Wollenberg et al 2006). Malinau forest has the richest flora and fauna species in the world (Meijaard et al 2006). The forest cover is about five millions hectares, which every hectare there is 150 to 200 species of tress, more than 10 centimetres in diameter (Meijaard et al 2006). There are three indigenous ethnic groups in Malinau; Merap, Punan and Kenyah, and most of them are farmers who practice shifting cultivation and some hunting as well as gathering, and they rely heavily on the forest products (Wollenberg et al 2006).

The conservation project, which is being proposed by CIFOR Indonesia, is planning to use in 48,000 hectares of Malinau forest (Meijaard, Sheil, Nasi, Augeri, Rosenbaum, Iskandar, Setyawati, Lammertink, Rachmatika, Wong, Soehartono, Stanley, Gunawan, & O’Brien 2006). The project is focusing on the small part of production forest that has been organised by the Indonesian Government (now is in the hand of Malinau’s government) since 1960s, and is being funded by ITTO European Commission, The World Bank and MacArthur Foundation (Meijaard et al, 2006). In realising the project into practise, CIFOR Indonesia maintains that they will collaborate with LIPI (Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia or Indonesian Institute of Sciences), WCS (Wildlife Conservation Society), and local Department of Forestry (Meijaard et al, 2006).

The objectives of this project are to give recommendations to the government and biology experts in regards to conserving the forest, improving the knowledge of conservation staff about the historical story and the current condition of the forest, and giving some ideas for further research (Wollenberg et al 2006). Meanwhile, there are several recommendations that have been made by CIFOR Indonesia, which they suggest should be put in place, such as making clear adjustments in boundaries between the protected forest and production forest, planning in road tracks of logging transportation, mapping points of logging impacts on other vegetation in the forest and the soil fertility, cutting trees in a particular direction, and ensuring roads be built 100 metres from the river (Wollenberg et al 2006). Also if the soil layer in particular area is too thin, the trees in this area should not be cut although they have high economy value, and timber should be carried by cables rather than bulldozers to avoid in destroying important species of vegetation underneath the forest area (Wollenberg et al 2006). Moreover, in the project’s implementation, CIFOR Indonesia is also offering help to the governments in drafting clear and strict regulations to reduce threats towards the forest resources and land, creating regulations that ban illegal logging followed by strict sanctions, and providing more modern technology for tracking down any illegal activities in the forest (Wollenberg et al 2006). Furthermore, CIFOR Indonesia states that biology experts are also to have several responsibilities, such as becoming the third party between the government of Malinau and international institutions, promote educational activities for local stakeholder about forest management, hold trainings to increase the capacity of managing the forest, give an intervention in forest management (Wollenberg et al 2006).

Nevertheless, there are several issues that influence the process of designing and implementing every resource project, such as actors, power, political economy, institutions, historical process, ecological context and knowledge (Mahanty 2008). It is important to mention the role of actors because the conservationists who run the project would know who is involved in the resource projects and what their responsibilities are (Bryant & Bailey, 1997). The distribution of power and the role of institutions, either by governments or indigenous peoples, should be known as well, because this would lead to the explanation of whether there is equal or unequal distribution of power between actors, which also determines whether the project will fail or succeed because of conflicts that might emerge from this distribution (Bryant & Bailey 1997). The issue of political economy is also important to mention in discussing any resource projects, because the pressure of economic conditions will determine the decisions of land managers and resource management goals, while the contingency of political condition will determine the management opportunities (Robbins, 2004). In other words, the changing of political and economic conditions will alter the decision-makers context and set the terms of their environment use (Robbins, 2004).

Meanwhile, the issue of institutions is important to be recognised because the contradiction of regulations that governments have applied to the resources and the traditional laws that the indigenous people have owned and practised for centuries, as well as conflicts as the outcome of this contradiction, will determine whether the implementation of the project would work well (Bryant & Bailey, 1997). Moreover, by knowing the historical process of the ownership of particular resources, the conflicts that occur today between governments and indigenous peoples can be overcome by having several activities during the operation of the project (Robbins, 2004). This also applies in mentioning the issue of knowledge in resource projects, because the designers as well as the implementers of the resource project need to understand the change in social and environment over time, how they become undesirable and how they can change (Robbins, 2004).

Before implementation of the project, they should know as well the scientific accounts, government documents and local stories about the same environment and social conditions are being formed and made powerful by state (Robbins, 2004). Thus, as the researchers, they are not only accepted but also explore the history of ideas, examine the effects of politics, and its linkages (Robbins, 2004). Furthermore, the ecological context issue should also take into account, because between the government and indigenous communities as well as the conservationists have different perception or context in a way of viewing and valuing the resources (Bryant & Bailey, 1997). For example, the government will see natural resources as a bunch of economy resources, in which the extraction of it will generate the country’s economic growth and the protection of these resources should be applied and is in the hands of the government (Bryant & Bailey, 1997). While, the conservationists would see the natural resources as unrenewable resources and, along with the government, think that the protection of these resources is very necessary for the sake of future generations (Bryant & Bailey, 1997). However, the indigenous communities see the natural resources as part of their daily activities, in which they very much depend on the resources, and see that the activities that have been done either by the government or the conservationists to be considered as threats to their rights towards the use of the resources (Bryant & Bailey, 1997). Thus, the issue of ecological context is important to be mentioned and realised in resource projects, so that the differences of way viewing at and treating the resources can be converged.

Nevertheless, from those issues above, this paper will only discuss some part of them when discussing the conservation project in Malinau. These issues are actors and power, institutions, and ecological context. This is because these issues are the major causes of conflict that occur in Malinau between the government officers and the indigenous communities. However, the writer has found strong correlation, arguments as well as articles which support the arguments for these issues, so by discussing the issues raised above will show that the proposal of a conservation project in Malinau would not work well if it is put into practice. Another reason that this paper will not discuss and explore other issues in detail is the word limitation.

Discussions of issues of actors and power, institutions and ecological context
in the process of implementing the conservation project
in Malinau, East Kalimantan, Indonesia

Actors and power
To understand the pattern of human-environment interaction and the environmental problems, we need to know the key factor of it, which is an unequal relation between actors that constitute the developing countries’ environmental crisis (Bryant & Bailey, 1997). The unequal relation relates to power that each actor has, either in lesser or greater amounts, and will influence the outcome of environmental conflicts (Bryant & Bailey 1997). In this case, one particular actor will seek ways to exert control of the natural resources over other actors. For example, monopolise the value of resources, thus the economic benefits from the extraction of this resources will accrue largely to the actor (Bryant & Bailey 1997). Power is not only about control of material practices, but also linked to regulation of ideas that attempted (Bryant & Bailey, 1997).

According to CIFOR Indonesia, the actors that should be involved in the conservation project in Malinau are the logging company which is owned by the regional government of Malinau, the local government in the Department of Forestry, biology experts in conservation, CIFOR Indonesia, LIPI and WCS (Meijaard et al 2006). Although CIFOR Indonesia has mentioned the role of indigenous communities in the use of forest resources, the necessity of participation from indigenous communities does not take into account when they plan the implementation of their project. Meanwhile, the recommendations which have been given by CIFOR Indonesia are only focused on the improvement of how to log, the trainings that should be done for the Department of Forestry staff, creating more regulations that would reduce the threats towards the forests, regulations that ban any illegal activities and giving heavy sanctions to those who breach the laws, and enforcing the biology experts to be involved more in forest management while promoted educational activities to local stakeholders about forest management at the same time; while the recommendations to the indigenous communities are none (Meijaard et al 2006). In this case, it shows that CIFOR Indonesia has failed to consider the importance of participation and involvement of indigenous communities to make sure the conservation project in Malinau works well and is sustained. This is especially when the indigenous people of Malinau are using the forest resources for their daily needs. Colchester (2007) maintains that this project is typical of only shaping the policies towards the forest resources to prioritise the conservationists’ or governments’ interests, while the rights and interests of the indigenous communities who are directly living from forests, too often have been secondary considerations or even denied.

Moreover, CIFOR Indonesia also recommends that the implementation of their recommendations, such as new policies and regulations in Malinau should be top-down for a start (Meijaard et al 2006). However, as mentioned by Bryant and Bailey (1997), this particular top-down implementation would spark the inequality of power distribution within actors, especially when it is dealing with the regulation of using the forest resources by indigenous communities. In this case, new policies from the top somehow do not take into account the customs, institutions and forms of natural resources’ ownership that own by the indigenous people (Colchester 2007). In addition, the indigenous communities also tend to suffer, because the policies that have been imposed by the government force them to relocate, while their rights to reasonable compensation for the loss of their land as well as the loss of rights using forest resources are overlooked (Colchester 2007). The government tends to exert their power to intervene in the interaction of indigenous peoples and the forest resources either to remedy the environmental problems or to support desirable environmental projects, such as this conservation project in Malinau (Bryant & Bailey (1997). Meijaard et al (2006) has mentioned that this proposed conservation project in Malinau become part of the governments’ promises to CIFOR Indonesia in doing either researches or projects in this area.

Overall, it can be seen that this project has failed to include the indigenous communities as part of the actors in the implementation of their project. In this case, the actors which are involved are limited only to bureaucrats and experts (Sundar 2001). Besides that, the top-down implementation, that they have recommended, overlooks the problem of inequality of power between the government and the indigenous people of Malinau that has occurred, which would make the friction between the government and the indigenous communities worsen. As to what Wollenberg et al (2006) mention the rights of indigenous peoples towards the use of forest resources in Malinau are already unclear and over time the conflicts of forests boundaries and issue of rights are increased.

InstitutionsRandomly, the definition of institutions is “the act or process of instituting by establishing orders, permanent laws or policies” (Webster 2008). Meanwhile, institutions can mean a custom, which for a long time has been a feature that important to some groups or society (Wordnet 2008). These two definitions are suitable in representing the institutions, which are established by the government and those which have been held by the indigenous people of Malinau for centuries. In this case, the government of Malinau has formal institutions or formal property rights towards the forest, which is issued by the Department of Forestry, legitimised by the Indonesian Government and in principle can be defended in courts of law (Leach, Mearns, & Scoones 1999). Meanwhile, the informal or customary property right, held by the indigenous people of Malinau, is legitimised by social norms and codes of behaviour, which legitimates in the eyes of local resource claimants, but illegitimate in the eyes of the government (Leach et al 1999). Moreover, formal institutions will be upheld by the government through organisational means, such as law courts, prison, and many more; while the informal institutions upheld by mutual agreements among social actors who are involved, or it can be by relations of authority and power among them (Leach et al 1999). Before the year of 1999, the government system in Indonesia was centralistic (Meijaard et al 2006). Between 1960 and 1999, larger concessions for timber in Malinau have been organised by the central government and these activities gave small benefits to indigenous people (Wollenberg et al 2006). When decentralisation reforms were introduced in 2000 through Government Regulation no. 22/1999 and no. 25/1999, the local governments are beginning to have authorities in managing their areas, in which they also have rights to allocate the log permits and release several hectares of forest area to the prospective investors, to gain their regional revenues (Meijaard et al 2006). In Malinau, the government organised their own forest company called PT INHUTANI II, which runs the logging activities as well as the marketing of the timber (Meijaard et al 2006). The forest use or spatial plans is becoming the important tool for the government of Malinau to designate the forest to be eligible for conversion into other uses, such as the zoning or mapping which has divided the Malinau forest into two categories, production areas and protected areas (Wollenberg et al 2006). However, the indigenous communities are not always informed about the governments’ plans, thus, from this condition emerge conflict as the indigenous communities have applied their own customs and ownership as well as made their own boundaries towards the forest (Wollenberg et al 2006). Meanwhile, the indigenous communities of Malinau have divided the forest into farm land, village forest, village areas and restricted areas (where all activities within the restricted area are taboo) (Wollenberg et al 2006). The main subsistence of these indigenous peoples is by becoming farmers who practice shifting cultivation and some hunting as well as gathering, which they mainly rely on the resource from the forest (Wollenberg et al 2006). The indigenous people in Malinau are also conducting activities in making herbal medicines as their main skill which they have learnt from their ancestors, and the raw materials they use for the medicines are obtained from the forest (Wollenberg et al 2006). The indigenous people have two leaders to run their own institutions, a village leader and a customary leader. The village leader has the duty to deal with any kind of dialogue and discussion with the outsiders, while the customary leader tends to deal with customs, norms and activities that indigenous peoples have done so far with the forest (Wollenberg et al 2006). The conflicts that have occurred between the local government of Malinau and the indigenous people are mainly because the regulations, that the government have implemented to forest boundaries as well as the use of the forest resources, have overlapped with the traditional regulations that have been implemented by the indigenous communities (Wollenberg et al 2006). There are several particular areas of the forest where the government banned the indigenous communities to do their usual activities in extracting the resources as those areas become protected areas according to the government’s regulation (Wollenberg et al 2006). Meanwhile, the government does the extraction of timber in the forbidden area according to the indigenous’ beliefs (Meijaard et al 2006). The conflicts become wider when the indigenous people do not obtain any benefits of the timber extraction activities which the government did (Wollenberg et al 2006), and these conflicts become even worse when there are removals of indigenous people from their village to another area so that the government can implement their plans for forest use (Meijaard et al 2006). In addition, the government of Malinau has not given any certification of land to the indigenous people as part of their acknowledgement of rights to the indigenous’ ownership (Wollenberg et al 2006). However, the indigenous people thought that the acknowledgement of their ownership rights to the forest land by the government is very important to them (Wollenberg et al 2006). The indigenous people also thought that the forest was their common property right, which all government levels should acknowledge and the outsiders should pay an amount of money into the village fund if they want to do activities towards the forest (Wollenberg et al 2006).
Nevertheless, some of the recommendations, which are being given by CIFOR Indonesia in their conservation project, state that the government of Malinau should establish stricter regulations to reduce the threats towards forest resources, there should also be a regulation that bans the illegal logging which is by giving strict sanctions, and the government should provide more modern technology for tracking down the illegal activities in the forest (Meijaard et al 2006). It can be seen that CIFOR Indonesia fails to consider the current conflicts between the government and the indigenous people in Malinau when delivering their recommendations to the government of Malinau and how these recommendations would just make greater conflicts towards the Malinau forest. CIFOR Indonesia overlooks the fact that the regulations that they have recommended cannot work effectively, because of various factors such as the inappropriate intrusion of the government policies towards the Malinau forest which have been regulated by the indigenous people, the breakdown of traditional authority towards the forest by the government, and the commercialisation of the forest (Leach, Mearns, & Scoones 1999). In addition, by giving a recommendation of regulations to the government of Malinau, means that CIFOR Indonesia is supporting the Forest Law no.41/1999 which so far has been designed to keep the indigenous people out from the Malinau forest and free the forest for government production which remains the central motive that forest staff operates (Sundar 2001). Moreover, there is no recommendations by CIFOR Indonesia in solving and bridging the conflicts and gap between the government and indigenous people of Malinau .

Ecological context
The ecological context can be referred to as the way a particular society sees, interacts and makes contribution to the environment around them (Bryant & Bailey 1997). In this case, the government of Malinau sees the forest as one with economic assets, of which the benefits generate economic growth in Malinau, thus any activities which relate to the extraction to the forest resources need to be restricted with regulations and sanctions (Wollenberg et al 2006). Meanwhile, the indigenous people of Malinau see the forest as their main resources to fulfil their daily needs and the interaction between them and the forest has been done since their ancestors (Wollenberg et al 2006). The research by Sheil et al (2006) shows that the indigenous communities use the forest to find plants that serve as foods, medicinals and craft materials. Sheil et al (2006) also mention that ancient Punan communities use a particular area of the forest as gravesites for buried their dead and considers as forbidden to enter, however this area has been converted by the government as a log site.

Referring to the conservation project by CIFOR Indonesia in Malinau, the recommendations which are being given clearly show to which ecological context of these conservationists are standing, which is at the government’s side. CIFOR Indonesia tends to support the government activities which have been done so far towards the forest along with its regulations and sanction, while ignoring the marginalisation of indigenous positions by the government in this situation. It can be seen from some of the recommendations which are being given by CIFOR Indonesia, such as the government should cut particular trees with particular diameters and in a particular direction without mentioning the thought or perception of the indigenous communities about this area of logging (Meijaard et al 2006). Although CIFOR Indonesia mentions that the logging activities should reduce the amount of impacts that have been created to the environment such as the fragmentation of the soil or the chance of destroying other vegetations that are important as the raw materials of herbal medicines for indigenous people (Meijaard et al 2006), CIFOR Indonesia does not mention at all about the need of contribution from indigenous communities that they should consider and put into the implementation of their conservation project. What CIFOR Indonesia say has been overlooked is the fact that in developing countries, the ecological context of governments towards the forest resources is always influenced by politics and economics interventions which are created by the government itself (Bryant & Bailey 1997). From a political context, the forest resources can be converted to other uses, according to the government interests or foreign interest (in which these foreign countries or companies have such large power to influence governments’ decisions towards the natural resources) (Bryant & Bailey 1997).

Meanwhile, from an economic point of view, the government views the forest as one of the economic resources that can be sold to cover the debts because of improving their country’s infrastructure or the extraction of it will generate the economic growth of their country (Bryant & Bailey 1997). Moreover, CIFOR Indonesia does not see that the ecological context of indigenous communities in Malinau is simply because their dependency towards the forest resources without any intervention of political or even economical contexts. CIFOR Indonesia should realise that recognising the ecological context of indigenous people is important for sustaining their conservation project in Malinau. Which is also viewing the environment through indigenous’ perspective or context as well as generating the conservation from what is important for the indigenous people, this conservation project not only would envisage the future forest landscape that creates a strong economy, but also continues providing the basic needs of indigenous people (Sheil et al 2006). In addition, this approach will also ameliorate the path of dialogue between the government and the indigenous communities in Malinau, which will converge the agreement about zonation, types of activities, controls and management of the Malinau forest (Sheil et al 2006).

Furthermore, CIFOR Indonesia should have also asked the indigenous communities about their desire towards the forest resources use; this means that the conservation should be built around what indigenous people find important (Sheil et al 2006). Research by Wollenberg et al (2006) shows that the indigenous communities want to be involved in any plans that the government do to the forest use as well as obtain the share of the benefits that the government of Malinau have gained from the forest products. However the agreements that the government and the indigenous people of Malinau organise should be enforced through customary sanctions, thus their position and status are being acknowledged by the government (Wollenberg et al 2006). This issue has been overlooked by CIFOR Indonesia, therefore CIFOR Indonesia should consider more to what is important locally, so that they can seek land use options which better reflect local needs and their conservation goals (Sheil et al 2006). This conservation project must seek to cope with varying interests of actors that are involved with the forest and identify the main priorities, in which later CIFOR Indonesia should try and build a consensus with the variety of user groups that are involved (Appiah 2001).

Conclusion
As the degradation of forests in the world especially in developing countries is increasing over time, many conservationists are in a race to save those remaining forests with all biodiversity in them. However, the ways the conservationists are taking to make their projects come true and, which in their point of view, successfully implemented have eliminated several important factors that should have been considered and included to the implementation of their projects. The result of this ignorance is obvious, the projects do not sustain and the friction between stakeholders which include or do not include the projects is increasing.

The conservation project in Malinau, East Kalimantan Indonesia, which is organised by CIFOR Indonesia, does not regard the indigenous communities as one of the actors who should be involved in their project. In addition, the distribution of power which CIFOR Indonesia recommends through the regulation, only focuses on the scope of bureaucrats and experts (Sundar 2001) and denied the rights and interests of the indigenous communities who are directly living in the Malinau forest (Colchester 2007). Meanwhile, CIFOR Indonesia has failed to recognise the long term conflicts between the government and the indigenous communities because of their distinctive way of instituting the forest and its resources. Instead, CIFOR Indonesia has given several recommendations of how the government should regulate the forest in which makes the conflicts even worse. Not only that, CIFOR Indonesia has also failed to recognise the different contexts of ecology which the government and the indigenous communities in Malinau have, and turn their side to the government without considering the ecological context of indigenous communities. The non-recognition of the indigenous people to become part of the project’s stakeholders, the inequality of distribution of power between bureaucrats and indigenous people that has been ignored, the conflicts because of the distinction in the way the government and the indigenous communities in Malinau institute the forest and its resources as well as their ecological context that have been neglected, will make the implementation of the conservation project unworkable. CIFOR Indonesia has neglected many important points which confirm that the conservation project that they have proposed cannot be sustained.

If CIFOR Indonesia would want this conservation project to work well and be sustained, they should consider the indigenous communities to become part of the actors or stakeholders of the project. Because by having the indigenous communities as part of their stakeholders, there would be a dialogue that exemplifies general potentials which will create more connection between the conservationists agenda and their aspirations as well as gain knowledge of the indigenous people whose their forest and resources become the target of the biodiversity conservation (Hviding, 2006). The conflicts that emerge because of the distinction in instituting the forest and the resources as well as because of the different context in ecology between the government and the indigenous communities of Malinau should have been considered as well. This is because, recognising the different views and institutions between stakeholders will help improve this forest conservation planning, in which not only addressing the bureaucrats needs but also local needs and will advance the management of Malinau forest land (Sheil et al 2006). Thus the conservation project will not be seen as another attempt by an outsider in gaining control over the forest land and the resources in it, which will lead to worse conflicts (Sheil et al 2006). In addition, the inclusion of all stakeholders means that the dialogues, which have been created during the implementation of the project, are not only recognising but also balancing indigenous needs and priorities with other demands (Sheil et al 2006). In this case, the conservation project not only creates strong local economy but also continues in providing basic needs for the indigenous people (Sheil et al 2006).

Moreover, the project should also consider the ownership and ancestral domains of the forest according to indigenous people (Colchester 2007). In which, it needs an agreement of zonation, which different activities, management and controls, between the government and indigenous communities of Malinau, and this agreement of zonation reflects the needs and a compromising between these two actors (Sheil et al 2006). There should also be an agreement in which the indigenous communities are free to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, in which also includes the right in choosing their own market the forest products from their domain as well as obtaining the right of fair prices for the products (Colchester 2007). Furthermore, the conservation project should reflect a large section of indigenous society and give constructive new alliances as well as constituencies. Therefore, the conservation project in Malinau can be valued and implemented as a locally motivated process rather than just a result of external and foreign pressures. In addition, this conservation project will be seen as a project that blending the modern scientific ecology as well as the management of the ecosystem with taking the indigenous customs into account, in which recognising the indigenous knowledge and attitudes (Appiah 2001).

References:
Appiah, M., 2001, ’Co-partnership in forest management: the Gwira-Banso joint forest management project in Ghana’, Environment, Development, and Sustainability, vol. 3, pp. 343-360.

Bryant, R.L. & Bailey, S., 1997. Third World Political Ecology, Routledge, London.

Colchester, M., 2007, ‘Beyond tenure: rights-based approaches to peoples and forests’, Forest Peoples Program.

Hviding, E., 2006. Knowing and managing biodiversity in the Pacific Islands: challenges of environmentalism in Marovo Lagoon, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Malden.

Leach, M., Mearns, R., & Scoones, I., 1999, ‘Environmental entitlements: dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resource management’, World Development, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 225-247.

Mahanty, S., 2008, ‘Resource projects and indigenous peoples’, Lecture, 28 February.

Meijaard, E., Sheil, D., Nasi, R., Augeri, D., Rosenbaum, B., Iskandar, D., Setyawati, T., Lammertink, M., Rachmatika, I., Wong, A., Soehartono, T., Stanley, S., Gunawan, T., & O’Brien, T., 2006. Hutan pasca pemanenan: melindungi satwa liar dalam kegiatan hutan produksi di Kalimantan, SUBUR Printing, Jakarta.

Robbins, P., 2004. Political ecology: critical introduction to geography, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Malden.

Sheil, D., Puri, R., Wan, M., Basuki, I., van Heist, M., Liswanti, N., Rukmiyati, Rachmatika, I., & Samsoedin, I., 2006, ‘Recognising local people’s priorities for tropical forest biodiversity’, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 17-24.


Sundar, N., 2001, ‘Is devolution democratisation?’, World Development, vol. 29, no. 12, pp.2007-2023.

Webster 2008,…..

Wollenberg, E., Limberg, G., Iwan, R., Rahmawati, R., & Moeliono, M., 2006,’ Our forest, our decision: a survey of principles for local decision-making in Malinau’, viewed 15 April 2008,
< http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BWollenberg0601.pdf>

Wordnet, 2008, ‘World dictionary’, Sederet, viewed 15 April 2008,

Global Warning

Oleh Ahmadi Addy S

Pertanyaan sederhana apa sebenarnya ancaman yang paling dekat dengan kita? Terorisme? Sebagaimana yang ditakuti separuh dunia. Coba kita lihat. Mengutip pidato Muhammad Yunus sang “pahlawan kemiskinan” dari Bangladesh ketika memperoleh penghargaan Nobel Perdamaian bersama Grameen Bank tahun 2006 bahwa 94% pendapatan dunia dinikmati oleh 40% penduduk dunia sementara 60% penduduk dunia hidup hanya dengan 6% pendapatan dunia. Separuh penduduk dunia hanya hidup dengan US$ 2 sehari. Lebih dari 1 milyar orang hidup dengan kurang dari US$ 1 sehari. Ini bukanlah rumus perdamaian.

Kemiskinan menjadi alat pemusnahan species manusia yang efektif. Kelaparan, penyakit mematikan, perang saudara, erat kaitan dengan kemiskinan. Menurut saya lebih efektif dari kematian akibat terorisme. Tapi perlu anda tahu bahwa lebih dari US$ 530 milyar oleh AS dihabiskan untuk perang Irak saja yang belum jelas tujuan akhirnya. Belum lagi Negara-negara lain yang terlibat dalam perang melawan terorisme. Terorisme memang ancaman dunia tapi kekerasan dan perang bukanlah cara-cara yang efektif. Sebagaimana disampaikan M. Yunus bahwa menyalurkan sumber daya unutk meningkatkan peri-kehidupan kaum miskin adalah strategi yang lebih baik ketimbang membelanjakannya buat senjata.

Kemiskinan menghalangi setiap manusia untuk memperoleh hak hidup layak (pangan, sandang, papan), pendidikan, kesehatan, dll. Ribuan ibu dan bayi meninggal karena penanganan kelahiran yang tak layak, ribuan balita meninggal karena gizi buruk, ribuan anak di bawah umur pemuda-pemudi harus harus bekerja sangat keras untuk sesuap nasi hanya karena putus sekolah dan tak bisa mendapat pekerjaan layak.

Dalam suatu kesempatan di Sidang Umum PBB, Presiden RI 1 Sukarno pernah meminta bantuan Negara-negara maju untuk membantu mengentaskan kemiskinan sebagai wujud tanggungngjawab akibat penjajahan yang mereka lakukan. Dan pada tahun 2000 para pemimpin dunia berkumpul di PBB dan bertekad untuk mengurangi kemiskinan sampai separuhnya pada tahun 2015. Tapi sejak perisiwa 11 September dan perak Irak sekonyong-konyong dunia tergelincir dari impian dan beralih berperang melawan terorisme (disarikan dari pidato M.Yunus).

Satu lagi ancaman serius bagi kehidupan. Jika ini bergabung dengan kemiskinan maka senjata ini sangat ampuh dalam pemusnahan spesies manusia. Pemanasan global namanya. Laporan terakhir Panel PBB untuk Perubahan Iklim atau United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) yang diumumkan di Valencia 19/11/2007tersebut menyebut manusia sebagai biang utama pemanasan global. Emisi gas rumah kaca mengalami kenaikan 70 persen antara 1970 hingga 2004. Konsentrasi gas karbondioksida di atmosfer jauh lebih tinggi dari kandungan alaminya dalam 650 ribu tahun terakhir.

Rata-rata temperatur global telah naik 1,3 derajat Fahrenheit (setara 0,72 derat Celcius) dalam 100 tahun terakhir. Muka air laut mengalami kenaikan rata-rata 0,175 centimeter setiap tahun sejak 1961.

Sekitar 20 hingga 30 persen spesies tumbuh-tumbuhan dan hewan berisiko punah jika temperatur naik 2,7 derajat Fahrenheit (setara 1,5 derajat Celcius). Jika kenaikan temperatur mencapai 3 derajat Celcius, 40 hingga 70 persen spesies mungkin musnah.

Meski negara-negara miskin yang akan merasakan dampak sangat buruk, perubahan iklim juga melanda negara maju. Pada 2020, 75 juta hingga 250 juta penduduk Afrika akan kekurangan sumber air, penduduk kota-kota besar di Asia akan berisiko terlanda banjir dan rob. Di Eropa, kepuanahan spesies akan ekstensif. sementara di Amerika Utara, gelombang panas makin lama dan menyengat sehingga perebutan sumber air akan semakin tinggi.

Kondisi cuaca ektrim akan menjadi peristiwa rutin. Badai tropis akan lebih sering terjadi dan semakin besar intensitasnya. Gelombang panas dan hujan lebat akan melanda area yang lebih luas. Risiko terjadinya kebakaran hutan dan penyebaran penyakit meningkat.

Sementara itu, kekeringan akan menurunkan produktivitas lahan dan kualitas air. Kenaikan muka air laut akan memicu banjir lebih luas, mengasinkan air tawar, dan menggerus kawasan pesisir. (Kompascyber, 11/2007).

Anda bisa membayangkan dan menggambarkan betapa bahaya pemanasan global ini bagi kehidupan. Laksana raksasa tidur yang melenakan dan siap memangsa kita dalam hitungan detik. Jauh lebih berbahaya dari ancaman terorisme. Dan lagi-lagi Negara-negara maju penyumbang emisi terbesar masih tak acuh. Beberapa Negara belum meratifikasi Protokol Kyoto, AS sebagai pemimpinnya.

Maka jika Negara-negara maju enggan untuk memerangi kemiskinan dan pemanasan global yang merupakan global warning bagi kelangsungan hidup, kita sebagai bangsa yang memiliki banyak penduduk miskin serta memiliki kekayaan alam yang berlimpah memerlukan langkah strategis sebagai agenda utama bangsa. Termasuk kita sebagai individu.

Mengejar Gerombolan Angsa Terbang (The Flying Geese

Oleh Ahmadi Addy S

Mengambil analogi dari “kebiasaan” angsa di negara 4 musim yang pada musim gugur terbang ke arah selatan untuk menghindari musim dingin dengan formasi berbentuk huruf "V" dengan satu peminpin didepan, Saburo Okita (Jepang) pernah mencetuskan teori angsa terbang (the flying geese) yang populer. Teori ini menggambarkan bahwa perkembangan perekonomian kawasan Asia Pasifik layaknya kawanan angsa tersebut dengan Jepang sebagai leadernya. Angsa-angsa lain seperti Korsel, Taiwan, dan Asteng lebih berfungsi penyedia tempat bagi industri padat karya Jepang. Industrialisasi di wilayah ini sangat tergantung teknologi Jepang. Tak terkecuali kawasan Asia Tenggara yang berada pada posisi paling belakang dari formasi ini.

Fakta lain dari “kebiasaan” itu ketika angsa pemimpin yang terbang di depan menjadi lelah, ia terbang memutar ke belakang formasi, dan angsa lain akan terbang menggantikan posisinya. Kebangkitan Cina dalam dasa warsa terakhir menjadikan Negara ini bisa saja mengambil alih posisi Jepang. Tanda-tanda kearah sana sudah jelas. Saat ini Cina merupakan salah satu Negara industry terbesar didunia dengan menyedot ketersediaan sumber daya alam dan manusia. Produknya telah membanjiri pasar-pasar di Negara-negara kawasan Asia Pasifik. Kemajuan iptek Cina telah mengalami lompatan yang sangat signifikan.

Saat ini kiblat ekonomi dunia masih sang Negara adidaya Amerika Serikat, penggunaan mata uang US dolar dalam transaksi perdagangan dunia masih mengukuhkannya sebagai barometer ekonomi dunia. Walaupun beberapa kawasan regional seperti Eropa, Asia Barat dan Timur Tengah berusaha membangun “uang regional” non US dolar.

Skandal penggelembungan asset perusahaan raksasa dunia dan kredit perumahan di Amerika Serikat telah membawa dampak krisis baru pada tahun 2008. Bursa saham dan perbankan yang menjadi anak kandung sistem ekonomi moneter menjadi yang paling terpuruk. Harga saham anjlok, beberapa bursa saham dunia tutup, pemerintah di beberapa Negara telah mengucurkan bantuan likuiditas bagi perbankan.

Situasi ini kembali menegaskan bahwa dunia sedang mencari keseimbangan baru sebagaimana dalam teori ekonomi bahwa faktor ekonomi akan terus bergerak mencari titik ekuilibrium. Beberapa ekonom dunia dan lokal memprediksi bahwa krisis ini paling tidak berlangsung selama lima tahun atau bahkan bisa lebih lama dari yang diprediksikan. Dunia juga sedang mencari leader baru dalam formasi the flying gees. Bisa Cina sebagai kekuatan ekonomi baru dunia atau Jepang yang telah lama “mengincar” posisi tersebut. Hanya saja Jepang tidak bisa lepas dari pengaruh krisis ini, karena Amerika menduduki peringkat pertama sebagai “mitra” dagang Jepang.

Saya kira kemana krisis ini akan berlanjut dan Negara mana yang akan kembali menjadi leader ekonomi dunia tidaklah semenarik pembahasan tentang posisi Indonesia dalam peta ekonomi dunia. Sebagai layaknya dalam kompetisi sepakbola maka peringkat Indonesia berada di klasemen bawah, dekat zona degadrasi. Belajar dari itu pula maka target yang perlu dipasang juga tidak perlu tinggi sebenarnya. Minimal lolos dari zona degadrasi agar tak terpuruk dalam krisis dan turun peringkat dari Negara berkembang menjadi Negara tertinggal. Ya minimal tidak menjadi bulan-bulanan Negara-negara kuat dan lembaga keuangan dunia sebagaimana krisis ekonomi sepuluh tahun lalu. Presiden SBY bahkan telah mengeluarkan pernyataan resmi pemerintah menanggapi krisis ini. Intinya saat ini kekuatan perekonomian kita jauh lebih kuat dibanding sepuluh tahun lalu. Faktanya pondasi perekonomian kita belumlah sepenuhnya pulih akibat krisis sepuluh tahun lalu walaupun secara makro indicator ekonomi (economic growth, inflation) kita jauh lebih baik, bahkan defisit cadangan devisa kita semakin kecil bahkan sempat surplus. Namun angka kemiskinan dan pengangguran absolute naik, daya beli masyarakat yang masih rendah hingga persoalan ketersediaan pangan secara nasional. Sektor riil belum terdorong secara maksimal.

Dengan asumsi kebijakan ekonomi yang berjalan sekarang dan apa yang disampaikan dari rapat kabinet minggu lalu, maka menurut saya pemerintah dalam jangka pendek/satu tahun ke depan dalam bahasa ekonomi yang sederhana perlu memperhatikan tiga ha

1. Bersama Bank Indonesia melakukan pengawasan fungsi intermediasi perbankan dalam penghimpunan dan penyaluran dana masyarakat sehingga dapat dihindari perang bunga simpanan yang berlebihan dan penentuan sektor-sektor ekonomi yang bisa dibiayai.
2. Melakukan penghematan anggaran belanja Negara pada instansi-instansi pemerintah terutama sistem birokrasi, anggaran pemilu dan pengoptimalan penggunaan produk-produk dalam negeri dan melakukan kampanye/sosialisasi dan mengajak masyarakat/swasta melalui program reward and punishm
3. Menjaga stabilitas harga barang dengan melakukan inventarisasi kebutuhan nasional dan mempersiapkan ketersediaannya terutama pangan, energi dan kesehatan.

Dan anda sebagai masyarakat umum perlu membentengi diri dalam krisis kedepan:

1. Penghematan belanja dengan mengurangi pengeluaran yang tidak mendesak (misal : rekreasi tiap minggu diganti sebulan sekali)
2. Menghindari hutang-hutang konsumtif dan pembelian barang-barang konsumsi komplement
3. Memaksimalkan penggunaan barang-barang/produk-produk dalam negeri.

Sehingga, pertanyaan Dr Frances Gouda dalam bukunya Dutch Culture Overseas: Mengapa warga sebuah bangsa kecil dan tidak signifikan secara politik di Eropa mampu menunjukkan dominasi paternalistik atas peradaban-peradaban tua seperti Jawa dan Bali. Dalam hal ini adalah praktek kolonial Belanda di Indonesia selama hampir tiga setengah abad sudah menjadi barang basi dan kita siap mengejar gerombolan angsa terbang.

Mohon Maaf Lahir dan Batin

Mungkin ada kata-kata saya yang tidak mengenakkan hati....
selama kita berinteraksi lewat blog ini

Tapi ijinkan saya, di hari yang fitri ini ....
untuk mengucapkan ....

rachman dan keluarga