WB agencies funded roading in Aceh rainforests

WALHI: Konspirasi Global Penghancur Hutan
Jakarta, (Analisa)

Aktivis WALHI bersama dengan aktivis Asian People Movement Againts ADB, melakukan aksi demonstrasi di kantor World Bank, di, Jakarta, Senin (27/4), mengecam perilaku agen-agen neoliberalisme, seperti World Bank dan Asian Development Bank yang melakukan praktek manipulatif, seolah-olah dengan proyek lingkungan mereka di Indonesia telah mendukung penyelamatan sumber daya alam Indonesia.

Tetapi di balik itu semua, proyek-proyek yang dijalankan ternyata mendukung penghancuran hutan Indonesia. Contoh terjadi di Aceh, proyek Aceh Forestry Environment Project (AFEP) senilai US$17 juta yang didanai oleh Multi Donor Fund, yakni sebuah lembaga trust fund pasca-gempa dan tsunami di Aceh yang dimotori oleh World Bank, bukannya menjadikan hutan Aceh menjadi lebih lestari, tetapi proyek ini malah mendukung pembangunan ruas-ruas jalan baru yang membelah hutan Aceh.

Bambang Antariksa, Direktur Eksekutif WALHI Aceh, menyatakan “Proyek AFEP yang didanai oleh Bank Dunia mendukung pembukaan jalan yang membelah hutan Aceh.

Hal ini secara tertulis dinyatakan dalam pertemuan 9 Bupati/kota, bertempat di Gayo Lues, pada bulan Maret yang lalu. Oleh karena itu, lebih baik Bank Dunia segera angkat kaki dari Aceh, karena proyek yang dijalankan hanya menghambur-hamburkan uang dan melegitimasi penghancuran hutan Aceh.

Dikatakannya, meskipun pinjaman untuk sektor kehutanan [baru] sekitar tiga persen dari total pinjaman yang dikucurkan oleh Bank Dunia, isu-isu tentang kehutanan bisa dinyatakan telah membesar bersamaan dengan maraknya kontroversi tentang lingkungan yang bergolak di Bank Dunia.

Dani Setiawan dari Koalisi Anti Utang (KAU) menyatakan, untuk produksi kayu dan pembangunan jalan dan rencana kolonisasi areal hutan telah menjadi penyebab utama penggundulan hutan dan mengakibatkan dampak yang merugikan bagi masyarakat yang menetap di dalamnya.

Berry Nahdian Forqan, Direktur Eksekutif Nasional WALHI menambahkan, melihat fakta konspirasi yang dilakukan oleh lembaga pemilik modal tersebut, sudah saatnya Pemerintah Indonesia memutus hubungan secara total kepada lembaga-lembaga tersebut. (try)

[From: tanikota tanikota] The truth about climate change

tanikota tanikota spotted this on the guardian.co.uk site and thought you should see it.

To see this story with its related links on the guardian.co.uk site, go to http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/apr/27/climate-change-scientific-evidence

The truth about climate change
Vested interests have tried to spread misinformation about global warming, but scientific evidence shows urgent action is needed
John Theodore Houghton
Friday April 24 2009
guardian.co.uk

Many people ask how sure we are about the science of climate change. The most definitive examination of the scientific evidence is to be found in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its last major report published in 2007. I had the privilege of being chairman or co-chairman of the panel's scientific assessments from 1988 to 2002.

Many hundreds of scientists from different countries were involved as contributors and reviewers for these reports, which are probably the most comprehensive and thorough international assessments on any scientific subject ever carried out. In June 1995, just before the G8 summit in Scotland, the academies of science of the world's 11 largest economies (the G8 plus India, China, and Brazil) issued a statement endorsing the IPCC's conclusions and urging world governments to take urgent action to address climate change. The world's top scientists could not have spoken more strongly.

Unfortunately, strong vested interests have spent millions of dollars on spreading misinformation about climate change. First, they tried to deny the existence of any scientific evidence for global warming. More recently, they have largely accepted the fact of anthropogenic (man-made) climate change but argue that its impacts will not be great, that we can "wait and see," and that in any case we can always fix the problem if it turns out to be substantial.

The scientific evidence does not support such arguments. Urgent action is needed both to adapt to the climate change that is inevitable and to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, to prevent further damage as far as possible.

At the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the world's nations signed up to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), the objective of which is "to stabilise the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that does not cause dangerous interference with the climate system ? that allows ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, that ensures food production is not threatened, and that enables economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner." Such stabilisation would also eventually stop further climate change.

It is now recognised that widespread damage due, for instance, to sea level rise and more frequent and intense heat waves, floods and droughts, will occur even for small increases of global average temperature. Therefore it is necessary that very strong efforts be made to hold the average global temperature rise below 2C relative to its preindustrial level.

If we are to have a good chance of achieving that target, the concentration of CO2 must not be allowed to exceed 450 parts per million (it is now nearly 390 ppm). This implies that before 2050 global emissions of CO2 must be reduced to below 50% of the 1990 level (they are currently 15% above that level), and that average emissions in developed countries must be reduced by at least 80% of the 1990 level. The UK has already committed itself to a binding target to reduce emissions by that amount, and President Barack Obama has expressed intention that the United States should also set that target.

One clear requirement is that tropical deforestation, which is responsible for 20% of greenhouse gas emissions, be halted within the next decade or two. Regarding emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, the International Energy Agency (IEA) in its Energy Technology Perspectives has set out in detail the technologies and actions that are needed in different countries and sectors to meet these targets.

For the short term, the IEA points out that very strong and determined action will be necessary to ensure that global CO2 emissions stop rising (the current increase is more than 3% per year), reach a peak by about 2015, and then decline steadily toward the 2050 target. The IEA also points out that the targets can be achieved without unacceptable economic damage. In fact, the IEA lists many benefits that will be realised if its recommendations are followed.

What is required now is recognition that anthropogenic climate change will severely affect our children, grandchildren, the world's ecosystems, and the world's poorer communities, and that the severity of the impact can be substantially alleviated by taking action now.

John Theodore Houghton, a former professor of atmospheric physics at Oxford University, and founder of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, was the co-chair of the IPCC's scientific assessment working group and lead editor of its first three reports

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009.

Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited 2009

If you have any questions about this email, please contact the guardian.co.uk user help desk: userhelp@guardian.co.uk.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit guardian.co.uk - the UK's most popular newspaper website
http://guardian.co.uk http://observer.co.uk

To save up to 33% when you subscribe to the Guardian and the Observer visit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/subscriber
---------------------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail and all attachments are confidential and may also
be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify
the sender and delete the e-mail and all attachments immediately.
Do not disclose the contents to another person. You may not use
the information for any purpose, or store, or copy, it in any way.

Guardian News & Media Limited is not liable for any computer
viruses or other material transmitted with or as part of this
e-mail. You should employ virus checking software.

Guardian News & Media Limited
A member of Guardian Media Group PLC
Registered Office
Number 1 Scott Place, Manchester M3 3GG
Registered in England Number 908396

Consumption dwarfs population as main environmental threat

Note from tanikota tanikota:

It is so convenient to blame Southerner 'over-breeders' but lo and behold this timely work by Fred Pearce is a breath of fresh air. Kudos Fred Pearce!
-------

To see this story with its related links on the guardian.co.uk site, go to http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/15/consumption-versus-population-environmental-impact

Consumption dwarfs population as main environmental threat
A small portion of the world's people use up most of the earth's resources and produce most of its greenhouse gas emissions, writes Fred Pearce. From Yale Environment 360, part of Guardian Environment Network
From Yale Environment 360, part of Guardian Environment Network
Wednesday April 15 2009
guardian.co.uk

It's the great taboo, I hear many environmentalists say. Population growth is the driving force behind our wrecking of the planet, but we are afraid to discuss it.

It sounds like a no-brainer. More people must inevitably be bad for the environment, taking more resources and causing more pollution, driving the planet ever farther beyond its carrying capacity. But hold on. This is a terribly convenient argument ? "over-consumers" in rich countries can blame "over-breeders" in distant lands for the state of the planet. But what are the facts?

The world's population quadrupled to six billion people during the 20th century. It is still rising and may reach 9 billion by 2050. Yet for at least the past century, rising per-capita incomes have outstripped the rising head count several times over. And while incomes don't translate precisely into increased resource use and pollution, the correlation is distressingly strong.

Moreover, most of the extra consumption has been in rich countries that have long since given up adding substantial numbers to their population.

By almost any measure, a small proportion of the world's people take the majority of the world's resources and produce the majority of its pollution. Take carbon dioxide emissions ? a measure of our impact on climate but also a surrogate for fossil fuel consumption. Stephen Pacala, director of the Princeton Environment Institute, calculates that the world's richest half-billion people ? that's about 7 percent of the global population ? are responsible for 50 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile the poorest 50 percent are responsible for just 7 percent of emissions.

Although overconsumption has a profound effect on greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts of our high standard of living extend beyond turning up the temperature of the planet. For a wider perspective of humanity's effects on the planet's life support systems, the best available measure is the "ecological footprint," which estimates the area of land required to provide each of us with food, clothing, and other resources, as well as to soak up our pollution. This analysis has its methodological problems, but its comparisons between nations are firm enough to be useful.

They show that sustaining the lifestyle of the average American takes 9.5 hectares, while Australians and Canadians require 7.8 and 7.1 hectares respectively; Britons, 5.3 hectares; Germans, 4.2; and the Japanese, 4.9. The world average is 2.7 hectares. China is still below that figure at 2.1, while India and most of Africa (where the majority of future world population growth will take place) are at or below 1.0.

The United States always gets singled out. But for good reason: It is the world's largest consumer. Americans take the greatest share of most of the world's major commodities: corn, coffee, copper, lead, zinc, aluminum, rubber, oil seeds, oil, and natural gas. For many others, Americans are the largest per-capita consumers. In "super-size-me" land, Americans gobble up more than 120 kilograms of meat a year per person, compared to just 6 kilos in India, for instance.

I do not deny that fast-rising populations can create serious local environmental crises through overgrazing, destructive farming and fishing, and deforestation. My argument here is that viewed at the global scale, it is overconsumption that has been driving humanity's impacts on the planet's vital life-support systems during at least the past century. But what of the future?

We cannot be sure how the global economic downturn will play out. But let us assume that Jeffrey Sachs, in his book Common Wealth, is right to predict a 600 percent increase in global economic output by 2050. Most projections put world population then at no more than 40 percent above today's level, so its contribution to future growth in economic activity will be small.

Of course, economic activity is not the same as ecological impact. So let's go back to carbon dioxide emissions. Virtually all of the extra 2 billion or so people expected on this planet in the coming 40 years will be in the poor half of the world. They will raise the population of the poor world from approaching 3.5 billion to about 5.5 billion, making them the poor two-thirds.

Sounds nasty, but based on Pacala's calculations ? and if we assume for the purposes of the argument that per-capita emissions in every country stay roughly the same as today ? those extra two billion people would raise the share of emissions contributed by the poor world from 7 percent to 11 percent.

Look at it another way. Just five countries are likely to produce most of the world's population growth in the coming decades: India, China, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Ethiopia. The carbon emissions of one American today are equivalent to those of around four Chinese, 20 Indians, 30 Pakistanis, 40 Nigerians, or 250 Ethiopians.

Even if we could today achieve zero population growth, that would barely touch the climate problem ? where we need to cut emissions by 50 to 80 percent by mid-century. Given existing income inequalities, it is inescapable that overconsumption by the rich few is the key problem, rather than overpopulation of the poor many.

But, you ask, what about future generations? All those big families in Africa begetting yet-bigger families. They may not consume much today, but they soon will.

Well, first let's be clear about the scale of the difference involved. A woman in rural Ethiopia can have ten children and her family will still do less damage, and consume fewer resources, than the family of the average soccer mom in Minnesota or Munich. In the unlikely event that her ten children live to adulthood and have ten children of their own, the entire clan of more than a hundred will still be emitting less carbon dioxide than you or I.

And second, it won't happen. Wherever most kids survive to adulthood, women stop having so many. That is the main reason why the number of children born to an average woman around the world has been in decline for half a century now. After peaking at between 5 and 6 per woman, it is now down to 2.6.

This is getting close to the "replacement fertility level" which, after allowing for a natural excess of boys born and women who don't reach adulthood, is about 2.3. The UN expects global fertility to fall to 1.85 children per woman by mid-century. While a demographic "bulge" of women of child-bearing age keeps the world's population rising for now, continuing declines in fertility will cause the world's population to stabilize by mid-century and then probably to begin falling.

Far from ballooning, each generation will be smaller than the last. So the ecological footprint of future generations could diminish. That means we can have a shot at estimating the long-term impact of children from different countries down the generations.

The best analysis of this phenomenon I have seen is by Paul Murtaugh, a statistician at Oregon State University. He recently calculated the climatic "intergenerational legacy" of today's children. He assumed current per-capita emissions and UN fertility projections. He found that an extra child in the United States today will, down the generations, produce an eventual carbon footprint seven times that of an extra Chinese child, 46 times that of a Pakistan child, 55 times that of an Indian child, and 86 times that of a Nigerian child.

Of course those assumptions may not pan out. I have some confidence in the population projections, but per-capita emissions of carbon dioxide will likely rise in poor countries for some time yet, even in optimistic scenarios. But that is an issue of consumption, not population.

In any event, it strikes me as the height of hubris to downgrade the culpability of the rich world's environmental footprint because generations of poor people not yet born might one day get to be as rich and destructive as us. Overpopulation is not driving environmental destruction at the global level; overconsumption is. Every time we talk about too many babies in Africa or India, we are denying that simple fact.

At root this is an ethical issue. Back in 1974, the famous environmental scientist Garret Hardin proposed something he called "lifeboat ethics". In the modern, resource-constrained world, he said, "each rich nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In the ocean outside each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in." But there were, he said, not enough places to go around. If any were let on board, there would be chaos and all would drown. The people in the lifeboat had a duty to their species to be selfish ? to keep the poor out.

Hardin's metaphor had a certain ruthless logic. What he omitted to mention was that each of the people in the lifeboat was occupying ten places, whereas the people in the water only wanted one each. I think that changes the argument somewhat.

? From Yale Environment 360, part of Guardian Environment Network

Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited 2009

'Kompas' Kompos[Stimulus Nonekonomi - RHENALD KASALI]

Contoh lain adalah soal penanganan sampah yang berhubungan dengan lingkungan hidup. Tahun 2008, parlemen menghadiahkan UU No 18 yang mewajibkan semua TPA ditutup dalam lima tahun ke depan, dan semua sampah harus diolah.

UU ini disambut para social entrepreneur yang antara lain mengolah sampah menjadi kompos. Tahun 2008 pula, Indonesia kesulitan bahan bakar gas dan pupuk. Saat kesulitan itu, Departemen Pertanian memberikan stimulus bantuan langsung pupuk (BLP) Rp 1.100 per kg yang diberikan lewat empat BUMN agar memproduksi pupuk granul berbahan dasar kompos.

Dengan stimulus itu, BUMN membeli kompos yang sudah diolah rakyat seharga Rp 300 per kg, dan setelah diproses menjadi butiran-butiran kecil dijual kepada petani seharga Rp 500 per kg. Padahal, tanpa granulisasi, kompos itu dihargai Rp 400 per kg. BLP mungkin menaikkan kualitas kompos beberapa persen, tetapi biaya mengonversi kompos itu naik sekitar 300 persen. Lebih jauh lagi, kebijakan itu mematikan usaha pembuatan kompos rakyat dan mengganggu pelaksanaan UU No 18/2008?

Satish Kumar: Economics of Place

IN THE BEAUTIFUL botanical garden of Kolkata (formerly Calcutta) there is a one thousand year old Great Banyan Tree. It has one thousand branches. Each branch forks into two branches; one moves upwards and embraces the sky, the other drops down to put roots in the Earth and thus creates a new trunk to support the skyward branch.

Looking at this ancient tree it is difficult to distinguish which is the original trunk or the original branch. Each new trunk is grounded in its place by putting down new roots to sustain the sky-bound branches. This is one of the most amazing examples of sustainable growth: while branches spread skyward reaching for the sun and the stars, the trunks and the roots remain firmly fixed in place.

There is another great tree in England – a magnificent yew in Dartington, churchyard, Devon. Botanists believe that this yew is between eighteen hundred to two thousand years old. Almost as old as Christianity itself and the tree was there long before the church!

“What is the secret of the sustainability of this great yew?” I asked one of Dartington’s gardeners.

“The roots of this tree are as broadly and deeply embedded in place as the branches are spread wide and high in the sky. Of course, you don’t see the roots but they reflect the branches you can see,” the gardener answered.

“Is this true of most trees?” I enquired.

“Yes it is. The great oak, the birch, the Lebanese cedar you see here in the garden are all embedded in their place. They have extensive networks of roots underground. If the trees did not have a sense of place they would not survive”.

What a perfect illustration of balance, harmony and wholeness. Outward growth complemented with inward growth. If only the globalisers of the economy learned from the trees, if only the bankers, hedge-fund holders, stockmarket managers, financial experts and economists would see this relationship between inner growth and outer growth. If only manufacturers and retailers would realise that the economics of the planet has to be built on the economics of place. Economics without a sense of place should have no place. The breadth of the economy has to be in balance with its depth.

We cannot save the planet and destroy the place. We cannot serve the interest of the global community and undermine the interest of the local community. Large is lovely only if it is balanced by the beauty of the small; if we allow the small to diminish then one day the large too will perish. Large banks are facing a sorry state of affairs because they have swallowed-up small saving banks and mutual societies; we sowed the seeds of the credit crunch when we abolished the credit unions; we laid the foundation of the economic downturn when we blindly pursued the path of unlimited economic growth. What goes up comes down.

So the economy has to stay within the parameters of ecology, ethics and equity. Day and night we chant the mantra of “economy” while our ecology is in ruins, our ethics have been shelved, our principles of justice and equity are put on the back-burner.

We blindly follow the religion of materialism, we worship the god of money, and we sacrifice everything at the altar of the economy. We indulge in consumerism as if there were no tomorrow. As a result, in the short term, banks are running out of money, consumers are short of cash, house prices are tumbling and unemployment is rising. In the longer term, we face global warming, global terrorism, global poverty and population explosion.

THE CAUSE OF these multiple crises is our disconnection with the place to which we belong. Wherever we live we need to be rooted in our place. If each and every one of us took care of our place, our home, our community, the soil by which we are sustained and the biosphere of which we are an integral part, then the whole planet would be taken care of. Being embedded in a place is a prerequisite for being free to look up at the sky and embrace the world. Love of place and love of planet are two sides of the same coin; when we belong to a place we belong to the planet.

I wish everyone would join the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) movement! If every backyard were saved from motorways, airports, industrial estates, business parks and superstores then the whole country would be saved from them.

It amazes me to see that economists, industrialists, business leaders and politicians have forgotten the true meaning of economy. They only think in terms of profit maximisation and increased money supply, whereas the true economy means good housekeeping; proper management of all aspects of the home. The criterion of good house management is to ensure that all the members of the household are living in harmony with each other and the place. And of course home is always a particular place. Money is only a means to a good economy, not the economy itself.

So in order to address the root causes of the economic downturn and the recession we face, we need to revisit the theory of economics otherwise, the cycles of boom and bust will continue to infect our societies. The present financial crash and market meltdown offer us an opportunity to look deeply and design a new paradigm of sustainability. The economics of debt and derivatives is fake and fragile. Bottom-up economics based on trees and terre madre (soil), on people and place is resilient and reliable.

The days begin to lengthen as we reach the spring equinox and continue to do so until the summer solstice when we enjoy the balmy summer mornings and warm evenings – but we cannot have such long summer days for ever. After the solstice day length declines and we have to accept the dark winter nights. Only near the equator can we have days and nights in equilibrium. The challenge for politicians, economists and business leaders is to find an ‘economic equator’, a market equilibrium so that we can enjoy a “steady state economy”.

People talk about making poverty history but to do that we also have to make wealth history. The very wealthy are the other side of very poor; higher mountains are bound to create deeper valleys. A culture of equilibrium requires balance, harmony, proportionality and a sense of place. Without them we are bound to suffer boom and bust.

THERE ARE TWO roads to economic recovery. The first is the conventional road; to bail-out the banks and fuel consumerism, put more money in mortgages and hope to get back to business as usual. But the second, more genuine option is to think holistically and invest in land and agriculture, in renewable energy and practical skills. The Earth is our true bank. We are at a crossroads – which path are we going to choose? The answer should be obvious.

Economics of place is the key to a steady state economy of which Herman Daley[sic] writes so eloquently in this issue. The economy of place is also the solution to the planet crunch of which Andrew Simms is warning us in no uncertain terms. The economics of place will also prevent the nuclear nightmare about which Mark Dowie is so rightly concerned.

Let us celebrate our place and build and economics place.
SATISH KUMAR

Jejak Rekam Para Capres di bidang LH

Terimakasih Bung George untuk tulisan penting ini.
Salam kompak selalu


Rabu, 2009 Februari 11
keramaian di sekitar istana

JEJAK REKAM PARA CAPRES DI BIDANG LINGKUNGAN & PILIHAN BAGI GERAKAN LINGKUNGAN DI INDONESIA

Oleh George Junus Aditjondro(1)

(dapat dihubungi di email georgejunusaditjondro@gmail.com)

PENGANTAR:
Mana partai yang paling punya jejak rekam peduli lingkungan?
Mana capres & cawapres yang punya jejak rekam peduli lingkungan?
Dari mana para capres & cawapres membiayai kampanye mereka: dari hasil pembalakan liar, konsesi hutan, perkebunan kelapa sawit, perkebunan pulp dan kertas, pertambangan batubara, atau mana dan dari siapa?


REKAM JEJAK JUSUF KALLA, SALAH SATU CAPRES PARTAI GOLKAR:

Kepentingan JK tidak dapat dilepaskan dari kepentingan ekspansi bisnis keluarga besarnya, karena Indonesia tidak punya peraturan yang melarang konflik kepentingan jabatan publik dengan kepentingan bisnis pribadi dan keluarga serta sahabatnya.

Ada empat kelompok perusahaan yang dikuasai oleh JK (kelompok Bukaka & Hadji Kalla), iparnya, Aksa Mahmud yang Wakil Ketua MPR-RI (kelompok Bosowa), dan adiknya, Halim Kalla (kelompok Intim). Dengan demikian, ekspansi keempat kelompok itu tidak terlepas dari peranan JK dan Aksa Mahmud di arena ekonomi dan politik.

Salah satu spesialisasi kelompok Bukaka dan Hadji Kalla adalah dalam pembangunan PLTA, namun jejak rekam kelompok Bukaka dan kelompok Hadji Kalla di bidang itu tidak begitu bagus: PLTA Poso (rencana 780 MW) mulai dibangun sebelum ada AMDAL yang memenuhi syarat. Juga jaringan SUTET (Saluran Udara Tegangan Eksa Tinggi)nya ke Sulawesi Selatan & Tenggara dibangun tanpa AMDAL.

Di DAS Peusangan di Tanah Gayo, Aceh, “pembebasan” tanah di masa DOM dirasa sangat tidak adil. Tapi ada kemungkinan oposisi rakyat akan dilawan oleh PETA (Pembela Tanah Air), milisi bentukan TNI, yang sekarang membantu TNI melakukan represi terhadap rakyat dan caleg-caleg partai-partai lokal, terutama PA (Partai Aceh) bentukan GAM.

Pembangunan PLTA Peusangan I akan menghancurkan nafkah penduduk yang bertani ikan mas di karamba-karamba di hulu Sungai Peusangan. Mereka sudah dilarang oleh PLN bertani ikan mas di situ, tapi mereka masih bertahan. Belum lagi dampak PLTA Peusangan II nantinya.

Setelah berkunjung ke RRT, JK sangat berambisi mendorong pembangunan 19 PLTU berkapasitas total 10.000 MW di berbagai tempat di Indonesia. Program ini bukan mendorong pengembangan enerji terbarukan yang bersih, tapi justru mendorong pembakaran batubara yang sangat menyumbang pemanasan global. Namun tetap juga program ini didukung oleh JK.

Maklumlah, kelompok-kelompok Bukaka, Bosowa , dan Intim termasuk paket kontraktor pembangunan 19 PLTU itu. Kelompok Bosowa mendapat order pembangunan PLTU Jeneponto di Sulsel, tanpa tender (Rakyat Merdeka, 7 Juni 2006), sedangkan kelompok Intim milik Halim Kalla yang juga salah seorang Komisaris Lion Air akan membangun PLTU berkapasitas 3 x 300 MW di Cilacap, Jateng, dengan bahan baku batubara yang dipasok dari konsesi pertambangan batubara seluas 5.000 ha milik kelompok Intim di Kaltim (GlobeAsia, Sept. 2008, hal. 38).

Setelah 22 DPD Golkar mendukung pencalonan JK sebagai Capres, kita perlu lihat kiprah para pendukung JK di pucuk pimpinan Golkar, seperti Surya Paloh, ketua Dewan Penasehat Golkar. Reputasi Surya Paloh di Aceh di bidang lingkungan sangat buruk, karena Kelompok Media yang dipimpinnya membuka tambang emas, tambang batubaru, dan PLTU di Kabupaten Nagan Raya, Aceh bagian Barat, tanpa AMDAL dan tanpa menghormati pemerintah Gampong dan Mukim, seperti digariskan dalam MoU Helsinki dan UU No. 11/2006 tentang Pemerintahan Aceh.


REKAM JEJAK SBY, CAPRES PARTAI DEMOKRAT:

Jejak rekam SBY di bidang lingkungan sangat tersembunyi, sebab SBY ‘hanya’ berperan sebagai pelindung berbagai kelompok bisnis besar, terutama kelompok Artha Graha (AG). T.B. Silalahi, penasehat presiden di bidang pertahanan, juga eksekutif kelompok AG dbp Tomy Winata. Melalui mitra bisnisnya di Sumut, AG mengelola perkebunan kelapa sawit PT First Mujur Plantation di Tapanuli Selatan dan Labuhan Batu.
Artha Graha juga milik Sugianto Kusuma (‘Aguan’), pemilik PT Agung Sedayu Permai, holding company Agung Sedayu Group.

Artha Graha dan Agung Sedayu Permai banyak membangun gedung perkantoran & perumahan elit, yang tiap hari diiklankan di layar televisi.

Kurang disadari dampak lingkungan properti-properti mewah itu, yaitu:
(a) pembukaan lahannya menggusur rakyat kecil yang terpaksa bermukim di pinggir kali yang sangat tidak sehat;
(b) sangat rakus air tanah (membuat rakyat kecil tergantung pada air kemasan); dan
(c) ikut menyemburkan udara panas yang menaikkan suhu udara kota Jakarta.
Berlindung di balik nama SBY ada dua yayasan, yakni (1) Yayasan Puri Cikeas & (2) Yayasan Majelis Dzikir SBY Nurussalam.

Orang-orang dekat SBY menjadid pembina atau pengawas yayasan-yayasan itu. Ketua Dewan Pembina Yayasan Puri Cikeas = Jero Wacik, Menteri Pariwisata dalam Kabinet Indonesia Bersatu. Ketua Pengawas Yayasan Nurussalam = Brigjen Kurdi Mustofa, Sekpri SBY.

Adik ipar (Hartanto Eddie Wibowo) dan anak bungsu SBY (Eddy Baskoro Yudhoyono) menjadi fungsionaris Yayasan Nurussalam. Hartanto, bendahara, Baskoro, sekretaris.

Sejumlah pengusaha era Orde Baru menjadi fungsionaris kedua yayasan itu, seperti Sukamdhani dan putera mahkotanya, Hariadi Sukamdani (Sahid Group), serta Tanri Abeng dan anaknya, Emil Abeng, serta Aziz Mochdar (Bimantara). Sukamdhani dan Tanri Abeng di Yayasan Cikeas, sedangkan Aziz Mochdar (ipar Yayuk Habibie, adik bungsu BJ Habibie) di Yayasan Nurusalam.

Ada juga pengusaha yang berlindung di balik fungsionaris Yayasan Nurussalam, seperti Gunawan Yusuf (Makindo), kompetitor Salim Group dalam perkebunan tebu di Lampung.

Menteri Lingkungan era SBY-JK, Rachmat Witoelar, memberikan label hijau kepada beberapa konglomerat perusak lingkungan, yakni RGM, Sinar Mas, dan Freeport Indonesia, Inc.

Ekspansi konglomerat- konglomerat yang dekat dengan JK (pernah sama-sama jadi penggalang dana Golkar, seperti Arifin Panigoro, Aburizal Bakrie, Hartati Murdaya) ikut berekspansi di era SBY-JK, walaupun di tahun-tahun pertama kejatuhan Soeharto mereka masih berhutang besar pada bank-bank negara.

Kelompok Medco yang 60% milik keluarga Arifin Panigoro (40% milik Mitsui & Mitsubishi) berkembang dari migas (Sulteng, Aceh), PLT panas bumi di Sarulla (Sumut), kelapa sawit (Kalteng, Papua), paper dan pulp di Merauke (Papua), s/d rencana PLTN di Jepara (Jateng).

Namun blunder terbesar kroni-kroni JK adalah ekspansi bisnis keluarga Bakrie di bidang energi (Mega Energi Persada, Bumi Resources, Kondur Petroleum) yang mengakibatkan tragedi Lapindo bagi rakyat Jawa Timur, malapetaka lingkungan paling kurang ajar selama rezim SBY-JK!!


REKAM JEJAK MEGAWATI SOEKARNOPUTRI, CAPRES PDI-P:

Sewaktu masih jadi oposisi di era Soeharto, PDI sekutu gerakan lingkungan dalam menentang pembangunan PLTN. Sesudah jadi Presiden, tidak terdengar suara PDI-P di bidang itu.

Setelah Mega jadi Presiden, keluarga Soekarno-Kiemas, Kiemas bersaudara punya 13 SPBU di wilayah Jabodetabek, di antaranya ada yang menerobos jalur hijau.

Sony Keraf, seorang kader PDI-P yang diangkat menjadi Menteri Lingkungan di era Presiden Gus Dur, bersuara keras terhadap perusahaan-perusaha an perusak lingkungan. Misalnya, terhadap PT TPL (Toba Pulp Lestari) dan PT Freeport Indonesia. Tapi akibat desakan rekan-rekan separtai, Keraf tidak bersuara keras lagi.

Setelah diganti oleh Megawati Soekarnoutri dengan Nabiel Makarim, Sony Keraf yang masih dipilih menjadi anggota Fraksi PDI-P di DPR-RI, ia bahkan tidak bersuara menghadapi rencana tambang emas di P. Lembata, kampung halamannya, walaupun rencana itu ditentang oleh rakyat dan para rohaniwan OFM & SVD.


REKAM JEJAK PRABOWO SUBIANTO, CAPRES GERINDRA:

Dengan mengambilalih konsesi Kiani Group seluas 53 ribu ha dari Bob Hasan, Prabowo ikut melanggengkan penghancuran hutan Kaltim.

Di Aceh, Prabowo & adiknya, Hasyim Djojohadikusumo menguasai hutan seluas 97 ribu ha di Aceh Tengah melalui PT Tusam Hutan Lestari, sumber bahan baku pabrik kertas PT Kertas Kraft Aceh (KKA). Padahal pinus sangat tidak ramah lingkungan.

Di Kaltim, kakak beradik Prabowo & Hashim menguasai lebih dari satu juta hektar konsesi hutan dan tambang batubara, dan masih berencana membuka 700 ribu ha kebun aren (Warta Ekonomi, 9-22 Maret 2009, Laporan Khusus tentang Duet Bisnis & Politik, Hashim Djojohadikusumo & Prabowo Subianto).

Di Papua, Hashim, mengeksplorasi gas dari Blok Rombebai seluas 11.5900 km2 di Kabupaten Yapen , yang diperkirakan memiliki kandungan gas lebih dari 15 trilyun kaki kubik (idem), dan dapat berdampak negatif bagi nelayan di Teluk Sairera.

Masih di Papua, Hashim berencana membuka perkebunan padi (rice estate) seluas 585 ribu ha dan perkebunan aren seluas 800.000 ha di Kabupaten Merauke (idem).

Berarti, bersama adiknya, Hashim Djojohadikusumo, Prabowo Subianto sudah menguasai lebih dari tiga juta hektar perkebunan, konsesi hutan, tambang batubara dan ladang migas dari Aceh sampai ke Papua, dan masih berencana membuka 1,5 juta hektar lagi di Kaltim dan Merauke.


REKAM JEJAK WIRANTO, CAPRES PARTAI HANURA:

Hampir seluruh bisnisnya dijalankan oleh proxies, tanpa menampilkan nama Wiranto. Kalau mau selidiki kekayaannya, sebaiknya selidiki kekayaan pengurus Partai Hanura.
Sejak menjadi Pangdam V Jaya, Wiranto sering mendapat apartemen gratis di berbagai tower (menara pertokoan dan perumahan) mewah. Yang terbaru dan termahal adalah penthouse di Da Vinci Tower di Jl. Jendral Sudirman, milik Antonio (“Tony”) Munafo, Presiden Da Vinci Eropa yang sering datang dari Singapura.

Wirantolah orang yang mendorong pemekaran kembali Kodam yang dulu diciutkan oleh Benny Murdani dari enambelas menjadi sepuluh Kodam. Lewat berbagai pertumpahan darah, Kodam Pattimura dan Kodam Iskandar Muda telah lahir kembali. Setelah konflik Poso, jumlah Batalyon di Sulteng telah dimekarkan dari satu menjadi tiga.

Berbagai bisnis kelabu itu punya dampak lingkungan yang sangat buruk, seperti pembalakan liar di TN Leuser, eksploitasi kayu hitam di Sulteng dan kayu gaharu di Papua Barat, serta perdagangan liar fauna dan flora langka di seluruh Nusantara.


REKAM JEJAK SUTIYOSO:

Sewaktu masih menjadi Gubernur DKI, Sutyoso merintis program Busway (Transjakarta) , dengan alasan untuk mengurangi kemacetan dan kepadatan lalulintas di DKI. Kenyataannya, pengambilan satu jalur jalan di rute-rute yang ramai, justru memadatkan lalulintas lain di jalur yang tersisa. Masih diragukan apakah itu mengurangi kemacetan lalulintas dan mengurangi polusi udara.

REKAM JEJAK SULTAN HAMENGKU-BUWONO X, CAPRES PARTAI REPUBLIKAN:

Banyak orang tidak mengetahui bahwa berdasarkan warisan Belanda, Sultan Hamengku Buwono (HB) X menjadi penguasa tanah di seluruh wilayah DIY, bersama Paku Alam. Semua tanah yang bukan milik pribadi orang (eigendom), tergolong SG (Sultan’s Gronden) atau PAG (Paku Alam’s Gronden).

Sultan HB X dan isterinya, Ratu Hemas, tidak punya putera mahkota yang dapat ditahbiskan menjadi Sultan HB XI, sepeninggal HB X, sehingga HB X berusaha mewariskan sesuatu yang lain kepada kelima orang puterinya.

Tiga dari lima orang puteri HB X yang telah menikah, termasuk puteri tertua (Gusti Pembayun) dan puteri kedua, menikah dengan pelaku bisnis. Berbekal tanah kesultanan (SG), puteri-puteri HB X mengikuti jejak sebagian paman mereka, menjadi pebisnis, bermitra dengan orang luar DIY.

Gusti Pembayun menjadi mitra Sampoerna Group, yang telah membangun pabrik rokok di Kabupaten Bantul, menjaring konsumen rakyat bawah, dengan merek Kraton Dalem. Kongsi itu mendapatkan alokasi tanah untuk menanam tembakau di Bantul.

PT JMI (Jogja Magasa Iron), anak perusahaan PT JMM (Jogja Magasa Mining) milik Gusti Pembayun dan pamannya, GBPH Joyokusumo (adik HB X), menjadi mitra Indo Mines Ltd, suatu perusahaan pertambangan Australia yang terdaftar di bursa saham Perth, dalam rencana penambangan pasir besi, yang akan memotong areal sepuluh desa di Kabupaten Kulonprogo, DIY. Rencana itu ditentang rakyat setempat anggota Paguyuban Petani Lahan Pantai (PPLP) Kulonprogo (Koran Tempo, 12 Nov. 2008, 12 Febr. 2009; Direct Action, Agustus 2008).

Ketika ribuan petani anggota PPLP melakukan unjuk rasa di depan Mendagri Mardiyanto dan Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan Freddy Numberi, Selasa, 17 Maret yang lalu, Freddy Numberi bukannya membela para petani pesisir tersebut. Ia menghimbau para calon korban gusuran proyek pertambangan pasir besi itu untuk “melihat ke depan”, karena kerjasama antara keluarga keratin dan kapitalis Australia itu “menguntungkan beberapa pihak”. “Penolakan warga itu hal biasa”, begitu ia tambahkan. Tampaknya kedua Menteri Kabinet Indonesia Bersatu itu tidak mau mempertimbangkan pertimbangan para petani pesisir, bahwa tanah mereka adalah tanah bersertifikat. Bukan tanah milik Sultan alias Sultan’s Gronden (Harian Yogya, 18 Maret 2009).


KESIMPULAN:

Dari uraian di atas, tampaklah bahwa tujuh orang calon presiden – SBY, JK, Megawati Soekarnoputri, Prabowo Subianto, Wiranto, Sutyoso, dan Sultan HB X -- , tidak dapat diharapkan mengatasi berbagai masalah lingkungan di Indonesia. Apa yang dapat diharapkan dari sudut pemeliharaan kelestarian lingkungan di Nusantara, apabila satu di antara mereka terpilih sebagai Presiden?

Sebaiknya kita mulai perhatikan agenda kampanye para capres dan cawapres alternatif, yang masih aktif dalam gerakan pro-demokrasi di Indonesia, seperti pasangan Rizal Ramli dan Eros Djarot, atau capres yang berasal dari partai-partai mapan, seperti Golkar, tapi berani melawan arus, seperti Marwah Daud Ibrahim dan Judy Chrisnandy.

Namun yang paling penting dan paling baik adalah: pilihlah capres alternatif yang sejak dini berani mengungkapkan siapa calon Menteri Lingkungannya, kemudian pilihlah calon presiden dan calon menteri lingkungan yang punya jejak rekam yang tetap setia pada pelestarian lingkungan, penegakan HAM, dan pemberantasan korupsi di Nusantara.

Yogyakarta, 30 Maret 2009


Catatan Belakang:
(1) Mantan Wakil Ketua Presidium WALHI; mantan Direktur YPMD-Irja; anggota Dewan Penasihat People’s Empowerment Consortium (PEC).

tanikota has forwarded a page to you from The Jakarta Post

tanikota thought you would like to see this page from the The Jakarta Post web site.

Message from Sender:

Politik

It's difficult to separate Malaysia and Indonesia: PM Najib Razak

Click here to read more on our site

Golput anak kandung ORBA

Ariel Heryanto
Pengamat politik

Agak mencengangkan, juga mengecewakan, jika hari begini orang masih bicara tentang "Golput" dengan semangat kepahlawanan menggebu. Ja­ngan-jangan ini merupakan salah satu bukti ma­cetnya kesadaran sejarah dan daya kreatif berbahasa di kalangan mereka yang merasa bersikap kritis dan progresif. Niat baik memperbaiki politik negeri ini butuh bahasa yang sepadan.

Sebagai anak kandung Orde Baru, istilah Golput mengemban beban sejarah yang sudah kelewat kedaluwarsa. Istilah itu masih bersaudara kandung dengan istilah bermasalah ciptaan Orde Baru seperti "bersih lingkungan", "Orde Lama", "gerakan pengacau keamanan", "G30S-PKI" atau "nonpribumi".

Kesadaran kritis di kalangan masyarakat terhadap Pemilu 2009 layak dihargai. Jika ada yang mau memboikot, itu sah-sah saja. Tapi alangkah eloknya jika semangat seperti itu dinyatakan dengan istilah yang lebih pas dan teliti ketimbang "Golput". Tampaknya sebagian tidak kecil dari mereka masih punya ikatan batin dengan bahasa politik Orde Baru sebagai "bahasa ibu" mereka. Ketika bergulat dalam realitas masa kini, lewat sepuluh tahun sesudah bangkrutnya rezim militer itu, mereka terbata-bata dalam logat Orde Baru.

Memang benar pada awal kebangkit­annya, hampir 40 tahun lalu, Golput me­rupakan pembangkangan yang heroik terhadap Orde Baru. Namun setiap pembangkangan merupakan anak kandung zamannya. Dan zaman itu dikuasai pihak yang digugat, bukan saja secara politik, hukum, atau militer, melainkan juga berbahasa.

Ceritanya begini. Nama Golput jelas-jelas dipinjam dari istilah Golkar yang waktu itu menjadi partai pe­nguasa. Jadi, walau ingin tampil sebagai lawan Golkar, cara berpikir dan berbahasa kaum Golput masih tidak terlepas jika bukannya bersaudara dengan Golkar dalam keluarga besar Orde Baru. Pertikaian mereka ibarat Pandawa dan Kurawa dalam keluarga besar Bharata.

Pada zaman Orde Baru, semua partai politik menjadi boneka yang baju dalamnya diobok-obok penguasa. Bahkan dalam urusan gambar lambang, semua partai dituntut menggunakan tanda gambar baku yang ditetapkan penguasa, yakni lambang gambar bersegi lima.

Waktu mendeklarasikan kelahirannya sendiri, Golput secara patuh menggunakan tanda gambar yang sama: segi lima dengan warna sepenuhnya putih. Bukan cuma itu. Golkar hanya merasa perlu berkampanye lima tahun sekali. Golput? Idem ditto bin setali tiga uang. Golput hanya bangkit dan bersuara jika dan setelah Golkar berteriak. Ada bedanya Golput dulu dan Golput sekarang?

Sebagai sebuah pranata politik formal, Orde Baru secara resmi sudah mati. Tapi rohnya gentayangan di mana-mana. Juga dalam cara berbahasa. Sepuluh tahun lalu bendera dan berbagai lambang Golkar yang lain pernah dibakar massa di jalanan bersamaan dengan runtuhnya Orde Baru. Tapi dengan gesit para tokoh Golkar berganti baju. Dan dengan sedikit kosmetik, Golkar menampilkan diri dengan identitas sedikit lain. Hasilnya lumayan. Golkar bukan selamat dari ancaman pembantaian reformasi. Usia Golkar bahkan lebih panjang ketimbang Orde Baru. Golkar malahan tetap menjadi salah satu kekuatan politik terbesar pada masa pasca-Orde Baru.

Para aktivis anti-Orde Baru? Mereka ngos-ngosan. Se­perti aktivis di era 1960, mereka yang pernah aktif di dekade 1990 sudah bergabung menjadi penggembira kubu para politikus yang dulu pernah menculik dan menyiksanya pada zaman Orde Baru. Sebagian aktivis lain yang tetap berada di luar struktur politik partai formal masih berkutat pada pikiran dan berbahasa pada tahun 1970-an: ber-Golput ria!

Pada masa kelahirannya Golput tampil sebagai konfrontasi simbolik terhadap Golkar yang menduduki tempat paling tinggi dalam kerucut politik Orde Baru. Waktu itu, selama 30 tahun, setiap pemilihan umum selalu mutlak dimenangi Golkar. Melawan Golkar berarti melawan jantung perpolitikan. Sekarang Golkar sudah tidak lagi sehebat itu. Agak mubazir jika pembangkangan ter­hadap politik masa kini, dan Pemilu 2009 khususnya, tetap dinyatakan dalam bahasa 70-an.

Pranata politik kita masa ini—khususnya di sekitar legislatif—bukan tanpa masalah. Pemilihan umum tetap diperlukan. Sayangnya, seandainya berjalan serba lancar pun pemilu tahun ini tidak menjamin akan terciptanya legislatif yang jauh lebih baik. Tapi masalah politik kita pada masa ini jelas berbeda dari masalah politik sepuluh tahun lalu ketika Orde Baru ambruk. Apalagi jika dibandingkan dengan kondisi 40 tahun lalu, ketika Golput dibangkitkan. Obat yang dibutuhkan untuk mengobatinya jelas berbeda.

Sebuah istilah yang lebih tepat selain Golput dibutuhkan untuk menyatakan keresahan dan kekecewaan masyarakat terhadap hiruk-pikuk politik Indonesia pada umumnya, dan Pemilu 2009 pada khususnya. Tapi kita terbata-bata dalam bertutur politik. Sama halnya ketika demonstran di jalanan bernyanyi. Dari zaman dulu masih saja tetap Halo-halo Bandung dan Maju Tak Gentar.

Golput lahir dari sebuah masa ketika yang "putih" dianggap suci dan murni. Apa yang "hitam" mengacu pada mereka yang dianggap kotor, bermasalah, korup, dan buruk. Mungkin ini sebabnya bintang film kita masih bertampang kebule-bulean. Dan krim pemutih kulit masih laris di toko-toko.

[From: tan tan] G20 forgets the environment

tan tan spotted this on the guardian.co.uk site and thought you should see it.

-------
Note from tan tan:

Comments on G20 from George Monbiot
-------

To see this story with its related links on the guardian.co.uk site, go to http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/apr/02/1

G20 forgets the environment
Climate breakdown, peak oil and resource depletion all dwarf the financial crisis in financial and humanitarian terms
George Monbiot
Thursday April 2 2009
guardian.co.uk

Here is the text of the G20 communique, in compressed form.

"We, the Leaders of the Group of Twenty, will use every cent we don't possess to rescue corporate capitalism from its contradictions and set the world economy back onto the path of unsustainable growth. We have already spent trillions of dollars of your money on bailing out the banks, so that they can be returned to their proper functions of fleecing the poor and wrecking the Earth's living systems. Now we're going to spend another $1.1 trillion. As an exemplary punishment for their long record of promoting crises, we will give the IMF and the World Bank even more of your money. These actions constitute the greatest mobilisation of resources to support global financial flows in modern times.

Oh - and we nearly forgot. We must do something about the environment. We don't have any definite plans as yet, but we'll think of something in due course."

The G20's strategy for solving the financial and economic crisis, in other words, is detailed, innovative, fully costed and of vast scale and ambition. Its plans for solving the environmental crisis are brief, vague and uncosted. The environmental clauses - which contradict almost everything that goes before - have been tacked onto the end of the communique as an afterthought. No new money has been set aside. No new ideas are proposed; just the usual wishful thinking: let's call the whole package green and hope for the best.

So much for the pledge, expressed in different forms by most of the governments present at the talks, to put the environment at the heart of decision-making. Though the economy is merely a measure of our engagement with the environment; though, as most of the leaders acknowledge, continued prosperity is impossible without sustainability, the communique shows that the environment still comes last. No expense is spared in saving the banks. Every expense is spared in saving the biosphere.

This suggests to me that our leaders have learnt nothing from the financial crisis. It was caused by allowing powerful agents (the banks) to exploit a common resource (the global economy) without proper control or regulation. Governments deployed a form of magical thinking: that the boom would go on forever, that a bunch of predatory psychopaths would regulate themselves, that profits, dividends and share prices could grow indefinitely even though they bore no relation to actual value.

They treat the environmental crisis the same way. Climate breakdown, peak oil and resource depletion will all dwarf the current financial crisis, in both financial and humanitarian terms. But, just as they did with the banks, the G20 leaders appear to have decided to deal with these problems only when they have to - in other words, when it's too late. They persuade themselves that getting the economy back to where it was - infinite growth on a finite planet - can somehow be reconciled with the pledge "to address the threat of irreversible climate change".

Next time this magical thinking fails, there'll be no chance of a bail-out.

www.monbiot

Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited 2009

If you have any questions about this email, please contact the guardian.co.uk user help desk: userhelp@guardian.co.uk.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit guardian.co.uk - the UK's most popular newspaper website
http://guardian.co.uk http://observer.co.uk

To save up to 33% when you subscribe to the Guardian and the Observer visit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/subscriber
---------------------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail and all attachments are confidential and may also
be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify
the sender and delete the e-mail and all attachments immediately.
Do not disclose the contents to another person. You may not use
the information for any purpose, or store, or copy, it in any way.

Guardian News & Media Limited is not liable for any computer
viruses or other material transmitted with or as part of this
e-mail. You should employ virus checking software.

Guardian News & Media Limited
A member of Guardian Media Group PLC
Registered Office
Number 1 Scott Place, Manchester M3 3GG
Registered in England Number 908396

On Speed

The difference between industry and Nature is in speed. Industrial speed always aim for maximum while Nature's speed is set on optimum. Our systems, be it economic, technologies, the built-environment or city-living should return to be set on the optimum not others. And this essentially call for acknowledging ecological limits - the carrying capacity - of our planet and design, devise and plan our living system in harmony with this understanding.

Pioner Mix-farming Drh.Tjandramukti

Jumat, 07 Mei 2004 KEDU & DIY

 Petani Terus-menerus Miskin

YOGYAKARTA-Indonesia adalah negara agraris. Sebagian besar penduduk, atau lebih dari 60%, mengandalkan hidup dari sektor pertanian. Padahal, rata-rata kepemilikan lahan pertanian, terutama di Jawa, kurang dari 0,3 ha.

Kepemilikan lahan sempit ditambah sistem pertanian yang masih mengandalkan masukan produksi tinggi menyebabkan petani berada dalam lingkaran kemiskinan tak putus-putus.

''Dengan pendapatan rendah itu, petani tak dapat menabung, meningkatkan pendidikan, dan keterampilan. Apalagi melakukan investasi untuk meningkatkan produksi,'' ujar Direktur Eksekutif Small and Medium Enterprises Development Centre (SMEDC) UGM Yogyakarta, Dr Ir Ali Agus DAA DEA.

Dia menyatakan perlu jalan keluar yang bijaksana dengan membangun paradigma baru sistem pertanian berwawasan ekologis, ekonomis, dan berkesinambungan.

Sistem itu diarahkan untuk memperpanjang siklus biologis dengan memanfatkan hasil samping pertanian dan peternakan. Yakni, setiap mata rantai siklus menghasilkan produk baru yang memiliki nilai ekonomis.

Lahan Marginal
Diharapkan dalam sistem itu pemberdayaan dan pemanfaatan lahan marginal yang masih terbentang luas di seluruh Tanah Air dapat lebih dioptimalkan. Mencermati hal itu, SMEDC UGM yang didukung para konsultan yang ahli dan berpengalaman di bidang agrobisnis, ekonomi, dan sumber daya manusia menyelenggarakan pendidikan dan pelatihan teknis manajemen mix-farming berbasis agrobisnis peternakan sapi.

Pendidikan dan latihan itu diadakan di Inna Hotel Yogyakarta sampai dengan 7 Mei 2004. Peserta adalah pemimpin dinas pertanian/peternakan/tananam pangan daerah, dinas koperasi daerah, ketua bappeda, kepala bagian perekonomian daerah, pemimpin dan anggota DPRD, pemimpin dan staf PUKK/PKBL BUMN, serta calon pengusaha di bidang agrobisnis dan perbankan.

Narasumber Dr Ir Ali Agus DAA DEA, Prof Dr Soemitro Padmowijoto MSc (pakar mix-farming), Drh Tjandramukti (praktisi mix-farming), dan Prof Dr Ir Suhardi MSc (mantan Dirjen Kehutanan). (P12-86)

Copyright© 1996-2004 SUARA MERDEKA

If you are like me - that is a cultural-exile then you may be familiar with all the 'sweet' double-standard treatments you have received or continuously receiving. The world is a beautiful place provided with everthing we need to survive and be happy about. However this is cut short by the culture of industry - a culture much much more violence any other culture that have been here on this planet.

Its Origin

Pre-industrial age

• 
  
  The Judeo-Christian cult


• 
  
  The Enlightement Era


• 
  
  Descartesian Reductionism


• 
  
  Industrial age