Plan to map out natural resources<\/p>\n
By Indra Darmawan<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): October and November were among the busiest
\nmonths in the year 2000 for the House of Representatives (DPR).
\nExtensive sessions were held for executives and legislators to
\ndiscuss and finally approve laws on the national development plan
\n(Propenas).<\/p>\n
The schedule was hectic largely because the annual development
\nplan (Repeta-yearly breakdown of Propenas) and annual budget for
\n2001 (APBN) were also in the pipeline at almost the same time and
\nthe schedule overlapped.<\/p>\n
In the past, the usual time allocation for this kind of
\nactivity was stretched out over a year with clear sequences and
\nan ample schedule. All's done now.<\/p>\n
The government officially submitted the draft of Propenas in
\nOctober and began the long process of deliberation in DPR. Before
\nit was submitted to DPR, the draft had been circulated to various
\nparties, mostly to central ministries, regional governments, and
\nuniversities, to obtain feedback. The government even staged a
\n"road show" in selected provinces.<\/p>\n
The draft chapter on natural resources and environmental
\nmanagement contained background on major issues, national policy
\ndirections, proposed development programs and a matrix of
\npolicies.<\/p>\n
Twelve chapters in Propenas covered all development sectors
\nsuch as economics, politics, law and order, regional government,
\nreligion, education, social welfare as well as natural resources
\ndevelopment and environmental management.<\/p>\n
Does Propenas differ from the old practice of Repelita and
\nSarlita during the New Order regime? Does it shed new light and
\nhope for better planning formulation?<\/p>\n
The government and DPR have been doing this since the
\nbeginning of the first Repelita (Five-year Development Plan) in
\n1969. Nevertheless, this time, the DPR is in a far better
\nbargaining position with stronger authority and greater self-
\nconfidence, though not always smarter, compared to the
\ngovernment.<\/p>\n
The discussions often came to a near deadlock especially in
\nthe smaller and intensive working group sessions. In addition,
\nspecial sessions were held to lobby and seek compromise on
\ndisputed issues such as the level of BPPN's asset recovery rate.<\/p>\n
However, the discussion on the natural resources and
\nenvironmental management chapter went relatively smoothly without
\nmajor revisions. Perhaps both the government and DPR were
\nexhausted after engaging in heated discussion on earlier chapters
\non the national economic and political development plan, or
\nperhaps they were not interested in this "unpopular" issue.<\/p>\n
My observation seems to suggest that the DPR members did not
\nhave sufficient information and knowledge on the matter.<\/p>\n
In the sub-chapter 'background of major issues', five major
\nissues were addressed, namely:<\/p>\n
(1) the importance of local and adat (indigenous) people in
\nthe management of natural resources;<\/p>\n
(2) gradual transfer of authority in natural resources
\nmanagement to local administration;<\/p>\n
(3) people's control, accountability, and law enforcement in
\nnatural resources management;<\/p>\n
(4) the problems of increasing post-crisis poverty rate,
\ncombined with poor law enforcement, which have already caused
\ndestruction to the environment (i.e. illegal logging and
\nencroachment of protected forests); and<\/p>\n
(5) the adverse impact of excessive industrialization on
\nenvironment quality.<\/p>\n
Each issue is equally important, elaborated upon in short and
\nconcise paragraphs. One can see that these identify several
\nproblems related to the natural resources development and
\nenvironmental management and are mostly concerned with the
\npractices during the New Order era (1966-1998).<\/p>\n
The draft confirmed the management of natural resources in the
\npast was a short-sighted venture and focused on exploiting
\nnatural resources to gain foreign reserves to support high
\neconomic growth. This was done without adequate attention (and
\ncompensation) to the welfare of those living in and around
\nlocations of natural resources, and who were directly affected by
\nthe exploitation.<\/p>\n
The draft also "confessed" that the exploitation of natural
\nresources was in fact only benefiting certain people and certain
\ngroups. Indirectly, it also recommended that the government's
\nrecord of achievements in natural resources and environmental
\nmanagement had been grim.<\/p>\n
Based on those major issues, policy directions were spelled
\nout clearly to deal with each problem. They contained, however,
\nmostly similar standard actions usually found in the New Order's
\nRepelita documents such as the importance of good practices in
\nnatural resources development in order to support sustainable
\ndevelopment and for the sake of future generations.<\/p>\n
The policy directions in Propenas are derived almost directly
\nfrom the 1999 State Guidelines (GBHN) and must be understood in
\nthe context of national development planning documents which are
\nalways broad, rhetorical and standard in nature and designed to
\nserve its purpose of providing guidance for a more concrete
\nformulation of development programs, activities, and projects.<\/p>\n
Five development programs are indicated in Propenas and
\nstructured correspondingly with the major issues explained in the
\nearlier paragraph of the chapter.<\/p>\n
First, the program for the development of information on
\nnatural resources and environmental management.<\/p>\n
This includes proposed activities to improve the availability
\nof data, the importance of proper valuation of natural resources,
\nas well as open and easy access to the data.<\/p>\n
This program is crucial in the light of the formal
\nimplementation of regional autonomy, starting in January 2001
\nwhen many provinces and districts will start to rely heavily on
\ntheir natural resources to boost their income. To do so, they
\nwill need good and reliable information on natural resources
\nespecially for production and conservation purposes.<\/p>\n
Second, the program for effective management, conservation and
\nrehabilitation of natural resources to strike a sustainable
\nbalance between exploitation of natural resources for production
\nuse and protection of the environment.<\/p>\n
This should be the priority for every provincial authority at
\nall levels to ensure sustainable development. In fact, similar
\nprograms has been in place for quite a long time but have
\nperformed poorly.<\/p>\n
Third, the program to prevent and control environmental
\ndamage. This includes efforts to prevent damage caused by
\nexcessive exploitation; the application of standard environment
\nquality measures; integration of "cost to the environment" into
\nproduction cost of industries; and development of traditional
\ntechnology and other environmentally-friendly modes of
\nproduction.<\/p>\n
Fourth, the program for institutional development and law
\nenforcement in natural resources management to establish a just,
\nproper and sustainable usage of natural resources. This includes
\nproposed activities such as: enactment of a law on natural
\nresources management; improvement in monitoring, controlling and
\nsurveillance methods, especially in fishery and marine sectors;
\ndevelopment of incentives and sanctions for industries which pose
\nserious threats to the environment; developing voluntary
\nmechanisms to promote eco-labeling and ISO-14000; as well as
\nimproving control mechanisms against bio-piracy and illegal sea
\nfishing by foreigners.<\/p>\n
Fifth, the program for improvement of community participation
\nin natural resources management aimed at facilitating greater
\npublic involvement in planning, formulating, and monitoring
\ndevelopment policy.<\/p>\n
This includes capacity building programs for the local
\ngovernment officials and the community through religion, culture
\nand adat approach; protection of adat and ulayat (traditional
\nproperty) rights; protection of traditional technology; and
\nutilization of "local wisdom" in managing natural resources.<\/p>\n
Propenas was made during a transition period. The period of
\nPropenas is 2000-2004, but the deliberation and approval process
\nwas delayed until the end of the year 2000. Therefore it is a
\nsupposed five-year development plan left with only four years to
\ngo.<\/p>\n
The beginning of the fiscal year was also changed from April
\nto January. Despite these "oddities", Propenas was written in
\nmuch simpler language (and fewer pages) compared to its
\npredecessor, Repelita. It was intended that the documents should
\nbe easy to read even for the average person.<\/p>\n
The government no longer dominates the formulation of the
\nnational development plan but the authority is equally shared
\nwith the DPR. Strong commitment toward a just and sustainable
\ndevelopment in natural resources has been shown in Propenas. But
\none big question remains. Can it be implemented? Will it
\nenforceable?<\/p>\n
It all looks good on paper. But why, despite continuous effort
\non the part of the government and with increasing expressions of
\npublic concern, does the rate of deforestation still exceed 1.45
\nmillion hectares a year?<\/p>\n
Any day now, Propenas will be facing the difficult test in
\nexecuting its role in providing general guidelines for
\nIndonesia's development process as it embarks on the regional
\nautonomy drive.<\/p>\n
The writer is a post-graduate student at the Flinders
\nUniversity in South Australia and a staff member at Bappenas
\n(National Development Planning Board).<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/plan-to-map-out-natural-resources-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}