Dr. Jane Goodall: Accepted by the Chimpanzee Group

Dr. Jane Goodall, 57, always appears fresh and energetic. In many ways, she could even be described as graceful. When people see her, they instantly associate her with chimpanzees.

Don’t get the wrong idea—this is simply because the British-born woman has devoted her life to studying these animals. She is one of the world’s foremost experts on chimpanzees, a rare field of study. Her entire life seems dedicated to them. In December 1991, she was the keynote speaker at the Great Apes Conference in Tanjung Puting, Central Kalimantan.

There are four species of great apes in the world. The first is the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), found across West and Central Africa north of the Zaire River, from Senegal to Tanzania. Chimpanzees are known for their playful and mischievous behavior. A second species, very similar but smaller in size, is the bonobo (Pan paniscus), often called the pygmy chimpanzee. Scientists once thought there was only one kind of chimpanzee, but later discovered genetic differences between the smaller and larger types. Bonobos live at altitudes of around 1,500 meters above sea level, while chimpanzees are found up to 2,000 meters.

The third type, and the largest, is the gorilla—famous as the inspiration for the 1933 film King Kong, remade many times since. There are three species: Gorilla gorilla gorilla, found in the lowlands of western Africa; Gorilla gorilla graueri, in the eastern lowlands of Zaire; and Gorilla gorilla beringei, the mountain gorilla, which lives at altitudes up to 3,800 meters in Zaire, Rwanda, and Uganda, and is the rarest of all.

The fourth species, familiar to Indonesians, is the orangutan. There are two subspecies—Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus in Borneo and Pongo pygmaeus abelii in Sumatra. Among primates, the great apes are closest to humans, and among the four, the chimpanzee and bonobo are our nearest relatives.

***

What led Dr. Jane Goodall to devote herself so deeply to these creatures? As a child, she once traveled to Africa with her parents, a trip she funded by saving her own money. “My parents didn’t have much,” she recalled. After finishing secondary school in England, Jane worked as a secretary for the famous anthropologist and archaeologist Dr. Louis Seymour Bazett Leakey, who discovered fossils of early humans in East Africa. “For ten years, Leakey had been looking for someone suitable to study chimpanzees,” she said. He saw in Jane the qualities needed for field research and offered her the opportunity to study chimpanzees in the wild.

“At first, I knew nothing about chimpanzees,” she admitted. “So I began learning about them, and only later pursued my PhD at Cambridge.” After a year of training with primate experts in England, she began her fieldwork in a remote camp in Tanzania, studying a group of truly wild chimpanzees in the Gombe Nature Reserve.

Her patience, determination, and deep affection for the animals kept her going in the forest. At first, the chimpanzees were wary and avoided her, but Jane’s persistence matched their caution. For fourteen months she followed their trails daily, slowly gaining their trust until she could observe them from just ten or fifteen meters away without disturbing them. Eventually, the chimpanzees accepted her as one of their own. The bond grew so strong that she could even pick thorns from their hair.

Jane spent five years in Gombe conducting her research. During that time, she fell completely in love with the chimpanzees. In 1960, she established a research center in Gombe National Park that continues to operate today. To support conservation and education, she later founded the Jane Goodall Institute in 1976, based in the United States, with branches in Canada, the United Kingdom, Burundi, and Tanzania, and plans to expand to Congo, Japan, and Germany.

Her life now revolves entirely around her mission. “I live on airplanes,” she said with a smile. “I don’t have time for hobbies. But I have two dogs in Dar es Salaam, and sometimes I take them for walks. I also love listening to music.”

Two years ago, she visited pop star Michael Jackson and spent a day talking with him. “He’s a very lonely person,” she said. “He told me he wanted to write a song for me, but I haven’t heard it on his latest album.” The meeting had been arranged because Jackson owned two female chimpanzees. “It’s not good to keep chimpanzees as pets,” Jane said, “but Michael’s property is enormous—larger than many zoos.”

***

Still, what fascinates her most is not celebrity encounters but the chimpanzees themselves. “What’s most interesting about them,” Jane explained, “is their ability to make and use tools, their strong social nature, and their outgoing personalities.”

Chimpanzees are far more social than orangutans, who live mostly alone. A chimpanzee group usually consists of about fifteen individuals who know one another well. They have special friends they play or travel with. “Every day they seem to choose a companion—‘Who will I walk with today?’” she said. They love attention and applause, which may explain why they are often used in circuses.

They also use tools to find food, particularly termites and ants. They’ll use a stick about 60–70 centimeters long to probe termite mounds, then lick off the insects that cling to it. They use stones weighing up to 1.5 kilograms to crack hard-shelled fruits, placing them on flat rocks that have likely been used for generations. To drink, they wad up leaves to make a sponge to soak up water.

Although orangutans and gorillas also have large brains, they rarely use tools as chimpanzees do. “I’m convinced that chimpanzees are the closest relatives of humans—not only genetically but also in intelligence,” Jane said.

***

Sadly, the species most like us is also rapidly disappearing. Today, only about 160 chimpanzees remain in Gombe National Park, and Jane estimates that across Africa there are only about 250,000 left, down from hundreds of thousands in the past. The decline is mainly due to habitat loss, a problem facing all great apes, as well as hunting for meat and the illegal trade in baby chimpanzees.

Through her institute—and, more importantly, through her compassion—Jane Goodall now does more than research and conservation. “I’m using chimpanzees as a symbol,” she said, “to help lead people toward a new way of living—one that values all life.”

(By Harry Surjadi, Kompas, 2 January 1992)

Environmental Journalism: Impactful Coverage

IN mid-July 1998, I obtained a copy of the permit application documents to import marine clay, peaty clay, and sandy clay from Singapore for mangrove rehabilitation in Teluk Pelambung and the reclamation of Nipah Island, Riau Islands (at that time, the Riau Islands were still part of Riau Province).

PT Madya Kertaraharja (PT MK) and PT Dwikaryanda Pratama (PT DP), two companies under the National Maritime Council, submitted licensing applications to Bapedal (Environmental Impact Management Agency), a part of the Ministry of Environment. PT MK would rehabilitate the mangrove in Teluk Pelambung, while PT DP would reclaim Nipah Island, the outermost island bordering Singapore.

The plan seemed somewhat nonsensical. Why? Because Singapore was actively reclaiming its islands with sand imported from the Riau Islands and Nipah Island. Singapore had also faced sanctions for dumping hazardous waste (B3) in the waters of the Riau Islands.

On July 3, 1998, the Minister of Environment/Head of Bapedal, Panangian Siregar, issued a recommendation letter to import excavation materials from Singapore for mangrove rehabilitation in Teluk Pelambung, Tanjung Balai Karimun, Riau.

“Bapedal has designated the import of marine clay, peaty clay, and sandy clay from Singapore as a priority because the use of culture media for mangrove rehabilitation in Teluk Pelambung, Tanjung Balai Karimun is very important,” part of the recommendation letter signed by Panangian Siregar on July 3, 1998, stated.

How do environmental journalists cover environmental issues? What is the definition of environmental journalism? Is coverage of environmental issues the same as coverage of other issues, such as health, social, and criminal issues?

In simple terms, journalists view environmental coverage as merely a different topic. Typically, journalists see environmental coverage as science reporting, pollution issues, and flood or other disaster-related problems. Consequently, environmental coverage is more driven by events. If there’s a flood, a case of factory pollution, or deforestation, then there’s environmental coverage.

Environmental accidents – such as landslides and floods – cannot be seen as isolated incidents. There are environmental conditions that are either neglected or ignored, leading to landslides and floods.

How should the plan to import mangrove rehabilitation materials from Singapore that are not related to any specific event be ideally covered?

Environmental journalists must adopt a different mindset from regular journalists.

The proposal to import mangrove rehabilitation materials indicates a positive activity: the importing company doesn’t have to pay (including transportation costs), and once the mangroves are rehabilitated and the former tin mining holes on Nipah Island are reclaimed, the land will be turned into a tourist resort. Journalists not accustomed to covering environmental issues report that mangrove rehabilitation and island reclamation activities are profitable business ventures.

Environmental journalists do not adhere to the frames provided by import companies: profitable business activities that are good for the environment. Rehabilitating mangroves and reclaiming former tin mining lakes are beneficial environmental activities.

Journalists who want to cover environmental issues must think more critically. Consider: why is Singapore, which is actively reclaiming its coast, providing free materials for mangrove rehabilitation and island reclamation? Perhaps there are ulterior motives.

I follow Michael Frome’s definition of environmental journalism, the author of “Green Ink.” Frome writes, “I define environmental journalism as writing with purpose…” Environmental journalists must have a purpose. The project to import mangrove rehabilitation materials and island reclamation must be cancelled.

That purpose will guide what information is needed and published so that the audience – including readers with vested interests – understands and supports cancelling the plan.

Starting from the peculiarity – free materials for mangrove rehabilitation and island reclamation and Singapore’s ongoing coastal reclamation – and the possibility of other negative motives, I have a list of information or facts that the audience needs to know. The primary question for the audience is: why are these three types of rehabilitation materials free? Perhaps…

Are the materials to be imported classified as B3? Have the exporting companies in Singapore obtained permission from their government? Is it necessary to import mud materials from Singapore for mangrove rehabilitation? What are the risks if the activity continues?

I interviewed the First Secretary at the Singapore Embassy in Jakarta. The Singapore government has not granted permission to export these materials. This includes the excavation materials for the rehabilitation of Nipah Island because these materials will be used for Singapore’s island reclamation.

I interviewed a mangrove expert who stated that there is no need to import materials for mangrove rehabilitation. There are plenty of materials available in Indonesia.

Meanwhile, the Governor of Riau was invited to Singapore to inspect the materials that would be exported to Indonesia. Unfortunately, the Governor received positive feedback about the materials.

One piece of information that has not been obtained is whether the imported materials do not contain B3. Eventually, a team of experts from Bapedal went to Singapore to inspect the materials to be imported. The result? The materials contain B3.

Some news reports in Kompas provided information that there have been no Environmental Impact Assessments (AMDAL) for the mangrove rehabilitation and Nipah Island reclamation activities.

This information prompted the public to protest and demand that the Governor of Riau reject the import of materials for mangrove rehabilitation in Teluk Pelambung and the reclamation of Nipah Island.

The Malay indigenous community in Pekanbaru protested at the Riau Governor’s Office and demanded that the Governor reject the import of waste materials. The Governor agreed and rejected the plans to import various materials. To this day, the plan to import marine clay, peaty clay, and sandy clay from Singapore has never materialized. Environmental journalism is journalism with the aim of generating a positive impact on the environment.

Note: The originally article in bahasa Indonesia (Jurnalisme Lingkungan: Liputan Berdampak) was published at Betahita.id

Jurnalisme Lingkungan: Liputan Berdampak

PERTENGAHAN Juli 1998, saya dapat kopian dokumen pengajuan izin mengimpor marine clay (lumpur laut), peaty clay (lumpur rawa), dan sandy clay (lumpur berpasir) dari Singapura untuk bahan rehabilitasi mangrove di Teluk Pelambung dan reklamasi Pulau Nipah, Kepulauan Riau (waktu itu Kepulauan Riau masih menjadi bagian dari Provinsi Riau).

PT Madya Kertaraharja (PT MK) dan  PT Dwikaryanda Pratama (PT DP), dua perusahaan di bawah Dewan Kelautan Nasional, yang mengajukan perizinan dari Bapedal (Badan Pengendalian Dampak Lingkungan), bagian dari Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup. PT MK akan merehabilitasi mangrove di Teluk Pelambung dan PT DP akan mereklamasi Pulau Nipah, pulau terluar di perbatasan dengan Singapura.

Rencana itu agak tidak masuk di akal. Mengapa? Singapura sedang giat-giatnya mereklamasi pulaunya dengan pasir yang diimpor dari Kepulauan Riau dan Pulau Nipah. Singapura juga pernah terkena sanksi karena membuang limbah bahan beracun berbahaya (B3) di perairan Kepulauan Riau.

Tanggal 3 Juli 1998, Menteri Lingkungan Hidup/Kepala Bapedal, Panangian Siregar, mengeluarkan surat rekomendasi untuk mengimpor bahan galian dari Singapura untuk merehabilitasi mangrove di Teluk Pelambung, Tanjung Balai Karimun, Riau.

“Bapedal telah menetapkan impor marine clay, peaty clay, dan sandy clay dari Singapura menjadi prioritas karena penggunaan media kultur rehabilitasi mangrove di Teluk Pelambung, Tanjungbalai Karimun sangat penting,” demikian sebagian isi surat rekomendasi yang ditandantangani Panangian Siregar, 3 Juli 1998.

Bagaimana jurnalis lingkungan meliput persoalan lingkungan? Apa definisi jurnalisme lingkungan? Apakah liputan isu lingkungan sama dengan liputan isu lainnya, seperti isu kesehatan, isu sosial, dan kriminal?

Secara sederhana para jurnalis melihat liputan persoalan lingkungan hanya berbeda bahasan saja. Umumnya jurnalis melihat liputan lingkungan adalah liputan sains, pencemaran, dan persoalan banjir atau bencana lainnya. Akibatnya, liputan lingkungan lebih didorong kalau ada peristiwa. Kalau ada banjir, kasus pencemaran pabrik, penebangan hutan, baru ada liputan lingkungan.

Kecelakaan lingkungan – misalnya longsor dan banjir – tidak bisa dilihat sebagai satu peristiwa saja. Ada kondisi lingkungan yang dibiarkan atau diabaikan sehingga terjadi longsor dan banjir.

Bagaimana idealnya meliput rencana impor bahan-bahan rehabilitasi mangrove dari Singapura yang tidak terkait dengan peristiwa?

Jurnalis lingkungan harus membangun cara berpikir berbeda dengan jurnalis biasanya.

Proposal impor bahan rehabilitasi mangrove menunjukkan kegiatan yang bagus: perusahaan pengimpor tidak harus membayar (termasuk membayar biaya transportasi), kalau sudah mangrove direhabilitasi dan lubang-lubang bekas tambang timah Pulau Nipah sudah direklamasi lahannya akan dijadikan resor wisata. Jurnalis yang tidak biasa meliput lingkungan melaporkan kegiatan rehabilitasi mangrove dan reklamasi pulau adalah kegiatan bisnis yang menguntungkan.

Jurnalis lingkungan tidak mengikuti frame yang diberikan oleh perusahaan importir: kegiatan bisnis yang menguntungkan dan baik untuk lingkungan. Merehabilitasi mangrove dan mereklamasi danau-danau bekas tambang timah adalah kegiatan yang baik untuk lingkungan.

Jurnalis yang ingin meliput isu lingkungan harus berpikir lebih kritis. Pikirkan: mengapa Singapura yang sedang mereklamasi pantai memperluas pulaunya malah menggratiskan bahan-bahan untuk rehabilitas mangrove dan reklamasi pulau. Jangan-jangan ada tujuan tidak baik.

Saya mengikuti definisi jurnalisme lingkungan menurut Michael Frome, penulis buku “Green Ink. ” Frome menulis, “I define environmental journalism as writing with purpose…” (Saya mendefinisikan jurnalisme lingkungan sebagai tulisan dengan tujuan…). Jurnalis peliput lingkungan harus mempunyai purpose atau tujuan. Proyek impor bahan rehabilitasi mangrove dan reklamasi pulau harus batal.

Purpose itu akan memandu informasi apa yang dibutuhkan dan dipublikasikan sehingga audiens – termasuk pembaca yang punya kepentingan – paham dan mendorong rencana itu batal.

Berangkat dari keanehan – bahan untuk rehabilitasi mangrove dan reklamasi gratis dan Singapura sedang mereklamasi pulaunya – dan kemungkinan ada tujuan negatif lainnya, saya punya daftar informasi atau fakta yang perlu diketahui audiens. Pertanyaan audiens paling utama: mengapa tiga jenis bahan rehabilitasi itu gratis? Jangan-jangan…

Apakah bahan-bahan yang akan diimpor itu termasuk B3? Apakah perusahaan eksportir di Singapura sudah mendapatkan izin dari pemerintahnya? Apakah merehabilitasi mangrove harus mengimpor material lumpurnya dari Singapura? Apa risikonya jika kegiatan itu tetap berlangsung?

Saya mewawancara First Secretary di Kedubes Singapura di Jakarta. Pemerintah Singapura tidak memberi izin mengekspor bahan-bahan itu. Termasuk bahan-bahan tanah galian untuk rehabilitasi Pulau Nipah karena bahan-bahan itu akan digunakan untuk reklamasi Pulau Singapura.

Saya wawancara ahli mangrove yang menyatakan kalau untuk rehabilitasi mangrove tidak perlu mengimpor bahan-bahan. Di Indonesia banyak material untuk rehabilitasi mangrove.

Sementara itu, Gubernur Riau sudah sempat diundang ke Singapura untuk melihat material yang akan diekspor ke Indonesia. Sayangnya masukan ke Gubernur semua baik-baik.

Satu informasi yang belum didapat yaitu apakah betul bahan-bahan yang akan diimpor itu tidak mengandung B3. Akhirnya tim ahli dari Bapedal pergi ke Singapura menginspeksi bahan-bahan yang akan diimpor. Hasilnya? Bahan-bahan mengandung B3.

Beberapa berita di Kompas memberikan informasi kalau aktivitas rehabilitasi mangrove dan reklamasi Pulau Nipah belum ada studi Amdalnya.

Informasi-informasi itu mendorong publik memprotes dan meminta Gubernur Riau menolak impor bahan-bahan untuk rehabilitasi mangrove di Teluk Pelambung dan reklamasi Pulau Nipah.

Masyarakat adat Melayu di Pekanbaru mendemo Kantor Gubernur Riau dan menuntut Gubernur menolak impor bahan buangan itu. Gubernur menyetujui dan menolak rencana impor berbagai bahan-bahan. Sampai hari ini rencana impor marine clay (lumpur laut), peaty clay (lumpur rawa), dan sandy clay (lumpur berpasir) dari Singapura tidak pernah terjadi. Jurnalisme lingkungan adalah jurnalisme dengan tujuan menghasilkan dampak positif pada lingkungan.

Note: Artikel ini sudah tayang di Betahita.id tanggal 29 April 2024 (https://betahita.id/news/detail/10169/jurnalisme-lingkungan-liputan-berdampak.html)

Empat Pertanyaan Penting Liputan Lingkungan

Semua jurnalis tahu apa 5W dan 1H yaitu kata tanya what (apa), who (siapa), where (di mana), when (kapan), why (mengapa) dan how (bagaimana). Mereka diajarkan jika menulis berita harus memenuhi unsur 5W dan 1H agar beritanya lengkap. Daftar kata tanya 5W 1H sering disebut sebagai Prinsip Kipling dalam jurnalisme. Rudyard Kipling memperkenalkan 5W 1H itu.

Prinsip Kipling itu tidak hanya digunakan dalam jurnalistik dan menulis saja. Prinsip Kipling digunakan sebagai teknik bertanya dalam penelitian normatif dan analisis deskriptif, mengumpulkan informasi dan data berbagai bidang penelitian. Enam kata tanya itu digunakan untuk memformulasi pertanyaan-pertanyaan. Di kehidupan sehari-hari Prinsip Kipling ini bisa bermanfaat juga ketika ingin memahami persoalan atau mencari solusi masalah.

Jurnalis ketika memutuskan akan meliput satu topik umumnya memikirkan informasi apa yang harus dicari dan didapatkan. Seringkali jurnalis lupa kalau tugasnya adalah mencari jawaban pertanyaan pembaca. Prinsip Kipling itu sebagai pedoman atau panduan memformulasi apa pertanyaan-pertanyaan audiens.

Khusus untuk jurnalis yang spesialisasi meliput isu lingkungan hidup dan untuk menghasilkan dampak, tidak cukup hanya memformulasikan pertanyaan pembaca berdasarkan 5W 1H, prinsip Kipling itu. Jurnalis lingkungan masih harus mencari jawaban empat pertanyaan penting audiens yaitu: 1) Why it is important? (Mengapa itu penting?); 2) What does it mean to me? (Apa pentingnya atau artinya buat saya?); 3) What can/should I do about it? (Apa yang bisa/harus saya lakukan?); dan 4) What is the point? (Apa poinnya atau apa intinya?).

Bagaimana jurnalis lingkungan memanfaatkan prinsip Kipling dan empat pertanyaan khusus untuk persoalan lingkungan agar liputannya memberikan dampak dan lingkungan menjadi lebih baik, mari kita bedah satu-per-satu Prinsip Kipling dan 4 pertanyaan khusus liputan isu lingkungan. Misalnya, reporter media cetak ditugaskan meliput persoalan limbah rumah sakit.

What = apa

Audiens ingin tahu penyakit apa saja yang ditangani rumah sakit itu dan jenis-jenis limbah atau apa saja yang dibuang rumah sakit? Apakah jenis-jenis limbah itu termasuk bahan berbahaya dan beracun? Apa bahayanya limbah rumah sakit bagi pengunjung atau pasien atau warga yang tinggal di sekitar rumah sakit? Apakah rumah sakit memiliki fasilitas pengolahan limbah cair dan limbah padat? Apakah rumah sakit memiliki insinerator untuk mengolah limbah padat? Apakah ada peraturan yang spesifik terkait limbah rumah sakit? Apakah ada teknologi pengolahan limbah spesifik yang digunakan rumah sakit? Apakah pernah ada kasus warga atau pasien terkontaminasi limbah rumah sakit?

Who = siapa

Kata tanya who atau siapa ini menjadi narasumber penting bagi reporter untuk mendapatkan jawaban-jawaban pertanyaan audiens. Daftar pertanyaan yang sudah dibuat reporter akan ditanyakan kepada narasumber penting ini.

Audiens ingin tahu siapa pemilik, direktur, manajer dan dokter-dokter rumah sakit itu? Siapa manajer lingkungan atau yang bertanggung jawab atas limbah? Siapa saja warga yang tinggal di sekitar rumah sakit? Siapa pejabat pemerintah yang bertanggung jawab mengawasi rumah sakit? Siapa ahli limbah rumah sakit? Siapa yang pernah terdampak limbah rumah sakit?

Where = di mana

Di mana lokasi rumah sakit dan berapa jaraknya dari pemukiman? Di mana limbah rumah sakit ditampung dan dibuang? Di mana limbah sisa pembakaran dari insinerator dibuang? Di mana letak pengolahan limbah atau insinerator? Di mana ujung pipa pembuangan air limbah?

When = kapan

Terkait dengan pertanyaan “apakah ada kasus kontaminasi limbah rumah sakit” – perlu dicari informasi kapan kasus itu terjadi? Kapan rumah sakit berdiri? Kapan rumah sakit mulai memiliki pengolahan limbah cair? Kapan rumah sakit memiliki insinerator? Kapan saja rumah sakit mengaktifkan insinerator? Kapan rumah sakit membuang limbah padat dan limbah cair?

How = bagaimana

Bagaimana rumah sakit memproses limbah, mulai dari pasien atau perawat membuang limbah padat (seperti pembalut bekas) dan cair (darah setelah dianalisis di laboratorium)? Bagaimana paramedis menangani limbah? Bagaimana laboran menangani limbah sisa analisis di laboratorium? Bagaimana penyakit bisa menular: dari jarum suntik bekas, perban bekas, jarum infus, udara terkontaminasi penyakit? Bagaimana (seharusnya) proses pengolahan limbah rumah sakit?

Why = mengapa

Mengapa mengetahui jenis-jenis limbah rumah sakit penting bagi audiens? Mengapa mengetahui dampak limbah rumah sakit penting bagi audiens? Mengapa limbah rumah sakit harus diolah dengan baik?

Reporter harus paham dengan baik mengenai apa saja limbah rumah sakit, sifat toksisitas limbah, dampaknya ketika terkontaminasi limbah rumah sakit. Di awal reporter harus mendapatkan jawaban apa (dari daftar “siapa”) saja limbah rumah sakit untuk bisa memahami dampak kontaminasi limbah rumah sakit tertentu.

Namanya saja rumah sakit, artinya semua penyakit ada di sana. Semua penyakit infeksi seperti hepatitis, HIV/AID, semua penyakit karena virus dan bakteri menjadi sumber pencemar. Pemahaman itu didapatkan setelah ada jawaban pertanyaan “what.”

Mengacu pada tulisan saya sebelumnya “Jurnalisme Lingkungan: Liputan Berdampak” – liputan lingkungan harus menghasilkan dampak. Agar liputan berdampak, jurnalis harus mulai dengan tujuan atau purpose. Prinsip Kipling tidak cukup untuk menggerakan audiens. Ada empat pertanyaan audiens yang harus terjawab di setiap laporan lingkungan.

Salah satu tujuan penting dari liputan lingkungan adalah bagaimana menggerakkan audiens. Bukan tanggung jawab jurnalis beraksi memprotes agar persoalan lingkungan teratasi. Seluruh persoalan di negara ini sudah ada lembaga atau instansi yang bertanggung jawab mengatasinya. Terkait dengan liputan limbah rumah sakit target audiens penting adalah pemerintah yang memiliki wewenang mengawasi kegiatan rumah sakit yang menghasilkan limbah, antara lain dinas lingkungan hidup. Jawaban empat pertanyaan penting ini bisa mendorong mereka yang bertanggung jawab bergerak.

Jika instansi pemerintah tetap tidak bergerak. Jawaban empat pertanyaan ini bisa mendorong target audiens lainnya untuk “memaksa” instansi pemerintah bergerak. Target audiens lain ini misalnya para aktivis pembela lingkungan, lembaga nirlaba yang bergerak di bidang lingkungan

Why it is important = Mengapa itu penting

Target audiens akan bertanya: mengapa persoalan limbah rumah sakit itu penting. Liputan persoalan limbah rumah sakit harus menjawab pertanyaan itu secara eksplisit. Mungkin target audiens masih belum ingin bergerak. Audiens tidak merasa penting limbah rumah sakit karena mereka tinggal jauh dari rumah sakit. Mereka masih bertanya: apa pentingnya buat saya atau apa artinya buat saya?

What does it mean to me? (Apa artinya buat saya?)

Pertanyaan penting kedua ini mencoba mengikuti proses berpikir audiens setelah mendapatkan jawaban pertanyaan penting pertama: mengapa itu penting. Ketika jawabannya terlalu umum, misalnya kasus limbah rumah sakit: limbah rumah tidak dikelola dengan baik dan benar akan menimbulkan risiko penyebaran penyakit.

Jurnalis harus memikirkan jawaban pertanyaan yang lebih personal dan spesifik: apa pentingnya atau artinya buat saya. Misalnya, target audiens laporan limbah rumah sakit adalah warga yang tinggal di seputar rumah sakit. Jawaban pertanyaan penting kedua: warga di sekitar rumah sakit berisiko tertular penyakit mematikan, seperti hepatitis, HIV/AID dan penyakit menular lainnya. Jawaban itu menjadi sangat personal bagi warga sekitar rumah sakit.

Tetap saja, target audiens masih ada pertanyaan lanjutan yaitu pertanyaan penting ketiga: apa yang dapat atau harus saya perbuat.

What can/should I do about it? (Apa yang bisa/harus saya perbuat?)

Di dalam laporan liputan lingkungan secara eksplisit harus ada jawaban pertanyaan penting ketiga ini. Jawaban pertanyaan penting ketiga untuk kasus limbah rumah sakit: warga bisa memprotes kepada manajemen rumah sakit agar memproses limbah rumah sakit dan tidak membuang sembarangan atau protes melalui RT/RW dan kepala desa (atau lurah) agar menyampaikan kepada instansi berwewenang mengawasi rumah sakit.

Masih ada kemungkinan target audiens belum termotivasi untuk bergerak atau beraksi. Mereka masih bertanya: mengapa saya harus protes atau mengapa saya harus peduli dan beraksi. Audiens masih memikirkan untung-rugi kalau mereka beraksi, mereka mempertanyakan tujuan dan risiko jika mereka beraksi.

Laporan liputan lingkungan harus memberikan jawaban pertanyaan penting keempat: what is the point yang kalau diterjemahkan membawa makna “apa gunanya” atau “apa untungnya” atau “apa maksudnya.” Bisa jadi jawaban pertanyaan penting ketiga malah membuat mereka takut bertindak. Jurnalis harus kreatif meyakinkan target audiens untuk bertindak, misalnya, dengan memberikan fakta-fakta berupa kasus.

Kreatifitas menyajikan fakta-fakta, informasi dan data dalam format tulisan atau multimedia akan sangat mempengaruhi apakah liputan lingkungan menjadi liputan yang memberikan dampak. Tidak cukup jurnalis lingkungan tahu dan bisa mengumpulkan jawaban pertanyaan mengikuti Prinsip Kipling. Jurnalis lingkungan harus menjawab tambahan empat pertanyaan penting audiens.

Note: artikel ini tayang di Betahita.id tanggal 10 Mei 2024 (https://betahita.id/news/detail/10211/empat-pertanyaan-penting-liputan-lingkungan.html)

Four Important Questions in Environmental Coverage

ALL journalists know the 5W and 1H, which are what, who, where, when, why, and how. Journalists are taught that news writing must fulfil the elements of 5W and 1H to make the news complete. The list of the 5W 1H question words is known as the Kipling Principle in journalism. Rudyard Kipling introduced the 5W 1H principle.

The Kipling Principle is not only used in journalism and writing. The Kipling Principle is used as a questioning technique in normative research and descriptive analysis, gathering information and data in various research fields. The six question words are used to formulate questions. In everyday life, this Kipling Principle can also be useful when trying to understand issues or find solutions to problems.

When journalists decide to cover a topic, they generally think about what information needs to be sought and obtained. Often, journalists forget that their task is to answer readers’ questions. The Kipling Principle serves as a guide or framework for formulating what questions the audience has.

Especially for journalists specializing in covering environmental issues and aiming for their coverage to have an impact, it is not enough to only formulate reader questions based on the 5W 1H, the Kipling Principle. Environmental journalists still need to seek answers to four important audience questions: 1) Why it is important?; 2) What does it mean to me?; 3) What can/should I do about it?; and 4) What is the point?.

To understand how environmental journalists utilize the Kipling Principle and the four specific questions for environmental issues to make their coverage impactful and improve the environment, let’s dissect the Kipling Principle and the 4 specific questions for environmental coverage one by one. For example, a print media reporter is assigned to cover the issue of hospital waste.

What: The audience wants to know what diseases are treated in that hospital and what types of waste or what is disposed of by the hospital? Does the type of waste include hazardous and toxic materials? What are the dangers of hospital waste to visitors, patients, or residents living near the hospital? What kind of facilities for treating liquid and solid waste does the hospital have? What technology does the hospital have to process the solid waste? What are regulations regarding hospital waste? What kind of specific waste treatment technologies used by the hospital? Have there been cases of residents or patients being contaminated by hospital waste?

Who: The question word “who” becomes an important source for reporters to get answers to audience questions. The list of questions prepared by the reporter will be asked to these important sources.

The audience wants to know who the owners, directors, managers, and doctors of that hospital are? Who is the environmental manager or person responsible for waste? Who are the residents living around the hospital? Who are the government officials responsible for overseeing the hospital? Who are the hospital waste experts? Who has been affected by hospital waste?

Where: Where is the hospital located and how far is it from residential areas? Where is the hospital waste stored and disposed of? Where are the residues from the incinerator disposed of? Where is the waste treatment or incinerator located? Where is the end of the wastewater disposal pipe?

When: Regarding the question “are there cases of hospital waste contamination” – it is necessary to find out when that case occurred? When was the hospital established? When did the hospital start treating wastewater? When did the hospital acquire the incinerator? When does the hospital activate the incinerator? When does the hospital dispose of solid and liquid waste?

How: How does the hospital process waste, starting from patients or nurses disposing of solid waste (such as used pads) and liquid waste (e.g. blood after analysis in the laboratory)? How do paramedics handle waste? How do laboratory technicians handle residual waste from laboratory analysis? How can diseases be transmitted: from used needles, used bandages, infusion needles, air contaminated with diseases? How (should) the hospital waste processing process be?

Why: Why is knowing the types of hospital waste important to the audience? Why is knowing the impact of hospital waste important to the audience? Why should hospital waste be properly treated? Reporters must have a good understanding of all hospital waste, the toxicity of waste, and its impact when contaminated by hospital waste. At the beginning, reporters must get answers to what (from the “who” list) hospital waste is to understand the impact of specific hospital waste contamination.

Hospital is the place where all kind of diseases treated. All infectious diseases such as hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, all diseases caused by viruses and bacteria become sources of pollution. That understanding is obtained after answering the “what” questions.

Referring to my previous article “Environmental Journalism: Impactful Coverage” – environmental coverage must have an impact. To make coverage impactful, journalists must start with a purpose. Using the Kipling Principle as guidance for audience questions is not enough to move the audience. There are still four audience questions that must be answered in every environmental report.

One of the important purpose of environmental coverage is how to inspire and mobilize the audience. It is not the responsibility of journalists to solve environmental problems. All the problems in this country already have institutions or agencies responsible for addressing them. Regarding hospital waste coverage, the important target audience is the government, which has the authority to oversee hospitals that generate waste, including the environmental agency. The answers to these four important questions can encourage those responsible to take action.

If government agencies still do not act. The answers to these four questions can motivate other target audiences to “push” government agencies to act. Other target audiences are environmental activists, non-profit organizations working in the environmental field.

Why it is important: The target audience will ask: why is the issue of hospital waste important. Coverage of hospital waste issues must explicitly answer that question. Perhaps the target audience still does not want to act resolving the problem. Or the audience does not feel that hospital waste is important because they live far from the hospital. They still ask: what is its importance to me or what does it mean to me?

What does it mean to me: After gets the answer to the first important question “why is it important,” the audience will ask the second question – what does it mean to me. When the answer is too general, such as in the case of hospital waste: improperly managed hospital waste poses a risk of disease transmission, journalists must think of answers to more personal and specific questions. For example, the target audience for hospital waste coverage is residents living around the hospital. The answer to the second important question: residents around the hospital are at risk of contracting deadly diseases, such as hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, and other communicable diseases. That answer becomes very personal for residents around the hospital.

What can/should I do about it: Still, the target audience has further questions, the third important question: what can or should I do. In environmental coverage reports, there must be an explicit answer to this third important question. The answer to the third important question for hospital waste cases: residents can protest to the hospital management to properly process hospital waste and not dispose of it improperly or protest through neighbourhood associations and village (or sub-district) heads to convey it to the competent authorities overseeing the hospital. There is still a possibility that the target audience is not motivated to act. They still ask: why should I protest or why should I care and act. The audience still considers the pros and cons if they act, they question the purpose and risks if they act.

What is the point: Environmental coverage reports must provide answers to the fourth important question: what is the point. The fourth important question can be formulated as “what is the benefit” or “what is the use” or “what is the meaning.” The answer to the fourth important question may actually make them afraid to act. Journalists must be creative in convincing the target audience to act, for example, by providing facts in the form of cases.

The creativity in presenting facts, information, and data in written or multimedia formats will greatly influence whether environmental coverage becomes impactful coverage. It is not enough for environmental journalists to know and be able to gather answers to questions following the Kipling Principle. Environmental journalists must answer the additional four important questions of the audience.

Note: The original article in bahasa Indonesia (Empat Pertanyaan Penting Liputan Lingkungan) was published at Betahita.id

Brand Journalism untuk Komunikasi Politik di Pemilu 2024

Tidak lama lagi baliho, poster dan spanduk berisi wajah-wajah calon legislator untuk DPR maupun DPRD kota, kabupaten dan provinsi akan memenuhi ruang-ruang publik di sekitar kita. Para kandidat, dari calon legislator sampai calon presiden, akan berlomba memperkenalkan diri pada khalayak ramai agar punya kans terpilih pada pemilihan umum Februari 2024 mendatang. Dengan memamerkan wajah di baliho dan poster, mereka ingin memastikan nama dan afiliasi partai politik mereka tertanam di kepala para calon pemilih.

Selain media luar ruang, iklan politik para kandidat juga bakal membanjiri media massa—terutama stasiun televisi dan media online, baik di level lokal maupun nasional. Berdasarkan catatan AC Nielsen, anggaran untuk iklan di media, termasuk media luar ruang, rata-rata mencapai 70 persen dari total anggaran kampanye. Satu sumber menyebut belanja iklan politik di Pemilu 2019 saja mencapai Rp 2,1 triliun.

Seberapa efektif sebenarnya iklan kampanye di luar ruang dan iklan di media massa tersebut untuk meningkatkan keterpilihan seorang kandidat? Coba Anda ingat-ingat: ketika mencoblos nama seorang caleg pada pemilu lalu, apa faktor utama yang mempengaruhi pilihan Anda? Poster wajah sang kandidat di tepi jalan, atau iklan partai politik asal sang caleg di media massa? Bisa jadi, jawabannya akan berbeda-beda tergantung latar belakang Anda. Pemilih yang kadar keterlibatan politiknya rendah bisa sangat terpengaruh oleh iklan politik di televisi. Namun mereka yang intensif mengikuti berita politik mungkin bergeming dengan model kampanye semacam itu.

X

Karena itu, untuk menjawab pertanyaan di atas, penting untuk mengkaji variabel apa saja yang mempengaruhi preferensi atau keputusan warga memilih di bilik suara. Banyak riset menunjukkan bahwa variabel awal yang terpenting adalah “dikenal tidaknya si kandidat” atau awareness. Sejauh mana pemilih mengingat wajah kandidat akan mempengaruhi pilihan mereka ketika masuk ke bilik pencoblosan. Namun, mengingat nama dan wajah calon saja belum cukup untuk mendorong pemilih membuat keputusan mencoblos.

Ada variabel lanjutan yakni pengetahuan (knowledge) mengenai kandidat yang diingatnya itu. Pengetahuan mengenai kelebihan si kandidat, substansi janji yang disampaikan, serta rekam jejaknya di masa lalu jadi penting sebagai bahan pertimbangan para pemilih. Pengetahuan itu haruslah menunjukkan kualitas sang kandidat sehingga terbentuk sebuah asosiasi positif atas sang calon. Brand association yang menunjukkan kualitas si kandidat akan berperan menentukan keterpilihan.

Ketika brand association positif telah terbentuk di figur seorang kandidat, keputusan final sang pemilih akan dipengaruhi oleh makna politik apa yang bakal terbentuk di benak mereka, sebagai interpretasi atas produk politik atau janji kampanye sang kandidat. Karena itulah, kandidat petahana misalnya, selalu memiliki keunggulan komparatif dibanding pesaingnya. Kandidat ini bisa menunjukkan hasil kerjanya selama menjabat sebagai bukti keberhasilan menunaikan janji politik mereka. Karena itu, kandidat penantang baru harus punya tawaran produk politik lain untuk membangun imaji di benak pemilihnya.

Dengan demikian, setidaknya ada dua hal penting yang menjadi pertimbangan pemilih ketika menentukan pilihan politiknya di bilik suara: ada tidaknya personal brand yang menggambarkan kualitas kandidat serta kesesuaian makna politik dari janji kampanye sang kandidat dengan ekspektasi si pemilih. Kedua hal tersebut tentu tidak bisa terpenuhi hanya dengan memasang poster dan baliho di pinggir jalan. Iklan di media luar ruang semacam itu hanya bisa mendongkrak tingkat dikenalnya seorang kandidat, namun tidak banyak berperan membentuk asosiasi jenama (brand association) yang positif, apalagi membangun makna politik yang relevan di benak pemilih.

Walhasil, di era digital seperti saat ini, para kandidat termasuk para caleg DPR atau DPRD, sebaiknya tidak jor-joran membelanjakan dana kampanye mereka untuk memasang baliho, poster atau selebaran semata. Model kampanye semacam itu hanya bakal dilihat sebagai upaya membangun citra, tanpa substansi yang mumpuni.

Di sejumlah negara maju, belakangan ini ada tren di kalangan politikus untuk menggunakan piranti komunikasi baru, yang bisa digunakan bahkan sebelum masa kampanye dimulai. Piranti ini lazim dikenal dengan sebutan brand journalism. Genre ini sebelumnya dikenal di dunia periklanan sebagai bagian penting dari content marketing dengan berbagai format. Berbeda dengan piranti pemasaran yang menitikberatkan pada format konten saja, brand journalism memfokuskan perhatian pada kisah atau storytelling. Sejumlah aspek penting dari jurnalisme seperti kebenaran (truth), edukasi, manfaat untuk publik, serta transparansi juga jadi elemen penting dari brand journalism.

Dengan metode ini, korporasi mencoba membangun kedekatan dengan audiensnya melalui diseminasi kisah-kisah yang bermanfaat dan edukatif. Dalam dunia pemasaran konten, strategi ini dinilai lebih efektif dalam jangka panjang untuk membangun asosiasi brand yang positif. Secara teknis, brand journalism menuntut si pemilik brand untuk membangun newsroom sendiri yang rutin memproduksi kisah (stories) yang mewakili ekspektasi audiens mereka sekaligus menyelaraskan ekspektasi tersebut dengan tawaran produk mereka.

Di dunia politik, brand journalism bisa didesain untuk membangun personal branding seorang kandidat di mata publik. Tentu genre ini tidak murni produk jurnalistik karena brand journalism menggabungkan aspek kehumasan (public relation), pemasaran, komunikasi, dan jurnalistik untuk mempromosikan sebuah jenama (brand). Intinya, brand journalism menggunakan konten yang dibuat melalui metode jurnalistik berkualitas untuk menarik audiens, mempertahankan dan membangun kepercayaan pada brand sebuah lembaga atau individu.

Penggunaan brand journalism dimudahkan di era internet seperti saat ini. Teknologi digital memungkinkan siapa saja membangun dan memiliki medianya sendiri. Situs web seorang kandidat misalnya, bisa menjadi saluran penyampaian konten jurnalistik berkualitas mengenai sang kandidat. Jika situs web itu dikelola layaknya sebuah media profesional dengan target audiens para konstituen di daerah pemilihannya, maka asosiasi brand yang positif pun bisa terbentuk. Apalagi, konten yang dipublikasikan pun harus dibuat melalui proses jurnalistik—memenuhi syarat nilai berita (news values) seperti kebaruan, aktualitas dan faktual. Niscaya, konten brand journalism bakal lebih dipercaya publik ketimbang iklan-iklan pencitraan semata.

Tak hanya itu. Penggunaan brand journalism juga bisa membangun ruang interaksi dengan audiens (konstituen) sang kandidat. Dengan cara itu, personal branding dan pemaknaan politik seputar gagasan dan produk politik sang kandidat pun bisa terus dibangun berdasarkan fakta dan informasi konkret dari akar rumput. Brand journalism menciptakan dan mempertahankan citra sesungguhnya dari sang calon, juga menciptakan nilai-nilai spesifik pada target audiens dengan membangun komunitas dan loyalitas dari para stakeholders. Ketika menyampaikan kisah dan menguatkan personal brand seorang kandidat, brand journalism juga membangun kredibilitas berdasarkan karakter si calon dan memperluas jangkauan komunikasi dengan audiens potensial lainnya.

Ada tiga komponen utama dari brand journalism yang baik: konsistensi, multidimensi, dan setia pada disiplin jurnalistik. Konsistensi menjadi penting untuk menarik perhatian dan minat audiens. Untuk itu, brand journalism harus mempublikasikan informasi yang relevan, bermanfaat, terintegrasi dan melibatkan audiens seperti layaknya media massa. Newsroom sang kandidat secara berkala harus menerbitkan konten yang baru, yang dibutuhkan oleh target audiensnya, secara terus menerus tanpa berhenti.

Kemudian, brand journalism juga bersifat multidimensi. Artinya, dalam genre ini, publikasi konten bukan hanya komunikasi satu arah seperti praktik piranti komunikasi pemasaran lain. Dalam brand journalism, komunikasi harus berupa dialog yang menuntut ada pertukaran informasi. Informasi tentang personal branding sang caleg harus menjadi ruang informasi yang juga bermakna bagi audiens.

Komponen ketiga adalah jurnalistik. Brand journalism mensyaratkan keberadaan redaksi yang merencanakan, mengeksekusi dan menayangkan kisah-kisah baru yang dibutuhkan atau dicari oleh audiens (konstituen). Konten harus dibuat dengan disiplin verifikasi jurnalistik, mengikuti format bercerita atau storytelling yang berkualitas. Setiap konten yang dipublikasikan harus merupakan kisah atau cerita yang aktual, menarik dan dinamis mengenai sang kandidat, kiprahnya, rencana-rencananya dan interaksinya dengan calon pemilih.

(Artikel ini tayang di Tempo.co, 21 Februari 2023: https://kolom.tempo.co/read/1694129/brand-journalism-untuk-komunikasi-politik-di-pemilu-2024)

Benefits beyond boundaries: selling orchid for life

Ita Nurita Wanggai (55 years old) was showing a beautiful weird orchid. “My late husband was the first who introduced this rare orchid. He named it anggrek kribo, meaning frizzy or curly orchid. Just like our curly hairs,” she said.

The flower stalk has more than five 77 cm flowers. The sepals and petals are greenish cream with abstract red-brown markings all over, except the edges. The shape of sepals and petals is wide, twisted or distorted. People described the flower as “grotesquely beautiful.”

The scientific name of this incredible orchid species is Dendrobium spectabile. It is widely found in Papua (the eastern part of Indonesia), Papua New Guinea, and Solomon Islands.

Mrs Wanggai then was showing her other orchid collections. “These are Dendrobium discolor, Dendrobium lasianthera, Dendrobium canaliculatum.” They are also curly species orchids.

Anggrek Kribo

She has more than 200 orchid species in her small half hectare orchid garden. And she could only know 175 scientific names of her orchids.

Where did she get all of her collections?

It was Sofyan Wanggai, her late husband, who took them from the forests. In 1972 Mr Wanggai, who had a hobby in gardening, started to go to the Cyclops Nature Reserve which was not far from his hometown, Jayapura, Papua, to take orchids, while he was in service as a government officer.

In 1977, he decided to quit from his job when he found that he earned more money from selling orchids than from working as a government officer. He could sell a small seedling of Dendrobium spectabile for Rp 100,000 (around US$11).  He could send his three sons and four daughters to universities with the money from orchids.

“All of us were graduated from colleges. Even one of my brothers is studying in Adelaide, Australia, now,” said Suzana Wanggai (34 years old) the elderst that help her mother take care all the orchids.

Suzana Wanggai and Ita Nurita Wanggai

“When my brother Tony had to go to university in Jakarta, my father did not give him any money. He gave him seeds. Tony grew the seeds and sold the orchids to pay for his university fees,” continued Suzana Wanggai.

Wanggai family now has an orchid nursery in Jayapura. They earn money from selling orchids and other ornamental plants.  Wanggai family gets benefits from Cyclops Mountain Nature Reserve and other conservation areas in Papua.

Not only Wanggai family enjoys the benefits from conservation areas. Yesaya Saway (60 years old) supports his family by selling orchids.

He started to love orchids when he worked as forestry department field staff. In 1967 he started to collect orchids. Then he started his business in ornamental plants in 1977 in one hectare land. Until now his family lives with money from the orchids.

Wanggai Family and Saway Family have proved that they can benefit from forests without cutting the woods. They have proved that the forests is not only woods, there are other products that can benefit to the people who live near the forests. Taking orchids from the forests is a sustainable way to benefit from it.

Indonesian forest has been exploited since 1960s by concessionaires companies unsustainably. According to Department of Forestry, deforestation rate is more than two million hectare per year. The impact of destructive logging and illegal logging practices left 43 million hectare as degraded land.

World Bank estimated that Sumateran low land forests will be gone in less than five years and Kalimantan low land forests also will be gone in less than ten years, if the government does not take any measures to stop the unsustainable forest management.

Unlike Sumatera and Kalimantan or Java, Papua is still covered with undisturbed primary forests nearly 80 percent even though illegal logging and destructive logging start to threaten it virgin forests.

Conservation International categorized New Guinea Island (which is consisted of Indonesian’s Papua and Papua New Guinea) as one of wilderness areas. The island is the most species-rich island on Earth, with significantly more biodiversity than Kalimantan, Madagascar, Sumatera, or Sri Lanka.

Recent estimates of vascular plant richness of New Guinea range from 15,000 to 25,000 species with estimates of endeminism running from 9,750 to 10,500 species.

It also has at least 164 species of mammals, 329 reptiles and amphibians, 650 birds, 250 freshwater fishes and 1.200 marine fishes, 150,000 insects, and hundreds of freshwater and marine invertebrates.

In 2000, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported that a survey has discovered 2,770 types of rare orchids the major and most fascinating groups of colorful plants in New Guinea forests.

Wanggai Family and Saway Family have proved that a forest conservation area has not had wood only or just for the sake of conservation. They showed how conservation areas could give its benefits to local people.

Often the debate over conservation areas is about the balance between leaving areas in their natural or near natural state, and developing and exploiting them. What would you decided, a forest be left unclear or logged and converted to agriculture?

The Fifth World Parks Congress in 2003, a once in decade meeting, had stressed the theme “Benefits beyond boundaries.” The theme reinforced the meeting’s focus on addressing people’s needs and providing a stream of economic, political and environmental benefits to societies worldwide. Without an effective network of protected areas all the benefits (such as clean air and water, fertile soils, inspiring landscape and unique wildlife) will be lost.

In order to get all the benefits, protected area planners need to begin thinking outside fences. The conservation areas should benefit beyond their physical or virtual boundaries.

The fences that have excluded people from conservation areas were not the only boundaries being discussed at the Congress. The Fifth World Park Congress marked a turning point for protected areas.

The Congress recognized that protected areas cannot exist in isolation from surrounding land and sea. Nor can they be managed without regard to the communities and economic activities within and around them. The Congress affirmed the immense value of protected areas to society, now and in the future. And participants committed themselves to working with many partners to deliver a wider agenda for protected areas in the future.

We should see protected areas as providers of benefits beyond boundaries – beyond their boundaries on a map, beyond boundaries of nation-states, across society, genders and even generations.

The Congress’ action plan or Durban Action Plan is to encourage action that ensures that protected areas contribute to the elevation of poverty and do not exacerbate it.

Therefore we have to change our way of thinking. We have to think differently. Now conservation areas or protected areas have new constituencies for conservation. Private sector, farmer, tourism industry, and the military will be identified.

“It’s not just a protected area agency talking care of a conservation area, it’s also people who live in the cities, corporation, tourism, and even military,” said Jeff McNeely a well-known scientist who attended the Congress.

Conservation areas cannot longer exist as oases of untouched wilderness. Both social and environmental factors beyond conservation area managers’ control are affecting them in ways that cannot be ignored.

The market alone does not support a system of protected or conservation areas, hence society, through its various levels of government, must provide environmental protection as a public service in the same manner that it provides health, education, defense and legal systems. Failure to provide these public services impoverishes the quality of life for individuals and indeed for entire nations. That is written in the guidelines for conservation areas management.

More people like Wanggai and Saway families wish to benefit from sustainable harvest of non-timber forest products, such as orchids and other ornamental plants.

Therefore the forests especially conservation areas are not only benefit for timber companies or mining companies, but for all people beyond its boundaries.

(Published at The Jakarta Post, 3 October 2004)

How people in Tangkahan repents from illegal logging

Rutkita Sembiring (26), from Namo Sialang village, Tangkahan area, had to learn to identify commercial wood before he could go inside Mount Leuser National Park to log by himself. Tangkahan area is located in bordering of Mount Leuser National Park and two villages, Namo Sialang and Sei Serdang, North Sumatera.

Mount Leuser National Park is home of 8,500 species of plants. Some are very rare such as Rafflesia arnoldi the giant flower that disperse rotten flesh smell, Koompassia excelsa whose wood is so hard it even defeats chainsaws.

It is also home of orangutan, one of the great apes, Thomas leaf monkey (Presbytis thomasi), black siamang gibbon (Hylobates syndactylus) and white-handed gibbon (Hylobates lar).

“I could log 10 ton of wood in one full day work,” told Sembiring. One ton log could be made into six pieces of sawn-wood with dimension 6m x 15 cm x 15 cm.

To log a very big and high tree was not easy. Sembiring had to find which tree he wanted to cut. Then he made a thee to five meter high platform beside the tree for him to stand. And from that platform, he started to cut the tree with axe or chainsaw. After the tree felt down, he had to cut it into a 5-10 meter log. The logs were sawn into 15 cm x 15 cm sawn-woods. The sawn-woods had to be drifted away with buffalo to the river. The illegal sawn-woods would be taken by illegal traders who had been told before.

The number one wood could be sold US$ 100 per ton. Sembiring could get money US$ 1,000 for one day work. He would spend the money for gambling, eating, treating his friends, buying anything he wanted even he did not need them. The money would be finished just in a week. Then he would go to the forest to cut more trees.

Rutkita Sembiring was not alone. There were Njuhang Pinem, Sentosa Sembiring, Sudarman Sembiring, Medali Sinuraya, Leman Pinem, Matondang Kacaribu, She Ukur Depari. Most of men in Namo Sialang and Sei Serdang villages were illegal loggers for many years. Some of them had been jailed for several months to a year. For many years they abandoned their farm-lands.

For years, everyday thousands of logs were taken from Mount Leuser National Park. Everyday they had to go further to the heart of the Mount Leuser National Park, the most important ecosystem in North Sumatera.

But in since 2000, people in Namo Sialang and Sei Serdang had been stopped cutting trees. They stopped not because all big trees in the National Park had already been cut, so there were no trees to log. No, it’s not their reason stop illegal logging.

“I was quit, because my father disallowed me to be illegal logger. For four years I was prohibit to sleep and eat at home. I had to sleep in my friend’s house. My father did not speak to me,” said Rutkita Sembiring.

Then early 2000, he was elected as a chairperson of independent forest ranger organization, called Simalem Ranger. The organization was established by two university students who used to go to forests in Tangkahan and the youth of Tangkahan. The young people of Tangkahan little by little were influenced by the two students that they should stop illegal logging and start to conserve.

“Eighty percent members of the organization were youths, like me, who doing illegal logging,” told Sembiring, who now working as a personnel of Conservation and Response Units, a program of the Fauna and Flora International in Tangkahan.

In the first year, there were 46 people registered as members of the organization. The objectives of the organization were to do conservation, observation, and search and rescue activities.

The most significant reason for people in Tangkahan to stop illegal logging was their farmlands which been abandoned for years. In average every families had 2-6 hectare of land which planted with orange trees, rubber trees, and palm oil trees. Sembiring has six hectare of orange trees. He can get around US$3,700 a year from his farmland.

They thought, “ Why did we have to cut trees from the forest while we have valuable farmland?”

But they still hope to get benefits from Mount Leuser National Park directly. The people have looked to other ways of living on the benefit from the forest in sustainable way. They accepted the idea of promoting ecoturism in the National Park. They agreed to turn Tangkahan into environmentally friendly tourist destination.

So on 19 May 2001 they established Lembaga Pariwisata Tangkahan (LPT) or Tangkahan Tourism Institute, which included the ranger organization. On 22 April 2003, the institution signed an agreement with National Park Management that LPT can use 17,500 hectare of Mount Leuser National Park areas in Tangkahan, for sustainable ecoturism activities. It is the first time a national park management has entrusted local people to manage the ecoturism zone while conserving the biological diversity of the park. Besides, 17,500 hectare of dense forest area, LPT established around 10 hectare camp site.

To secure there would not be any illegal logging activities, in May 2003 the two villages issued two village regulation, Regulation No 212 and No 301.

Tangkahan’s combination of vegetation and topography makes it a rare tourist spot that cannot be found in other places. There are two rivers run in Tangkahan. Tangkahan has 11 waterfalls, several hot water springs, bat caves along its jungle tracks.

Now, Indonesian Ecoturism Network (an NGOs network) with funding from Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), is helping LPT to design tourism packets, jungle tracks with proper signboards. Young people like Sembiring are trained to be interpreters and guides.

On Sunday, 2 November 2003, when flash floods ripped through Bohorok and Bukit Lawang a famous site for ecoturism in other part of Mount Leuser National Park, (around 30 kilometer in the south of Tangkahan), Tangkahan was survived.

People of Namo Sialang and Sei Serdang show to us that how we should manage conservation area, so the benefit can go beyond boundaries. That is how national park should be managed. It should include people who live near and inside the park.

(Published at GlobalNet in 2003)

The Lost World of Indonesia

In 1981 Jared Diamond, a professor from University of California, was the first scientist who sighted a light yellow tree kangaroo or Golden-mantled Tree Kangaroo. Since that time, there has been no other information or supporting evidence of the most beautiful tree kangaroo of other ten.

Golden-mantled Tree Kangaroo is similar with Goodfellow’s tree kangaroo (Dendrolagus goodfellowi). Because of a similarity and fairly well documented in term of morphological information, the golden tree kangaroo was categorized as sub-species of Dendrolagus goodfellowi. If D. goodfellowi has an overall warm yellowish brown color, the Golden-mantled Tree Kangaroo has golden yellow fur.

The Golden-mantled Tree Kangaroos are large mammals, weighing about 7 kg, with golden yellow and light brown color, a long mottled golden brown tail, and golden stripes on its rump. It is very sleek and agile. It shelters in small groups in trees during the day and spends much of its life there. It also frequently descends to the ground. Its diet consists mainly of leaves and fruits, obtained either in trees or on the ground.

The December 2005 trip of Rapid Assessment Program (RAP) to Foja (pronounced FOY-ya) Mountains of Mamberamo, brought a team of US, Indonesian, and Australian scientists led by Conservation International (CI) to confirm that the Golden-mantled Tree Kangaroo has indeed sufficient differences to D. goodfellowi, including a distinct home range, it so can be considered a full species, which then named Dendrolagus pulcherrimus.

“Dendrolagus pulcherrimus by far is the most beautiful with its stunning golden yellow fur of all tree kangaroos. It suits its species name, pulcherrimus, which in Latin means ‘the most beautiful,’” commented Yance de Fretes PhD, a species specialist of Conservation International, who now is writing a book on ecology of Papua.

The RAP team consisted of 13 scientists –helped by Kwerba and Papasena people who the customary landowners of Foja– spent nearly a month in the Foja Mountain which reaches more than 2,000 meters elevation. What they found was a large tract of montane rainforest that showed no evidence of human impact. Populations of large mammals were common and unwary.

“The Long-beaked Echidna, the largest species of the bizarre egg-laying family of primitive mammals called the monotremata (egg producing mammals), was encountered on one of our survey trails on two successive nights, and in both instances the unwary creatures was simply picked up and carried into the camp for study,” wrote the team.

The Long-beaked Echidna or Papua Porcupine (Zaglossus sp) is poorly known mammal. It has never reproduced in captivity and scientists have never seen its eggs. This remarkable animal weighs 6-16 kg. It has spines of varying length interspersed with fur on its back, sides and tail. The snout is tubular with a very small mouth, through which the long tongue can be rapidly extruded and retracted. Its tongue is equipped with “spikes” located in a groove.

It probes with its long beak to find the end of a worm. The tongue is then extruded and the worm hooked by these spikes. The worm and tongue are then withdrawn and the worm swallowed by muscular action of the tongue.

It shelters in hollow logs, cavities under roots or rocks, and burrows. A female long-beaked echidna usually lays one egg into a pouch.

The lost bird

The RAP team was dropped into an open boggy lakebed by a mission helicopter charter service, Helimission. Within minutes of arrival, members of the team encountered a bizarre red-faced honeyeater bird unlike anything in their field guide. This honeyeater bird proved to be a new species, the first new bird species discovered on the island of New Guinea since 1939.

A day later, the team was surprised and elated when a male and female of lost bird Berlepsch’s Six-wired Bird of Paradise (Parotia berlepschi) came into the rustic field camp. The male displayed on the ground to the female for more than five minutes in full view to the team. The team, which financially supported by Swift Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the National Geographic Society, and the Global Environmental Project Institute, had thus discovered the lost homeland of this remarkable species within two days of arrival in terrestrial display ground.

At the same time, the team quickly located a series of display bowers (a tubelike framework made of grass, ornamented with brightly-colored fruits, to attract the female) of Golden-fronted Bowerbird and made the first photographs of this species in display. The male Golden-fronted Bowerbird has a tuft in its head. Feather from tuft to back of the head has color ranging from orange to bright red. The body was light brown. The female has no tuft.

It was Prof Jared Diamond, a winner of the Pulitzer Prize for his best seller book “Guns, Germs, And Steel,” who startled the scientific world with his discovery of the forest homeland of an ornithological “Holy Grail” –the nearly-mythical Golden-fronted Bowerbird (Amblyornis flavifrons) in 1981 expedition to Foja Mountains.

The bowerbird proved to be a common and easily located bird in the forest because of the meter-high bower it constructed and its repetitive calling from the bower site.

The Foja Mountains appear to be one of the richest sites for frogs in the Asia-Pacific region. This expedition produced a list of more than 60 species; at least 20 of them are new to science. The discoveries included healthy populations of the rare and poorly-known lace-eyed frog Nyctimystes fluviatilis and a new population of Xenorhina arboricola that was previously known only from two small areas in Papua New Guinea.

The botanical team collected more than 550 plant species, including at least five unknown woody plant species. The team discovered five probable new species of palms in the genera Areca (one species), Calamus (at least one species), Licuala (two species), and Pholidocarpus (one species).

They repeatedly encountered a rhododendron that grew high in the treetops. One of them produced large white scented flowers that fell to the ground after several days of blooming. The size of these blooms is spectacular. The largest measured about 15 cm across the face of the flower. It was the largest rhododendron flower on record.

The entomological team encountered more than 170 species butterflies, including five new species and several subspecies. One of the new species was being named after Indonesia’s First Lady.

Mice dying of hunger inside the rice barn

People said Papua is very rich area. So many new species have been discovered in the last ten years. In 1998, the first RAP done by Conservation International in Seiwa and Wapoga, discovered two new reptiles species, two new dragonfly species, three new fish species, and other kind of animals.

In 2001, RAP in Yongsu Dasoyo, Tiri and Furu River (in lowland area of Mamberamo) discovered more new fishes, frogs, and insects. In 2002, RAP in Raja Ampat Islands added more new species in sea. The recent RAP in Foja Mountains added more the richness of Papua.

Foja Mountains is located in the Mamberamo Basin. The area is the world’s largest river basins with intact tropical forest. The total area of the watershed is approximately 7,700,000 hectares (an area almost the size of Java Island). Most of the area consists of primary forest, in the lowlands, swamps, and mountains. There are several protected areas within Mamberamo, which is also parts of Jayawijaya Nature Reserve and Lorentz National Park. One of them is Mamberamo Foja Wildlife Reserve.

Mamberamo, which in Biak language (a local language) means “look at the estuary” and in Dani language, “mambe” is big and “ramo” is water, has possibly the lowest density of human population in the world. Every second the Mamberamo River pours more water into the Pacific Ocean than combined flows of both US and Canadian sides of the Niagara Falls.

Although this region considered as “empty,” it does not mean that there is no threats to its biological diversity. Threats have appeared in the form of regional development plans such as construction of road, forest concessions, coal mines, and the ambitious megaproject Memberamo River dam for hydro-electric power.

Some German companies (Siemens, Hochtief, and Ferostahl) have been involved in the Mamberamo River dam project which proposed by Habibie, a former president of Indonesia. The 650 km long Mamberamo River, according to some studies, has potential to produce between 15-20 GW of electricity. The abundant supply of electicity will serve agro-industry and metal smelter, and produce hydrogen.

The project will impact on the 35 nomadic tribes who are known to live in the region. The area larger than England is drained by the Mamberamo and damming this river could flood up to half of this land.

The first stage of the Mamberamo megaproject was completed on the coast in 1999 when a South Korean firm, PT Kodeco Mamberamo Plywood which has 691,700 hectare concession of primary rainforest, opened a sawmill and an oil palm plantation.

In Yahukimo, about 800 km from Foja Mountain, 55 people had died from malnutrition and 112 others had fallen sick from related illnesses since November 2005. The mountainous regency, which has a population of 55,000 people, can only be reached by plane about 800 km from Jayapura, the capital city of Papua Province.

This is very ironic. Papua Province is rich in natural resources and yet people die of famine. It’s like mice dying of hunger inside a rice barn. Biodiversity research or survey is important, but more important is how scientists can help local people to reach the higher quality of life. Now the natural richness of Papua is being extracted for the sake of people in Jakarta, not for the sake of Papuan.

(Published at GlobalNet in March 2006)

“I plants teak trees for my grandchildren”

Nasir, 41 years old, was remembering his late father planting teak trees when he was a little boy. His father started planting teak trees and other valuable trees such as cacao, cashew, and various fruit trees in 1974 in his 0.5 ha land. He remembered helping his father planting and taking care the trees without knowing the reasons.

“This tree was planted by my father,” he said pointing a tall 20 years old teak tree beside him.

Teak is a major source of income for special expenditures such as paying for children’s schooling, repairing and building houses, marriage ceremonies and going on pilgrimages to Mecca. Other cash sources include livestock and various teak intercrops such as coffee, cocao, cashew, pepper and sago palm. Irrigated and dry rice as well as other food crops are grown by some teak farmers, like Nasir and his late father.

It was in early 1970s. Department of Forestry launched Social Forestry Program in South Konawe District, Southeast Sulawesi Province. The Program was to assign some 39,000 ha of teak plantation in state forest areas to community management. The Program covered 46 villages. Very little natural forest area remains within the 46 village areas. The government hired local villagers to establish the plantation planting teak seeds. Nasir’s father and Konawe villagers got the benefit from the Program. They stashed a few teak seeds and brought them home to plant in their fields and garden.

And teak has always been highly valued for its unique properties. Teak is a favor for outdoor furniture. The demand for teak wood is always high. The demand had put enormous pressure on the government’s plantations, tempting many poor local villagers to venture into the plantations to log illegally. Actually the gain had been few. Villagers who harvested and sold illegal teak found themselves at the mercy of middlemen, who paid very low price for their illegal log.

Warman Samedi (40), one of the villagers, was a middleman. He bought illegal log from villagers Rp 10,000 (US1) for a log. He had to play hide and seek with authority when he transported the logs to the harbor or paid some money for the authority. “I knew that what I did was illegal,” said Samedi.

Illegal logging depleted the teak resource and degraded the land. Communities around the forest were impacted by erosion and siltation and depletion of water resources as unsustainable numbers of trees were cut illegally. On a well-managed teak plantation the stumps were removed after the trees being cut and the land was replanted with new seeds. Because the teak grew on 20-30 years cycles, replanting should be a continuous process, which didn’t happen when trees were taken illegally.

Illegal logging was happened not only because of the high demand. It was also because of bad regulations. Unlike forest management in state forest area, government policies and regulations for teak grown in private land are restricted to rules on timber harvesting and wood transport. The community who has teak trees in their land cannot harvest the teak legally because they have to get a cutting license or License for Harvest of Wood from Private Land (IPKTM) and a wood transport document or Letter of Forest Product Authenticity (SKSHH) that issued by Department of Forestry. But teak theft from privately-owned teak wood lots is extremely rare.

“We have to pay millions rupiah to get IPKTM and SKSHH. Only middle-men can get the licenses,” said Harris Abdul Tamburaka, the head of Koperasi Hutan Jaya Lestari (KHJL) or Sustainable Teak Forest Cooperative. The middlemen only wanted to pay Rp 10,000-Rp 15,000 (US$1-1.50) for a tree or Rp 600,000-Rp 800,000 (US$60-80).

In March 2004, Tamburaka and local villagers with the help of Jauh (Network for Forest), a network of local NGOs, established KHJL legally to help them to get licenses and better price for their wood. The members are teak wood farmers who have 0.5-1 ha land with teak trees and other kind of trees. Mature teak areas are either monocultures or mixed stands, intercropping with cacao, pepper, coffee, cashew, and various fruit trees. Their lands border with teak plantation areas in state forest areas land classified as production forest.

Then KHJL began working with Tropical Forest Trust, a nonprofit organization based in Switzerland, to apply for FSC certification assessment at the end of 2004.

In January 2005, an assessment team consisted of two consultants was formed by SmartWood to do forest certification assessment for FSC label. At that time there were a total 152.35 ha of smallholder teak wood lots individually and privately owned by 196 farmers members of KHJL across 12 villages (of 46 villages) in South Konawe District, Southeast Sulawesi.

In short, after on-site evaluations of forest areas in a sample of twelve of active villages of KHJL members, the auditing team compiled a full assessment report, which was reviewed by SmartWood.

In May 2005, KHJL farmers received their FSC certification. The certificate is for a group of Small and Low Intensity Managed Forests. The certificate was issued by the Rainforest Alliance’s SmartWood program, an FSC accredited certifying body. KHJL is the only cooperative in Southeast Asia that get FSC certificate for sustainable forest management.

KHJL’s certification was funded through Tropical Forest Trust with the support of retailers from Europe and Indonesia (who all wanted to secure a reliable supply of FSC-certified teak. The retailer from Europe is Castorama, a French furniture retailer. The retailer from Indonesia is PT Intertrend Utama based in Sidoarjo, East Java. Tropical Forest Trust granted Rp 200 million to KHJL for certification process cost.

Now, the members of KHJL are 223 farmers with total 204.12 ha land with 49,869 teak trees. The farmers of KHJL might have earned supplemental income by risky illegal logging before. SmarWood certification makes a significant change. Now they can get a premium high price for their own teak plots to survive financially. The high price for certified teak is significantly higher than illegally logged teak because the demand is high.

“Business on the tail end of the supply chain are wary of procuring illegal teak, and they want traceability of this resource,” explained SmartWood’s Asia Pacific regional manager Jeff Hayward who based in Jakarta. “Now farmers living in this region can access markets previously unavailable to them.”

Since then KHJL has harvested and sold teak wood six times. They shipped six containers to PT Ragil Adiperkasa, an out-door furniture makers that only uses FSC-certified teak wood, based in Solo, Central Java. PT Ragil Adiperkasa paid them a good price Rp 1,000,000-Rp 1,700,000 per cubic meter of round wood or sawn wood depend on wood quality. Nasir, a member of KHJL, harvested his teak trees two times, sold his certified wood through KHJL for total Rp 3.6 million (US$350).

In order to maintain certification, the KHJL will be audited annually on-site and required to remain in compliance with the FSC principles and criteria as further defined by regional guidelines developed by SmartWood or the FSC.

The priority objectives of forest management by KHJL are increased income from sales of higher-quality roundwood harvested in KHJL member wood lots, production of other useful items such as charcoal, firewood and handicrafts, and longer term productive investment strategy of higher value.

To meet the SmartWood or FSC guidelines, KHJL generally has to apply the following harvesting characteristics. Teak stands are uneven age. Harvesting depends upon the mutual approval of the KHJL and its member wood lot owners. Harvesting decisions are limited by a minimum allowable dbh (tree diameter at breast height, 130 cm); owner willingness, in turn based upon his or her needs; and market demand.

The overall annual allowable cut (ACC) of KHJL recognizes site-specific variations therefore takes into account village-level-factors. The harvestable yield from each village must reach a level that makes inclusion in the overall ACC economically viable.

The rotation cycle was calculated based upon a complete inventory of KHJL members’ teak and projections from what is known about teak growth in the area and elsewhere. An annual growth diameter of 1.5 cm is assumed, reaching 30 cm, which representing about a third of a meter cubic wood volume (0.35 m³) of marketable teak logs after 20 years.

The 30 cm dbh is the minimum allowable dbh for harvest. Previously, teak was deemed harvestable locally when it reached 20 cm dbh. The rotation cycle is 20 years.

It means the teak trees that been planted by Nasir will be harvested by his children. If Nasir or other farmers do not plant teak trees there will be no money for their children or grand-children. You have to plant to harvest.

(Published at GlobalNet in January 2006)