Rethinking rationales for governmen

Rethinking rationales for government intervention and contesting resource rights

Focus groups with multiple stakeholders helped to ascertain how diverse rationales for government intervention are
understood by miners, villagers, scientists, policymakers, and private sector agents, with divergent interests and priorities at play. Harms to the living environment are a common con- cern and a frequent rationale for government intervention; as one environmentalist campaigner emphasized, “The environ- ment has been devastated by illegal mining.. .These miners create pits which cause landslides and erosion, hurting people and animals and the lives of future generations.” While some emphasize the need for assistance to promote cleaner technol- ogies, though, some advocates argue that designating larger “protected areas” for biodiversity conservation should be the major rationale for government intervention and suggest that miners should not be allowed to mine at all. The rationale for protecting forest areas from mining stands in notable contrast to a recent article in World Development, where Aswicahyono, Bird, and Hill (2009) argue that Indonesia’s protected areas cover too large an area as it is and contend that large compa- nies should have increased rights to mine in protected areas. They write that problems of poor economic development “have been compounded by the stipulation in Law 41/1999 that mining may not be undertaken in areas designated as protected forests. In practice, this has led to the widespread prohibition of mining, far beyond that which could be judged necessary for environmental protection purposes” (p. 360). While Aswicahyono et al. are correct to recognize that much land in Indonesia has been relegated for protection, what they conspicuously—and alarmingly—fail to mention is that large mining companies have repeatedly been granted access by the central government to mine these very areas. Despite the 1999 Forestry Law, which prohibited mining in protected for- ests, 13 foreign-based mining companies were granted govern- ment permission to mine in 682,000 hectares of protected forests in 2004; additional exceptions—to allow companies with more access in protected areas—have since emerged (Bachriadi, 2004; Jakarta Post., 2008). Muhammad (2008)

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Rethinking alasan-alasan untuk intervensi pemerintah dan bertarung hak-hak sumber dayaGrup fokus dengan berbagai pemangku kepentingan yang membantu untuk memastikan bagaimana beragam alasan-alasan untuk intervensi pemerintahunderstood by miners, villagers, scientists, policymakers, and private sector agents, with divergent interests and priorities at play. Harms to the living environment are a common con- cern and a frequent rationale for government intervention; as one environmentalist campaigner emphasized, “The environ- ment has been devastated by illegal mining.. .These miners create pits which cause landslides and erosion, hurting people and animals and the lives of future generations.” While some emphasize the need for assistance to promote cleaner technol- ogies, though, some advocates argue that designating larger “protected areas” for biodiversity conservation should be the major rationale for government intervention and suggest that miners should not be allowed to mine at all. The rationale for protecting forest areas from mining stands in notable contrast to a recent article in World Development, where Aswicahyono, Bird, and Hill (2009) argue that Indonesia’s protected areas cover too large an area as it is and contend that large compa- nies should have increased rights to mine in protected areas. They write that problems of poor economic development “have been compounded by the stipulation in Law 41/1999 that mining may not be undertaken in areas designated as protected forests. In practice, this has led to the widespread prohibition of mining, far beyond that which could be judged necessary for environmental protection purposes” (p. 360). While Aswicahyono et al. are correct to recognize that much land in Indonesia has been relegated for protection, what they conspicuously—and alarmingly—fail to mention is that large mining companies have repeatedly been granted access by the central government to mine these very areas. Despite the 1999 Forestry Law, which prohibited mining in protected for- ests, 13 foreign-based mining companies were granted govern- ment permission to mine in 682,000 hectares of protected forests in 2004; additional exceptions—to allow companies with more access in protected areas—have since emerged (Bachriadi, 2004; Jakarta Post., 2008). Muhammad (2008)

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

Rethinking alasan-alasan untuk intervensi pemerintah dan bertarung hak sumber daya Fokus kelompok dengan berbagai pemangku kepentingan membantu untuk memastikan berapa beragam alasan-alasan untuk intervensi pemerintah yang ? dipahami oleh penambang, warga desa, para ilmuwan, pembuat kebijakan, dan pihak swasta, dengan kepentingan yang berbeda dan prioritas bermain. Merugikan terhadap lingkungan hidup adalah CERN con umum dan dasar pemikiran sering untuk intervensi pemerintah; sebagai salah satu lingkungan kampanye menekankan, "The Environment telah hancur oleh penambangan liar .. penambang .Ini membuat lubang yang menyebabkan tanah longsor dan erosi, menyakiti orang dan hewan dan kehidupan generasi mendatang." Sementara beberapa menekankan perlunya bantuan kepada mempromosikan ogies technol- bersih, meskipun, beberapa pendukung berpendapat bahwa menunjuk besar "kawasan lindung" untuk konservasi keanekaragaman hayati harus menjadi alasan utama untuk intervensi pemerintah dan menyarankan bahwa penambang seharusnya tidak diperbolehkan untuk menambang sama sekali. Alasan untuk melindungi kawasan hutan dari pertambangan berlawanan penting untuk sebuah artikel terbaru di Pembangunan Dunia, di mana Aswicahyono, Bird, dan Hill (2009) menyatakan bahwa kawasan lindung di Indonesia mencakup kawasan yang terlalu luas seperti itu dan berpendapat bahwa perusahaan yang besar harus meningkatkan hak untuk menambang di kawasan lindung. Mereka menulis bahwa masalah-masalah pembangunan ekonomi yang buruk "telah diperparah oleh ketentuan dalam UU 41/1999 bahwa penambangan tidak dilakukan di wilayah yang ditetapkan sebagai hutan lindung. Dalam prakteknya, hal ini telah menyebabkan larangan luas pertambangan, jauh melampaui apa yang dapat dinilai diperlukan untuk tujuan perlindungan lingkungan "(hal. 360). Sementara Aswicahyono et al. benar mengakui bahwa banyak lahan di Indonesia telah terdegradasi untuk perlindungan, apa yang mereka mencolok-dan mengkhawatirkan-gagal untuk menyebutkan bahwa perusahaan tambang besar telah berulang kali diberikan akses oleh pemerintah pusat untuk menambang ini sangat daerah. Meskipun UU Kehutanan Tahun 1999, yang melarang penambangan di hutan-hutan lindung, 13 perusahaan tambang asing berbasis diberikan pemerintah izin pemerintah untuk menambang di 682.000 hektar hutan lindung pada tahun 2004; pengecualian-to tambahan memungkinkan perusahaan dengan lebih banyak akses di kawasan lindung-sejak muncul (Bachriadi, 2004;. Jakarta Post, 2008). Muhammad (2008)