In an opinion piece titled "The paradox of empowerment in community forestry," (The Jakarta Post, March 14) Ahmad Maryudi raised important points regarding local people's involvement in Indonesian forest management. For this I applaud him.
Local forest users (shouldn't we actually call them forest managers?) face common constraints throughout Asia. Complex permit systems, for instance, make one wonder to what extent authorities want local people to exercise their rights and benefit from doing so.
While I agree with some of Maryudi's points, others are counterproductive; most importantly, I cannot agree with his definition of empowerment.
It does not and can never mean "one can do what one wants to do." In the past, complete freedom to act without considering the concerns and rights of wider society has done great harm to both people and forests. Exploitation by concessionaires shows us this clearly.
How can we be sure that local people will always consider wider interests in managing "their" forests? Natural forests have significant global value and provide environmental services that reach far beyond the local.
Allowing people to do whatever they want is likely to result in further forest degradation. For the sake of the international community, national economies and the millions of poor people in Asia who depend on forests for their livelihoods, this is the last thing we want to happen.
In forestry, checks and balances are needed to prevent and penalize excessive use of natural resources. Governance structures are put in place to enable local and wider interests to guide decision making.
If this governance structure is sound - and often it is not - then rules and regulations will not infringe on self-control and self-determination.
It is less about local people doing whatever they want, but more about being empowered to make informed choices that do not infringe the rights of others.
Thomas Enters
Bangkok
| 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|