
Jumat, 06 April 2007
S. Pacific Unprepared for Tsunamis?
[Copied from Discovery Channel] Madeleine Coorey, AFP
April 3, 2007 — Australia's hasty reaction to the threat of a tsunami which hit the Solomon Islands contrasted sharply with a lack of equipment and expertise to warn South Pacific nations, experts said.
A massive undersea 8.0-magnitude earthquake spawned the deadly tsunami Monday that pounded the Solomon Islands and triggered emergency warnings around the Pacific of possible sea surges there.
Australian officials were aware almost immediately of the abnormally large quake and predicted from its size and location that there was a chance the country's east coast could be hit by a tsunami.
Beaches along Australia's east coast were quickly closed and ferries crossing Sydney Harbor stopped as officials anxiously awaited news.
But it took hours for any more information about a possible tidal wave to reach Australian cities because of a lack of equipment and expertise in the South Pacific, experts said.
"This was frightening in a sense that we were warned there could've been a tsunami, we were trying to work out the magnitude of it but we were shooting blind, and I don't believe this is good enough," said Peter Beattie, Premier of Queensland state.
The South Pacific needed more equipment, such as tide gauges and satellite-linked buoys, to measure ocean movement so that Australia and its neighbours could be better warned of tsunamis, expert Gary Gibson said.
"It was so frustrating for the first few hours not to have confirmation (of a tsunami)," said Gibson, chairman of the executive committee of the US-based International Seismological Center.
"The Pacific has the best tsunami warning system in the world. The South Pacific is not quite as well set up. You can be waiting a long time to get information."
Gibson said Australia's warning system had been upgraded following the devastating 2004 tsunami, caused by a massive undersea quake off the Indonesian island of Sumatra.
That tsunami killed 200,000 people around the Indian Ocean shoreline.
"It's a matter of priorities and the priority has been given to the northwest coast because of the possibility of big earthquakes from Indonesia," he said.
The Australian government has said it would review its system after the Solomons tsunami, although its early warning system was on track to be fully operational in 2009. By that time, officials should be able to make more accurate predictions of tsunamis.
Monday's information vacuum led to some overreaction in Australia, particularly in the northeastern city of Cairns, where hundreds of residents attempted to drive to higher ground, causing gridlock on low-lying roads.
That response, said Gibson, "was not based on reality."
Kevin McCue, director of the Australian Seismological Centre, said Australian officials should have used historical data to predict that any tsunami from the Solomons quake would not present a danger here.
"We should have known we weren't going to have a damaging tsunami," he told AFP. "I think it was just an overreaction to Sumatra."
He said Australia should help neighbours such as Papua New Guinea improve their warning systems by giving them equipment and personnel.
But he said no amount of money would help those most at risk escape a tsunami as there was only five minutes after a quake to seek higher ground.
"They don't have telephones, they don't have power. There's no way of alerting people on the ground in the most risky areas," he said.
David Walsh, of the Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre in Hawaii, said there was a large network of water gauges in the South Pacific which were used to determine the risk of tsunamis.
But he noted: "Many of the gauges are inoperable on any given day."
April 3, 2007 — Australia's hasty reaction to the threat of a tsunami which hit the Solomon Islands contrasted sharply with a lack of equipment and expertise to warn South Pacific nations, experts said.
A massive undersea 8.0-magnitude earthquake spawned the deadly tsunami Monday that pounded the Solomon Islands and triggered emergency warnings around the Pacific of possible sea surges there.
Australian officials were aware almost immediately of the abnormally large quake and predicted from its size and location that there was a chance the country's east coast could be hit by a tsunami.
Beaches along Australia's east coast were quickly closed and ferries crossing Sydney Harbor stopped as officials anxiously awaited news.
But it took hours for any more information about a possible tidal wave to reach Australian cities because of a lack of equipment and expertise in the South Pacific, experts said.
"This was frightening in a sense that we were warned there could've been a tsunami, we were trying to work out the magnitude of it but we were shooting blind, and I don't believe this is good enough," said Peter Beattie, Premier of Queensland state.
The South Pacific needed more equipment, such as tide gauges and satellite-linked buoys, to measure ocean movement so that Australia and its neighbours could be better warned of tsunamis, expert Gary Gibson said.
"It was so frustrating for the first few hours not to have confirmation (of a tsunami)," said Gibson, chairman of the executive committee of the US-based International Seismological Center.
"The Pacific has the best tsunami warning system in the world. The South Pacific is not quite as well set up. You can be waiting a long time to get information."
Gibson said Australia's warning system had been upgraded following the devastating 2004 tsunami, caused by a massive undersea quake off the Indonesian island of Sumatra.
That tsunami killed 200,000 people around the Indian Ocean shoreline.
"It's a matter of priorities and the priority has been given to the northwest coast because of the possibility of big earthquakes from Indonesia," he said.
The Australian government has said it would review its system after the Solomons tsunami, although its early warning system was on track to be fully operational in 2009. By that time, officials should be able to make more accurate predictions of tsunamis.
Monday's information vacuum led to some overreaction in Australia, particularly in the northeastern city of Cairns, where hundreds of residents attempted to drive to higher ground, causing gridlock on low-lying roads.
That response, said Gibson, "was not based on reality."
Kevin McCue, director of the Australian Seismological Centre, said Australian officials should have used historical data to predict that any tsunami from the Solomons quake would not present a danger here.
"We should have known we weren't going to have a damaging tsunami," he told AFP. "I think it was just an overreaction to Sumatra."
He said Australia should help neighbours such as Papua New Guinea improve their warning systems by giving them equipment and personnel.
But he said no amount of money would help those most at risk escape a tsunami as there was only five minutes after a quake to seek higher ground.
"They don't have telephones, they don't have power. There's no way of alerting people on the ground in the most risky areas," he said.
David Walsh, of the Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre in Hawaii, said there was a large network of water gauges in the South Pacific which were used to determine the risk of tsunamis.
But he noted: "Many of the gauges are inoperable on any given day."
Palm Oil Failing as Biofuel
[Copied from Disovery Channel]
Arthur Max, Associated Press
April 2, 2007 — Only a few years ago, oil from palm trees was viewed as an ideal biofuel: a cheap, renewable alternative to petroleum that would fight global warming. Energy companies began converting generators and production soared.
Now, it's increasingly seen as an example of how well-meaning efforts to limit climate-changing carbon emissions may backfire.
Marcel Silvius, a climate expert at Wetlands International in the Netherlands, led a team that compared the benefits of palm oil to the ecological harm from destroying virgin Asian rain forests to develop lucrative new plantations.
His conclusion: "As a biofuel, it's a failure."
Scientists and policymakers from more than 100 countries are meeting in Brussels, Belgium, starting Monday to report on the impact of global warming, including storms, flooding and the extinction of plants and animals.
Then in May, the group intends to issue recommendations on how best to fight it, through new technologies and possible use of alternatives. The lessons of palm oil are sure to figure into their discussion.
Long a primary ingredient in food and cosmetics, palm oil derivatives caught on about five years ago as a source of renewable energy, spurred by subsidies in many European Union countries. Imports have risen 65 percent since 2002.
Palm oil is attractive because it is relatively abundant, cheap at about $550 per ton, and requires few or no modifications to existing power stations.
Unlike carbon-rich fossil fuels, palm oil is considered carbon-neutral, meaning the carbon emitted from burning it is the same as what is absorbed during growth.
But the result of intensified farming has been to unleash far more greenhouse gases than will be saved at power stations.
The report issued late last year by Wetlands International, Delft Hydraulics and the Alterra Research Center of Wageningen University in Holland studied the carbon released from peat swamps in Indonesia and Malaysia that had been drained and burned to plant palm oil trees. About 85 percent of the world's palm oil comes from the two countries, and about one-quarter of Indonesia's plantations are on drained peat bogs, the report said.
The four-year study found that 600 million tons of carbon dioxide seep into the air each year from the drained swamps. Another 1.4 billion tons go up in smoke from fires lit to clear rain forest for plantations — smoke that often shrouds Singapore and Malaysia in an impenetrable haze for weeks at a time.
Together, those 2 billion tons of CO2 account for 8 percent of the world's fossil fuel emissions, the report said.
Friends of the Earth, another environmental group, called the report "astonishing," and said it shows that harvesting palm oil for fuel is counterproductive. "It undermines the whole project," said a climate specialist for the group, Anne van Schaik.
The study was not independently verified by the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat in Bonn, Germany, or by the World Resources Institute in Washington, D.C., the two leading monitoring groups. But experts said the research appeared credible. It is due to be published for peer review later this year.
Deforestation is the No. 2 cause of greenhouse gas emissions after the burning of fossil fuels, said Jeffrey Dukes, a biologist at the University of Massachusetts who was not part of the research. He said clearing peat swamps for plantations is "a double whammy."
It not only releases carbon trapped over many millennia, but destroys the most efficient ecosystem on the planet for sucking carbon from the atmosphere, Dukes said.
Expanding production of palm oil is "a terrible decision. Whether or not it's consciously made, it's society going in reverse," he said.
Major power companies are divided on whether to continue or pursue palm oil generation.
Leon Flexman, of RWE npower, Britain's largest electricity supplier, said his company decided against palm oil after a year of study because it could not verify its supplies would be free of the taint of destroyed rain forest or peat bogs, he said.
The Dutch power company Essent announced in December it had stopped burning until it can trace and verify the sources.
Biox, a Dutch startup, said it plans careful scrutiny of palm oil sources but will proceed with construction of three 50 megawatt power stations that burn palm oil byproducts exclusively. That's enough electricity to light all the homes in Amsterdam.
"From the start, we knew we can't stay in business if we can't prove that production is sustainable," said Biox executive Arjen Brinkmann. "Until this report came out, peat lands was not an issue because we hadn't heard of it. Nobody had heard," he said, adding that it will now be a factor in the company's sustainability criteria.
So far, the reservations about palm oil do not seem to have affected the market. Production rose 6.6 percent last year and will increase another 5.5 percent this year to 37 million tons, according to Fortis Bank. Prices have risen 35 percent in the last year and are still rising, it said.
Arthur Max, Associated Press
April 2, 2007 — Only a few years ago, oil from palm trees was viewed as an ideal biofuel: a cheap, renewable alternative to petroleum that would fight global warming. Energy companies began converting generators and production soared.
Now, it's increasingly seen as an example of how well-meaning efforts to limit climate-changing carbon emissions may backfire.
Marcel Silvius, a climate expert at Wetlands International in the Netherlands, led a team that compared the benefits of palm oil to the ecological harm from destroying virgin Asian rain forests to develop lucrative new plantations.
His conclusion: "As a biofuel, it's a failure."
Scientists and policymakers from more than 100 countries are meeting in Brussels, Belgium, starting Monday to report on the impact of global warming, including storms, flooding and the extinction of plants and animals.
Then in May, the group intends to issue recommendations on how best to fight it, through new technologies and possible use of alternatives. The lessons of palm oil are sure to figure into their discussion.
Long a primary ingredient in food and cosmetics, palm oil derivatives caught on about five years ago as a source of renewable energy, spurred by subsidies in many European Union countries. Imports have risen 65 percent since 2002.
Palm oil is attractive because it is relatively abundant, cheap at about $550 per ton, and requires few or no modifications to existing power stations.
Unlike carbon-rich fossil fuels, palm oil is considered carbon-neutral, meaning the carbon emitted from burning it is the same as what is absorbed during growth.
But the result of intensified farming has been to unleash far more greenhouse gases than will be saved at power stations.
The report issued late last year by Wetlands International, Delft Hydraulics and the Alterra Research Center of Wageningen University in Holland studied the carbon released from peat swamps in Indonesia and Malaysia that had been drained and burned to plant palm oil trees. About 85 percent of the world's palm oil comes from the two countries, and about one-quarter of Indonesia's plantations are on drained peat bogs, the report said.
The four-year study found that 600 million tons of carbon dioxide seep into the air each year from the drained swamps. Another 1.4 billion tons go up in smoke from fires lit to clear rain forest for plantations — smoke that often shrouds Singapore and Malaysia in an impenetrable haze for weeks at a time.
Together, those 2 billion tons of CO2 account for 8 percent of the world's fossil fuel emissions, the report said.
Friends of the Earth, another environmental group, called the report "astonishing," and said it shows that harvesting palm oil for fuel is counterproductive. "It undermines the whole project," said a climate specialist for the group, Anne van Schaik.
The study was not independently verified by the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat in Bonn, Germany, or by the World Resources Institute in Washington, D.C., the two leading monitoring groups. But experts said the research appeared credible. It is due to be published for peer review later this year.
Deforestation is the No. 2 cause of greenhouse gas emissions after the burning of fossil fuels, said Jeffrey Dukes, a biologist at the University of Massachusetts who was not part of the research. He said clearing peat swamps for plantations is "a double whammy."
It not only releases carbon trapped over many millennia, but destroys the most efficient ecosystem on the planet for sucking carbon from the atmosphere, Dukes said.
Expanding production of palm oil is "a terrible decision. Whether or not it's consciously made, it's society going in reverse," he said.
Major power companies are divided on whether to continue or pursue palm oil generation.
Leon Flexman, of RWE npower, Britain's largest electricity supplier, said his company decided against palm oil after a year of study because it could not verify its supplies would be free of the taint of destroyed rain forest or peat bogs, he said.
The Dutch power company Essent announced in December it had stopped burning until it can trace and verify the sources.
Biox, a Dutch startup, said it plans careful scrutiny of palm oil sources but will proceed with construction of three 50 megawatt power stations that burn palm oil byproducts exclusively. That's enough electricity to light all the homes in Amsterdam.
"From the start, we knew we can't stay in business if we can't prove that production is sustainable," said Biox executive Arjen Brinkmann. "Until this report came out, peat lands was not an issue because we hadn't heard of it. Nobody had heard," he said, adding that it will now be a factor in the company's sustainability criteria.
So far, the reservations about palm oil do not seem to have affected the market. Production rose 6.6 percent last year and will increase another 5.5 percent this year to 37 million tons, according to Fortis Bank. Prices have risen 35 percent in the last year and are still rising, it said.
Kamis, 29 Maret 2007
Kabar Maret
wah Progress besar buat JIWANDARU...
1. sukses perdana label JIWANDARU, semoga edisi berikutnya sama suksesnya
2. sukses kerja sama finansial dengan i-finance, semoga kerja samanya bisa ditingkatkan lagi
3. dah mulai bagi2 tugas yang spesifik
ayo, kembangkan ide, jiwa sehat badan juga harus sehat... pacu terus semangat dan kreatifitasmu...
and i get some quotes for jiwandaru's
challenge requires some adventurers [abie-jiwandaru]
1. sukses perdana label JIWANDARU, semoga edisi berikutnya sama suksesnya
2. sukses kerja sama finansial dengan i-finance, semoga kerja samanya bisa ditingkatkan lagi
3. dah mulai bagi2 tugas yang spesifik
ayo, kembangkan ide, jiwa sehat badan juga harus sehat... pacu terus semangat dan kreatifitasmu...
and i get some quotes for jiwandaru's
challenge requires some adventurers [abie-jiwandaru]
Sabtu, 24 Februari 2007
Fren, new produk jiwandaru, this for d detail:
code: s-1 price: IDR 65.000 item: 24 pcs
for futher information contact us jiwandaru@gmail.com or sms for XL/call 0818 026 27 969 (work time: 07.00-16.00)
Senin, 29 Januari 2007
Hutan Indonesia Menjelang Kepunahan
Hutan Indonesia Menjelang Kepunahan
Indonesia memiliki 10% hutan tropis dunia yang masih tersisa. Hutan Indonesia memiliki 12% dari jumlah spesies binatang menyusui/mamalia, pemilik 16% spesies binatang reptil dan ampibi, 1.519 spesies burung dan 25% dari spesies ikan dunia. Sebagian dianataranya adalah endemik atau hanya dapat ditemui di daerah tersebut.
Luas hutan alam asli Indonesia menyusut dengan kecepatan yang sangat mengkhawatirkan. Hingga saat ini, Indonesia telah kehilangan hutan aslinya sebesar 72 persen [World Resource Institute, 1997]. Penebangan hutan Indonesia yang tidak terkendali selama puluhan tahun dan menyebabkan terjadinya penyusutan hutan tropis secara besar-besaran. Laju kerusakan hutan periode 1985-1997 tercatat 1,6 juta hektar per tahun, sedangkan pada periode 1997-2000 menjadi 3,8 juta hektar per tahun. Ini menjadikan Indonesia merupakan salah satu tempat dengan tingkat kerusakan hutan tertinggi di dunia. Di Indonesia berdasarkan hasil penafsiran citra landsat tahun 2000 terdapat 101,73 juta hektar hutan dan lahan rusak, diantaranya seluas 59,62 juta hektar berada dalam kawasan hutan. [Badan Planologi Dephut, 2003].
Pada abad ke-16 sampai pertengahan abad ke-18, hutan alam di Jawa diperkirakan masih sekitar 9 juta hektar. Pada akhir tahun 1980-an, tutupan hutan alam di Jawa hanya tinggal 0,97 juta hektar atau 7 persen dari luas total Pulau Jawa. Saat ini, penutupan lahan di pulau Jawa oleh pohon tinggal 4 %. Pulau Jawa sejak tahun 1995 telah mengalami defisit air sebanyak 32,3 miliar meter kubik setiap tahunnya.
Dampak Kerusakan Hutan
Dengan semakin berkurangnya tutupan hutan Indonesia, maka sebagian besar kawasan Indonesia telah menjadi kawasan yang rentan terhadap bencana, baik bencana kekeringan, banjir maupun tanah longsor. Sejak tahun 1998 hingga pertengahan 2003, tercatat telah terjadi 647 kejadian bencana di Indonesia dengan 2022 korban jiwa dan kerugian milyaran rupiah, dimana 85% dari bencana tersebut merupakan bencana banjir dan longsor yang diakibatkan kerusakan hutan [Bakornas Penanggulangan Bencana, 2003].
Selain itu, Indonesia juga akan kehilangan beragam hewan dan tumbuhan yang selama ini menjadi kebanggaan bangsa Indonesia. Sementara itu, hutan Indonesia selama ini merupakan sumber kehidupan bagi sebagian rakyat Indonesia. Hutan merupakan tempat penyedia makanan, penyedia obat-obatan serta menjadi tempat hidup bagi sebagian besar rakyat Indonesia. Dengan hilangnya hutan di Indonesia, menyebabkan mereka kehilangan sumber makanan dan obat-obatan. Seiring dengan meningkatnya kerusakan hutan Indonesia, menunjukkan semakin tingginya tingkat kemiskinan rakyat Indonesia, dan sebagian masyarakat miskin di Indonesia hidup berdampingan dengan hutan.
Apa hanya itu?
Hutan Indonesia juga merupakan paru-paru dunia, yang dapat menyerap karbon dan menyediakan oksigen bagi kehidupan di muka bumi ini.
Fungsi hutan sebagai penyimpan air tanah juga akan terganggu akibat terjadinya pengrusakan hutan yang terus-menerus. Hal ini akan berdampak pada semakin seringnya terjadi kekeringan di musim kemarau dan banjir serta tanah longsor di musim penghujan. Pada akhirnya, hal ini akan berdampak serius terhadap kondisi perekonomian masyarakat.
Mengapa Hutan Kita Rusak?
Industri perkayuan di Indonesia memiliki kapasitas produksi sangat tinggi dibanding ketersediaan kayu. Pengusaha kayu melakukan penebangan tak terkendali dan merusak, pengusaha perkebunan membuka perkebunan yang sangat luas, serta pengusaha pertambangan membuka kawasan-kawasan hutan.
Sementara itu rakyat digusur dan dipinggirkan dalam pengelolaan hutan yang mengakibatkan rakyat tak lagi punya akses terhadap hutan mereka.
Dan hal ini juga diperparah dengan kondisi pemerintahan yang korup, dimana hutan dianggap sebagai sumber uang dan dapat dikuras habis untuk kepentingan pribadi dan kelompok.
Bagaimana itu terjadi?
Penebangan hutan di Indonesia yang tak terkendali telah dimulai sejak akhir tahun 1960-an, yang dikenal dengan banjir-kap, dimana orang melakukan penebangan kayu secara manual. Penebangan hutan skala besar dimulai pada tahun 1970. Dan dilanjutkan dengan dikeluarkannya ijin-ijin pengusahaan hutan tanaman industri di tahun 1990, yang melakukan tebang habis (land clearing).
Selain itu, areal hutan juga dialihkan fungsinya menjadi kawasan perkebunan skala besar yang juga melakukan pembabatan hutan secara menyeluruh, menjadi kawasan transmigrasi dan juga menjadi kawasan pengembangan perkotaan.
Di tahun 1999, setelah otonomi dimulai, pemerintah daerah membagi-bagikan kawasan hutannya kepada pengusaha daerah dalam bentuk hak pengusahaan skala kecil. Di saat yang sama juga terjadi peningkatan aktivitas penebangan hutan tanpa ijin yang tak terkendali oleh kelompok masyarakat yang dibiayai pemodal (cukong) yang dilindungi oleh aparat pemerintah dan keamanan.
Upaya Yang Dilakukan
Pemerintah Indonesia melalui keputusan bersama Departemen Kehutanan dan Departemen Perindustrian dan Perdagangan sejak tahun 2001 telah mengeluarkan larangan ekspor kayu bulat (log) dan bahan baku serpih. Dan di tahun 2003, Departemen Kehutanan telah menurunkan jatah tebang tahunan (jumlah yang boleh ditebang oleh pengusaha hutan) menjadi 6,8 juta meter kubik setahun dan akan diturunkan lagi di tahun 2004 menjadi 5,7 juta meter kubik setahun.
Pemerintah juga telah membentuk Badan Revitalisasi Industri Kehutanan (BRIK) yang bertugas untuk melakukan penyesuaian produksi industri kehutanan dengan ketersediaan bahan baku dari hutan.
Selain itu, Pemerintah juga telah berkomitmen untuk melakukan pemberantasan illegal logging dan juga melakukan rehabilitasi hutan melalui Gerakan Nasional Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan (GNRHL) yang diharapkan di tahun 2008 akan dihutankan kembali areal seluas tiga juta hektar.
Hasil Yang Diperoleh
Sayangnya Pemerintah masih menjalankan itu semua sebagai sebuah ucapan belaka tanpa adanya sebuah realisasi di lapangan. Hingga tahun 2002 masih dilakukan ekspor kayu bulat yang menunjukkan adanya pelanggaran dari kebijakan pemerintah sendiri. Dan pemerintah masih akan memberikan ijin pengusahaan hutan alam dan hutan tanaman seluas 900-an ribu hektar kepada pengusaha melalui pelelangan. Pemerintah juga belum memiliki perencanaan menyeluruh untuk memperbaiki kerusakan hutan melalui rehabilitasi, namun kegiatan tersebut dipaksakan untuk dilaksanakan, yang tentunya akan mengakibatkan terjadinya salah sasaran dan kemungkinan terjadinya kegagalan dalam pelaksanaan.
Hal yang terpenting dan belum dilakukan pemerintah saat ini adalah menutup industri perkayuan Indonesia yang memiliki banyak utang. Pemerintah juga belum menyesuaikan produksi industri dengan kemampuan penyediaan bahan baku kayu bagi industri oleh hutan. Hal ini dapat mengakibatkan kegiatan penebangan hutan tanpa ijin akan terus berlangsung.
Dan dengan hanya menurunkan jatah tebang tahunan, maka kita masih belum bisa membedakan mana kayu yang sah dan yang tidak sah. Bila saja pemerintah untuk sementara waktu menghentikan pemberian jatah tebang, maka dapat dipastikan bahwa semua kayu yang keluar dari hutan adalah kayu yang tidak sah atau illegal, sehingga penegakan hukum bisa dilakukan.
Apa yang seharusnya dilakukan?
Untuk menghentikan kerusakan hutan di Indonesia, maka pemerintah harus mulai serius untuk tidak lagi mengeluarkan ijin-ijin baru pengusahaan hutan, pemanfaatan kayu maupun perkebunan, serta melakukan penegakan hukum terhadap pelaku ekspor kayu bulat dan bahan baku serpih. Pemerintah juga harus melakukan uji menyeluruh terhadap kinerja industri kehutanan dan melakukan penegakan hukum bagi industri yang bermasalah. Setelah tahapan ini, perlu dilakukan penataan kembali kawasan hutan yang rusak dan juga menangani dampak sosial akibat penghentian penebangan hutan, misalkan dengan mempekerjakan pekerja industri kehutanan dalam proyek penanaman pohon.
Kemudian, bila telah tertata kembali sistem pengelolaan hutan, maka pemberian ijin penebangan kayu hanya pada hutan tanaman atau hutan yang dikelola berbasiskan masyarakat lokal.
Selama penghentian sementara [moratorium] dijalankan, industri-industri kayu tetap dapat jalan dengan cara mengimpor bahan baku kayu. Untuk memudahkan pengawasan tersebut, maka jenis kayu yang diimpor haruslah berbeda dengan jenis kayu yang ada di Indonesia.
Dan yang terpenting adalah mengembalikan kedaulatan rakyat dalam pengelolaan hutan, karena rakyat Indonesia sejak lama telah mampu mengelola hutan Indonesia.
Dapatkah individu membantu?
Ya, dengan melakukan lobby, menulis surat ataupun melakukan tekanan kepada pemerintah agar serius menjaga hutan Indonesia yang tersisa. Selain itu, lakukan pengawasan terhadap peredaran kayu di wilayah terdekat, dan berikan laporan kepada Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI) terdekat ataupun lembaga non pemerintah lainnya dan kepada instansi penegak hukum, serta media massa, bila menemukan terjadinya peredaran kayu tanpa ijin maupun kegiatan pengrusakan hutan.
Dan mulailah menanam pohon untuk kebutuhan kayu keluarga di masa datang, memanfaatkan kayu dengan bijak dan tidak lagi membeli kayu-kayu hasil penebangan yang merusak hutan. Hutan Indonesia Menjelang Kepunahan
Jumat, 22 Desember 2006
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
