(Catatan: Riska, Bang Asun, Pak Ntis, Habibah, dan nama-nama yang kucatut, mohon ijinnya ya.. Hehehe)

Siapa yang suka bangun pagi di akhir pekan?!  Adakah? Apakah aku? Akupun ragu. Dan ini adalah cerita tentang Sabtu pagi-ku di pertengahan Desember. Cerita yang berlatarkan Ciliwung dan ke-tiba-tiba-an (mungkin kalau istilah Inggrisnya Ke-suddenly-an kali ya) niatku yang ujug-ujug muncul. Simak ya.

Jumat malam itu aku buka-buka dan kubaca SMS masuk. Satu SMS yang selalu hadir tiap Jumat itu berbunyi: "KPC Bogor Sabtu 12/12/15 mulung sampah bebersih Ciliwung. Kumpul pkl 08.00 wib di depan mesin pencacah plastik KPC Sempur. CP Joko 021xxxx.". Aih, beberapa kawan-kawanku di Bogor pastilah sudah sangat akrab dengan SMS itu. Kamu juga sering dapat ya? Hehehe.. Seingatku dulu, ada ratusan nomer HP yang mendapatkan SMS rutin itu tiap Jumat. Dan ini sudah tahun ke-7, KPC Bogor bergelut dengan Ciliwung, mengajak puluhan-ratusan-bahkan ribuan orang untuk menengok kembali sungai yang pernah jadi wajah sejarah Pajajaran ini. (Kenapa sejarah? Aku teringat cerita jalur tamu dan jalur bangsawan, cerita dari Mas Hari Kikuk tentang sungai ini di jaman dulu.). Kubaca sekilas SMS itu, dan ujug-ujug aku merasa berkepentingan untuk ke Sempur. Okelah, fix! Besok pagi aku ikut mulung. Kuajak Habibah, kawan kosanku yang masih muda belia, dan tak banyak cingcong dia langsung jawab "Oke mbak!".

Tidak jauh, meskipun tak bisa dibilang dekat juga. Kami sampai di Sempur, turun dari angkot 03 yang sesak, jam 8 kurang sepuluh menit. Di tempat berkumpul kulihat seorang ibu paruh baya sedang asik menikmati sebatang rokok. Alamak, jadi pengen juga. Ups, tahan dulu. Kusapa si ibu dan kutanya apa dia datang untuk KPC. Eh, ternyata dia hanya sedang menikmati pagi rupanya. Ah, yasudahlah. Tak berapa lama, Pak Joko sang CP (Contact Person) muncul. Dia mengatakan akan datang juga kawan dari IPB, tepatnya dari Fakultas Ekologi Manusia yang ingin gabung mulung Sabtu pagi ini. Ah, baguslah. Semakin rame biar semakin seru. Dan datanglah mereka, 5 cewek berkerudung dengan kaos hijau pastel kembar. Salah seorang membawa tripod dan lainnya membawa kamera DSLR. Tarohan, pasti tugas kuliah. Hehehe.. Dan memang benar dugaanku.  Mereka pun membuat entahlah, semacam film mungkin, dengan mewawancarai Pak Joko. Aku dan Habibah, melihat-lihat saja sambil sesekali selfie di pinggir sungai. Waktu berselang dan Pak Ntis datang membawa senjata kami: KARUNG!!!

Laskar Karung KPC - Sabtu pagi itu

(Photo by: Sutisna Rey)

Aku dan Habibah mulai mulung duluan. Kuambil 2 karung, satu untuk seorang dan kami turun ke sungai. Kulihat, sampah banyak nyangkut di tepi sungai, terbawa banjir semalam. Gak kebayang, sampah dari mana saja ini? Mulailah aku dan Habibah mulung apa yang bisa dipulung, mulai dari bungkus detergen, bungkus indomi, hingga kutang dan puluhan popok bayi. Nah, yang terakhir itu perlu digaris-bawahi, POPOK BAYI. Astaga,...! Kenapa ya orang-orang ini? Sakit jiwa? Kenapa banyak banget ya popok bayi di kali? Sejak mulung kapan tahun, popok bayi seakan jadi tamu wajib. Bahkan, pernah nih, aku dapat popok bayi yang masih segar berisi. Pasti tahu kan isinya apa? Pokoknya, warnanya gak kalah gonjreng dibanding bendera partai sebelah itu. Jadi gatel pingin ngomongin popok nih. Yuk mari,..

Penggunaan popok bayi sekali pakai sepertinya memang menjadi hal yang perlu diperhatikan. Karena sepertinya, para ibu-ibu (atau bapak-bapak?) penggunanya masih bingung bagaimana cara mengelolanya. "Make'nya sih gampang. Sekali bayi brott langsung buang gak perlu dicuci." Iya sih. Tapi, buangnya gak harus di kali juga. Lalu dimana? Di tempat sampah? Bau kali, jorok, dll. Lah, dikira dibuang di kali gak jorok? Sebenarnya aku pun gak tahu gimana caranya buang popok bayi bekas yang benar. Maklum belum pernah ber-bayi. Apakah di kuning harus dibuang dulu di WC, atau langsung aja buang bareng sama popok-popoknya. Entahlah. Tapi yang jelas, yang make harusnya tahu. Yang jual harusnya juga ngasih tahu. Btw, dikasih tahu gak sih? Jadi ingat sama Jeng Riska, sang dewi Ikan dari Surabaya yang pernah getol mengangkat fenomena popok bayi ini juga. Jeng, gimana sekarang kondisi Kali Surabaya? Apakah popok masih banyak dijumpa? Bang Asun sempat mengajak ber-ide,"Gimana ya caranya biar orang gak buang popok di kali? Apa perlu kita bikin mitos? Orang kita kalau ke mitos lebih cepat percayanya!". Ah, bener juga kataku. Bikin aja rumor,"Buang popok di kali bisa bikin ruam pantat bayi.". Kali-kali aja itu manjur. Sudahlah, popok bayi mah. Lanjut  lagi,..

Oops, ada popok bayi pasti di sana!
(Photo: Sutisna Rey)

Kawan-kawan dari IPB pun ikut nyemplung bersama, jadi ada 5 tambah 2 tambah 2, ahh. 9 orang totalnya yang mulung hari ini. Lumayanlah. Kami bersemangat mengangkut sampah-sampah itu. Aku, paling senang, mengais-ngais sampah yang nyangkut di celah batu. Sampah kayak gitu, kelihatannya dikit, tapi wooo...aslinya banyak. Lebih seru lagi kalau nemu 'Anaconda Ciliwung'. Dijamin keringat mengucur deras. Satu demi satu sampah kami masukkan karung, hingga kemudian tercium baru menyengat yang hampir membuatku muntah. Di dunia ini, hanya satu bau yang bisa membuat mataku langsung merah berair dan perutku seakan mau keluar. Bau bangkai. Dan di Sabtu pagi inipun, bau ini hampir berhasil membuatku mual. Aku tidak sanggup lagi dan tak berapa kami penuhi karung, kami berhenti. Kebetulan karung juga sudah habis, meskipun sampah masih berserakan. Cukup hari ini. Kamipun berpisah dan kembali ke aktivitas masing-masing. Hampir jam 10 pagi waktu itu.

Sambil berjalan di tepi sungai, Habibah mengatakan, "Enak juga ya melakukan begini di akhir pekan?". Aku pun sedikit terhenyak dengan pernyataan itu. Enak? Apanya yang enak? Kalau enak kan pasti banyak orang yang akan turun. Aku berpikir, apa yang bisa dilakukan untuk menjadikan orang juga merasa 'enak' seperti yang Habibah rasakan, seperti juga yang aku rasakan. Rasa enak yang absurd inilah yang mahal. Rasa 'enak' inilah yang bisa menjadi fondasi dasar semua kegiatan yang berdasarkan ke-suka-rela-an atau voluntarisme. Tak ada orang yang dibayar di sini, tak ada fasilitas apapun di sini. Bahkan, yang akan ditemui adalah gundukan sampah yang bahkan menggunung, berbau busuk dan menjijikkan. Tapi, ada yang bilang itu semua 'Enak'.

Aku teringat dulu, setahun lalu aku sempat menanyakan hal yang sama pada beberapa orang di Oregon sana, "What makes you do that voluntary works? Why do you want to do it?". Kenapa orang mau-maunya bersihin rumput di taman kota, kenapa mereka mau nyumbang duit banyak untuk restorasi ikan? Buat apa mereka merelakan waktu untuk ini dan untuk itu? Dan jawabannya hanya sederhana, "I feel good with it.". Sesederhana itu saja. Orang merasa baik, orang merasa enak. Mungkin seperti Habibah bilang 'enak' tadi. 

"Apa kamu punya ide untuk KPC Bogor Net?", tanya Bang Asun dan Pak Ntis siangnya, di kantor FWI yang sudah jadi rumah singgah wajib sehabis mulung, selain tentunya kantor INFIS. Pertanyaan ini agak-agak berat gimana gitu ya. Jujur, aku terlalu sibuk dengan diriku sendiri dan kerja yang sebenarnya sibuk gak sibuk. Setelah beberapa waktu aku tidak datang di Sabtu pagi, aku merasa tidak layak menjawab pertanyaan itu. Tunggu, tunggu! "Come on Net, this is not very you! ", kudengar aku memarahi diriku sendiri. Hahaha... Oke, oke. Aku coba jawab pertanyaan itu.

Jadi, sama seperti yang kuceritakan tentang Habibah dan rasa 'enak'nya yang absurd itu. Intinya adalah bagaimana membuat orang merasakan 'enak' itu, 'feel good' itu. Bagaimana membuat Ciliwung mempesona bagi mereka? Bagaimana membuat sungai ini menjadi ajang orang-orang berekpresi. Orang yang mau ibadah, bisa bersyukur dan beramal di Ciliwung. Orang yang agak narsis (saya misalnya) bisa selfie-selfie sambil mulung sampah Ciliwung biar kelihatan jadi orang baik. Hahaha.. Yang doyan bermedsos, bisa update status entah di Fesbuk, Twitter, Path, instagram atau apapun lah dengan hashtag Ciliwung. Orang yang doyan nulis pasti akan banyak bahan tulisan. Orang yang suka riset bisa juga cari bahan riset. Atau orang yang memang doyan nyemplung kali  ya tinggal nyemplung aja. Hehehe.. Sepertinya sederhana kan. Memang pada dasarnya, niat ber-voluntary, umumnya sederhana. 

Bagaimana cara? Yok cari bareng-bareng. Yang jelas nyata bagiku adalah, kalau tujuannya kampanye ya harus dilihat banyak orang, didengar banyak orang. Biarkan orang tahu dan melihat. Kalau mereka lihat kita 'enak' toh mereka pasti akan ikutan. Kalau 'enak' sendiri mah apa bedanya sama 'itu'. Hahaha... Maaf, saya nulis ini sudah agak malam sih,  jadi sedikit nyrempet-nyrempet.  Sepertinya sudah ngantuk saya, jadi sudahan dulu ya. Yang jelas, 'enak absurd' itu yang perlu dicari dan mari temukan itu bersama-sama. 

Bukankah begitu kawan?

Salam cinta dan rinduku pada sungai, gunung, hutan, alam semesta dan manusia yang sangat indah. Muachh..

Dan terutama untuk Ciliwung yang berhasil membuatku bangun pagi di Sabtu pagi! Good job C!

Minggu, 13 Desember 2015 (23:49)

Kaos Ijo kawan-kawan FEMA IPB, aku dan Habibah. C...
(photo by: Sutisna Rey)

Giliran teman-teman FEMA IPB, Pak Joko, Pak Ntis, dan Habibah
(Fotonya pastinya aku yang njepret :) )

-----

(Below is the result summary of my study while I was in World Forest Institute's fellowship program. This was also a paper material that was already accepted for IS-River conference in France-2015 which unfortunately I was not able to attend. I just want to share it again here on my personal blog.) 

----

Public Engagement in River Management, Lessons Learned From The Willamette River in USA to Indonesia’s River

Sudiyah Istichomah

Indonesia,  nonette262@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

There is an obvious need for the public to be involved in the management of natural resources, including forests, rivers, and resources. There are major challenges in Indonesia around river management such as floods, pollution, land conversion, and low community participation. The Minister of Environment stated that in 2014 75% of the large rivers in Indonesia were contaminated. This study aimed to explore how rivers are managed in the US, using the Willamette River in Portland as a case study. The focus was especially on public involvement  and how that can be applied to Indonesia. Many things can be learned from the Willamette River are 1) Government agencies are actively involved in community programs, the public are also actively involved, and there are nonprofit organizations that oversee government management, 2) Things like dam removal, installation of LWD for fish habitat, and re-meandering rivers are all management tools that would benefit Indonesia, 3) The use of an iconic species such as salmon as the impetus to restore the river is an excellent idea. Indonesia can look for an iconic  species  of their own , 4) Using the river as part of urban ecotourism. The Willamette River is a great Portland attraction for things like jogging, sailing, swimming, etc.

KEYWORDS

Public engagement, involvement, river, USA, Indonesia

1           Introduction

      Indonesian River and Challenges

There is an obvious need for the public to be involved in the management of natural resources, including forests, rivers, and resources. Today, water and river management  is an important issue around the world. There are major challenges in Indonesia around river management such as floods, pollution, land conversion, and low community participation. The Minister of Environment stated that in 2014 75% of the large rivers in Indonesia were contaminated.

This study aimed to explore how rivers are managed in the US, using the Willamette River in Portland as a case study. The focus was especially on public involvement  and how that can be applied to Indonesia.

Why this study is important:

1. Water is necessary for all life on earth. Rivers reflect the level care that is put into managing water resource and they need to be cared for.
2. Learning how developed countries use public involvement in river management  in important so that developing countries can learn from these models.
3. The Willamette River is an important river in Oregon. It flows through the city of Portland and has a complex management, influenced by the urban environment with many different governmental and interested parties engaged in its management.

For 6 six months fellowship program in World Forest Institute, June – November 2014, writer did a study to learn about river management within the USA, with case study of the Willamette River in Portland, Oregon State. The study’s objectives are to know about the general condition of the river management and to find lessons learned that can be applied in Indonesia.

Four main questions for this study are,

1. What is the current state of management of the Willamette River in Portland?
2. Who are the actors that play a role in the management of the river and what are the roles?
3. Is there a forum that brings together those parties?
4. How does it compare with the situation in Indonesia?

The research was conducted in two ways: interviews and literature studies. Interviews were conducted with government agencies, experts, non-profit organizations and the general public in random. Literature was reviewed from websites, journals, news and other sources. A number of  fieldtrips with the World Forest Institute also allowed me to gain knowledge about the management of natural resources, especially rivers of PNW in general.

2. RESULT

2.1 Willamette River – Portland, A river with a long history

The Willamette River Basin is the largest watershed in the state, covering more than 11,500 square miles. Portland occupies only a small fraction of the river’s drainage basin, about one-half of one percent, but is the most urbanized area. Native salmon, steelhead and other fish and wildlife species live within Portland’s urban boundary, and also  migrate through Portland to other parts of the Willamette River Basin, Columbia River Basin and beyond.

The Willamette River faces a lot of problems, including pollution and water quality. In 2000, the federal government established that the river has become one of the Super Fund site cleanup projects because of it’s heavy pollution. This program involves many stakeholders: governments, private companies, numbers of environmental organizations, and also the general public who actively care for the implementation of the programs.

Restoration carried out in upstream rivers and creeks also provide a major influence on the Willamette River in Portland. Restoration of the Willamette River, and generally in the PNW, is closely related to salmon, which has been included in the category of endangered species. Salmon migrations connect the downstream and upstream of river systems and salmon habitat restoration has proven beneficial for the restoration of the river as a whole. Various restoration programs are conducted with the involvement of the general public, such as  volunteer-based tree planting, cleaning streams of garbage, and invasive species removal.

2.2 Actors in Willamette River Management

Who are the actors in river management?

In general, there are four groups that play an active role in management: Government, Private companies/ land owners, nonprofit organizations, and the general public.

Government plays the largest role in river management. They set the policy and develop the manage plans. They engage the public throughout the entire process using various means. Some of these are: transparency – letting the media and public know of their plans, public comment periods for each program so they know what the public wants, providing public field tours, and creating advisory groups.

Nonprofit organizations such as Willamette Riverkeepers or watershed councils can play a complimentary role to government organizations. Through their programs and campaigns, they raise awareness about the river and encourage public to be more. They also can monitor the work of government.

Private companies and land owners typically use a lot of water resources for their business and do have a voice in management of the water. They can support the government and nonprofit organizations that works for river by give fund or have partnership. Landowners usually do the stream restoration and conservation in their property.

The general public is the most important part of this system. The public can actively participate in river management in many ways: read the news and updates about government programs, give active responses during public comment periods, and volunteer in events related to the river.

There are of course many divergent opinions about and interests in the Willamette River. Public engagement is one way to help the various groups work together and understand each other interests in the water. However, developing  discussion forums and consensus on ideas and is difficult and requires a lot of work to have all the parties come together.

Are there forums that bring together interested parties?

Advisory councils and watershed councils provide a forum for people to meet and discuss their concerns about the river.

Watershed councils are locally organized, voluntary, non-regulatory groups established to improve the conditions of watersheds in their local area. They bring together local stakeholders from private, local, state, and federal interests in a partnership, to help plan restoration. In Oregon, there are at least 74 watershed councils that build a big network of people dedicated to supporting the work of river protection and restoration throughout the state.

2.3 Lessons Learned: From Portland to Indonesia

River management in Indonesia is led by the government. There are at least 14 ministries related to water management with the Ministry of Public Work being the main ministry in charge of infrastructure and management of the river. There are also several NGOs that are actively involved in water issues. But there is  a lack of participation by the general public.

In Indonesia, there is also a Water Resources Council, a forum of river management parties at the national or provincial level. They don’t function well however  because coordination is lacking and not everyone’s interests can be accommodated. The most interesting thing is the trend of community volunteer organizations like River Defenders which recently formed all around Indonesia as an expression of concern from a small number of the public for the poor condition of the river.

Many things can be learned from the Willamette River:

•  Government agencies are actively involved in community programs, the public are also actively involved, and there are nonprofit organizations that oversee government management.
• Things like dam removal, installation of LWD for fish habitat, and re-meandering rivers are all management tools that would benefit Indonesia.
• The use of an iconic species such as salmon as the impetus to restore the river is an excellent idea. Indonesia can look for an iconic  species  of their own.
• Using the river as part of urban ecotourism. The Willamette River is a great Portland attraction for things like jogging, sailing, swimming, etc.. Urban rivers in Indonesia have not been widely used for leisure purposes.

---------

img source: here 

Serayu River - Central Java (2011)

"If you have what it takes to make a big change in the environmental condition in this country, what would you want to do?", one of my friend asked me that question. And now, I am still thinking about that. A simple question doesn't always need a simple answer. It can be so much complicated. But, the simpler is the easier to understand, even for the answerer. So, I think that I would just to answer it in simple way.  

It was all started with my 'accidental' interest in river and water management issue that leads me to know a little faction of this big issue. What I know all this time is that there's something wrong with the water management in this country. And, just like everybody else, the easiest way to do is blaming the government. I said, "They should or shouldn't do this and that, bla bla bla...!". I always ask for action from others with justification that that's all their job and I do not have enough power to do it myself. Then, the question hit me for a second!  

If I have all the resources I need (fund, time, team) in order to change the current poor condition of the river in this country, what would I do? What I want to do? Hahaha.. It really hits me. I didn't have confidence answering it in a blink of eye.  Unexpectedly, I need more time to think. Whoaa...! I got something on my mind that really interest me. Maybe my confusion is just the same thing with what the government has. They have resources, they have power, but maybe they don't have any confidence too, just like me. Or, is it just me who lack of imagination? Who knows?

Well, I will try to answer it here.

In this case, I will create a team whose members are credible and expert in the field.  “The right man in the right place”, they said. Every single person on earth has what they can or can’t do by themselves. To do something that we able to do is one of the ways to gain success in our work. Do not make mistake like put someone in the wrong place. Do not make me a singer while I am a tone-deaf person. Just like, do not make an economist to do some conservation jobs. It’s not about if they can’t do the work or vice-versa. Like in an Indian movie ‘3 Idiots’ I watched several years ago, “Can you imagine if Mariah Carey became an Engineer?!” It doesn’t mean that she can’t but her best is to be a singer.

My position? Of course, I would like to choose to be the leader. Why? My experience when I was chosen as a class representative in SD (elementary school) still lingers in my mind and I think it is not a bad idea to do it again. Post power syndrome! (Lol)

Then, I will just ask them the same question, “What would you like to do if you have what it takes to…”.  The right person in the right place and time will know the answer. We will work together as a perfect team! (Somehow, it feels like Multi Level Marketing. J )

As simple as that!

Further question? Let’s wait for the expert’s answer. Maybe ‘The Fish Goddess’ Riska Darmawanti has an answer regarding the river ecology, or the activist of Ciliwung Sudirman Asun has answer about people’ voluntarism, etc. The names I mentioned here just several names that came to my mind when I was writing this. So, it doesn’t mean anything actually.

How would I know the best person? How can I manage all of them? How to ensure everything is okay? How this and that? (OMG! Why this ‘How’ question is so complicated? How many ‘Hows’ are there? Hahaha…

I am laughing to myself again. Maybe I am not qualified to be a good leader like I said. It’s a half joke! I would prefer to be one of the team members who work for the river. What can I do? Social Research maybe….

You?

img source: here 

Hutan TN Gede Pangrango dilihat dari Desa Cimande bersebelahan dengan Desa Pancawati, Caringin, Bogor. 

"Ya, di situ di DAS.", kata Pak Jamil (bukan nama asli) - seorang warga desa sambil menunjuk jurang tempat Sungai Cimande mengalir. Dalam hatiku aku was-was. Kenapa? Terdengar lagi satu istilah yang sempat membuatku berkerut : DAS atau Daerah Aliran Sungai. Jangan-jangan,.... Mari disimak apa yang terpikir olehku saat itu. 

Hari ini, aku mengunjungi Desa Pancawati, sebuah desa di Kaki Gunung Pangrango yang diapit oleh rimba yang kini telah berstatus Taman Nasional Gede Pangrango dan daerah-daerah industri terutama Pabrik Danone Aqua yang boleh dikatakan sebagai perusahaan air minum dalam kemasan terbesar di Indonesia. Di desa yang katanya merupakan daerah yang dekat atau malah memang daerah 'recharging area' - kawasan untuk serapan air tanah, berbagai kegiatan yang melibatkan perusahaan air itu pun menjadi bagian dari kehidupan sehari-hari masyarakatnya. Danone telah menggelontorkan dana CSRnya dan mungkin dana lainnya juga di sini. Melalui LSM lokal setempat, perusahaan itu telah membantu masyarakat setempat baik dalam bidang ekonomi ataupun pembinaan tentang lingkungannya. Tak lupa pula, ada peran taman nasional yang juga ikut kecipratan 'rejeki' dari adanya perusahaan besar ini. Nah, apa hubungannya dengan Pak Jamal dan DAS? Aku bukannya akan membahas tentang program ataupun untung rugi adanya interaksi ini. Aku hanya ingin menggaris-bawahi penggunaan istilah populer, terkesan scientific, cerdas, dan sering sekali disalah-pahami, yaitu DAS. 

Interaksi yang intensif antara masyarakat dengan golongan akademisi, peneliti, perwakilan perusahaan dan aktivis lingkungan yang kadang menggunakan kata-kata dan istilah tertentu, pasti akan menulari pula penduduk dampingan. Karena ini terkait air, maka istilah DAS ikut-ikut terbawa. Bagus di satu sisi. Tapi, jika terjadi kesalah-pahaman tentu menjadi kurang bagus. Nah, ini pula yang aku kuatirkan terjadi dengan Pak Jamal. Ketika dia menyebut kata DAS sambil menunjuk sungai dengan yakinnya, aku mulai ber-dejavu dengan pengalamanku dulu saat aku menemui permasalahan yang serupa. Orang seringkali aku temui menyalah-artikan definisi DAS dengan wilayah kanan-kiri sungai yang dibatasi garis sempadan sungai. Padahal, dua hal itu jelas tidak sama. (Ups, istilah bantaran dan sempada saja ternyata artinya beda. :O) 

"Daerah aliran sungai adalah suatu wilayah daratan yang merupakan satu kesatuan dengan sungai dan anak-anak sungainya, yang berfungsi menampung, menyimpan, dan mengalirkan air yang berasal dari curah hujan ke danau atau ke laut secara alami, yang batas di darat merupakan pemisah topografis dan batas di laut sampai dengan daerah perairan yang masih terpengaruh aktivitas daratan." (UU no. 7 tahun 2004 tentang Sumberdaya Air). 

Sedangkan garis sempadan sungai adalah garis maya/khayal di kanan dan kiri palung sungai yang ditetapkan untuk perlindungan sungai (PP 38/2011 tentang Sungai). Nah, daerah antara garis sempadan dan palung sungai itu yang mungkin seringkali disalah-pahami sebagai DAS. Silakan disanggah jika asumsiku kurang tepat.

Apa yang membuat dua hal ini sering disama-artikan ya? Ada yang tahu? Monggo kalau mau urun suara bisa dikomen. 

Dengan perkataan Pak Jamil di atas tadi, aku berasumsi bahwa dia salah paham. (Aku akan coba cek lagi kapan-kapan. :) ) Pertanyaan lanjutannya adalah, darimana dia bisa salah paham? Ada dua kemungkinan, yaitu: dia memang salah paham sendiri atau jangan-janan memang pendamping masyarakat yang mengenalkan definisi DAS itu pada Pak Jamil sudah salah paham duluan. Tidak mustahil terjadi kemungkinan yang kedua. 

Nah, lalu yang menjadi perhatianku adalah penggunaan istilah dan bahasa-bahasa tertentu ketika berbicara dengan masyarakat umum. Kenapa ada jurusan khusus komunikasi dengan masyarakat di kampus-kampus terkenal, misalnya saja IPB yang punya KPM (Komunikasi Pengembangan Masyarakat)? Pasti karena berkomunikasi dengan masyarakat itu bukan perkara mudah. Karena itu diperlukan keterampilan khusus yang mumpuni agar apa yang kita sampaikan benar-benar pas dipahami oleh mereka, tidak kurang dan tidak lebih.Jangan sampai salah paham apalagi salah langkah. :)

Aku dulu sempat jengkel terhadap seorang kawan yang punya hobi ngomong dengan 'Bahasa Dewa' - suatu istilah untuk bahasa yang susah dipahami konteks maupun maknanya tapi terdengar 'wah' karenan banyaknya penggunaan kata-kata asing, serapan, dan akademis. Ampun banget orang-orang kayak gini! Pernah aku katakan langsung bahwa bisa saja bagi dia indikator seseorang itu cerdas adalah dari semakin tidak dipahaminya apa yang dibicarakannya. "Semakin orang gak paham, maka lo semakin keren dan cerdas!", kataku saat itu. Tapi, masa ya gitu sih? 

Aih, aku tetiba jadi teringat video rekamana Vicky Prasetyo saat pidato pemilihan Kades dengan bahasa Inggris ngaco-nya, yang diiringi para tetua desa yang manggut-manggut entah kagum, entah ngerti, atau entahlah. Jangan sampai kita seperti itu. 

Lhah kok, nyambungnya sama salah konsepsi DAS apa? Coba kamu sambungkan sendiri, lagipula semua ini hanya asumsiku.

Aku di TKP :) 

img source: here

Rencana tata ruang untuk menghindari konflik

Apa sih sebenarnya Perencanaan tata ruang dan lahan (Land use Planning)? Pendefinisian harus jelas agar tidak menimbulkan salah paham dan salah konsepsi.

Salah satu definisi yang ada adalah "Land use Planning is the general term used for a branch of urban planning encompassing various disciplines which seek to order and regulated in an efficient and ethical way, thus preventing land use conflicts."

Bahwa satu tujuan penting dari LUP adalah untuk menghindari munculnya konflik.

Kenapa bisa muncul konflik? Ada beda kepentingan untuk satu objek yang sama, dalam hal ini adalah ruang.  Satu ruang dibebani segala rupa kepentingan dari berbagai pihak. Karena itulah diperlukan perencanaan ruang yang baik dan efektif. Perencanaan ruang (LUP) dibuat untuk mengakomodir seluruh kepentingan dari berbagai pihak terhadap ruang dan lahan yang hanya ada satu.

Rencana harus dibuat berdasarkan kondisi berlangsung

Rencana adalah sesuatu yang dibentuk sebelumnya, maka rencana tata ruangpun seharusnya dibuat sebelum sesuatu. Bagaimana dengan kondisi yang sudah ada, sudah berlangsung, saat rencana itu dibuat. Kalau orang bilang itu sudah bawaannya.  Rencana yang dibuat harus memasukkan kondisi sekarang (atau kalau bahasa kerennya existing condition) dan mendasarkan rencana itu pada kondisi yang benar-benar sebenarnya. Disinilah dimulai pentingnya data yang benar. Maksudnya? Data tentang kondisi berlangsung yang shahih. Salah data di tahap perencanaan pasti buntutnya gak bakal benar.

Bagaimana jika kondisi berlangsung adalah masalah?  

Lalu bagaimana jika kondisi sekarang adalah kondisi yang tidak diinginkan? Maksudnya adalah jika rencana yang akan dibuat itu sudah menyatakan bahwa sesuatu kondisi itu salah. Aih ribet main bolak-balik bahasa. Pakai contoh bodoh saja.

Misalnya, ada sebuah villa mewah di kebun teh, ini mirip banget sama kondisi di puncak ya. Hehehe. Kawasan puncak kemudian ditetapkan dalam LUP sebagai kawasan lindung, yaitu misalnya semua harus berupa hutan, kebon ataupun kebon teh. Nah, adanya villa mewah tidak diijinkan dalam rencana ini. Tapi, si villa sudah ada di sana, bertengger lebih dulu di sana sejak jaman Belanda. Apakah si villa salah?

Jika hukum tidak berlaku mundur maka si villa enggak salah dong. Wong dia duluan di sana. Tapi, penetapan kawasan itu sebagai kawasan lindung juga punya dasar, misalnya: untuk mencegah  banjir di Jakarta yang semakin menggila. Salah satu solusinya adalah dengan menghutankan  kembali kawasan hulunya yaitu puncak. Tapi, kemudian ternyata di puncak sudah banyak yang bukan hutan lagi.  Apa mereka salah? Menurutku sih enggak. Selama bangunan itu dibuatnya sebelum peraturan ditetapkan. Apalagi, jika tanah yang mereka bangun adalah tanah sendiri. Tanah-tanah sendiri, mau diapakan juga terserah dong.

Nah, balik lagi deh. Bagaimana mensikapi kondisi pendahulu yang kemudian dianggap tidak sesuai. Tentu ini tidak mudah. Ibarat kita harus nyalahin senior yang sudah lebih dulu nangkring di dunia, dan lebih asin dari garam lautan. Kok? Kelamaan hidup kali ya. Hahaha.. Ngawur kemana-mana, nyantai dikit biar gak ngantuk.

Yang Penting Tidak Ada Yang Merasa Rugi

Pada dasarnya, sifat manusia itu tidak mau rugi, kalau bisa malah untung besar. Tapi sudah takdir jika selalu ada dua sisi yang saling berkebalikan, ada untung pasti ada yang rugi. Mana bisa semua impas? Nah, bagaimana caranya agar orang yang rugi/ sedikit rugi dan atau sedikit berkurang keuntungannya itu tidak ngamuk dan merasa dilanggar haknya? (Jadi ingat perkataan seorang kawan "kebebasan kita dibatasi kebebasan orang lain.) Bagaimana dalam tata ruang?

Menurutku, dalam tata ruang pun demikian. Semua orang tidak ingin rugi, kalau bisa untung. Bagaimana mungkin semua orang untung? Balik lagi, bahwa itu tidak mungkin berdasarkan konsep hitam-putih yang tadi kusebutkan. Bisa jadi asumsiku salah, tapi ini perlu untuk pijakan melangkah.

Komunikasi multipihak, itu penting! Wadah koordinasi dan Representasi

Nah, kembali ke si villa di Puncak, bagaimana mengatasi kesalahan yang sudah duluan lahir? Misalkan aku sang pemilik villa itu, maka aku juga tidak mau dong disalahin. Tapi, aku mungkin akan mengerti jika alasan yang dijadikan dasar kesalahan itu memang benar adanya. Bagaimana aku bisa tahu? Ya, ngobrol dong. Siapa yang harus ngajakin ngobrol? Ya, tentunya orang yang bilang waktu villaku itu salah. Siapa itu? Ya sudah pastinya yang berwenang.  Siapa sih? Ah ribet! Pemerintah! Pemerintah harus ngajak ngobrol.

Tentunya, yang diajak ngobrol gak cuman aku dong, pasti banyak lagi yang punya masalah serupa tapi tak sama. Mungkin ada yang pingin beli lahan di hutan lindung, ada juga yang ingin bangun pabrik di dekat pemukiman, atau mungkin saja orang yang gak pingin ngapa-ngapain yang hanya pingin nyelow di pantai. Mereka semua tetap harus diajak ngobrol. Kenapa? Karena ngomongin ruang itu ngomongin rumah bersama. Satu hal pasti akan berimbas pada yang lainnya. Agar semua orang tidak kaget dan shock terhapap perubahan rumahnya, makanya harus ngobrol bareng-bareng serumah.

Kenapa harus bareng? Karena orang itu bawaannya selalu curigaan, gak percayaen sama orang lain. (Atau aku saja sebenarnya. Hahaha) Ngobrol bareng akan meminimalisir kesalahpahaman, kesangsian dll serta meningkatkan kepercayaan, pengertian dan tentunya mempererat silaturahim. Selain menghindari berantem, ngobrol bareng juga bisa dapat pahala. Amin.

Tapi, gimana jika gak mungkin ngajak semua orang bareng? Nah, itu mah gampang. Sistem demokrasi keterwakilan itu jawabannya. (Au ah namanya apa). Ibarat aku pemilik villa, aku gak perlu juga kali ngajak seluruh keluargaku ke sana. Rumah lain pun begitu, wakilnya aja. Nanti dari desa ada wakilnya lagi jika tidak mungkin semua ikut, begitu seterusnya sama level tertinggi.  Mirip MLM ya sekilas. Karena itulah sebuah wadah koordinasi multipihak perlu ada. Di sanalah nanti perwakilan seluruh pemangku kepentingan bisa ngobrol bareng, curhat bareng, dan berencana bareng agar tidak rugi bareng-bareng. Lha kok.. Hehehe..

Semua Pemangku Kepentingan itu sama tingginya!

Tapi kemudian, muncul lagi masalah. Apa itu? Ada sejumlah orang yang doyan banget ngomong di depan orang lain, tipe-tipe pidato dan koar-koar. Namun, ada juga orang yang grogian deman panggung. Jangankan ngomong di depan banyak orang, baru duduk bareng orang tak dikenal saja sudah keringet dingin. Apalagi ini, disuruh ngomong di depan para pemangku kepentingan, yang tentunya akan banyak pejabat pemerintah juga di sana. Bisa ngompol di celana tuh. Maksudku adalah bahwa sistem keterwakilan itu juga sangat rawan. Semua harus memastikan bahwa mereka memilih wakil yang tepat, wakil yang gak demam panggung tapi juga gak lebay doyan koar-koarnya. Nah, harapannya adalah bahwa semua wakil itu dapat duduk bareng, sama tingginya, sama pedenya, dan sama aktifnya. Sehingga, hasil dari ngobrol bareng itu pun juga akan sama-sama enak nerimanya.

Pertanyaannya adalah, 'Apa itu mungkin'?

Bisakah petani duduk sama tinggi dengan direktur korporat, bisakah orang biasa sepede koar-koarnya para pejabat? Bisakah? Harus bisa! Dalam hal ini, semua pihak kedudukannya sama. Tidak ada tingkatan vertikal di dalam pemangku kepentingan dalam tata ruang. Jika ini bisa, maka kesempatan untuk mencapai rencana tata ruang idaman yang dapat menghindari konflik dapat diwujudkan.  Pe eR banget ya!

Agar masyarakat lebih percaya diri, bagaimana?

Bagaimana caranya?

Aku sendiri belum menemukan jawaban pasnya. Yang paling gamblang adalah, gimana caranya bikin itu pihak-pihak yang biasanya kurang PD menjadi lebih PD. Pihak yang malu-malu menjadi lebih berani berekspresi. Gimana? Tiba-tiba di kepalaku muncul istilah keren 'Community Development' dan 'capacity building',pembangunan masyarakat dan pengembangan kapasitas. Susah bahasanya, tapi pengertian gampangku adalah bikin masyarakat lebih pinter. Siapa yang bisa bikin orang lain pinter? Guru! Apakah guru SD? Bisa! Guru SMP, SMA, dosen? Bisa! Mulai ngaco lagi dah. Ampun!

Peran super penting ini seharusnya dipegang oleh pemerintah. Alasannya gampang, karena sudah jadi tugas negara kan untuk mencerdaskan rakyatnya. Kita bayar pajak kok. Tapi, banyak pada faktanya pemerintah belum mampu untuk itu. Sehingga, muncullah guru-guru swasta (non-pemerintah) yang berlomba bikin pinter masyarakat, mulai dari LSM yang bejibun banyak, perwakilan korporat yang kelebihan duit, dan lain-lain. Motifnya apa? Macem-macem mungkin, dari yang ngejar surga sampai ngejar proyekan dana. Macem-macemlah pokoknya. Ya, semoga saja sih guru yang didapatkan sesuai dengan apa yang dibutuhkan.

Menangani konflik

Seperti pepatah bilang, "Manusia hanya bisa berusaha, Tuhan jualah yang memutuskan hasilnya.". Sebagus-bagusnya sebuah rencana tata ruang dibuat, sudah melibatkan banyak pihak, sudah ini dan sudah itu, tetap saja muncul masalah. Misalnya saja ada tumpang tindih yang berujung konflik. Trus gimana tuh?

Saking pentingnya manajeman konflik, sampai-sampai di UnHan ada jurusan khusus 'Resolusi Konflik'. Wajar banget sih ya, kalau urusan ribut-ribut gini gak semua orang bisa ngurusin. Kalau gak ahli dan diniati, bukannya beresin masalah tapi malah tambah bikin runyam. Apalagi menyangkut lahan, berarti menyangkut hidup banyak orang, hidup mati orang. Terkati konflik ini, aku belum bisa banyak koman-komen. Kenapa? Soalnya ya itu tadi, berat. Salah-salah malah tambah runyam. Catatan penting yang bisa terlintas di kepalaku hanyalah, pada dasarnya orang tidak mau rugi. Konflik muncul karena ada orang yang merasa rugi. Jika ini terjadi, maka harus balik lagi ke awal, gimana caranya agar tidak ada yang merasa dirugikan.

Konflik muncul saat ada pihak yang merasa dirugikan berbicara dan menuntut. Itu masih lebih baik, daripada pihak yang rugi tapi diam saja. Itu namanya penjajahan!

Bagaimana di Indonesia?

Monggo dijawab bareng-bareng. Saya juga sebenarnya masih awam untuk yang begini-beginian.

(Aku sengaja tidak menyitir aturan legal seperti UU dan segala rupa. Apa yang kutulis di sini adalah pikiran acakku yang saat ini sedang belajar mengenal lebih jauh tentang penataan ruang. Hal baru sih, meski gak baru-baru amat. Tuntutan kerja yang mengharuskanku sedikit familiar dengan satu bidang keilmuan dari Londo sana yang isinya dibanyakin ribut-ribut orang rebutan tanah. :D Semangat!!!)

(Note: This is my script's summary for my undergrad final research in 2011. You can also get full version of the script here )

The Change of Interaction Pattern Between Forest and Community in Cipeuteuy Village, Kabandungan Sub-District, Sukabumi District, West Java, Indonesia

I. INTRODUCTION

            Interactions between community and nature are forms of socioeconomic activities of local communities to meet their need for life. That interaction is reflected in their activities, such as collecting forest products like food, firewood, fodder and tubers as well as the results of other types of forest services (Widianto 2008). Studies of the interactions and relationships between people and forests have been carried out by the researchers. A study conducted by Baharudin (2006) which examined the interaction of rural communities around the Mount Rinjani National Park shows that local people around the national park use the land for intensive farming. While, study by Ginting (2010) which examined the interaction of communities around the Leuser National Park shows that the local community around the national park take benefit of the forest for ecotourism and they also collect forest products.

            Sociocultural change is something normal and sustainable in accordance with the nature and human nature itself (Lauer 1982 in Dewi 2007). In relation to human interaction with forests, this also applies, where the interaction is also dynamically changing. Research conducted by Yatap (2008) on the influence of socioeconomic variables to changes in the land cover in Gunung Halimun Salak National Park (GHSNP) showed that socioeconomic factors give real effect of changes in land cover in GHSNP. The forms and causes of changes in people's interaction with the forest must be known.

            Cipeuteuy village is directly adjacent to the GHSNP. This village is one of the 1,517 villages directly adjacent to state forest land (MoF, 2007). Before becoming part of the national park in 2006, the forest area around the village Cipeuteuy is intercropping land surrounding communities that are managed together with Perhutani (Cantika 2008). Interaction between forest and communities in this village has existed for a long time. The objectives of this research are to know what kinds of changes in community interaction with forest, to know the factors driving these changes, to know the relationship between socioeconomic variables to the forest land use by the local community.

II. MATERIAL AND METHOD

2.1. Operational Definition

1.    The interaction pattern is defined as a pattern that is formed from the interaction that occurs between communities and forest in this study and it is based on the use of forest land by the community. There are 3 patterns used in this study, which are:

a. The pattern of using the land is the use of land by the community for a particular purpose and permanent use. Examples of this pattern is the use of forest land for permanent agriculture or settlement.

b. The pattern of harvesting is the use of forest by the community for harvesting the forest products occupying the forest land. Examples of this pattern is the harvesting of timber or non-timber forest products.

c.  Pattern without interaction is  the people do not use forest land and do not use or collect forest products.

2.      The change of interaction pattern is the change in the pattern of interaction over time, which are:

a.   Changes of the pattern of using the land to the pattern of harvesting, or to the pattern without interaction.

b.  Change of the pattern of harvesting to the pattern of using the land uses or pattern without interaction.

c.   Change of the pattern without interaction to the pattern of using the land or pattern of harvesting.

2.2. Time and Location

This study was conducted in two sub-villages namely Cisarua and Pandan Arum which are both located in the Cipeuteuy Village, Kabandungan Sub-district, Sukabumi District of West Java Province, Indonesia. The research activities was conducted during the months from mid-May to June 2011.

2.3. Respondents and data

Respondents in this study are the head of the household who lived in the sub-village of Pandan Arum and Cisarua, Village Cipeuteuy. The data used in this study are primary data and secondary data. Data collected in this research is by interview and observation.

2.4. Method

The selection of respondents as the sample unit is done by a purposive sampling method, which the determination is done intentionally under consideration of research purposes. Processing and analysis of the data used in this research are descriptive analysis and multiple linear regression analysis. Tabulation and descriptive analysis are used to explain the changes in the pattern of interaction between people and forests, and the driving factors for them. Multiple linear regression analysis is to estimate the influence of socioeconomic variables that affect the use of forest land by the community. Analyses were performed using SPSS 17.0. The dependent variable (Y) is the area of forest land use by the public. The independent variable (X) is a socioeconomic characteristics of the community.

III. RESULTS

3.1. The Changes of Interaction Patterns

            In this study, changes in the pattern of interaction are limited to just one stage of change, that is changing before the current interaction patterns into patterns of interaction that is done today. Under this condition, changes of the interaction patterns that may occur are 6 (six) types. Not all people change their interaction with the forest. In some respondents, it was found a relatively constant interaction. In the context of this study, it was found that some respondents did not change the pattern of interaction. Table 1 below states the amount of the respondents and their interaction changes.

Table 1 Respondents with their pattern of interaction changes.

Patterns*	Cisarua		Pandan Arum
	Quantity	Percetage (%)	Quantity	Percentage(%)
Pattern 1	2	4.55	0	0
Pattern 2	14	31.81	16	40.00
Pattern 3	6	13.64	4	10.00
Pattern 4	0	0	3	7.50
Pattern 5	20	45.45	13	32.50
Pattern 6	0	0	0	0
Constant	2	4.55	4	10.00
Total	44	100.00	40	100.00

Description : *Pattern of interaction changes, which are:

1.     Change of the pattern of using the land to the pattern of harvesting

2.     Change of the pattern of using the land to the pattern without interaction.

3.     Change of the pattern of harvesting to the pattern of using the land

4.     Change of the pattern of harvesting to the pattern without interaction

5.     Change of the pattern without interaction to the pattern of using the land

6.     Change of the pattern without interaction to the pattern without interaction.

            Change in the pattern of interaction between people and forests in Cisarua and Pandan Arum is not much different. There are two patterns of change are most often committed by the respondents, which are the pattern 2 and 5. The pattern 2 is a pattern of interaction with the change of land use to be without interaction. While the pattern 5 is a change from without interaction into interaction with using the land.

Change of the pattern of using the land to the pattern of harvesting

            Villagers that left the agricultural land in the forest, but still take advantage of some forest products such as firewood and other forest products, are categorized in the community who has made changes of interaction from the pattern of using the land to pattern of harvesting. Some residents in Pandan Arum worked in the forest area but now they do not continue it. However, these villagers still take forest products like firewood from the forest area.

Change of the pattern of using the land to the pattern without interaction

            Some farmers totally left working on agricultural land in the forest. They also do not take the forest products from the forest. The reasons are various, like less fertile soil, the high disturbance from animals like pigs and monkeys, and the far distance from the house. They think that working in the forest is not profitable enough to do. Some of the those farmers still work on their own land and rental land. Some of them work as farm laborers or work in another field than agriculture.

Change of the pattern of harvesting to the pattern of using the land

            There are some farmers were initially just interact with the forest without occupying the land, but now turned into using the land, especially for agriculture. From the statement of some respondents in Pandan Arum, generally people started using the forest area at a time after the big harvest in 1999 by Perhutani. Previously, they only worked only on their own agricultural land or worked as farm laborers.

Change of the pattern of harvesting to the pattern without interaction

            Respondents who had previously interacted with the forest without occupying the land, but they are no longer do it at all included in the group of people who did this type of interaction pattern change. At first, these communities only used forest products for a variety of purposes such as firewood, vegetables, or wood to build houses. Currently, they are no longer doing it because the status of the land became the national park with tight regulation.

Change of the pattern without interaction to the pattern of using the land

            Respondents who initially did not interact at all with the forest, but now they are working on the forest land are categorized in this group. There are 20 respondents (45,45%) in Pandan Arum and 13 respondents (32,50%) in Cisarua are included in this group. Almost all of the respondents explained that the reason they chose farm forestry was because there was no other choice. Before becoming a farmer, most of the respondents worked in the nearby big cities like Bogor or Jakarta. Inadequate salaries and stay away from the family are some of the reasons they decided to return to the village. They chose to work in the forest area because they do not have their own agricultural land.

3.2. Driving Factors of the Interaction Pattern Change

            In this study, the changing patterns of interaction that occurs are not only in one pattern only. A change in one thing does not always lead to a pattern of change alone. Many factors influence the changing patterns of interaction. Table 2 describes the patterns of change and their interaction causes each based on data obtained from the respondents in the study village.

Table 2. The patterns of interaction change and the driving factors.

The change of interaction pattern	Driving factors
Changes of the pattern of using the land to the pattern of harvesting	·               Less of fertile soil in the forest ·               Disturbance from animals like pig and monkey ·               Low harvest and not profitable enough ·               Conflict with the national park officer ·               More agricultural land outside the forest area ·               Age factor
Changes of the pattern of using the land to the pattern without interaction.	·               Less of fertile soil in the forest ·               Disturbance from animals like pig and monkey ·               Low harvest and not profitable enough ·               Conflict with the national park officer ·               More agricultural land outside the forest area ·               Age factor ·               Far distance between forest land and settlement ·               Got new agricultural land outside the forest with better condition
Change of the pattern of harvesting to the pattern of using the land	·               Inadequate farm land or do not have farm land ·               The need for more money
Change of the pattern of harvesting to the pattern without interaction	·               Tight regulation of national park ·               Lifestyle change ·               Age factor
Change of the pattern without interaction to the pattern of using the land	·               Inadequate farm land or do not have farm land ·               The need for more money ·               Farming job is more profitable

The cause for a change in the pattern of interaction is not always equal to each other. One factor may also lead to more than one type of changes. One factor may cause a change in the pattern of interaction in a household, but not necessarily affect other households. Change in patterns of interaction is a combination of several driving factors. Socioeconomic condition is often used as a reason by the people to utilize forest resources. Although they are not too benefited from the farm in the forest, but they have no other choice because of low levels of education and skills.

3.3. Relationship Between Socioeconomic Variables with Forest Land Use Area

The results of this research, shows that each farmer who uses the forest land for agriculture has a land area that is different. There were 47 respondents who work on the forest land. Regression equation generated from multiple analysis of socioeconomic factors with extensive use of forest land in GHSNP with stepwise method is as follows,

Y= -540,172 + 22,87X₁ + 30,845X₂ + 0,145X₃ – 28,922X₄ – 47,151X₅ + 0,001 X₆

Description: 

Y = area of forest land use by community

X1 = age

X2 = time settled in the village

X3 = agricultural land outside the forest

X4 = longer working in the woods

X5 = number of family members

X6 = income per month

              The P-value of the regression equation is <0.05, which is equal to 0.02, which means rejecting Ho. This means that the overall socioeconomic factors affect the use of agricultural land at 95% of confidence level. The influence of socioeconomic factors is indicated by the coefficient of determination (R2) of 30.1%. The rest is caused by other than socioeconomic factors. Stepwise regression method was used to determine the selected independent variables and the result is as follows,

Y= 405,955 + 36,135 X₂ + 0,143X₃

Description:        Y = area of forest land use by community

                                           X2 = time settled in the village

                                           X3 = agricultural land outside the forest             

             The P-value of the regression equation is 0.002 which is <0.05, which means rejecting Ho at the 95% confidence level. The relationship of socioeconomic factors of the selected independent variables with extensive use of forest land by the community indicated by the coefficient of determination of 24.5%. This means that the widespread use of forest land by the community influenced by the time settled in the village and the ownership of agricultural land in the forest area by 24.5%. The rest is influenced by other factors.

IV. CONCLUSION

            The changes of interaction pattern in Pandan Arum and Cisarua in Cipeuteuy village are the change of the pattern without interaction to the pattern of using the land (39.29%), the change of the pattern of using the land to the pattern without interaction (35.71%), the change of the pattern of harvesting to the pattern of using the land (11.90%), the change of the pattern of harvesting to the pattern without interaction (4.25), the change of the pattern of using the land to the pattern of harvesting (2.38%). The percentage of those who do not change their interaction pattern  is 7.14%. The driving factors for the interaction change are various, which are physical condition of the forest land and natural disturbances, agricultural land outside the forest, age, income, forest distance, and lifestyle. New regulation from the GHSP and its enforcement also influenced this change. The socioeconomic variables are the dominant influence on society acreage in the forest are time settled in the village and agricultural land outside the forest.

REFERENCES

Baharudin. 2006. Kajian Interaksi Masyarakat Desa Sekitar Taman Nasional Gunung Rinjani Provinsi Nusa Tenggara Barat [Thesis]. Bogor: Sekolah Pasca Sarjana Institut Pertanian Bogor.

Balai Taman Nasional Gunung Halimun-Salak. 2007. Rencana Pengelolaan Lima Tahunan (Jangka Menengah). Sukabumi: Balai Taman Nasional Gunung Halimun-Salak.

Cantika Febri SP. 2008. Relasi Gender Dalam Pemilikan dan Penguasaan Sumberdaya Agraria [Script]. Bogor: Fakultas Ekologi Manusia Institut Pertanian Bogor.

[Mof] Ministry of Forestry.2007. Buku Informasi 50 Taman Nasional di Indonesia. Jakarta: Direktorat Jenderal PHKA.

Dewi, H. 2007. Perubahan Makna Pertunjukan Jaran Kepang pada Masyarakat Jawa di Kelurahan Tanjung Sari, Medan. http://repository.usu.ac.id/handle/123456789/5622

Simarmata Vidya H. 2009. Kemiskinan dan Reforma Akses Agraria di Desa Perkebunan [Script]. Bogor: Fakultas Ekologi Manusia Institut Pertanian Bogor.

Sutaryono. 2008. Pemberdayaan Setengah Hati, Sub Ordinasi Masyarakat Lokal Dalam Pengelolaan Hutan. Yogyakarta: Lapera Pustaka Utama.

Widada. 2004. Nilai Manfaat Ekonomi dan Pemanfaatan Taman Nasional Gunung Halimun Bagi Masyarakat [Disertation]. Bogor: Program Pasca Sarjana      Institut Pertanian Bogor.

Widianto, Bambang. 2008. Lahan dan Ladang, Ruang dan Bentuk Interaksi Manusia Dengan   Lingkungan. Posted on September, 19 2008 http://staff.blog.ui.ac.id/bambang.widianto/category/1/ [ 23 March 2011]

------

Cipeuteuy Village in 201