The Role of Forestry Sceientists in Policy-Making Process in Indonesia

Jl

,- .

it'<.

l t,. ',,,1.tt,ltt \t\ltl R, tt -1u' l.- fi . -OIO

+)7"N'o

4t

Tbe

International

c

(J

Forestry Reuiew

=ffi

L\-W,r'fP

tssN 146i

ii89

PUBL1SHUD l]YT}]E

COI{MON\t'E\IjIIil !ORESTRY {5-\OCllfl 'ION

t _\!sr cti-ioternnlioml ()rg

rurno)1,

$"-'

/J

r

t

t(

lr!.t iti.nil

l:itft\ut

t.rnrr

ir,i./?tir

:arlar

ll:l

\e.nn. Ennrpcr! Fo,elr \\tek :u08 iLli\\-r

\!r ri

a(.nrtt b! lil.r'lorernDcluL bodlcj l$oLrd

ir

h.n

pllicl

ir

EunrFe r!

ln.ease th. !i!i1,illtr 01 rhe lo.r*r-b!!.d s(tori

I!.,rh.

runEn.ss o1

n,!c(!

.ontribLrions

b

rrjsalre clinfurc.hrnge,

Lhl!

b!.kgfud

I trill

irfl,rc

rh)

LL l\ Lhrt lorns. lixr.nr!. and

torn

polic\ arlr pcr..ivcd N! m.l!r cdnnrii..rhn.helhne.s

.hrr.tr.

ol li!tsr

|oll.)

I trill id.irria s.tu. Ne\ ..nnrrnr.rrtr,n .lrdlr.trg.\

Iordn

conrmuni.trlion nodclI ciric nud1 in sl,trakia. \hu\x[o1x.

l

, su\i,s. \L, \.n.o.

l]

rnr.ir,,r/ rr,"rr

atr,r.

Jl.Adr:tr:,zrr'xi.1d(4:!1.rt.\ n.

\.rt!

alttl t' : .rtr,nc_rL\1.,/.ir.

ot r !Iite,n.ti. .o..etr bnrid n. !rl1trtri .1 lL.li'ln.s rnd.o.poarlle n.Iinns in Lh. licllL of tnrc] rc!.r[h, prt]ic .chnonr, .du.atnri rnd

.on\!ll.f.\.

1rIillr ire .t ri.'d

!rr

b\ ili. o.!or;zario.

u!.1r

d,,rp rlli lt,lr,:

/rrrli,

',rri!i, ,i'l.r11

chdlcicn no.

and

inne.m.ilr :..i1!.

\.ri('\.

ai{l qlo.\: rnd forlsr rs.u..ci rnod llrins r.,t

ir!.snr.ol

lhcse thellle! .re li.kdd

n

lho {em !.lo.ili.! l|a{ hch ditr'cl rh. \oLL ,,1 _{sidrL'n! Si'rc. 1001.} h.s.r.r, _rh.

.IUr.

_or

li.)

_{i3sre! a.d thrir'}

{l.i.e5 irs sraliholder. \ihil .!nslilur.\ soc..si

l.

rh.il suf|ort ol the nrdotr. dnli 1D}.i\ str..e\r d.\iibcd over (inre md r.ross ! d)n.mi. $cial

l$J\.r!.r

Thn prs.Drlll.n ncjrriL,.s a 1ia!r*\ 01{ und to r,]11!.$ rtic ,loclrlon\

.nd

erhods loL

mftitin:

-\La\eholde.:Lp|o( orer ri'n.. lhe

lrrntirl

ol thi\ lirnr.tod. iiir.Ldoftiirr b! (rtbe...!!rirrtnJnr

ii

d.s.!ilied.

Poste/,s

'l'l!e _{role of} lorcstry lcieotislr in rhc d.cjrinni atirg pro.c$s. Nftr..hn1al.

IlR.

Dr.urnlrn. Il.

Iltltrfi.

lU llPB/a!.q.r

nr..x.

i'or!r!

s.,cnti(s !.e leeki|e ro pla)

!

p4irne r.L. iD

p.ll!t

tr'.trl.g rdd c,nxrihul. 1. r hrht,

!r)..(

^nd..s!lt"( ol |.lic!.

Ii

1i.r. ho$e!.i lo..!1rl \.i.nti!ri

!r.Ih!irr! i

rnilrd

rh

ir tr public dis..urn: ti,i.\trmple. (he _{orlrihtrliin ol}

denr...a.l ind rn

..ni.*

r b.u.r lncd pllrJ. Th. .lrjc.rire\

.l

Inn _frp.r

!r.

ro !rnd.rslrnd th.

!fir.fs

rie"s

!i

ricnrisrs in

K.rea: nt,arli@etu d(.lr).

a policl !g..da. Ihis _{!he..rnei'1r ,eile.l\} dre Hrb.dnisid' thco! ol po\ler u,herei,, rhe gnr,nnilrr itunrhtes

.i\il

so.ietyi tre* praclice! eiaftpks of forestrt connnudi.{tjons in Slorakir. Sr.vla. 1\1.. [ftNil]rori. 1... \'ina,,. rL .

Hr i

P t,\inJrJl

th.

lktthldtia dl Fnt"st|! Re\,ief Vnl.l215)

)0lA

499

N$hajima. T.. 10. 161

Nakajima N., 106

Nlliakila, O.,336.182

Nakamoto. -,\.. 7l Nshmura.

n,

t93

Nik3mLrn, K.. 71. 96. 336, 145. 3'19,

132,450

Nakanishi. N{..305

Nakano, H.,471 Nakashimr.'1., 81.197

NakashiTuka. T.. 131

N.lkryama. H.,'106

N nk,izal\,a. M..

loli.lll

Nakuono, E..63

Naklddal, O.,5-l

Narn, H.K.. :9i1. ?92 Nam, J.L,

l0l

Nam, T.K.,52 Nanbiar, E.K.S.

ll7

Naoe, S., -117

Napituptrh. D.,

llii

Nrranroio. N{..7?

Narelrdra. B.H..

l!n

Nr\r)no.ll..

193

Nasi, R., 6.90, I 15. I l6 Nasr,lZ.,:J86

Nassar N.N., 16,1 Nasution. -{.. 230 Nalcher. D., 475 Naresan, C.S., 192

Nalesan C.S., 195

Nalalro. C., 109, 110,

I1l,

i

1l

Navrud, S.. 189

Ndeola. C.,479

Ndoye, O..,111. "r19, "177 Neale, D.8., 106. 107

Nebesse, C.,90

Negahd$saber, Nl.. lS, l'i9

Neguos'Casdllo, P, 110

Nelson, C.D.. l0L Nelsor, K..427

Nemilostii Y.P. 218

Nepal, S.,228

Nesamani, K.. l5,l Neser S..

359.l7l

Neteler. I\'1., 3 16. 405

N€ufeldt, H., 8

Neuvonen. N'{..467

Ne\es, R.,162 N.{,bery. Nl.. 231

Newmand.

D..lll

Nelvlon, A., 453

Ng, K.K.S., 103

Nga, N.T.,130

Ngouanfo. S.f.. Llt)

Nsuyen, N.Q..92

Nguyen. VQ.. 421

NguyenThanh,B,:11

Nguyenviel. X.. 51

Niccolai. A-. J6 Nichols. J.D.,68

Nicolas.l..l0 Nicoldti. C.,4.1 Nieheu, M.R...113 Nielsen, \,1.T.. 122

Nielsen. O..478 Njelseq U.8..62 Nieniren. M.. 191

Niemtuen. T.N4.. 197

Niemislii, L..:6,1 Nien.trtowicz. A.. 77

Nik. A.R., 2.1i

Nikoh. N., 371

Nilssor. K.. 1"1..165

Nilus. R., 351

Nirg, J., 89

Ninomiya. L. 158.:16 Nirei. T.,.106

Nisa. K., 19S

Nisber.

l.l0

Nishida. K.- 295

Nishirurhi. N'I..l2l Nitami, T., 166.309. -15{)

Nitschke. C.R.. 12,"11,

lil

Niu, D., 22:

Nio, J., L9ti

Njonj, D..476

Nkanrgnia E.Nl., 419 Noack, A.8..159. 372

Nobuchi, T., 156

Nocentini. S.. 123

Nogrmi. H..304

Noeuchi. K.,38

Noguchi, M., 129, 162. a8-1

Noguchi, T.. 2i9 Noh,8.R.,193

Noh.8.W..

l0l.

i03. 106, 2i13.ll7.

lr9.123,3,11,.101

Noh, J.K.,470

Noh. N.1..31,52

Nomura, T.. 27-1

Nor. D.K., 2,18, 249, 251. 33+

Nord'Larsen, T., 51. 118

Nordin- M..471

Nordlund. C.,45: Norman, J.. ,166

No.wni, N{., 108

Nose,

M...l3l

Noskola. N..

l:6

Norhdurft. ,{.,

3li

Nouira. S.. 360, 387 Nourbakhsh, A., 280

Nouri, M., 186

Novriyarli. E..38,353

Nowak, D.J., 15,462 Nozakj, A., _-196 Nsonbo.8., l?7 Nuding,,q., 371

Nunez-Sarabia, M.Y. l9?

Nrrbeity. L.,481

Nurfatrlani,

n.

182. 184

Nurrochmai, D.R.. 13, 113,

,ll3

Nursal lkbal, W.. 350

Nurtjahjaninssih. LL.G., I56 Nuruddin, A.A..56

Nuryuwan, A.. 277, 282

NtluliLrr, E.. 108.419 Nutlo. L., 147,286 Nyanr'Osor, 8..72 N)atondo, U.N..313

Nyrud. A.Q., 258, 262.464 O'Brien. 1.J..476

o'llonneLl. D., 187

O'Halloran, J., 94

O Ham. K.. ,17

O'Nei1, E.E.. 164

O'Roorke, T.. 279 Obase. K..'r0l

Ober(einer. N4.. 17

Obidrinski. K.. 190

Obiri,ll.D . 108. 192

ocrna. L., 122

ochirsuli.8.A.,59

Oduro. K.A.,

ll0.

ll5

Oesten. G..232

osawa. H.,65 oh, c..20.r,211

oh. c.H.. 29, 80, 82, 106, 367

oh. c.J., 146, 25:1, 254, 319

oh.

c.Y,

r52. 156.207.323

oh. D.s., 146,.17i1 Oh. H.Y,.108

oh. J.H., 82. 199, 267, 271, 291, 306, 308. 163

oh, LY, 60 oh. K.1.. 15,1

oh, K.o..468

oh, M.T..284

Ohara. S., 273,408

Ohashi, K., 105

ohira, M., 383

ohishi, K., 66

Ohnann, LL..315 Ohrel, S-B . 28 Ohsawa. N'{.,95,96

OhLlr. S.,

30,2ll

Ohtani,

M...ll9

Ohuchi, T..282

Oishi, Y, "145 Ojha. H.,33?

Ojha. N.,225

Oka, H.. I70

Okabe, K.,90, 366

Okri. R.,271.300.30S

Okland.8., i88

okonogi. H.. 150

i*emhllh6leneeEr

.

;.a:

The Role of

Forestry

Scientists

in Policy-Making

Process

in

Indonesia'

Nurrochmat, DR (Facullv offoreslry. Bogor Aaricultural Uni!cr.\it) lndonesia dnrochmatafr\,aloo.con . Darusmar, D (Facuht olForeslry- Bogor Agricukural tlniversit,,-. Indonesia. akecujnaadtcl,n.net.id).

Ek.t.ni,

M (FaculIl o1 [coromics and Managenrent. Bogo. Agricu]turrl

lhi!ersjt],

metiekaia\,ahoo.com)

Abstract

It

has

been

a

long

debate

to\"-ards

the ioles

of

scientists

in

policy-naking

process. h1

dltferertiating with

the other slakeholdels, the role

ofthc

scientists is

providing

the possibilitics

insteacl

of

deciding bet\\'een the possibilities.

It

mcans that

the

scientists expect

to

gather lacts and

pro\ide

predictions to current and proposed policies rather than to determine policies.

In

the

forest

policy

making

arena.

forestry

scientists are seeking

to

play a

positive

role

in

policl-making

and

contribute

1br

a

betler process

and

results

of

policy.

In

l'acl. ho\,,ever. lbrestry scientists are

plaling

a minor role il1 a public discourse. c.g. dre contribulion ofscientists through

thcir

statcments about

forest

tire

in

the global public

media u,as onl_v

about

l2ol,

and

in

the Indonesian public nredia even less than

3ol.

Enhanc ing role o

I

the

lblestr)

scienlisls is reqlLired

because

it

is criticall)

ir11pofiant

in

a llnctioning

democracv and

a bcficr

forest

policy. lhe

objectives

ofthis

paper are to understand the various rieu,s

ofthc

scientists in

delining lbreslr)

problcrns and to cvaluatc thc rolc

offorcstry

scicntists to contribute in the policy-making process in Indonesia.

KeyNords: forestry scientists, forest fire, Indonesia, media, polioy-making prooess

l.

Introduction

Scientists

arc

sceking

to

plal

a

positive role

in

policy

.md

polilics

and contribute

to

the

sustainabilitv

of

scientific enterprise. Scientists are concemed

oi

how best science can contrihutc

10

policy

making and healthy denocrac-v (Pielke 2006). Thc rolc

of

the scientist is not

to

decide bctwccn thc possibilitics but to dcterminc

!\hat

the possibililies are

(May

1990

in

Pielke 2006).

Futhermore Pielke (2006) inclicates fbur types

of

scicntist role:

a.

Pure

Scientist,

\'ith

no

interest

in

decision making

process

and

simpll

sharc some

lundanlental inlbrmation.

b.

Science

Arbiter,

as

a

resource

for

dccision

mi*ing,

stan.ling ready

to

answer l'aclual questions that the decision

naker

thinls

are rclevant.

c.

lssue

Adlocate.

try 1o convince d1e decision maker to take

pafiicular

decision,

telling

the decision maker what he

ol

she ought to prcfer.

d.

llonest

Broker

ofPolicy

Altemative, provides basic information on each choices, makes an

cffort

to cxpand (or at lcast to

clarify)

the scope

of

choices, and let the

decisioi

maker

Paper conr plemefted to the poller prelentation al the X X I I I IU FRO World Congress. 2l -2 8 August 20 I 0. Seou l.

f'acc the challenge

of

reducing thc scopc

of

choices based on his or

hcr

prefcrences and values. Honest B-roker

of

Policy Alten]ative is olien bcst achicved through a collection

of

experls working together

\lith

a range

ofviews.

expcriences, and knowledge'

All

those roles ate

critically

impoftant and necessary

in

a f'unctionillg

denocracy'

and scientists'

.i.il",

to

ntlt". *.rober oi

society, have to choose. Honcst

Brokcr would

be a porverful role

lo

facilitate the creation

ofnew

and innovative polic,v altcrnatives

VIEW

OF SCIENCE

Linear

Model

Stakeholdcr Model

Ho

est Brofult

ol

[image:6.612.166.441.193.400.2]

Source: Pielke (2006); Darusrnan el

al

(2010)

Figure

1:

The Role

Matrix

of Scicntists in Decision Making

According to tlre role matrix

of

scicntists

in

decision making

(Figure

l)'

the most \rrited rolc 1br

ifr"

."i*i.,.

is

to be an I lonest

Brokcr

of

Policy Alternative

(rcLning

stakcholdcr rnodel and

:s"frrtr"rrn"ia",

theory

of

_democracy").

which

engages

in

decision

makilu by

clarif"ving and

r".i.i.g,a,

"tp".a,h"

scope

ol

choice available to decisjon

rnakers

l'herefore'

the

objectire

of

;hi,;;;;;

iri"

evaluate

the role

of

forestry

scientists

in policv

making

process

in

Indoltcsia' especially reLaled to lbrest

lire

issues.

2.

Methods

The role

ofscientisis

in policy-making proccss is detcrmined b,v threc approaches:

l

)

Reiative share ofscientists in media discourse

2)

Communication-E1'1'ectiveness index of sci,.ntists

3)

Stakeholder's perception towards the rcle

ofscientjsts

2.1

Rclative

share

of

scientists

in

media discourse

Discourse

in

the

news

media is

one

of

thc most jmponant

\\aYs

to

influence

policy

making

prn..ss.

l herefore. mcasuring the role

of

cerlain actor, e

g

scieitists'

in polic"v making process

ioria

U"

a*"

among others b=y Lulderstanding thc relative share

of

scientists

in

media discourse

as

follows:

(,

o5

-=

Reldlitjc shore

in

1e.li.!

-

Freque

qqltcie

tist'sttate

rcnt cited

h

nelliu lov)ards cefichl issue Frequenc!

afdl skte

le

t

h

ledid

towa

certain

itjle

Usually

the relatiYe share

or contribution is

stated

in

perccnt. The higher the reiative share

of

scientists

in

mcdia.

the

bigger

their

inlluence

to thc policy

making

proccss.

Tuo

reputable

national

nedia

(newspapers) that havc been decided

to

bc included

in

this

study are "Kompas''

and '

Republika'.

2.2

Communication-Effectiveness

lndex

of Scientists

'Ihe role

of

speaking

actlts,

e.g. scienlisls.

in

nledia

to

inlluence pUblic

opinion could

be

cvaluated

by

calculating

an

effectiveness

index.

Eflcctiveness

index

rneasures

ho\r

1ar the statements

of

a speaking actor can

drive

public opinion. In

this

stud,y, the effcctivcness

indcx

is

calculated b),

conparing

the level

ofl'requeicy

ofspeaking aclor's starenlents cired in media and the lcvcl

ofintluence ofspeakirg

actor's statements in

driving

public

opinio[.

Ellictiwness indet

-

Arctogc scorc

oJJieqltn.\

4

spedki]ig

dcbr'!

stulenett cited

in

ledia Awrage score o.fspeaking aclor'.\ sktenent it1 drh,ing public otinrcn

A

sp*l](ing

aotor can eft'ectively communicate

u'ith

the publio

if

he,/she has an ellectiveness

index

of

1.00

or

higher.

II

lhe

efl'ectiveness

index

is

iess

thai

1.00, then

this

means

that

a speaking aclor talks more but less inl'luential in driving public opinion.

2.3

Stakeholder's perception townrds thc

role

ofscientists

Ke!

person inleNie\\,s u,ere conducted

to

evaluate stakehokler's perception towards the role

of

sclentists. The selection

of

institutions and key persons

in

which

and

\ith

rrhom the

intervie$

u,crc

conducted,

$as

based

on

the

relevance

to

the

rescarch

topic

and the principle

of

the

rcprcsentativeness.

At

the

intemational

level, seleral

cxperts

from

Centre

lb.

lntcmational

Forcstry

.Research

(CIFOR), ASEAN

-

Korea

Cooperation

L.lnit

in

Indoncsia

(AKECtl

Lrdonesia).

ASEAN

Sccrctariat

and SEAMEO-BIOTROP were interviewed.

At

the

national

level

iilerviews

were conducted

with policy

makers at thc

Ministry

ol forestr)

(MoF), scientists

at rhc Bogor Agricultual University (lPB),

activist

of

NGO-LAflN.

and forest

enterprises

(KBT,

KL.

and

PK).

At

the provincial level. intervieu's

were conducted

in

seven prt'rinces: Riau, East Kalimantan. West Java.

Norlh

Sulawesi,

Bali,

Balgka

Belitung,

and Special Region

ofYogyakafta.

3

Result and Discussion

3.1

Thc

Minor

Role

of

Scientists

in Colouri[g

News N,ledia

,\ocording

to

the

evaluation

of

rclativc

sharc

of

speaking actors

in

mcdia,

it

sho\\,s

that

non

scienlists are

very

dominant as speaking actors

in ne*s

meclia.

'lhe

contribution

of

scientists

lluough

their statements about lbrest

fire

in

the global

ne\\s

media was

only aboul

12% and

in

[image:8.612.166.464.65.213.2]

I

Figure

2i

The

Contribution

ofScientists

to

Indonesian

News

Mcdia

Lookjng

at

the distribution

of

the non scientist'

speaking

actors

in

the

news media,

the

administrative

official

(administration)

is

one

ol

the most

impofiant

rcsource peNons

for

ncws

media.

Re1'erring to forcst

lire

issue in national ncu,s media.

il

s,]cnls that resource pcrsons

liom

non-Lrest

administration ac1 more

tiequcntlv

as speaking actors on lbrest

fire

issues ralher tllan those

tiom

forest

admi

shation

(Table

1).

Table

l:

Distribution

ofthc

Non Scientist's Spcaking Actors on Forrst Fire in the Indonesian News Mcdia

Frcq

'Y,

Non-Scicntisas' Speaking Actors Politicians

a. Politician go!emmenl b. Politician non go!ernnrent

Administration

a. Forest administration

h

Non lorest administration Media

Organizntion

a. Forest organizalion b. Non lorcst organization

Others

Totrl

l1

l3

I

521

184

343

416 55 l8

31

166

1,,111

1.20 0.92 0.28

37.35

13.04 24.31

31.61 3.90

L28

2.62 25.91

r00.00

Source: 486 atlcles in Indonesian media I 994-2001 (Kompas & Republika)

Measuring the role

of

scientists in

policy

making process could be approached b-v understanding

thcir

contribution (relative share) in the ne\\'s media. News media, especially news papet. is the

most

eilectivc

communication media that influences pLLblic opinion on

loreshy

issucs based on thc perception ofrespoDdents in the intemational. national and local organizations.

Following

the

ne\.s

papers. leaflets and publications issued

by

NGOs

are also considcred

quite

eft'ective in influencing public opinion on lbrestry issues at international and local levels. Publications issued by govemment and other commr.micatior instruments are considered less effective in

ilfluencing

public

opinior

relaied

to

intemational and local

lbrestry

issues. For the natiofla] forestry issues,

howevcr. television

is

considered quiet

effectivc in inlluencing public

opinior

than publications

issued by

NCO

or government

(Tablc

2).

[image:8.612.135.470.357.531.2]

Table 2: The Most Influcncing Communication

M€dir

in Driving Public Opilrions Concerning Forestrv Issues.

National Local

Kinds of Media

Score

Rank

Score

Rank

Score

Rark

Nc$s mcdia

Co!emnienl printed

publications

NGO s printcd publications

Othels 3.-s0 2.25 750 2.25

l.t3

1.97

2.n

2.5 0 3.5,1

2. 13

2.t7 2.11

t0

3.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 t.5 2.0 3.5 1.0 4.0

i.0

1.0

Source: P/ntuly ddta C0A9),

"

1A resTndents

In

order to gain u'ide suppofis from thc publlc, thc decision makers must consider the option

of

cffcctivc

commuication

instruments. t\4aintaining

good

Ielalioislips

a1ld

inlproving

communication

with

neu,spaper's

.iournalists

are

sone

\{a}s

that

cao

help

disscminate

infbnnation

on

fbrestr)

programs alld the most etlective \&a,v

of dilccting

public opinion related

to

lbrestry issues. The

conmuication of

lorcstry

issues through television

is

<lLLite eft'ectivc in

influencing public

opinion

ifthe

issues raised are at national

scale.

Meanwhilc. at the local and international scales, cooperation

\iith

NGOS who

\oiccd

forestry issues is an altcrnative way

of

conmunication that can

well

influcncc public opinion.

3.2

Thr

-Effcctivcncss of Scientists' Communication

Although at national level speaking actors discussing

lbrestly

issuos;n the media are dominated

by govern

enl

agencies.

but the

majorit-v

of

lespolidents believe that

iational public

opiniorl concen'ing

forestry

issues are

morc influcnced

hy

NGOS

ralher

thai

goven]mellts'opinions-Iherefore.

the

degree

of

influence

of

spcaking actors

in

di\ing

public opinion is not

onl,v

determined b,v the tiequcnc,ri ofoccurrence

ofspeaking

actors in the n'redia. but also depends on thc effectiveness

of

conlmunication

ofeach

speaking actor (Table 3).

Table 3r The Effectiveness Ind€r ofComnlunication among Speaking A€tors

The []ffectiv€n€ss lndex of Comnrtrnication Spcaking ActoN

lntcrnation: National Local

Governnrent officer

Scientist

Politiciar

Connnunity Ieader NCO Businessnlan Others 0.93 1.00 0.71 1.00 r.09 1.00 1.00

08l

1.01 [image:9.612.93.506.102.242.2] [image:9.612.105.499.528.684.2]

[image:10.612.112.535.195.436.2]

Table 3

shou,s

that at

tl'ie

intematiollal

scale.

NGO is

the

most

cffcctivc

actor

in

conductilp

conlmunication

within

the

news media.

lthough

in

tenns

of

liequency

of

rnedia cxposurc.

businessmen

do

not

oftcD

appcar

as

speaking

actors. bu1

fie)

can

establish

efl'ective

communications in the neu,s media at a national scale. Mcanq.hile.

ir

a local scopc, scientisls are

the

most

e1'1'ective

speakiig actors

in

building

communication

within thc

nc\\,s

medla.

Compalison bcnvccn the frequency

of

occunence

of

speaking actor

in

the news

nedia

and their

illluence

in shaping puhlic opinion on related fbrestlv issues is presented in the Figure 3.

9

9

Othd!

*

N60

r

Conrnr!n

t!

.ndcr

I

Sc cflrrt

r G.!.r)f).rt

olt

(.r

000 200 400

Figurr

3r Comparison ofSpcaking

,\ctoris

Frequencli ol Occurrence in the Media and Lev€l

of

Influence in Shaping Public Opinion

3.3

Slakeholder Percepttun: the Role ofScientists in Setting Policy Agenda

Although

nc\&s media is the source

of

inlbrmalion

that mostly shapes public opinion on tbrcstry

issues. however,

it

is not the main ref'erence 1br determining polic,v agenda

sctting.

The majority

of

respondenrs

of

inlelnalioiai

organizations stated

fiat

policy

agcnda setting is mostly allected by sclentists u,ho are Iequested b,v the conccrned institrLlions to provide advisories irl r<sponse to

ce

ain issues.

Meanwhile,

respondents

at

national and

1ocal

institutions tcnd

to

arguc that

internal

reports

are

the main

lel'erence

in

deiemining

thc

polic-y

agenda

setting

in

their institutiolls.

lbllor\ed

bl

input ftorn a

scientist.

Based on

respoldelts'

perception, news media is

'l'able 4: The

Most

Influcncing Informatior

to Decision

Making

proccss.

Speaking Actors National

Score Rank R.D k

Scientiflc advisor]

Scientific media (lournals)

(newspaperrn,asazine)

lnfoanation liorn socict)

4.75

5.25

3.00

1_25

2.15

1.00

2_0

1.0

4.0

1.0

5.0

6.0

5.17

4_92

2.67

.1.81

3.42

t00

t.0

2_0

5.0

1.0

:1.0

,1.88 ,1.58 2_63

4.1',]

t.54

1_21

1.0

2.0

5.0

30

.1.0

6.0

Sowce:

?rr

dD. datd _eAAg,

n:to

rcspondentr

3.

Conclusion and

Policy

Recommendation

The roles

of

scientists

in

policy

making proccss conccming lbrestry,. especiall_v forest

lire

issue

in

hdonesia

are generallv

\\,eak.

Relering

Lo

thc

number

of

statements

lbund

in

the national news mcdia. the scienlists

only

contributed less than

l%

of

statements on forest

fires

issues. I1

conlirms thc

domination

of

non

scientists speaking acto.s

particularly "administration"

in

the

lorestry discourses

of

lndonesian nervs

media.

Although

"admi

slration" gave more statcmcnts

in

the news media than others, ho\r'ever,

in

term

of

commutication

el'Iectiveness, the statement

of

"administration"

is

less efl'ective than

scientists. Thc

conlmlLnication elJ'ectiveness

of

thc

Indoresian scientists

is

gcnerally belter than

"adminislmtion"

_and

politician, but

_{less ef{bctive}

than NGOs and Businessmen. Although the role

ofscienlists

to influcncc

policl

making process

through neu,s media

is relatively

lo\&. but

the

role

of

a group

of

scientist

or

selcctcd scientlsts

tluough their

dircct

advices

to

decision maker

is

one

of

the

n1ost

itnportant

consideratioo in

policy

making bcsidcs the "internal repofis".

Refcrcnces*)

Pielke

RA. .lr.

(2006).

The

Honest

Broker.

Making

Sensc

of

Science

in

Policy

and Politics.

Cambridge

[Jniversit!

Press, New

York.

Ditusnan

D.

Nurroclmat

DR,

Sunda\\,ati

L

and JZ Siregar (2009).

Policy

Evaluadon

of

CDN4

and REDD

Schemes:

Economic

and Social

Considcrations. Paper presented

at

the

AKECOP Mectirg

on

RIDD.

Bogor, 14-15 October 2009. Kompas (199,1-2004).

Souce

ofevaluated ne\r's media.

Republika (1994-2004). Souroe ofevaluated news media.

*) _{The sllbstance ofthis poster is pdttL! taken fj,ohl the pdpet ol Dd/usnon D,}

^-vroth'ldt

DR, SunttatdtiL ontl tZ

Sircgat DAt)9) Poliq,Etnluation oJ CDLt and REDD Schene]: Et:ono,tiL dntl Socidl Considedhns un.l sonj!