CC BY
7
DOI https://doi.org/10.18551/rjoas.2018-07.04
KNOWLEDGE AS A TOOL TOWARDS WELFARE: THEORY AND REALITY
Guswandi
Faculty of Economics, Krisnadwipayana University, Jakarta, Indonesia E-mail: guswandi@unkris.ac.id
ABSTRACT
This paper aims to describe the theory and reality of welfare balance associated with population growth as well as its impact on the sustainability of development based on green growth. This paper also conveys the role of science to answer the "what, why and how" related to sustainability and green growth economy.
KEY WORDS
Welfare, economy, green growth, business.
Our population has grown significantly over the last decade affecting the balance of nature and ecosystems; it is not surprising then that disasters occur everywhere - landslides, oxygen depletion, world oil reserve depletion, and other forms of disasters that hinder human existence. Indonesia has long been known as a beautiful country, a paradise in the world. Indonesia is fertile and rich in natural resoures; yet, it cannot escape disasters, and many forms, from drought, floods, to landslide, take place in the country. Our natural balance has been disturbed by the large number of population. Social and humanity problems have also increased, as human beings compete to maintain their existence.
On the other hand, countries around the world are vying to increase their economic growth. Investment has been significant for all sectors because it contributes to growth. Investment in the field of oil palm plantations, as one of Indonesia's main commodities, has eroded millions of hectares of forests in Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Sumatra, and other islands the world has claimed as the world's lungs. For the sake of economic growth, Indonesia's forest resources have been sacrificed.
The above brief description has shown us that the growing population has led to ecosystem extinctions and increasing social and humanitarian problems; this is worse if all countries are oriented only to economic growth. In other words, GNP, which refers to the performance of a country, basically contains only the economic waste that excludes the welfare of society, the carrying capacity of the environment, and the balance of the ecosystem. This should not happen continuously; the state must have thoughts about growth that considers ecosystems and humanity, such is known as green growth (Anderson, 2016).
As scientists, Anderson, Kusters, Mc Carty and Obidzinski (2016) have tried to contribute to the maturation of the concept of green growth by articulating the theory and the reality of the countries in the world. Furthermore, we, graduate students, as the future scientists and scholars, are trying to understand the root of the error and reviewing and providing recommendations related to green growth in order to create sustainable economic development by reducing the damage to the ecosystem or set it to a minimum.
This study focuses on the role of science as well as its subjects, i.e. scientists as part of the academic community, to uphold the foundation of their life in the form of integrity, autonomy, and welfare in explaining the problems faced, why it happens and how to find solutions to the problems for a sustainable life without sacrificing the ecosystems.
Indonesia's economic growth to date has brought welfare to most Indonesian. However, the economic growth that currently focuses on the natural resource-based industry sector also raises ecosystem and social issues. To address these issues, this paper will point out what happened in connection with the green growth.
The problems associated with the ecosystem include increased levels of CO2, floods, landslides, drought, forest and land fires, degradation of air quality, groundwater abrasion and subsidence, and decreased quality and quantity of water. Based on data released by the
Global Green Growth Institute (2015), Indonesia's CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption are around 500 million tons per year, while CO2 emissions from changes in land use and forestry could reach more than 1 billion tons per year. This emission provides an economic impact for future generations in Indonesia and around the world. The toxic gas and particles, including the smoke of forest fires and peatlands, have degraded the water quality in many cities in Indonesia. The latest estimate states the impact of death from air pollution in Indonesia is about 3% of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in 2010.
Based on the data from the National Disaster Management Agency1, during 2017, the recorded disasters were floods (737 incidents), landslides (577 incidents), forest and land fires (96 incidents), floods and landslides (67 events), drought (19 events), in addition to natural events.
DISASTERS IN 2017
JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 2017
Disaster data of 2017 with 2,341 incidents of disaster (31/12/2017). The hydro-meteorological disaster predominates the disaster of 2016, the first flooding followed by Tornadoes & landslides. This year's disaster caused more than 3.49 million people to evacuate and took 377 lives and damaged more than 47 thousand housing units.
6.5 RS EARTHQUAKE
SOUTHEAST ACEH April 11, 2017
FLOOD
PADANG SIDEMPUAN, NORTH SUMATERA March 26, 2017 5 died
2000 lives affected
LANDSLIDES
LIMAHPULUH KOTA, WEST SUMATERA March 2, 2017 8 died, 3012 lives affected
VOLCANO ERUPTION
SINABUNG, NORTH SUMATERA May 20, 2017 348 temporary shelters
FLOOD
MURUNG RAYA, CENTRAL KALIMANTAN Agust 17, 2017 21,608 lives affected
BANJIR
GORONTALO REGENCY, GORONTALO Juni 2, 2017 3,877 lives affected 484 houses
EARHTQUAKE
POSO REGENCY, CENTRAL SULAWESI May 29, 2017
348 houses
FLOOD
EAST LUWU, SOUTH SULAWESI May 12, 2017 7 died
14 houses damaged
TOTAL NUMBER OF DISASTERS IN 2017
JANUARY 1 TO DECEMBER 31, 2017
EARTHQUAKE
TASIKMALAYA, WEST JAVA December 16, 2017 4 died
2,473 houses
2,341
FLOOD
MAGELANG, CENTRAL JAVA April 29, 2017 13 died 378 refugees
LANDSLIDES
PONOROGO, EAST JAVA April 1, 2017 28 died and lost
178 refugees
LANDSLIDES
NGANJUK, EAST JAVA April 9, 2017 5 burried by landslides 2 villages affected
LONGSOR VOLCANO ERUPTION
KINTAMANI, BALI KARANGASEM, BALI
February 9, 2017 September 25, 2017
13 died and lost 0 died and lost
8 injured 151,000 refugees
FLOOD & LANDSLIDES
SIDENRENGRAPPANG, SOUTH SULAWESI August 7, 2017 497 lives affected 100 houses submerged
DAMAGES DUE TO DISASTERS IN 2017
47,442
DAMAGED HOUSE
1,272
DAMAGED EDUCATION FACILITIES
113
DAMAGED HEALTH FACILITIES
698
DAMAGED HOUSES OF WORSHIP
THE LOSS DUE TO DISASTERS IN 2017 :
JANUARY 1 TO DECEMBER 31, 2017
377
PEOPLE DIED AND LOST
3.49 Million
VICTIMS AND REFUGEES
Figure 1 - Data of Disasters in Indonesia during the period of 2017 (Source: The National Disaster
Management Agency, 2017)
Other important issues are social problems such as high crime rates, poverty, high unemployment, and increased hunger. From the data of the Central Bureau of Statistics, the number of poor people in Indonesia in 2017 was 26,582,900 people. This number is still quite high even though it has decreased from the previous year which was 27,771,220. Table 1 presents the data of poor people in Indonesia from 1970 until 2017.
Similar to the number of poor people in Indonesia, the number of unemployed in Indonesia is still quite high from 2012 to 2017; it was around seven million. The unemployment rate in Indonesia is presented in Table 2.
The high level of poverty and unemployment in Indonesia affects the level of crime either in the form of crime against life or physical. From the statistical data, Jakarta occupies the highest position for the crime rate although Jakarta is not included in the big 5 seen from the risk level of crime.
1 Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana (BNPB).
Table 1 - The Number of Poor People in Indonesia
Year The Number of Poor People (in Millions) The Percentage of Poor People Poverty Line (IDR/Capita/Month)
Urban Areas Villages Urban Areas + Villages Urban Areas Villages Urban Areas + Villages Urban Areas Villages
1970 n.a n.a 70 n.a n.a 60 n.a n.a
1976 10 44.2 54.2 38.8 40.4 40.1 4,522 2,849
1978 8.3 38.9 47.2 30.8 33.4 33.3 4,969 2,981
1980 9.5 32.8 42.3 29 28.4 28.6 6,831 4,449
1981 9.3 31.3 40.6 28.1 26.5 26.9 9,777 5,877
1984 9.3 25.7 35 23.1 21.2 21.6 13,731 7,746
1987 9.7 20.3 30 20.1 16.1 17.4 17,381 10,294
1990 9.4 17.8 27.2 16.8 14.3 15.1 20,614 13,295
1993 8.7 17.2 25.9 13.4 13.8 13.7 27,905 18,244
1996 7.2 15.3 22.5 9.7 12.3 11.3 38,246 27,413
1996 9.42 24.59 34.01 13.39 19.78 17.47 42,032 31,366
1998 17.6 31.9 49.5 21.92 25.72 24.2 96,959 72,780
1999 15.64 32.33 47.97 19.41 26.03 23.43 92,409 74,272
2000 12.31 26.43 38.74 14.6 22.38 19.14 91,632 73,648
2001 8.6 29.27 37.87 9.79 24.84 18.41 100,011 80,382
2002 13.32 25.08 38.39 14.46 21.1 18.2 130,499 96,512
2003 12.26 25.08 37.34 13.57 20.23 17.42 138,803 105,888
2004 11.37 24.78 36.15 12.13 20.11 16.66 143,455 108,725
2005 12.4 22.7 35.1 11.68 19.98 15.97 165,565 117,365
2006 14.49 24.81 39.3 13.47 21.81 17.75 174,290 130,584
2007 13.56 23.61 37.17 12.52 20.37 16.58 187,942 146,837
2008 12.77 22.19 34.96 11.65 18.93 15.42 204,896 161,831
2009 11.91 20.62 32.53 10.72 17.35 14.15 222,123 179,835
2010 11.1 19.93 31.02 9.87 16.56 13.33 232,989 192,354
2011 10.95 18.94 29.89 9.09 15.59 12.36 263,594 223,181
2012 10.51 18.09 28.59 8.6 14.7 11.66 277,382 240,441
2013 10.63 17.92 28.55 8.52 14.42 11.47 308,826 275,779
2014 10.36 17.37 27.73 8.16 13.76 10.96 326,853 296,681
2015 10.62 17.89 28.51 8.22 14.09 11.13 356,378 333,034
2016 10.49 17.28 27.76 7.73 13.96 10.7 372,114 350,420
Sep-17 10.27 16.31 26.58 7.26 13.47 10.12 400,995 370,910
Source: The Central Bureau of Statistics, 2017.
RJOAS, 7(79), July 2018 Table 2 - The Unemployment Rate in Indonesia
Year Not educated/ Has never attended school Not/ Has Never Graduated Elementary School Elementary School Junior High School Senior High School Senior Vocational School Academy University Total
2005 264,458 673,527 2,729,915 3,151,231 3,069,305 1,306,770 308,522 395,538 11,899,266
2006 170,666 611,254 2,589,699 2,730,045 2,851,518 1,305,190 278,074 395,554 10,932,000
2007 94,301 438,519 2,179,792 2,264,198 2,532,204 1,538,349 397,191 566,588 10,011,142
2008 103,206 443,832 2,099,968 1,973,986 2,403,394 1,409,128 362,683 598,318 9,394,515
2009 90,471 547,430 1,531,671 1,770,823 2,472,245 1,407,226 441,100 701,651 8,962,617
2010 157,586 600,221 1,402,858 1,661,449 2,149,123 1,195,192 443,222 710,128 8,319,779
2011 205,388 737,610 1,241,882 2,138,864 2,376,254 1,161,362 276,816 543,216 8,681,392
2012 85,374 512,041 1,452,047 1,714,776 1,867,755 1,067,009 200,028 445,836 7,344,866
2013 81,432 489,152 1,347,555 1,689,643 1,925,660 1,258,201 185,103 434,185 7,410,931
2014 74,898 389,550 1,229,652 1,566,838 1,962,786 1,332,521 193,517 495,143 7,244,905
2015 55,554 371,542 1,004,961 1,373,919 2,280,029 1,569,690 251,541 653,586 7,560,822
2016 59,346 384,069 1,035,731 1,294,483 1,950,626 1,520,549 219,736 567,235 7,031,775
2017 62,984 404,435 904,561 1,274,417 1,910,829 1,621,402 242,937 618,758 7,005,262
Source: The Central Bureau of Statistics, 2017.
Jawa Timur Jawa Barat Sumatra Barat Jawa tengah DI Yogyakarta Lampung Kalimantan Timur Sulawesi Utara Kalimantan Selatan Kalimantan Barat Bali
Kepulauan Riau Sulawesi Tenggara Kalimantan Tengah Maluku Maluku Utara
10 564
- 9 692
-- 9595
-» 9218
-■ 8988
- 8 764
- 8 048
—» 7873
— 7 194
— 6 809
— 6 709 6 669
— 6 015
— 5 032
— 5 002 4 892 4 463 3 655 3 372 2 681
1 875 1 843 1 356 814
20 000
20 575
16 277 16 088 15 958
27 805
35 437 35 248
44 461
Sulawesi Tengah Jambi DI Yogyakarta Sumatra Utara Bengkulu Kalimantan Timur Kalimantan Selatan Aceh Riau
Kalimantan Barat Nusa Tenggara Timur Bali Maluku Banten Jawa Barat
Crime Total
40 000
Jawa Tengah - 48
100
123 115 111 110 101 92 73 71
181 174 166 164 160 155 149 141 140 133 126
Crime Rate
200
300
400
Figure 2 - Total Crime Total Reported and the Risk to Crime Rate Acording to the Regional Police Office 2015 (Source: The Crime Statistics, 2016)
The ecosystem and social problems occurring as described are caused by several factors, such as population increase, land conversion, development activities including rapid population growth and bad resource management. Nature has a limit of ability to accommodate all human activities. The increase in population and the increase in population activity all requires land as a basic means; it often leads to land conversion, such as agricultural land into settlements or industries or forests into plantations.
The conversion of forests into plantation land can lead to the increase of CO2 levels, as proven by Anderson (2016) in East Kalimantan Province. There has been a significant conversion of forests into palm oil plantation. In 2000, the number of plantations has increased significantly, from the 116,888 ha allocated, 49,085 ha of plantation was planted. In 2013, the number started from 456,145 ha to turn into 1,115,415 ha of land allocated for palm oil plantations. From the data, in the period of approximately 10 years, the increase in palm oil plantations has reached almost 10 times. From the existing data, during 2000 to 2010, there was 19.9% land conversion occurred from forests to palm oil plantations or an increase of carbon emission to 20.6% (Anderson, 2016). The same issue is happening in all areas in Kalimantan as well as in other parts of Indonesia.
The increase in CO2 levels, in addition to the conversion of forests, in which forests function as an absorber of CO2 (1 hectare of forest can absorb 250-300 tons of CO2 (Kyoto Protocol, 1997)), is also due to Co2 resulting from forest fires. This is because to ease the process of opening oil palm plantatiosn, the company burns the forests; not infrequently, it even causes a national disaster disrupting both local residents and neighboring countries.
In addition to land conversion, ecosystem problems are also caused by population explosions and increased human activities. The increase in population is estimated to reach 11 billion in this century where the largest population growth occurs in developing countries. This increase in population will increase the per capita consumption of the population, thus increasing the need for food and fuel or biofuel (Laurance, 2014). Population growth places additional burdens on natural resource capabilities and waste disposal, lowering environmental quality. The issues that cause ecosystem and social problems come from the same source, i.e. urban development, urban transport, lifestyle, and economy that only emphasize the structure of production and the dependence on the consumption of natural resources and energy in mass (Inoguchi, 2015).
Table 3 - World Energy Consumption
No Negara Oil Natural Gas Coal Nuclear Energy Hydro Electric Total %
1 USA 937.6 582.0 564.3 187.9 59.8 2331.6 22.80%
2 China 308.6 35.1 956.9 11.3 74.2 1386.6 13.60%
3 Federal Rusia 128.5 361.8 105.9 32.4 40.0 668.6 6.50%
4 Japan 241.5 64.9 120.8 64.8 22.6 514.6 5.00%
5 India 119.3 28.9 204.8 3.8 19.0 375.8 3.70%
6 Germany 123.6 77.3 85.7 37.8 6.1 330.4 3.20%
7 Canada 99.6 80.5 30.5 20.5 76.4 307.5 3%
8 France 94.0 40.2 12.5 101.4 14.8 262.9 2.60%
9 United Kingdom 80.8 88.2 38.1 18.1 1.7 226.9 2.20%
10 South Korea 104.8 28.4 53.1 29.6 1.3 217.2 2.10%
20 Indonesia 54.7 30.3 22.2 - 2.5 109.6 1.10%
Source: Word Energy Outlook, 2008.
The high consumption of the world community on the existing resources is also one of the causes of these problems. The existing data confirms that the world energy consumption is controlled by industrialized countries; US energy consumption reaches 22.80% of the world's energy consumption followed by China, Russia and Japan, while Indonesia ranks 20. The need for energy in Indonesia continues to increase; the need for fossil fuel is still the highest requirement in Indonesia followed by electricity and coal. Indonesia's energy needs by type and scenario can be seen in Figure 2.
Increased human activities (development) have also been a cause of increased emissions and global warming. As an example, the CO2 emission in Jakarta reaches 206
million tons per year. The largest contribution comes from the transportation sector which reached 182.5 tons per year, while the household and industry sectors contribute 23.9 million and 350.3 thousand tons of carbon emissions per year (databoks.katadata.co.id).
1200 Coal
■ Natural Gas
1000 -
■ Fossil Fuel
New and Renewable Energy
800
■ Electricity
600 -
400
200
0
I I I
BAU EFF EFFJHIGH BAU EFF EFF_HIGH
Figure 3 - Energy Requirements by Types and Scenarios (Source: Outlook Energi Indonesia, 2015)
In addition to ecosystem problems, the social problems that arise are also caused by population explosions. Population explosions not accompanied by the increase in employment would lead to an increase in poverty, especially in urban areas, as well as rising unemployment rates as described above.
The ecosystem and social problems because of land conversion, population growth, increased human activities and the development process are related to the carrying capacity of the earth. According to the Law Number 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management, the carrying capacity is the ability of the environment to support human life, other living things, and the balance between the two; capacity is the ability of the environment to absorb substances, energy, and/or other components in it.
When we review ecosystem and social issues around the world in general are caused by the use of excessive resources leaving the sustainability concept behind. Speaking of green growth, we are talking about economic growth that must be able to reduce or avoid environmental damage. Sustainability and green growth needs cooperation of government (central and local) as well as community and private (NGOs). In this case, the scientists play a role in finding new concepts or models in the application of sustainability and seeking renewable resources.
The study by Motesharrei (2014) has resulted in a Human and Nature Dymanics (HANDY) model based on the utilization and use of limited natural resources and human sustainability, as population growth and the utilization of existing resources do not concern sustainability. The rationale of the HANDY model is the predator-prey model in which population growth is as a 'predator' and resources are as 'prey' to be finished by humans. The human tendency is to enrich themselves by accumulating capital and savings over the carring capacity of the nature. This causes the existing resources to no longer meet human consumption. This study also examines the different things that allow the occurrence of more complex dynamics that can fundamentally change the behavior and output of the model, namely the accumulation of surplus, which in this study is called the accumulation of surplus wealth.
The results of this study indicate one of the causes of damage in the community (both ecosystem and social), i.e. excessive exploitation of natural resources and excessive economic stratification where the economy is only oriented to the achievement of high economic growth that exceeds the production capacity (overload) to exclude environmental quality. To overcome these problems, a policy is required related to reducing the level of inequality and controlling population growth. The results also mention that although there is no stratification of the economy, the damage can still occur if there is a sharp decline in the value of capital goods. Both of these can be avoided by directing economic growth to sustainable economic growth by utilizing natural resources as wisely as possible.
Figure 4 - Assessing and Designing Activities and Investments to Achieve Green Economy and Green Growth (Source: The National Planning Agency, 2017)
Other solutions related to environmental issues caused by the environmental carrying capacity that has been exceeded are planning according to the carrying capacity and environmental capacity. One effort to balance the utilization of resources and the environment is through the process of spatial arrangement based on the achievement of environmental preservation (Wirosoedarmo, 2014). In the preparation of Regional Spatial Plans, both national, provincial, and city levels, and spatial evaluation should have considered the environment as well as the carrying capacity of the environment.
In addition, the study conducted by the National Planning Agency related to green growth states that green economic growth depends on the complex relationship between various investments and field interventions. The process of assessing and designing activities and investments to achieve Green Growth Assessment Process (GGAP) uses indicators at various projects and sectors as well as city, provincial and national levels—to prioritize and assess green growth and green economy projects and policies. By assessing
the performance of green economic growth from projects and policies in the field, GGAP can
improve the design of the planning process and improve the quality of investment
(Bappenas, 2017).
Conclusion. Based on the above description, the following conclusions are given:
• Knowledge and science is a tool and at the same time is a common sense that can be directed to improve the welfare of mankind through the creation of models of economic development that pay attention to the ecosystem and the carrying capacity of the environment.
• As scientists, human can think and analyze of what happened, why it happened and how to solve it; a model or prototype can be made or compiled related to the solution of problems faced by humanity.
• Development planning must not only pay attention to achievements related to economic growth but also pay attention to the ecosystem and the carrying capacity of the environment so the desired economic growth can take place continuously (sustainable). As outlined in the HANDY model, sustainable economic development can occur when we utilize natural resources as wisely as possible.
• Indonesia as a developing country must be oriented to high economic growth.
• Indonesia as a developing country oriented to high economic growth should already implement sustainable economic growth and use natural resources wisely.
• Findings/concepts/models found and produced by scientists associated with sustainability to realize the green growth should be further poured in the form of policies so government and society can implement it.
REFERENCES
1. Anderson Z.R, Kuster K, McCarthy J, Obidzinzki K. 2016. Green Growth Rhetoric versus Reality: Insights from Indonesia. Global Enviromental Change 38.
2. Bappenas. 2017. Mewujudkan Pertumbuhan Ekonomi Hijau Indonesia yang Sejahtera-Peta Jalan Untuk Kebijaksanaan, Perencanaan dan Investasi. Retrieved from greengrowth.bappenas.go.id/id, on January 6th, 2018.
3. Dewan Energi Indonesia. 2015. Outlook Energi Indonesia 2015. Jakarta.
4. Inoguchi T, Newman E, Paoletto G. 2015. Kota dan Lingkungan - Pendekatan Baru Masyarakat Berwawasan Ekologi. Jakarta: Pustaka LP3ES.
5. Laurence W.F, Sayer J, Cassman KG. 2014. Agricultural Expansion and Its Impacts on Tropical Nature. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29(2).
6. Motesharrei S, Rivas J, Kalnay E. 2014. Human and Nature Dynamic (HANDY): Modeling Inequality and Use of Resources in The Collapse or Sustainability of Societies. Ecological Economics 101.
7. OECD. 2017. Tinjauan Kebijakan Pertumbuhan Hijau Indonesia 2017-19. Jakarta.
8. Wirosoedarmo R, Widiatmono S.B.R, Widyoseno Y. 2014. Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah (RTRW) Berdasarkan Daya Dukung Lingkungan Berbasis Kemampuan Lahan. Agritech, 34(4).
