Palangka Raya pagi itu bergerak pelan. Jalan Tjilik Riwut mengalirkan kendaraan menuju pusat kota. Ruang pertemuan hotel menampung orang-orang yang membawa peta, catatan, dan ingatan lapangan. Meja tersusun rapi. Layar menampilkan garis-garis batas yang menentukan arah kerja banyak pihak.
Suara pembuka mengawali rangkaian diskusi. Nama-nama desa disebut satu per satu: Gohong, Kalawa, Mantaren I, dan Buntoi. Wilayah-wilayah itu menjadi titik temu antara rencana, data, dan kerja di lapangan. Di sana, lahan gambut, kanal, dan areal tanam menjadi bagian dari upaya panjang memulihkan ekosistem sekaligus menjaga sumber penghidupan.
Audiensi KPSHK dan 4 LPHD bersama BPDAS Kahayan Hilir. Sumber foto: KPSHK.
Pertemuan ini lahir dari satu persoalan yang tidak sederhana: tumpang tindih areal tanam. Program Inisiatif Kahayan Hilir (IKH) yang dijalankan oleh Konsorsium Pendukung Sistem Hutan Kerakyatan (KPSHK) bertemu dengan rencana penanaman pihak lain, termasuk Balai Pengelolaan Daerah Aliran Sungai (BPDAS) Kahayan dan kegiatan rehabilitasi. Peta yang seharusnya menjadi panduan justru memperlihatkan irisan.
Selama empat tahun berjalan, IKH menempatkan penanaman sebagai bagian dari strategi pemulihan gambut. Sekat kanal dibangun, sumur bor disiapkan, vegetasi ditanam. Semua dirancang untuk jangka panjang sembilan tahun dengan melibatkan Lembaga Pengelola Hutan Desa (LPHD) sebagai aktor utama. Namun, ketika rencana lain masuk tanpa koordinasi yang cukup, ruang yang sama menjadi rebutan program.
Situasi ini bukan sekadar soal garis di peta. Ada tenaga, waktu, dan biaya yang dipertaruhkan. Ada juga kepercayaan masyarakat yang bisa tergerus ketika kegiatan saling bertabrakan. Karena itu, audiensi dan koordinasi strategis menjadi penting: bukan hanya untuk membahas data, tetapi juga menyamakan cara pandang.
Diskusi berlangsung dalam beberapa sesi. Paparan program membuka gambaran besar: rencana tanam, capaian tahun keempat, serta pendekatan yang digunakan. Peta ditampilkan, titik-titik diperbesar, dan peserta mulai menandai area yang beririsan. Pertanyaan muncul, klarifikasi diberikan, dan perbedaan data mulai terlihat.
Memasuki sesi teknis, pembahasan menjadi lebih fokus. Validasi areal tanam dilakukan bersama. Titik overlapping diidentifikasi satu per satu. Setiap wilayah desa dibahas dengan mempertimbangkan kondisi lapangan. Dalam ruang itu, peta tidak lagi berdiri sendiri; ia diuji oleh pengalaman para pihak yang bekerja langsung di lapangan.
Hasilnya mulai mengerucut. Sinkronisasi data menunjukkan adanya tumpang tindih antara program IKH dan rencana rehabilitasi hutan dan lahan di empat Hutan Desa. Kesepakatan pun dirumuskan. LPHD tetap melanjutkan kegiatan yang telah berjalan dan berkomitmen tidak memasukkan area IKH ke dalam program lain. Setiap kegiatan harus melalui koordinasi dan mengacu pada rencana yang berlaku.
Langkah penyelesaian konflik juga disepakati. Jika terjadi persoalan di lapangan, mekanisme penyelesaian mengikuti aturan yang ada. Kebutuhan data menjadi perhatian penting: peta berbentuk SHP diminta untuk memastikan batas lokasi tanam dapat dibedakan secara jelas antar program.
Tidak berhenti pada kesepakatan, pertemuan ini juga menekankan tindak lanjut. Pertemuan lanjutan direncanakan untuk menentukan pembagian lokasi kerja: mana yang dilanjutkan oleh KPSHK dan LPHD, dan mana yang menjadi bagian dari program rehabilitasi DAS. Artinya, koordinasi tidak berhenti di ruang rapat, tetapi berlanjut ke tahap implementasi.
Audiensi ini menunjukkan satu hal mendasar: pemulihan ekosistem tidak bisa berjalan sendiri-sendiri. Setiap program membutuhkan ruang yang jelas, data yang sama, dan komunikasi yang terbuka. Tanpa itu, upaya yang baik bisa saling melemahkan.
Kahayan Hilir menjadi contoh bagaimana tantangan itu muncul dan dihadapi. Melalui pertemuan ini, langkah kecil menuju kerja bersama mulai dibangun dimulai dari peta yang disepakati, dilanjutkan dengan rencana yang diselaraskan, dan dijaga melalui komitmen antar pihak.
Percakapan mereda tanpa benar-benar berakhir. Kertas tetap terbuka, peta masih terhampar, dan sebagian peserta belum beranjak dari kursi. Tidak ada penutupan panjang hanya anggukan dan pertukaran pandang yang menandakan kesepahaman mulai terbentuk.
Dari ruang itu, arah kerja tidak lagi berdiri sendiri. Wilayah yang sempat bertumpang tindih mulai dipilah. Peran masing-masing pihak menjadi lebih jelas, bukan untuk membatasi, tetapi untuk memastikan setiap langkah berjalan pada jalurnya.
Penyelesaian overlapping memang tidak selesai dalam satu pertemuan. Namun, titik temu telah ditemukan. Kesepakatan hari itu menjadi pijakan awal bahwa pemulihan ekosistem menuntut kerja bersama yang saling terhubung, bukan berjalan sendiri-sendiri.
Penulis: Alma
Palangka Raya was moving slowly that morning. Tjilik Riwut Street streamed traffic toward the city center. A hotel meeting room accommodated people carrying maps, notes, and field memos. Tables were neatly arranged. A screen displayed boundary lines defining the direction of the work of many parties.
An opening voice began a series of discussions. Village names were mentioned one by one: Gohong, Kalawa, Mantaren I, and Buntoi. These areas served as the intersection of plans, data, and fieldwork. There, peatlands, canals, and planting areas were part of a long-term effort to restore the ecosystem while maintaining livelihoods.
Audience between the Community Forestry System Supporting Agency (KPSHK) and four LPHDs with the Kahayan Hilir BPDAS. Photo source: KPSHK.
This meeting arose from a complex issue: overlapping planting areas. The Kahayan Hilir Initiative (IKH) program, run by the Community Forestry System Supporting Consortium (KPSHK), clashed with planting plans from other parties, including the Kahayan Watershed Management Center (BPDAS) and rehabilitation activities. The map, which should have served as a guide, instead revealed a disconnect.
For four years, IKH had positioned planting as part of its peatland restoration strategy. Canal blocks were built, wells drilled, and vegetation planted. All of this was designed for a nine-year term, involving the Village Forest Management Institution (LPHD) as the primary actor. However, when other plans entered the picture without adequate coordination, the same space became a contested program.
This situation was more than just a matter of lines on a map. There was effort, time, and money at stake. Community trust could also be eroded when activities clashed. Therefore, strategic audiences and coordination were crucial: not only to discuss data, but also to align perspectives.
The discussion took place in several sessions. The program presentation revealed the big picture: the planting plan, the achievements of the fourth year, and the approach used. Maps were displayed, points were enlarged, and participants began to mark overlapping areas. Questions arose, clarifications were provided, and discrepancies in the data became apparent.
Entering the technical sessions, the discussion became more focused. Validation of the planted areas was carried out together. Overlapping points were identified one by one. Each village area was discussed, taking into account field conditions. In this space, the map no longer stands alone; it is tested by the experiences of the parties working directly in the field.
The results began to emerge. Data synchronization revealed overlap between the IKH program and the forest and land rehabilitation plans in four Village Forests. An agreement was formulated. The LPHD (Regional Forest Management Unit) would continue its ongoing activities and committed not to include the IKH area in other programs. Each activity must be coordinated and adhere to the applicable plan.
Conflict resolution measures were also agreed upon. If problems arise in the field, the resolution mechanism will follow existing regulations. Data requirements were a key focus: SHP maps were requested to ensure clear demarcation of planting locations between programs.
The meeting, not just an agreement, also emphasized follow-up. A follow-up meeting was planned to determine the division of work locations: which would be continued by the KPSHK and LPHD, and which would be part of the watershed rehabilitation program. This meant that coordination did not stop in the meeting room but continued into the implementation phase.
This hearing demonstrated one fundamental point: ecosystem restoration cannot proceed in isolation. Each program requires a clear space, shared data, and open communication. Without it, good efforts can undermine each other.
Kahayan Hilir is an example of how these challenges emerge and are met. Through this meeting, small steps toward collaborative work began to be developed, starting with an agreed-upon map, followed by a harmonized plan, and maintained through commitments between the parties.
The conversation subsided without truly ending. Papers remained open, maps still spread out, and some participants remained seated. There was no lengthy closing, just nods and exchanges of glances, signaling a growing understanding.
From that moment on, the direction of the work was no longer isolated. Areas that had previously overlapped began to be clarified. The roles of each party became clearer, not to limit, but to ensure each step was on track.
Resolving the overlapping issues was not achieved in a single meeting. However, common ground was found. That day’s agreement provided the starting point for understanding that ecosystem restoration requires collaborative, interconnected work, not siloed action.
Author: Alma
Add a Comment