296
R. Rosemary and D. Evensen
the ‘Earth Day’, media coverage can target and engage individuals, groups, and subgroups in the community to address the issue of ‘green’ and take action to preserve
the environment across districts, sub-districts, and villages in the province.
Furthermore, the negative coverage linked to response and external efficacy intimates a social perception that the government and the policymakers failed in their
efforts to address Aceh’s environmental issues that were targeted through policies
such as the AGV. The AGV faltered in achieving its goals for three primary reasons:
increase in actors’ self-interest, lack of private sector engagement, and problems in
building capacity and coalitions (Swainson and Mahanty 2018).
Swainson and Mahanty (2018) argue that heightened self-interest among powerful
actors in the government has sometimes led to ‘bribing, rent-seeking, dispossessing
others, or avoiding action.’ This practice has been shown to strengthen the ‘culture
of corruption’ (Dermawan et al. 2011; King 2000; McCarthy 2002a, b; Palmer 2001)
and prevent the development of positive relationships with private sector actors, who
would be less willing to invest in the province due to an unfavourable risk-reward
balance. Similarly, international funding agencies are cautious to provide support for
addressing environmental issues that are embedded in such a problematic political
context.
The absence of developing better early-stage-capacity and coalitions resulted in
the AGV’s shortage of funds (due to inability to attract external support); therefore, the AGV was recently closed as an independent institution. Nevertheless,
the spirit (vision and mission) remain acknowledged and applied in the province’s
medium- and long-term development plans. AGV arguably failed to develop effective networking between relevant institutions at local, national, or global levels,
which has contributed the AGV’s shortcomings to establish further partnerships and
collaborations to reduce environmental risks in the region.
This finding may also indicate that the AGV’s eight cross-sectoral approaches
to addressing environmental issues are simply not working; thus, there is a need
to apply other reporting strategies. However, there is also a shifting paradigm on
environmental issues, a more community-based participatory approach instead of
a top–down approach from the government by providing regulation about forest
conservation, for instance. The bottom–up approach arguably supports community
participation in protecting the devastating forest loss and serious environment issues
in Aceh. This also signals increase potential for focus on information associated with
group efficacy.
Global Environmental Not Noteworthy in Coverage
The findings indicate that SI has not prioritised sharing information with its readers
about environmental issues from other countries, especially those that succeed in
demonstrating best-practice to reduce environmental risks, such as Sweden. Likewise, the global effects of Indonesia’s environmental practices and challenges are
sidelined. Less global efficacy news coverage might stem from local journalists’ lack
R. Rosemary and D. Evensen
the ‘Earth Day’, media coverage can target and engage individuals, groups, and subgroups in the community to address the issue of ‘green’ and take action to preserve
the environment across districts, sub-districts, and villages in the province.
Furthermore, the negative coverage linked to response and external efficacy intimates a social perception that the government and the policymakers failed in their
efforts to address Aceh’s environmental issues that were targeted through policies
such as the AGV. The AGV faltered in achieving its goals for three primary reasons:
increase in actors’ self-interest, lack of private sector engagement, and problems in
building capacity and coalitions (Swainson and Mahanty 2018).
Swainson and Mahanty (2018) argue that heightened self-interest among powerful
actors in the government has sometimes led to ‘bribing, rent-seeking, dispossessing
others, or avoiding action.’ This practice has been shown to strengthen the ‘culture
of corruption’ (Dermawan et al. 2011; King 2000; McCarthy 2002a, b; Palmer 2001)
and prevent the development of positive relationships with private sector actors, who
would be less willing to invest in the province due to an unfavourable risk-reward
balance. Similarly, international funding agencies are cautious to provide support for
addressing environmental issues that are embedded in such a problematic political
context.
The absence of developing better early-stage-capacity and coalitions resulted in
the AGV’s shortage of funds (due to inability to attract external support); therefore, the AGV was recently closed as an independent institution. Nevertheless,
the spirit (vision and mission) remain acknowledged and applied in the province’s
medium- and long-term development plans. AGV arguably failed to develop effective networking between relevant institutions at local, national, or global levels,
which has contributed the AGV’s shortcomings to establish further partnerships and
collaborations to reduce environmental risks in the region.
This finding may also indicate that the AGV’s eight cross-sectoral approaches
to addressing environmental issues are simply not working; thus, there is a need
to apply other reporting strategies. However, there is also a shifting paradigm on
environmental issues, a more community-based participatory approach instead of
a top–down approach from the government by providing regulation about forest
conservation, for instance. The bottom–up approach arguably supports community
participation in protecting the devastating forest loss and serious environment issues
in Aceh. This also signals increase potential for focus on information associated with
group efficacy.
Global Environmental Not Noteworthy in Coverage
The findings indicate that SI has not prioritised sharing information with its readers
about environmental issues from other countries, especially those that succeed in
demonstrating best-practice to reduce environmental risks, such as Sweden. Likewise, the global effects of Indonesia’s environmental practices and challenges are
sidelined. Less global efficacy news coverage might stem from local journalists’ lack