(ktipan dari milis tetangga:)
----- Pesan Asli ----
Dari: Seumangat Aceh Hijau Hijau <[EMAIL PROTECTED] com>
Kepada: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com
Terkirim: Selasa, 7 Oktober, 2008 12:05:27
Topik: Re: [jurnalisme] berapa gaji anda?
ingin nimbrung sedikit.
saya dari Aceh, pernah bekerja di UNICEF meulaboh Aceh Barat dan beberrapa
lembaga kemanusiaan lainnya.
saat di UNICEF posisi saya adalag field officer dengan tugas muter2 sambil bawa
form ke barak-barak liatin kondisi sanitasi dan air bersih. tahu gaji saya?
sekitar Rp.7,4 juta plus uang transport Rp.1,5 juta. grade saya sekitar 7,
dalam skala mereka. saya pernah mengintip gaji atasan saya (program officer),
berkisar 20 an juta. imbang2 sama gaji eksekutif perbankan.
menggiurkan memang...
--- On Mon, 10/6/08, Wishnu Brata <[EMAIL PROTECTED] com> wrote:
From: Wishnu Brata <[EMAIL PROTECTED] com>
Subject: Re: [jurnalisme] berapa gaji anda?
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com
Date: Monday, October 6, 2008, 11:05 AM
mas hardi,
saya juga punya pertanyaan yang mirip. saat ini unicef lagi getol cari dana..
menurut brosur dana akan dipake buat imunisasi. program yang bagus. namun
akuntabilitas juga perlu karena melobatkan dana publik.
di plaza senayan, saya ditawari untuk nyumbang secara tetap dengan dipotong
dari kartu kredit. saya tidak mau karena tidak gesek online tapi musti mengisi
formulir yang di sana tertulis nomer KK saya. wah kalo dokumen ini dibuang
sembarangan bisa disalahgunakan kartu saya.
di hotel westin dan sheraton di bali setiap tamu check-out secara otomatis
menyumbang satu dolar buat unicef. jumlah yang kecil sih.
di super indo, receh sisa belanja bisa disumbangkan buat unicef.
saya punya pertanyaan tentang pengumpulan dana ini.
1. berapa dana yang diperoleh setiap tahun? berapa porsi untuk gaji pegawai,
sewa kantor, administrasi dan yang paling penting buat program unicef sendiri.
2. apakah dana yang didapat di Indonesia diekspor ke negara lain? berapa
proporsinya?
3. pemotongan dana melalui kartu kredit ini rawan. bagaimana perlindungan hukum
donatur yg pake kk ini? secara unicef adalah badan PBB yang punya kekebalan
diplomatik dan saya asumsikan tidak bisa digugat oleh warga negara Indonesia
dengan hukum yang berlaku di Indonesia.
saya berusaha cari di internet laporan tahunan dan laporan keuangan Unicef
Indonesia tapi nggak ketemu.
Oxfam dan Greenpeace cukup tertib laporan keuangannya dapay dicari di internet.
saya pikir badan apapun yang mengumpulkan dana masyrakat untuk kegiatan sosial
musti bikin laporan keuangan tahunan yang diaudit.
salam,
wishnu
--- On Mon, 10/6/08, Hantu Hutan <orangutanborneo@ mac.com> wrote:
> From: Hantu Hutan <orangutanborneo@ mac.com>
> Subject: [jurnalisme] berapa gaji anda?
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com
> Date: Monday, October 6, 2008, 4:32 PM
> Steven E. Sanderson, president and CEO of the WCS (Wildlife
> Conservation Society), mendapatkan gaji sebesar $ 825,000 atau
> sekitar Rp. 7,882,875,000 dalam setahun dan mendapatkan
> berbagai manfaat tambahan lainnya.
> ............ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
> ......... ......... ....
> Christine Mc Donald dalam buku terbarunya yang berjudul Green Inc., An
> Environmental Insider Reveals How a Good Cause Has Gone Bad melaporkan
> bagaimana NGO - NGO Lingkungan mendapatkan dan mengelola dananya.
> Tidak hanya yang bekerja di US saja tetapi yang juga
> bekerja di negara
> tropis seperti Brazil dan Indonesia. Tiga diantaranya yakni
> Conservation International (CI) , The Nature Conservancy (TNC) dan WWF
> telah banyak memberikan kontribusi ilmiah yang penting tapi juga
> mengambil uang jutaan dollar dari perusahaan - perusahaan perusak
> lingkungan. Hubungan itu telah membeli organisasi - organisasi itu.
> Christine mengambil contoh hubungan antara CI dan Bunge.
> Setidaknya 2, 2 juta hektar padang rumput di Brazil dikonversi setiap
> tahunnya
> untuk perkebunan kedelai di Brazil. Banyak diantaranya untuk
> mensuplai kebutuhan Bunge. CI telah membantu Bunge membersihkan citranya.
> Christine Mc Donald adalah wartawan yang menulis untuk Boston Globe,
> Los Angeles Times, Dallas Morning News dan Chicago Tribune.
> Dia juga pernah bekerja pada Divisi Komunikasi Global-nya Conservation
> International.
> Berikut ini petikan wawancaranya dengan California Literary Review.
> Selamat membaca. Jangan lupa minta naik gaji ke bos masing
> - masing.
> What do you think is the main problem with the way environmental
> organizations are currently run?
> It´s impossible to generalize about the entire environmental movement.
> There are about 12,000 nature groups in this country alone. Many do
> good work and have strict rules governing corporate fundraising;
> others are not as scrupulous. In my book, I discuss excesses at about
> a dozen large groups and take an in-depth look at three organizations
> that play a huge role in nature conservation not only in this country
> but in tropical countries such as Brazil and Indonesia.
> While Conservation International (CI), The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and
> World Wildlife Fund (WWF) often make important scientific contributions, they
> cancel out all the good works by taking millions of dollars from corporations
> in an array of polluting
industries.
> Their contributors include power companies, mining conglomerates and
> grain traders that are fueling the transformation of the last remaining
> rainforests in Latin America and the Asian Pacific into vast
> soybean and palm oil plantations. World Wildlife Fund draws the line
> at oil companies. But CI, TNC and groups like The Conservation Fund,
> which works inside the United States, are beholden to BP, ExxonMobil,
> Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips and Shell Oil Co.. Corporate moguls
> including Roger Sant, the founder of AES Corp., which operates dozens
> of coal-burning power plants, and Rob Walton, the chairman of Wal-
> Mart´s board, sit on the boards of directors that run the groups.
> While these relationships have spawned lucrative new funding streams,
> the money has essentially bought off the organizations. Groups that
> take oil money, for instance, have studiously avoided comment on the
> battle these companies are waging with other environmentalists to open
> up more of the country to drilling.
> The corporate ties also lead to warped relationships. CI and Bunge
> Ltd., one of the world´s largest grain traders, have a partnership in
> Brazil that both tout as a "success story." They are working with soy
> farmers to set aside some of the savannah lands that the farmers are
> converting into soybean fields. According to CI, the project has saved
> about 120,000 hectares (one hectare equals 2.5 acres) over several
> years. By CI´s own estimates, however, 2.2 million hectares of
> Brazilian savannah are lost every year. Much of it is being converted
> to supply Bunge´s soy crushing factories. So, the net positive effect
> of the project is insignificant. Bunge´s demand for soybeans continues
> to fuel large-scale habitat destruction. CI is helping Bunge greenwash its
> image.
> How did you get involved with this issue?
> I had been working as a journalist and decided I wanted to become more
> involved in the environmental movement. One thing about journalism is
> that you are always writing about what other people are doing. I
> wanted to start doing. That´s when I saw a listing for a job at
> Conservation International to manage the group´s media education
> efforts. I got the job and headed to Washington, D.C. in May 2006 to
> run CI´s Biodiversity Reporting Award in nine countries and organize
> field trips for local journalists working in foreign countries where CI
> worked.
> Almost immediately, I saw things that made me uncomfortable. I recall
> being in an editorial meeting with the entire communications staff
> shortly after I started. One of my new colleagues was talking at
> length about plans to roll out a big public relations campaign with BP
> to publicize the British oil company´s patronage of our organization.
> A few days earlier, I had read that BP had been named by the
> Environmental Protection Agency as the owner of the worst polluting
> refinery in the country. While I debated with myself whether to bring
> up the news item, someone else spoke up and said exactly what I was
> thinking. The group reacted as if she had said something unthinkably
> rude. Not a single other person in the room of 30 or 40 so-called
> environmentalists had anything to say about CI´s involvement with a
> company that the EPA - not some radical activist outfit - had
> designated the biggest scofflaw polluter in the country.
> After a few minutes of awkward silence, the meeting resumed, as if the
> issue had never been raised. And, shortly after that, the BP
> public relations
> campaign got underway. This is just one of the many little wake up
> calls that started sounding almost immediately after I arrived at CI.
> This story also underscores that not everyone is a corporate sellout
> at CI or the other groups I discuss in my book. Just as one person in
> that meeting was willing to bring up BP´s environmental record, there
> are brave people inside all of these groups railing against the
> policies of corporate kowtowing imposed by the organization´s leaders.
> In any event, the following fall, CI reorganized its communications
> division and I was laid off along with several other people. Though it
> was scary at first, I quickly realized I was free to return to
> journalism, which, by this time, seemed like a much more honest and \
> useful way of life. That´s when I decided to write this book. I was
> appalled to learn that what I had seen at CI was true of
> several other major groups, as well.
> How much money do the leaders of environmental organizations earn?
> Again, it´s impossible to generalize given the number and wide variety
> of environmental organizations in the country. What I can tell you is
> that the leaders of several of the country´s largest nature groups
> make salaries of $350,000 or more, which puts them in the top 1
> percent of US taxpayers. Among the highest paid is Steven E.
> Sanderson, president and CEO of the Wildlife Conservation Society, who
> makes more than $825,000 in salary and fringe benefits, according to
> his group´s 2006 tax return.
> You criticize environmental groups working with large corporations,
> but isn´t it more effective to engage them than to attack them? Could
> much have been accomplished without corporate support?
> I bought into that notion before I went to work for CI. But after
> watching environmentalists blatantly engage in greenwashing for their
> corporate sponsors, I can tell you that once a group takes money from
> a corporation and comes to rely on the continued flow of those dollars
> to run programs and pay salaries, it loses its ability to be a critic
> and a watchdog. One high-ranking environmentalist once told me he
> shies away from seeking corporate funds because corporate executives
> "tend to want to buy you up first and talk about conservation later."
> I think that is largely the norm. It´s not that the groups don´t do some good
> work with
> the money they get from corporations. While too much goes to pay those
> six-figure salaries, posh offices and extravagant "fact finding" trips to
> exotic
> destinations such as the Galapagos Islands or Pacific Island atolls,
> some of it is used to conduct scientific studies of endangered species
> and pay for nature conservation such as CI and Bunge´s partnership to
> save savannah lands in Brazil. But when you look at the result of that
> program - saving 120,000 hectares when more than 2 million are lost
> annually - and so many others like it, they can hardly be considered
> "success stories" by any objective measure. Meanwhile, Bunge and other
> companies use their relationships with these groups to paint
> themselves as an environmentally friendly, which is pure greenwash.
> There are plenty of groups that refuse to take corporate funding and
> continue to thrive and be effective - arguably more effective. Among
> them is Greenpeace, which has a much more confrontational approach.
> It´s also more controversial. But it was Greenpeace - not CI, TNC or
> WWF - that got Bunge and other international grain traders to agree to
> a moratorium on buying soy raised on recently deforested Amazon lands.
> They didn´t do it by being polite. Similarly, Greenpeace showed up WWF
> earlier this year with a day of protests at the European offices of
> Unilever, a manufacturer that uses palm oil to make everything from
> Knorr soups to Dove soap. Unilever responded by agreeing to stop
> buying palm oil from Indonesia, where the orangutan has been driven to
> the point of extinction by plantation expansion. WWF had spent years
> spearheading corporate-nonprofit roundtable negotiations to coax
> Unilever and other manufacturers to address the same issue without
> achieving an agreement. So there is reason to believe that
> environmentalists are more effective when they act like
> environmentalists - not like corporate courtiers.
> You write in your book about the lack of consideration for Native
> peoples. Would you talk a little about that?
> While international conservation groups like to describe the
> rainforests where they work as pristine, undiscovered places, the
> truth is people have lived for millennia in the vast majority of these
> places. The conservationists often see them as "invaders of the
> forest" who threaten the plant and animal species they have come to
> protect. But the natives see the foreign conservationists as the
> interlopers.
> In the last few decades, with the urging of international conservation
> groups and the enticement of foreign aid dollars, millions of people
> have been evicted from their ancestral homes around the globe
> according to sociologists who study the trend, and the land turned
> into national parks and other protected areas. At the same time,
> conservation groups have come under fire for cutting deals with
> corporations operating in these same remote places. The groups often
> trade their acquiescence of large-scale logging operations, open pit
> mines, oil drilling and pipeline building in exchange for corporate
> money to do conservation work nearby. The money is often used to
> strengthen management of protected areas, which usually
> includes hiring more park rangers to police the parks and keep local
> people out.
> There is no denying that indigenous communities and the rural poor put
> pressure on the local ecosystems through hunting and clearing land for
> subsistence farming. But their impact can´t be compared to the much
> larger scars left by open pit mines, plantations and oil rigs say
> Native peoples and their advocates, who accuse the conservationists of
> hypocrisy. They see a double standard in which the world´s poorest,
> most vulnerable residents are bearing the brunt of the conservation
> burden while the rich and powerful are immune.
> What problems do you see with green building and LEED certification?
> It´s good news that the construction industry has started
> to think about building more environmentally sustainable homes and
> commercial
> developments. But it´s much too easy to game the system, according to
> many critics. One of the biggest complaints about LEED is that it´s
> been used to certify McMansions as sustainable homes. The larger the
> house, the less sustainable it can be from many perspectives - from
> the plot of land it sits on to the amount of the building materials,
> not to mention the electricity, water and home heating oil consumed
> year after year. It´s a sort of "have our cake and eat it too"
> scenario, in which buyers of LEED certified McMansions can own the
> trophy home and claim environmental ethos too, when what we really
> need to do is rethink the way we live. Instead of finding ways to make
> the old unsustainable housing model certifiable, we need ideas like
> the ones being developed by architect William McDonough and other
> green building visionaries, who are pioneering new ways not only to
> build homes but also to "remake" the way we make all
> kinds of consumer goods.
> In trying to wean ourselves off of carbon fuels, what mistakes are we
> making and what, in your opinion, is the path we should be pursuing?
> The country needs to establish regulations governing industrial
> greenhouse gas emissions, whether in the form of a carbon tax or the
> "cap and trade" systems both presidential candidates are talking
> about. Until we have mandatory carbon caps, it appears most U.S.
> companies will continue to put off reducing emissions. A new survey of
> 1,550 of the world´s major companies reported that 74 percent of
> companies have set emissions reductions targets, but U.S. industry is
> lagging behind. According to the survey by the Carbon Disclosure
> Project and released September 21st, only a third of the U.S.
> companies say they have taken steps to reduce their greenhouse gas
> footprints though a much higher percentage recognize the risk of
> climate change. By legislating pollution caps, companies could start
> moving away from rhetoric toward substantive changes to
> address global warming. But that is just a first step and in no way a fix-all.
> In my book, I investigated both corporate cap and trade, and personal
> carbon offset programs. These schemes don´t actually reduce the amount
> of greenhouse gases being released into the air. They finance tree
> planting, wind farms and other Earth-friendly projects that claim to
> remove carbon from the atmosphere or cut down on our need for fossil
> fuels. It´s essentially a payoff system. Factories continue polluting.
> Your car keeps spewing greenhouse gases. In fact, some suggest, that,
> removing the guilt associated with polluting may lead to an overall
> increase in carbon emissions. Some people compare them to the
> indulgences doled out by the Roman Catholic Church in medieval times.
> Those people and companies with the cash to pay for their carbon fix
> can buy their way free of their greenhouse gas bill, but it doesn´t
> mean they´ve kicked the addiction.
> While cap and trade and personal carbon offsets have some role to play
> in the challenges ahead of us, it´s going to take a much more serious
> effort from corporations and individuals to put the brakes on global
> warming and avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
> Recycling, driving less and conserving electricity are also good places to
> start.
> But, as I talk about in my book, the best thing we can do is get
> educated about the environmental footprints of our daily purchases -
> the cars, houses, appliances, clothes and groceries we buy - and start
> pressuring the manufacturers to clean up their operations.
***
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
