block-beta columns 2 W["WHITE<br/>The Data & Evidence"] R["RED<br/>The Human Element"] B["BLACK<br/>The Pessimist/Critic"] Y["YELLOW<br/>The Policy Payoff"] G["GREEN<br/>Creative Fixes"] BL["BLUE<br/>Presentation Roadmap"]
26 The Six Thinking Hats: IBSAP 2025–2045
As future policy analysts, your job isn’t just to memorize state documents—it is to dissect them, identify where official targets diverge from on-the-ground realities, and figure out how to bridge the policy-implementation gap.
Today, we are putting the Indonesian Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (IBSAP) 2025–2045 under the microscope. You will split into groups, each critiquing a different sub-topic using the 6 Thinking Hats method. The remaining sub-topics are provided as reference material for your presentation next week.
26.1 Part 1: The 8 Critical Sub-Topics
Review the technical sub-topics below. Each group will receive a brief excerpt from the board paper containing the relevant baseline data and targets.
1. Climate Resilience & Ecosystem Vulnerability (National Target 7)
The Focus: The plan aims to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in land-use and marine sectors to prevent species loss, noting that shallow marine ecosystems (like the Arafura Sea) are highly vulnerable to shifts in temperature and pH.
The Policy Paradox: The plan relies heavily on cross-ministerial alignment (KLH, Kemenhut, KKP, BMKG, etc.). How realistic is this institutional coordination given historic data silos?
2. Illegal Wildlife Trade & Law Enforcement Gaps (National Target 8)
The Focus: Wild flora and fauna trade generated over IDR 10 trillion in foreign exchange in 2023. Yet, illegal poaching, logging, and IUU fishing persist.
The Policy Paradox: The action plan heavily emphasizes tightening quotas and training border guards/police. Can quota management successfully deter a multi-trillion rupiah black market without tackling localized corruption?
3. Customary Rights vs. Centralized Conservation (National Target 8 & 17)
The Focus: Integrating traditional knowledge of customary (adat) and local communities into biodiversity use, targeting a baseline of 1,320 community groups.
The Policy Paradox: While the plan celebrates the establishment of 108,576 hectares of Customary Forests, local communities often face legal friction over land tenure. Are these targets truly empowering indigenous governance, or just tokenizing local wisdom?
4. Food Waste Governance & Zoonotic Spillover Risk (National Target 8)
The Focus: Reducing food waste from a massive scale down to a targeted reduction of 35.25 million tons by 2045 (Action Group 8.7), alongside mitigating zoonotic spillover risks from wildlife to humans (Action Group 8.5).
The Policy Paradox: Guidelines target commercial entities like hotels and restaurants. How does a decentralized state enforce daily food-waste metrics and wildlife disease tracking across thousands of islands?
5. The Eco-Certification Illusion (National Target 9)
The Focus: Expanding sustainable production practices in forestry (SVLK), palm oil (ISPO), and aquaculture (CBIB) to hit a 70% verification rate for business units by 2045.
The Policy Paradox: Smallholders frequently find the compliance costs of systems like ISPO or SVLK prohibitive. Does this policy inadvertently favor major conglomerates while sidelining local farmers?
6. Natural Capital Valuation & Ecotourism (National Target 10)
The Focus: Utilizing “ocean accounting” and ecosystem valuation (e.g., valuing the Maros Pangkep Karst regulatory services at over IDR 3 trillion/year) to justify nature-based tourism.
The Policy Paradox: Quantitative valuation is still “in development”. If we only value what we can price, do unquantifiable, non-commercial ecosystems get left behind to degrade?
7. Urban Biodiversity & The 30% Green Space Mandate (National Target 11)
The Focus: Enforcing spatial regulations requiring cities to maintain 30% Green Open Space (RTH)—split into 20% public and 10% private spaces.
The Policy Paradox: Most Indonesian metropolitan areas are severely below this baseline due to rapid commercialization. How can local governments reclaim built-up urban land without triggering severe economic and social displacement?
8. The Biodiversity Financing Gap (National Target 18 & 19)
The Focus: The IBSAP requires an estimated IDR 70.69 trillion to IDR 75.53 trillion annually, but the state budget (APBN) allocated less than IDR 10 trillion in 2022. The plan proposes filling this via innovative financing like Blue/Green Bonds and corporate disclosures.
The Policy Paradox: Relying heavily on the private sector and volatile international markets to fund core national sovereignty targets. Is this sustainable or a structural liability?
26.2 Part 3: Activity Instructions & The 6 Thinking Hats
We only have 75 minutes for this session, so we will move fast. For online participants, use a shared Microsoft Whiteboard or Google Doc to arrange your virtual sticky notes instead of physical paper.
26.2.1 Sticky Note Color Mapping
- ⬜ White Hat (Data & Evidence) — White Notes: State the baseline figures, percentages, and institutional entities responsible for your topic as written in the text. What data is explicitly missing or labeled “in development”?
- 🟥 Red Hat (Emotions & Intuition) — Pink/Red Notes: Put yourselves in the shoes of the stakeholders. How will local fishermen, palm oil smallholders, or underfunded local bureaucrats feel about these top-down mandates? Where will the resistance come from?
- ⬛ Black Hat (The Pessimist/Critic) — Dark Blue/Black Notes: Focus strictly on the fatal flaws. Why will this policy fail in reality? Think about corruption, lack of local enforcement capacity, funding deficits, and conflicting ministerial goals.
- 🟨 Yellow Hat (The Optimist) — Yellow Notes: What happens if everything goes exactly right? Highlight the economic windfalls, environmental protections, or systemic benefits of achieving these targets.
- 🟩 Green Hat (The Innovator) — Green Notes: Look at the flaws you identified in your Black Hat notes. Use your policy creativity to fix them. What innovative data tools, civic tech, or collaborative governance models can bridge the gap?
- 🟦 Blue Hat (The Facilitator) — Light Blue Notes: Step back and manage the big picture. Summarize your group’s core thesis. Use these notes to outline the structure of your presentation slide deck for next week.
26.2.2 Activity Schedule
| Time | Step | Duration |
|---|---|---|
| 09:00 – 09:05 | Groups announced & topics assigned | 5 min |
| 09:05 – 09:10 | Within each group: assign 6 hat roles | 5 min |
| 09:10 – 09:55 | Fill the board with sticky notes | 45 min |
| 09:55 – 10:10 | Gallery walk / peer review | 15 min |
| 10:10 – 10:15 | Wrap-up & presentation brief for next week | 5 min |
26.2.3 Group Assignments
There are 14 students in the class, split into 2 groups. The Blue (Facilitator) hat will have 2 people; all other hats have 1 person each. Fill in your names below.
| Hat | Group A Topic 1: Climate Resilience |
Group B Topic 2: Illegal Wildlife Trade |
|---|---|---|
| ⬜ White (Data & Evidence) | ____________ | ____________ |
| 🟥 Red (Human Element) | ____________ | ____________ |
| ⬛ Black (Pessimist/Critic) | ____________ + ____________ | ____________ + ____________ |
| 🟨 Yellow (Policy Payoff) | ____________ | ____________ |
| 🟩 Green (Creative Fixes) | ____________ | ____________ |
| 🟦 Blue (Facilitator) | ____________ | ____________ |
26.3 Ground Rules for the Session
- No Mixed Hats: Once you have the role assigned, you cannot switch to another role throughout the session.
- Scannability Rules: Write clearly on your sticky notes. One core argument per note. Use bullet points or underline key statistics.
Grab your boards, collect your sticky notes, and let’s see if this action plan holds up to real-world friction.