The challenges of environmental governance in a democratic and decentralized Indonesia

Authors: Fitrian Ardiansyah, Melati and Astari Anjani.

A book chapter (Chapter 6) in S Mukherjee & D Chakraborty (eds), Environmental Challenges and Governance: Diverse Perspective from Asia, Routledge (2015), Oxon.

Cover book

Please check this link to access the book and chapter:

https://www.routledge.com/products/9780415721905

Or see the pre-published version of this chapter:

6296-0018-006_FArdiansyah_Preproofread

Introduction:

Since the last decade, Indonesia appears to have increasingly put serious efforts into advancing its commitments in environmental protection and climate change mitigation. The Government of Indonesia (GoIn) led by its president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, for instance, made a famous pledge at the G-20 meeting on 25 September 2009, stating that his government was devising a policy to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 26 per cent by 2020 from business as usual (BAU) levels, and up to 41 per cent with international support (Melisa 2010). During his co-chairmanship for the United Nations High Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, the Indonesian president re-affirmed the importance of environmental protection along with economic development and poverty alleviation (President of Indonesia 2012b).

To achieve its commitment for environmental protection and climate change mitigation, the GoIn has combined various approaches including by issuing domestic policies and programs, and providing economic incentives as well as reforming existing institutions and establishing new ones. A number of regulations and policies were issued by the GoIn on this front and the GoIn set up new agencies, in addition to existing ministries, to help deal with environmental issues. The GoIn has also attempted to provide economic incentives for environmental protection and climate change mitigation (Dhewanthi 2012).

Environmental degradation as elaborated in the following section, however, has continued to affect and threaten all aspects of Indonesian development and people’s lives. The forest and land fires during 2013 and their associated haze, which affected neighboring countries, is a good example of how an environmental disaster not only has disturbed the local economy and health conditions of local people but also can transform the relations of neighboring countries in Southeast Asia into one of the worst in the history of the region (Ardiansyah 2013).

The GoIn’s commitments to protect the country’s environment are ambitious, and to achieve the desired outcomes, it will need all support it can get. Indonesia’s political and governance system, however, is not homogenous. While some government agencies may be willing to collaborate, others such as local governments need to feel the ownership of such ‘ideal call’ and see concrete benefits to get involved. Since decentralization took place in the early millennium, significant powers now rest with the district and municipal governments, including in managing natural resources and the environment. This chapter, therefore, explores key challenges in realizing the country’s environmental management commitments in the current governance context. Prior to discussing regulations and institutions established to address environmental challenges in Indonesia, the following section briefly touches on the country’s state of environment and current challenges that Indonesia has to face. The third section provides an analysis of regulations and policies on the environment and other relevant regulations and policies. This section also examines the interconnection of these different regulations. Section four analyzes roles of different government actors or institutions, and non-state actors, namely civil society groups and the private sector when it comes to environmental management of the country. This section discusses the complexity, challenges and opportunities for these different actors and institutions to collaborate in managing the environment and natural resources in the country. This section also emphasizes the importance of the current decentralized governmental system and the challenges resulting from this system for the country’s environmental management. With an increase in the level of authority of sub-national governments, formulating policies, designing programs and coordinating programmatic implementation of environmental management across more than 400 districts in Indonesia are Herculean tasks for the GoIn. The chapter concludes with remarks that may help further reform in Indonesia’s environmental governance.

Keywords: Indonesia, decentralization, environmental governance, forest and land use governance, legal framework.

Chapter

Advertisements

Forest and land-use governance in a decentralized Indonesia: A legal and policy review

By Fitrian Ardiansyah, Andri Akbar Marthen and Nur Amalia, published by Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), 2015. Please quote as:

Ardiansyah F, Marthen AA and Amalia N. 2015. Forest and land-use governance in a decentralized Indonesia: A legal and policy review. Occasional Paper 132. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.

for the pdf version (988kb), please see: OP-132_Ardiansyah et al_2015

Cover

Synopsis:

This report is a legal and policy review of the powers of key government agencies and lower-level governments and the relations among these different agencies at different levels (e.g. the relationship between the local and central governments) in forest and related sectors. The focus of this review is to identify a particular government agency or level of government that has the legal power to make resource decisions in different spheres related to forests, land use affecting forests and/or benefit sharing, including REDD+. It aims to provide an understanding of the legal basis for the powers of such agencies or a level of government. The review also examines different key actors in each sphere (including whether these agencies can make certain decisions according to the laws and regulations), the differences among agencies, and the scope of authority of lower-level governments.

The review in this report contains an introduction and four main sections. The first (Section 2) describes the division of responsibilities and power across the different levels of government. It provides a general overview of powers (e.g. the extent to which they are permitted to legislate or make decisions) and responsibilities as established by decentralization laws and policy, budget distribution as established by law, and other relevant aspects. This section addresses issues related to the overview of different levels of government in Indonesia, including the evolution and process of decentralization; the definition, scale and scope of regional autonomy/decentralization powers; the powers shared among agencies at different levels; and other relevant aspects.

The second section (Section 3) is on financial resource mechanisms and distribution. It serves as a background for the on-the-ground study of benefit-sharing mechanisms (e.g. actual and potential with regard to REDD+). This section seeks to address issues related to the arrangement of financial resources and the powers and responsibilities over them assigned and distributed among the different levels of government. Such responsibilities include forest fees and other royalties, as well as any existing benefit or incentive schemes (e.g. payment for ecosystem services, or PES) aimed at maintaining forests or promoting sustainable forest management or REDD+.

Section 4 describes the role that different levels of government play by law in the following list of land-use decision or policy arenas affecting forests: (1) spatial and land use planning, (2) defining the vocation of the land and conversion rights, (3) the titling of agricultural land, (4) the titling of indigenous land within forest areas, (5) the governments’ ownership and administration of the land, (6) natural protected areas, (7) mining concessions, (8) forest concessions, (9) oil palm, and (10) infrastructure. This section uses summary tables as far as possible, describing the division of responsibilities among the different levels of government, including in the making of formal decisions, which procedures are used, and the division and balance of powers across functions (i.e. in establishing policy and norms, authorizing, administering, controlling and monitoring, and auditing).

The last section (Section 5) further explains the role and opportunities for indigenous (adat) law. This includes a review of the definition of adat law and the legal basis for communities making land claims based on such law. This section discusses challenges and opportunities for adat law to be further recognized in the Indonesian legal system.

Original link: http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-132.pdf

Decentralization and avoiding deforestation: the case of Indonesia

“Decentralization and avoiding deforestation: the case of Indonesia”. Authors: Fitrian Ardiansyah and Frank Jotzo.

A book chapter (Chapter 9) in S. Howes & MG Rao (eds), Federal Reform Strategies: Lessons from Asia and Australia, Oxford University Press (2013), Oxford.

Please check this link to access the chapter:

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198092001.001.0001/acprof-9780198092001-chapter-9 

Or see the pre-published version of this chapter:

Indonesia-decentralisation-deforestation_FitrianArdiansyah_FrankJotzo_proofedition_2013

Abstract:

Indonesia has undergone far-reaching political, administrative and fiscal decentralization over the last decade. Significant powers now rest with the district level including the management of natural resources and the environment. A large share of state revenue goes to district governments. Deforestation has been a part and parcel of Indonesia’s economic development and it is the principal source of Indonesia’s large greenhouse gas emissions. Indonesia has committed to curb its greenhouse gas emissions, mostly through reduced deforestation. We assess challenges and options for avoiding deforestation under the decentralized system, using Indonesia’s fiscal transfer system. We find that schemes for improving land management and deforestation need to be structured around the interests of local governments and actors. Positive incentives for local governments will need to be created to compensate them for foregone profits and to facilitate alternative development. This could be done through intergovernmental transfers, using either outcome-based or input-based payment schemes.

Keywords: Indonesia, decentralization, avoiding deforestation, REDD+ programme, forest and land use governance, intergovernmental fiscal transfers

Federal Reform Strategies$

A review and outlook of Indonesia’s forest governance

Published in Coal Asia, January 22 – February 22, 2013, Page 86-87

by Fitrian Ardiansyah

for the pdf version, please see Opinion Fitrian Ardiansyah_CoalAsia_JanFeb2013

CoalAsia_JanFeb2013_ForestThe year 2013 is here and when it comes to forest and land use governance, this year has replaced a period that was filled with seized opportunities, conquered challenges but also with shattered hopes and unrealized potentials.

In the yesteryear, Indonesia witnessed some interesting dynamics in forest and land use policies.

Firstly, these include the issuance of Kalimantan and Sumatra spatial planning (i.e. Presidential Regulation No. 3 and 13 of 2012). Based on these two policies, there is a clear mandate for the government to at least maintain, conserve, restore and sustainably manage 45 percent of remaining forests in Kalimantan and 40 percent in Sumatra.

These are ambitious targets, since the total forest cover loss for Sumatra and Kalimantan in 2000-2008 was 5.39 million hectares (representing 5.3 percent of the land area and 9.2 percent of the year 2000 forest cover in both islands) as revealed by researchers from South Dakota University and World Resources Institute in 2011.

In addition, according to a 2009 peer-reviewed scientific publication written by the two institutions which also collaborated with the Forestry Ministry and State University of New York, 40 percent of the lowland forests in both islands were cleared from 1990 to 2005.

Hence, to achieve its own targets in 2013 onward, the government would need all support it can get to see the desired changes on the ground, particularly from district and provincial governments. With a decentralized government system in place, district and provincial governments hold relatively more power and authority to manage and control their natural resources.

The latest story from Aceh could provide a good example. The new provincial government, as reported by Fairfax Media, for instance, has confirmed that a draft spatial plan was finalized. With massive development on forest and land has been placed as priority, the plan may lead to total forest cover reduction from about 68 percent of the province’s land mass to 45 percent.

Such situation could contradict and hamper a national policy milestone achieved in mid last year, which was the completion of the first year of Indonesia’s two-year moratorium on new permits for primary forest and peat-land clearing.

As many may have known, the first year of the moratorium was marked by continuous development and refinement of the moratorium-indicative map (MIM). In 2012 alone, the government has produced two latest versions of the MIM, version II and III.

Between these two maps (as well as with the first one), some discrepancies of forest figures, however, have occurred, as reported by the REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation plus) Task Force. Research institutions such as the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) showed that the area to be addressed in the latest version of MIM is much less (64.7 million hectares compare to the original 69.1 million). Although smaller, this area appears to have a higher degree of problems in terms of governance.

To respond to such criticism, the task force argued that such differences happened because different agencies involved in the MIM development, in which they have used different forest definitions and sources of maps.

Up to this point, these agencies were the Forestry Ministry, the Agriculture Ministry, the National Land Agency, the Geospatial Information Agency and the Presidential Office (UKP4). Since most key agencies have contributed – although the Energy and Mineral Resources Ministry has yet to get officially involved – and many sectors and actors have tried to influence the process, it is understandable that synchronizing this one national map may require compromises, and hence may add or reduce relevant forest and land cover figures.

It is just the reality of life, i.e. negotiations and trade-offs on contentious issues would require ‘giving’ and ‘taking’ among sectors and actors. There will be winners and losers. A crucial question to answer is whether this negotiation process will result in greater benefits for the wider Indonesian public, which are, among others, productive but sustainable economy and much healthier environment.

Although may be considered as sub-optimal, this one-map development (in which four different agencies have agreed to consolidate their maps/data on land use) has contributed to the increase in the level of transparency, including increasing the level of public access to forest and land use data, as the MIM is uploaded online.

The case of peat swamp forest burning in Kuala Tripa for palm oil in Aceh’s Nagan Raya district reported by NGOs and media is an example of the importance of this map and the access given to the public to utilize the map. The wider public, NGOs and the media have reported this case and sent a letter to the Indonesian president. As a result, UKP4/the REDD+ Task Force and the Environment Ministry sent a fact-finding team, and the accused – a plantation company – is being prosecuted.

The willingness of different agencies to collaborate and share substantive data on forest and land use, albeit difficult, is encouraging.

Another example of collaborative works that can be further nurtured in 2013 is the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Energy and Mineral Resources Ministry and the Forestry Ministry (No. 7662 of 2011) aiming at accelerating the permit issuance of geothermal energy development in forest areas. The MoU aims at addressing approximately 60 percent of geothermal energy potentials and reserves currently located in forest areas, as reported in 2009 by a senior high-ranking at Bappenas (the National Development Planning Agency).

It is, therefore, urgent under this MoU to develop standards, benchmarks and applied solutions that could and would balance geothermal energy development and forest protection.

A similar collaborative case that leads to appropriate solutions may be explored in areas which have conflicting interests between general energy/mining development and forest. Finding balanced solutions is a huge task, because based on a 2011 report by the Forestry Ministry, forest areas within mining concessions, which include for oil, gas and coal activities, cover approximately 2.03 million hectares.

Saying it as a huge task is perhaps an underestimate.

Indonesia’s political and governance system is not homogenous. While some government agencies may be willing to collaborate, others such as the parliament and local governments need to feel the ownership of such ‘ideal call’ to get involved. Otherwise, they may come strongly against it.

The strong voice from some factions of the parliament calling for the end of moratorium suggests that this important body in the Indonesian governance system may feel sidelined and do not see any benefits provided by the initiative.

Also, with the Constitutional Court recently has returned the authority to determine mining areas from the central government to local (mostly district) governments, for example, district governments appear to have more ‘say’ in forest and natural resources development.

The aforementioned less than ideal situation has undoubtedly brought about many challenges ahead, especially when it comes to sustainably managing and improving the country’s forest, land and natural resources.

Yet, changes are possible. It is, therefore, now up to all components of the Indonesian governance system to turn this around and make positive progress.

—-

Fitrian Ardiansyah is climate and sustainability specialist, a doctoral candidate at the Australian National University, and the recipient of Australian Leadership Award and Allison Sudradjat Award.

Saving Sumatra’s forests: World heritage in danger

The Jakarta Post, Fitrian Ardiansyah and Thomas Barano, Canberra/Jakarta | Sun, 04/22/2012 12:49 PM

Original link: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/04/22/saving-sumatra-s-forests-world-heritage-danger.html

In light of the 42nd anniversary of Earth Day, celebrated this year on April 22, the government and citizens of Indonesia are again reminded of the huge challenges they face in halting or reversing the declining state of their natural forests, including those on Sumatra.

Sumatra is a rare island in that it harbors four endangered and unique mammals, namely the Sumatran orangutan, the Sumatran elephant, the Sumatran rhino and the Sumatran tiger.

Its lowland forests are recognized as part of the Global 200 Ecoregions — nature regions, landscapes or seascapes that are exceptionally important and symbolic for the survival of rich biodiversity features.

In 2004, 2.5 million hectares of Sumatra’s rainforests were included on the World Heritage List of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for their rich and unique biodiversity.

According to UNESCO, the tropical rainforest heritage of Sumatra, comprising Gunung Leuser, Kerinci Seblat and Bukit Barisan Selatan national parks, is home to an estimated 10,000 plant species, more than 200 mammal species and some 580 bird species.

However, the forests on this island have come under the constant threat of destructive and illegal logging activities, expansion of agriculture and pulp plantations, as well as infrastructure development.

Then environment minister Gusti Mohammad Hatta stated in 2010 that Sumatra had experienced tremendous pressures resulting from natural resource exploitation. He further argued that natural forests had decreased, leaving only 29 percent of forest cover on the island.

A 2010 technical report submitted to the National Forestry Council and the National Development Planning Agency, which provided scientific analysis of the state of Sumatra’s natural forests, found a steep decline in forest area from 25.3 million hectares (58 percent of land cover) in 1985 to 12.8 million hectares in 2008/2009 (29 percent), which equals an annual loss of 0.54 million hectares (approximately eight times that of Jakarta’s territory).

In 2011, UNESCO placed the tropical rainforest heritage of Sumatra on the list of those world heritage sites in danger. The organization viewed that the forests had been frequently under pressure from poaching, illegal logging, agricultural encroachment and road development.

To respond to these challenges, plans and initiatives have been developed, with activities undertaken at different levels, particularly focusing on sustaining the management and conserving the remaining forests on the island.

One of the key initiatives is the Road Map for Saving the Sumatra Ecosystem: Sumatra’s Vision 2020, which was signed in 2010 by four ministers (forestry, environment, home and public works) and 10 governors (Aceh, North Sumatra, West Sumatra, Riau, Jambi, Riau, Bangka-Belitung, Bengkulu, South Sumatra and Lampung).

This initiative outlines the governments’ commitment to developing spatial plans on the island based on ecosystem values, functions and services, restoring critical areas and protecting the remaining conservation high value areas.

Key components of this initiative include the promotion of sustainable forests, responsible agriculture development and payments for environmental services, such as for water services and forest carbon.

An initial good sign appears in the form of Presidential Decree No. 13/2012 on Sumatra Island Spatial Planning, which stipulates the intention of the government to at least maintain 40 percent of remaining forests as conservation areas and restore already degraded forests.

Yet, there is a gulf between a high-level commitment and seeing desired changes on the ground.

To bridge the gap between commitment and implementation, strong support from the corporate sector is required, mainly from agriculture and pulp plantations, to ensure that the development of plantations will no longer replace forests and peat lands.

A recent petition signed on behalf of various organizations submitted to President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to save the habitats of orangutans in the Gunung Leuser ecosystem proves the necessity of engaging the aforementioned sector. In this letter, these organizations say that the fires that are intended to clear forests in the province of Aceh for oil palm plantations have threatened the ecosystem, endangering 300 orangutans and pushing the species even closer to extinction.

Another aspect crucially required to realize the commitment is the support and involvement of local governments and people as well as indigenous communities. With a decentralized government system in place, regional governments hold relatively more power and authority to manage and control their natural resources.

Options or incentives provided to help local governments to develop their economies in sustainable ways are, thus, imperative to keep the remaining forests intact.

Such incentives — for forest protection and management — particularly have to be significant so that they are sufficient enough to counter the economic drivers of deforestation, which include logging and plantation development.

More importantly, these incentives have to reach local and indigenous communities, who are considered the users and providers of ecosystem services. Without their support and involvement, any initiatives may yield results but will not last long.

Furthermore, since Sumatra’s rainforests have been acknowledged as one of the world’s treasures, international communities have a high degree of responsibility to contribute to the creation of positive incentives that can advance the conservation and sustainable management of these globally significant forests.

As reflected by this year’s Earth Day theme: “Mobilizing the Earth”, initiatives to save what remains of Sumatra’s forests clearly require strong support from and the involvement of different actors at different levels.

Such a broad-based effort in garnering support is definitely a good test-case as to whether we, the people of this planet, can stand united in creating a sustainable future, at least, for Sumatra and its inhabitants.

Fitrian Ardiansyah is a PhD candidate at the Australian National University and the recipient of the Australian Leadership Award and Allison Sudradjat Award. Thomas Barano is a conservation spatial planning specialist from WWF Indonesia.

Fixing legal loopholes in Indonesia’s forest and land use governance

January 27th, 2011

Published on East Asia Forum, Author: Fitrian Ardiansyah, ANU

As a country with one of the largest areas of rainforest in the world, it is not surprising that Indonesia is also considered a pioneer in the development of REDD+ (Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation).

In early 2007, the Ministry of Forestry (MoF) formed the Indonesia Forest Climate Alliance (IFCA) with the help of various government departments, donor agencies, research institutions and NGOs to initiate the development of REDD+ policies. Later that year, IFCA managed to outline key elements of REDD+, including methodologies, land-use policies, institutional arrangement and benefit distribution mechanisms.

Following the work of IFCA, the MoF has issued a number of ministerial decrees, which aim at governing REDD+ demonstration activities and providing an umbrella for benefit distribution mechanisms.

Last year in Oslo, on the same occasion as the signing of a letter of intent between the Indonesian and Norwegian governments, to signal his support for REDD+, the Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono announced his commitment to halt all new concessions for conversion of peat and natural forests in two years, supposed to start in January 2011.

To realise this, the Indonesian government has to produce a clear strategy and legal framework which guides the moratorium of forest conversion and the overall REDD+. However, these existing and potential future regulations may not be sufficient to provide firm legal direction in developing and exercising REDD+.

A number of organisations argue that to have successful REDD+ the country has to reform its forest and land use governance, starting from the regulations that have shaped this governance system.

The latest institution to speak out about this issue is Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). When releasing its study on forestry late last year, the KPK emphasised that unclear definitions of forest areas in Law No. 41 of 1999 on Forestry and other relevant regulations (i.e., Government Regulation No. 44 of 2004, and MoF’s Decree No. 32 of 2001 and 50 of 2009) can be considered as one of the indirect causes of deforestation.

According to the KPK, this unclear definition and boundary of forest areas, coupled with the lack of applied fair procedure in designating forest areas, has weakened the legitimacy of 88.2 per cent of forest areas (more than 105.8 million hectares).

To make things worse, the KPK found that not all of these forest areas have been gazetted in law.

A study carried out by the MoF in 2009 concurs with this argument by stating that one of the indirect causes of deforestation is the difficulty of controlling the boundaries of production and protected forests, leaving them vulnerable to illegal logging.

This situation, according to the commission, has created a legal loophole for illegal loggers and illegal miners to continue their actions and avoid legal implications.

Another revelation by the KPK is that the division of authorities, roles and responsibilities among different layers of governments remains unclear and problematic, especially in determining forest areas in the spatial planning process.

In its study, the KPK found that an agreed synchronised map of forest areas which can be used by stakeholders does not as yet exist. Instead, there are at least four different versions which, utilising various scales, are not compatible with each other.

It is of course very challenging to resolve this given the variety of sectors that have interests in forest and land use — sectors which, furthermore, are regulated under different ministries and layers of government. These institutions are known to have issued overlapping policies on land use and land use changes, and influenced the issuance of different documents and maps of forest and land use.

For example, based on Law No. 41 of 1999, the authority to manage state forest is under the national-level MoF. The ministry has control over almost every activity in state forest and this law has repealed much of the authority decentralised under Law No. 22 of 1999 on Regional Governance.

This arrangement appears to be centralistic and contradict with the authority of local governments in their spatial planning under the decentralised system. As a result, there are often cases in which spatial planning which allocates forest areas at district level is contradictory with the planning at the higher ruling.

With de facto decentralisation processes, particularly in the forestry and land use sectors, occurring more quickly than de jure ones it is therefore imperative to deal with this issue seriously. The KPK has recommended the MoF to patch these legal loopholes, at the latest, by the end of this year. And, if REDD+ is to be actively and effectively carried out, it is urgent this advice is heeded.

Fitrian Ardiansyah is advisor to WWF Indonesia on climate and energy, a PhD candidate at the Crawford School of Economics and Government at the Australian National University and a recipient of the Australian Leadership Award and Allison Sudradjat Award.

Original link: http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/01/27/fixing-legal-loopholes-in-indonesia%E2%80%99s-forest-and-land-use-governance/

Local nuance at the heart of climate policies

Fitrian Ardiansyah, The Jakarta Post, Climate Solutions Column | Tue, 08/31/2010 10:00 AM | Environment

In his Independence Day speech, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono announced the results of the latest population census, sparking concern as to how the country was handling the looming challenge of a population boom.

According to the Central Statistics Agency (BPS), Indonesia is now home to 237.6 million people, an increase of about 32.5 million since 2000. Within the next five years, Indonesia’s population will grow to 250 million, according to estimates.

In the context of climate change, this may well lead to a dramatic growth in consumption and other human-induced activities, which could significantly increase greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as by-products of economic growth.

As we may learn, an increase in GHG emissions correlates with an increase in the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere, resulting in climate change and its associated impacts — which will eventually affect Indonesians.

Even without climate change, the exponential growth rate of the country’s population has contributed to continuous pressures on remaining natural resources and ecosystems.

Climate change may worsen existing environmental degradation resulting from illegal and destructive logging, forest conversion, overfishing and overexploitation of natural resources.

Because this massive archipelagic nation has adopted a decentralized system, local governments and people must shoulder the burden of this issue.

One of the country’s biggest challenges right now is to formulate climate policies and initiate programs that seriously reflect local aspirations and incorporate ongoing efforts at the local level.

A number of climate policies developed since 2007 mostly focus on strategic intervention to reduce GHG emissions by 26 percent by 2020 at the national level, or prioritize action in key development sectors.

This approach, however, leaves a substantial gap when it comes to action on the ground. Comparing polices at the national level, or in key development sectors, with intervention at a local level, has never been easy. Decentralization in Indonesia is a highly complex subject.

Many experts have praised Indonesia’s decentralization and transformation but concerns over the division of authorities and fiscal distribution remain.

For instance, policies formulated and actions taken by national government (in all sectors) often differ or clash with those taken at the provincial or district level.

This is also true in the case of climate change.

According to Dr. Meine van Noordwijk of the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), how reductions of GHG emissions are likely to be allocated over sectors and, more importantly, over parts of the country, has not been decided yet.

Provinces and districts in Sumatra, Kalimantan and Papua, for instance, are still drafting their low-carbon development plans.

In these drafts, provinces and districts have voiced their aspirations to address climate change and sustainability.

In a decentralized model, it is crucial that the already developed and currently formulated national and sectoral climate change policies take into account these sub-national or local policy aspirations.

If the figures from different layers of the government do not match, it will be a Herculean task for the country to commit to pledge to reduce GHG emissions.

Kuntoro Mangkusubroto, head of the Indonesian team negotiating the bilateral agreement with Norway to reduce carbon emissions, recently said the Indonesian government had acknowledged the need for a system with high integrity, which left no room for leakages, to implement REDD+ successfully.

He explained a high degree of integrity was fundamental since compensation for REDD+ implementation would depend on the credibility of this system.

Setting up positive incentives, including financial ones, is another way to encourage local governments and actors to be more involved in climate change mitigation.

This is important since benefits resulting from any climate change policies need to be felt and distributed in an equitable manner.

Moreover, these incentives need to be framed by rules that ensure benefits created flow to, and are retained by, local and indigenous people — as well as poor communities — who are among the most resource-dependent people and providers of important environmental services.

In the past, the position, rights and interests of local and indigenous people were often overlooked or marginalized when the government formulated environmental policies.

As a result, poverty and environmental degradation are still prevalent.

Including local and indigenous people is therefore key to instituting better climate governance.

The recipient of the 2009 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, Elinor Ostrom, said social arrangements were crucial in determining the outcomes of policies, particularly when these were aimed at influencing human behavior interconnecting with economic matters.

In the Indonesian context, understanding the complexity of decentralization, taking into account aspirations of local governments and people, can be viewed as appropriate social arrangements.

This is not only likely to ensure successful outcomes from climate policies, but could also help minimize the cost of implementation of these policies, reduce social conflicts and provide social insurance in case of hazards.

Most importantly, this would strengthen the confidence and trust among all stakeholders and right holders — which is crucial for the nation itself.

The writer is a PhD candidate at the Australian National University, a recipient of the Australian Leadership Award and Allison Sudradjat Award, as well as an advisor to WWF-Indonesia on climate and energy. He can be reached at fitrian.ardiansyah@anu.edu.au

Original link: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/08/31/climate-solutions-local-nuance-heart-climate-policies.html