New government, old challenges in natural resource management

By Fitrian Ardiansyah, published in Coal Asia, August 17 – September 20, 2014, page 142-143

for the pdf version (9.8MB), please see: Opinion Fitrian Ardiansyah_CoalAsia_AugSep2014

 

CoalAsia_AugSep2014_New Government

The General Elections Commission of Indonesia confirmed Joko Widodo as the winner of the presidential race winner a month ago, paving the way for the creation of a new government that will run for the next five years and address a huge challenge in managing the country’s natural resources.

Although his opponent, Prabowo Subianto, refuses to admit defeat, many scholars and observers believe that Joko Widodo, or ‘Jokowi’ as he is popularly known, will be sworn in as the seventh president later this year.

Officially, the Constitutional Court has to declare Jokowi as the country’s elected president. Nevertheless, whoever the Indonesian next president is, he needs to hit the ground running, taking responsibility for forming a government that can deal with difficult issues such as balancing the country’s economic development, social welfare and environmental protection.

One immediate challenge, that the new president and his cabinet need to address, is regarding fossil fuel and energy subsidies.

High energy subsidies create significant costs for Indonesia and its people, impacting on the economy, the environment and Indonesia’s energy security.

Indonesia-Investment reports that the government allocated IDR300 trillion (US$26.3 billion) on energy subsidies in 2013 (mostly on fuels and electricity), and this year the government will spend at least IDR282 trillion (US$24.7 billion).

In general, such subsidies hinder Indonesia’s sector development, including in poverty alleviation, education and healthcare. In a 2014 report for the International Institute
for Sustainable Development, Ari A. Perdana argues that fossil fuel and energy subsidies do not support low-income households very efficiently and can effectively ‘crowd out’ government spending on alternative policies.

The relatively high subsidies also inhibit the development of indigenous renewable energy sources such as geothermal, biomass, bioenergy and micro-hydro. In 2009, Agus Purnomo, the special advisor on climate change to Indonesia’s president, argued that cutting fossil fuel subsidies is the key to bolstering the renewable energy sector’s
competitiveness.

The new president, therefore, not only has to lay out a policy to cut fuel subsidies immediately but also to develop programs and appoint energy and finance ministers who can use the fund shifted from the subsidies, to help seed investment in
renewable energy development, enabling Indonesia to secure its future energy supply and move toward a sustainable energy growth path.

Jusuf Kalla, the running mate of Jokowi, told Reuters a month ago that a priority program in their first 100 days in office will include the reduction of fuel subsidies. This is likely to be the first big test for the new government since the issue of fuel subsidy reduction is a politically sensitive one.

If the new government is successful to approach and address this, including to convince a ‘divided parliament’ and the general public, the new president and his cabinet have a good platform to create incentives for boosting Indonesia’s economic development, creating incentives for saving energy and finding renewable sources, and eventually reducing the country greenhouse gas emissions.

Another key challenge for the new government in managing the country’s natural resources is to formulate the future development platform of Indonesia, particularly whether the country will still depend heavily on natural resource exploitation.

Continuous natural resource exploitation has contributed significantly to Indonesia’s economic strength but, at the same time, this has led to resource depletion, and environmental degradation and related disasters.

The National Agency for Disaster Management (BNPB) reveals that for the period of 1815-2014, environmental and climate related disaster events have been prevalent, including floods (38 percent), strong wind (21), landslides (16), and drought (12). A study published by the United Nations Environment Program, for example, estimates that in the period of 2010-2013, flood events in Kalimantan have inundated more than 190,000 houses and displaced more than 700,000 people, resulting in significant social and economic costs.

Such disasters reflect on the past and current natural resource management regime of Indonesia as a country, particularly in the management of (or lack of management of) its forests, agriculture, land and key natural resources. Such disasters cost and will eventually shake the very foundations of Indonesia’s economy.

To date, Indonesia has one of the world’s largest rainforest areas but the Indonesian Forestry Ministry and the Center for International Forestry Research show that roughly only one-third of these forest areas are covered by primary forests, one-third by logged-over areas and one-third by vegetation other than forests.

Some scholars argue that forests in Indonesia are still disappearing fast. An article published in the 2014 journal Nature Climate Change suggests that the annual deforestation rate of Indonesia is twice the rate reported by the Indonesian government.

To address this issue, the new government needs to adopt a policy that ensures that halting deforestation and peat land loss is the center of Indonesia’s development policies and programs.

The current president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, and his cabinet have managed to introduce forest and peat land conversion moratorium as well as establish a national REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) agency.

Such a policy and new agency, however, have already been confronted by a huge task, particularly in being seen to be inclusive, taking into account the voices and interests of various ministries, sectors, layers of governments, and groups of stakeholders such as from local communities and the private sector.

The new government needs to realize that in a big, democratic and decentralized country such as Indonesia, any policy formulated or institution set-up needs all the support it can get to ensure that the desired changes can take place on the ground.

The new government, therefore, needs to rethink its future cabinet structure that allows good coordination among key ministries, such as development planning, forestry, agriculture, energy and the environment, and key agencies, such as the national climate change council and the REDD+ agency.

The new government will be judged by its selection of these ministers and heads of these agencies, and whether these leaders are those representing big businesses or willing to see Indonesia achieving sustainable development outcomes.

In addition, the new president should be much firmer in showing his leadership so that any decision would be followed and applied by those ministries and agencies accordingly.

Fred Stolle of the World Resources Institute, for instance, highlights this issue by stating that Indonesia has relatively good policies on forestry but the biggest challenge of all is to follow up the policies with effective implementation and law enforcement.

This first 100 days of the new government, therefore, would serve as the period for Indonesians to scrutinize the selection of ministers and formulation of key policies of their elected president and vice president.

In general, Indonesian citizens during this period, and even before, have to voice out and remind the elected government about the needs for significant transformation of the country’s current natural resource development, pushing for more efficient and sustainable use of natural resources.

For the elected president and vice presidents, they have to show that they can lead Indonesia, by formulating and implementing their vision, policies and programs that bring about the country’s sustainable development outcomes.

————————-

The author is acting executive director of Pelangi Indonesia, a doctoral candidate at the Australian National University, and the recipient of Australian Leadership Award and Allison Sudradjat Award. He can be reached at fitrian.ardiansyah@anu.edu.au.

Advertisements

Difficult policy choices in Indonesia’s energy development

By Fitrian Ardiansyah, published in Coal Asia, August 17 – September 4, 2013, page 90-91

for the pdf version, please see Opinion Fitrian Ardiansyah_CoalAsia_AugSep2013

CoalAsia_AugSep2013_difficultchoiceAs an emerging economy and fast growing consumer of energy, Indonesia faces a difficult decision when it wants to continue its economic growth while at the same time ensuring that its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are reduced.

Currently, along with the growth in Indonesia’s economy, the energy demand of the country increases significantly, as the transport and industrial sectors grow, households become more affluent and commercial area development expands rapidly.

According to a 2009 report by the Finance Ministry and a 2011 analysis by PricewaterhouseCoopers, Indonesia’s steady economic growth of more than 6%, even during the recent global recession, was accompanied by a 9% growth in electricity demand and a 7% growth in the country’s total energy demand each year.

Should the country search for an easy answer for its energy supply, the most probable path is likely to be heavily relying on its fossil fuels, particularly coal and gas reserves.

Indonesia cannot any longer depend on oil to sustain its energy development. Since 2004, as reported by many studies, the country has already been a net importer of both crude oil and refined products.

With the relatively high global oil prices, the dependency on imported oil has placed considerable strain on the Indonesian economy and will create further burden, particularly since the country still has significant oil and electricity subsidies.

Hence, the country may see an option to maximize the use of coal and gas as one of the optimal solutions to meet its energy demand.

To boost the use of coal for power generation, for instance, the government launched a ‘crash program’ as mandated by the Presidential Regulation No. 71 of 2006, instructing the state-owned electricity company (Perusahaan Listrik Negara [PLN]) to accelerate the development of 10,000 MW (Megawatts) coal-fired plants.

With regard to the use of gas for power generation, the president issued the President Regulation No. 4 of 2010 that instructs PLN to develop gas-fired power station, along with the development of power plants that use renewable energy and more coals (known as the ‘second crash program’ of another 10,000 MW).

Such option in utilizing coal and gas, however, is not without unwanted consequences.

The first consequence is the likelihood of resources depletion risk. With pressures on production mounting to meet the export demand for coal and gas as well as rising domestic consumption, coal and natural gas shortages may eventually happen.

If Indonesia is not careful in managing its two important non-renewable resources, a similar situation to what the country has experienced with oil can recur, hitting back its economy.

If coal is heavily exploited and the rate of use for power generation is high, Indonesia will also likely to have another immediate negative consequence, which is a significant increase in its GHG emissions, especially CO2.

If electricity generation is dominated by coal, for instance, some experts predict increased CO2 emissions from the power sector by 2030, reaching 810 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e), or nearly seven times the amount in 2005.

In fact, the continuous increase in the use of fossil fuels may lead to an increase in the overall country’s GHG emissions by fourfold in 2030.

This projected growth in emissions is in contradiction with Indonesia’s pledge on climate change actions, as announced by its president, to reduce GHG emission by 26% by 2020 and to increase the use of renewable energy so that it accounts for 25% of total energy production by 2025. Such pledge has been further legally stipulated, among others, in the Presidential Regulation No. 61 of 2011 regarding the National Action Plan to Reduce GHG.

In addition, the high CO2 emissions resulting from a significant increase in fossil fuel consumption are likely to exacerbate global climate change impacts, in which Indonesia as an archipelagic nation is already vulnerable to.

With the current situation, the country has already experienced weather and climate-related disasters related. Data from the National Disaster Management Agency reveal that in the period of 1815-2013, the occurrence of disasters in this country has been dominated by this type of disasters, consisting of flooding (38%), land-sliding (18%), typhoons (18%), droughts (13%), flooding and land-sliding (3%), tidal waves or coastal erosion (2%) and forest/
land fires (1%).

Against these backdrops of a dilemma in further using fossil fuels, renewable and new energy resources appear to be well positioned to play a critical role in Indonesia’s energy policy.

To accelerate the use of renewable and new energy, however, is also not without difficulties.

If Indonesia is merely endeavoring towards climate change mitigation goals, for instance, the country may formulate a package of policies which totally promote and accelerate renewable energy development and radical reduction of fossil fuel subsidies.

Of various renewable energy sources (e.g. hydro, solar, biomass, geothermal) available in the country, unfortunately, not all can be considered as the ‘preferred solution’ to meet an ever increasing energy demand of Indonesia.

Geothermal power in particular appears to be the most appropriate and preferred solution. This is understandable because first, the country holds approximately 40% of the world’s geothermal reserves, which are still underutilized. It has also the potential to replace coal-fired power plants as a baseload electricity source with virtually no emissions.

Even with the attractiveness of geothermal and the push to develop this energy, an abrupt limitation to fossilbased energy consumption, as part of such environmentally-friendly policy, will likely have an adverse impact on the Indonesian economy.

This could happen particularly where rapid industrialization and economic development have been fueled mostly by fossil-based energy sources over so many decades, and rapid transformation means rapid changes required in the government’s and society’s sides. These include policy, programmatic and budgeting changes, as well as changes in public perception and support (especially when the price of energy may need to be adjusted).

Physical changes are also required in a bigger scale. The government needs to push for new infrastructure development, particularly in the forms of power plant, and grid transmission and distribution. This, for sure, will entail huge investment, human capacity and other support coming not only from outside the country but also domestically.

Such gigantic development programs cannot be carried out overnight.

Hence, there is a need for creative and balanced but firm solutions so that the country can achieve its goal to continue its economic growth while reducing its GHG emissions.

To start with, strong leadership and clear guidance from the top level of the government is key, especially to tailor different efforts and different technological development so that Indonesia has an optimal energy mix policy and reasonable but effective implementation programs.

The 2014 presidential and parliamentary elections may present such opportunity. The public need to scrutinize the candidates and ensure that they only elect those who have clear platforms to equitably balance economic and environmental goals.

Other immediate actions required to achieve such balanced solutions are mobilizing financial support and building human resource capacity. Close collaboration with the private sector is crucial in this case, especially when the government would like to attract huge investments for the future energy development.

The overall endeavor is a herculean task for a developing country like Indonesia. Nevertheless, the country has to take it on to ensure that its future is as bright as it aspires.

————————————

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

Hot, clean and complex: Unlocking Indonesia’s geothermal power

Strategic Review, The Indonesian Journal of Leadership, Policy and World Affairs, January-March 2013, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp 72-85,

by Fitrian Ardiansyah and Adhityani Putri

Geothermal_Strategic Review_FA_2013The first parts of the article can be read below, the remaining section can be read if you are subscribed to Strategic Review http://www.sr-indonesia.com/index.php/subscribe

Indonesia has huge potential geothermal resources, but develop­ment has been slow and speeding it up is considered a herculean task. The high cost of investment and lack of government capac­ity are often cited as hindrances to development, along with familiar concerns from the era of decentralized government about unclear regulatory and institutional frameworks.

Finding solutions to these issues is critical to further unlocking this indigenous, clean and renewable source of power. Success could bring positive benefits to the country’s energy security and climate change mitigation efforts.

Indonesia can no longer depend on fossil fuels, particularly oil, to power its economy. Soaring global oil prices have placed consid­erable strain on the economy. According to the Finance Ministry, energy subsidies – from both fuel and electricity – in 2012 cost the government $18.55 billion (17 percent of government expenditures). This is a significant increase from $9.78 billion in 2010, as shown by several studies.The figure could even be higher since it reportedly underestimates the actual global oil price.

With Indonesia’s projected gross domes­tic product growth to remain steady at 4-6 percent and industrial production to slightly increase over the next couple of years, sev­eral studies, including from the National Council on Climate Change (NCCC) and the Energy and Mineral Resources Ministry (MEMR), have estimated that the power sector is projected to grow from 120 tWh (terawatt-hour) in 2005 to 970 tWh by 2030.

If Indonesia continues to depend on oil, rising electricity needs would lead to the depletion of Indonesia’s domestic oil reserves sooner than expected. A 2012 statement from the energy ministry estimated that the country’s remaining 10 billion barrels of oil reserves will be exhausted in the next 20 years should no new reserves be found. In fact, the country has been a net importer of both crude oil and refined products since 2004.

The formidable task of meeting rising electricity demand requires a funda­mental change in Indonesia’s energy policies, programs and actions. The country could opt for an easier solution, such as utilizing its abundant coal reserves. According to a 2009 World Bank report, the central government already has initiated a “crash program” to bring 10,000 MW (megawatt) of coal-fired power plants online as stipulated in Presi­dential Decree No 71.

Many critics, however, argue that while coal-fired power plants can alleviate short-term supply problems and reduce depen­dency on imported oil, the approach fails to address energy security goals and more im­portantly casts a shadow on the government’s pledge to tackle climate change and reduce emissions.

Key Indonesian stakeholders in­terviewed in 2011 believed that the new coal power plants – purchased at low cost from China – were mostly dirty and inefficient, according to the paper, “An Environmental Perspective on Energy Development in In­donesia” included in the 2012 book “Energy and Non-Traditional Security in Asia.” If the use of coal continues to dominate the power sector, many experts predict that increased CO2 emissions from electricity generation by 2030 could reach 810 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (CO2e), an increase of nearly seven times the amount in 2005.

To read the complete article: Subscribe now

Fitrian Ardiansyah is a doctoral candidate at the Australian National University.

Adhityani Putri is a postgraduate scholar at the Australian National University.

About Strategic Review:

The Strategic Review is the Indonesian Journal of Leadership, Policy and World Affairs with its editorial board led by Dr Hassan Wirajuda (Former Minister of Foreign Affairs) and its advisory board consists of Prof Juwono Sudarsono (Former Minister of Defense), Let Gen (Ret) Agus Widjojo (Executive Board in the Partnership for Governance Reform), Prof. John Thomas (Harvard Kennedy School of Government USA), Prof. Erhard Friedberg (Sciences Po France) and Prof Arne Westad (London School of Economics UK).

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.

Balancing energy development and forest protection

Published in COAL ASIA MAGAZINE, VOL. 2, OPINION, AUGUST 17-SEPTEMBER 17, 2012, PAGE 94-95

by Fitrian Ardiansyah

To see the pdf version, please click COALASIA_OPINION_fitrian ardiansyah_energy&forest_Aug2012

As the largest energy producer and consumer in Southeast Asia, Indonesia is currently struggling to cope with the increase in energy demand each year, causing short-term energy shortage and likely leading to worse situation if no immediate actions taken.

Albeit having enormous energy potential, developing energy sources in this country, while desirable, is fraught with hurdles, ranging from regulatory and pricing issues, lack of capacity and investment, to the problematic location of energy sources.

The heavy reliance on subsidized fossil fuels means it has brought about significant problems of energy security and economic issues, especially ever since Indonesia became a net importer of both crude oil and refined products in 2004.

The new extraction of oil, gas and coal as well as the development of new and renewable energy sources has been viewed as a priority by the government but this development faces a number of challenges, such as the fact that some locations of these energy sources overlap with Indonesia’s remaining important and fragile ecosystems, including its forests.

It has been reported by the Forestry Ministry in 2011 that the area of forests within mining concessions, which include for oil, gas and coal activities, covers approximately 2.03 million hectares – based on 842 licenses given for mining related exploration and exploitation between 2005 and 2011.

A number of environmental organizations, such as Mining Watch Canada and Walhi, even claimed a higher number stating that as of 2005, mining activities have encroached on or threatened 11.4 million hectares of forest in Indonesia, including 8.68 million hectares of protection forests and 2.8 million hectares of conservation areas.

A 2008 study conducted in South Kalimantan by M. Handry Imansyah and Luthfy Fatah of Lambung Mangkurat University, published in ASEAN Economic Bulletin, found that a massive coal exploitation without a proper technical handling for reclamation can cause serious water contamination and land degradation, because many mining areas are often left without rehabilitation.

A similar concern may also be said when it comes to the development of renewable energy, namely biofuels and geothermal.

In the case of biofuels development, mainly from palm oil, although considered as one of renewable sources of energy and therefore has the greenhouse gas (GHG) saving potentials, the development of these crops can further increase GHG emissions if the plantation replace forests and peat lands.

A 2011 article written by Gayathri Vaidyanathan in Nature shows that, for example, in North Sumatra and Bengkulu provinces, 38 and 35 percent, respectively, of peat-swamp forest were converted to oil palm plantations by the early 2000s – leading to the release of about 144.6 million tons of carbon from biomass above ground and peat oxidation below ground.

Another study conducted by Lian Pin Koh and David S. Wilcove in 2008, published in Conservation Letters,estimates that over 56 percent of oil palm expansion occurred at the expense of natural forest cover for the period between 1990 and 2005. In addition, according to the 2009 BAPPENAS (National Development Planning Agency) report, as of 2006, plantation licenses (i.e. predominantly for oil palm) on peatlands totalled 1.3 million ha.

With regard to geothermal energy, this type of renewables has a significant potential to contribute to the future electricity generating capability – with 10 gigawatts of total geothermal potential that is presently ready for commercial extraction as reported in 2009 by the World Bank.

If developed appropriately and immediately, geothermal energy can at least reduce the burden of approximately 35 percent of the current total generation capacity in 2035, as argued in a 2012 paper written by a research team from the Christian University of Indonesia, and eventually contribute to climate change mitigation.

Accelerating the development of geothermal energy is likely to be challenging since up to 60 percent of its potentials and reserves are located in the remaining important forest areas, according to a 2009 paper written by Montty Girianna, the Energy, Mineral and Mining Resources Director of Bappenas.

The exploration, extraction and overall activities of oil, gas, coal and geothermal have been previously subjected to the laws regulating the protection and management of pristine forests, including employing stricter conditions under which licenses are to be issued.

A 2011 report by PricewaterhouseCoopers explains that the Forestry Law No. 41 of 1999 (and its amendments No. 1 of 2004 and 19 of 2004) prohibit oil, gas and mining activities in protected forest areas except where a government permit is obtained.

This, however, was gradually altered, particulary since February 2010 when Government Regulation No. 10 of 2010 on Forest Areas Utilization was introduced. According to this regulation, development projects, including oil and gas activities, power plants, mining, transport and renewable energy projects, can take place in protected forests if they are deemed strategically important.

Specifically on geothermal, a presidential decree (No. 28 of 2011) released on 19 May 2011, allows conditional underground mining in protected forest areas, which includes geothermal energy. This decree was later strengthened with the release of the Memorandum of Understanding 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.

Critics, however, view that these regulations and policies which promote and accelerate energy development in forest areas will also encourage other destructive mining activities to take place since the use of the definition of ‘strategic’ or ‘vital’ development activities can have multiple interpretation.

Furthermore, these critics question the level of seriousness of the Indonesian president’s pledge to reduce Indonesia’s GHG, if many of his government’s policies still incorporate a large number of activities that will lead to deforestation in primary and secondary forests as well as peatlands.

It is, therefore, imperative for Indonesia to find practical and applied solutions to balance energy development and forest protection.

The balanced development of energy and forest protection is also crucial since the pledge made by Indonesia’s President particularly mentioning his commitment to changing the status of Indonesia’s forests from a net-emitter sector to a net-sink sector by 2030 and more specifically, emphasizing the preservation of areas under forest protection as one of key programs.

One immediate step to do this, for example, is by harmonizing and synergizing different regulations and policies that will result in a clearer guidance from the government. Vague words like ‘vital’ or ‘strategic’ development activities need to be clarified so that these will not be used as a loop hole.

Synergyzed policies will not be implementable if data regarding conventional energy sources, renewables and forest areas are not synergized as well. Recent actions taken by a number of government’s institutions to synchronize and agree on a map of forest and land use in Indonesia – adhered to across all sectors and levels of government – are therefore crucial to contribute to balancing energy development and forest protection.

Following these steps, a set of sustainability benchmarks is deemed urgent to be instituted to provide technical directions to mitigate the impacts and risks of energy development on forests.

The sustainability benchmarking – promoting principles of high conservation value forest, effective environmental assessment, management plans and monitoring, and multi-stakeholders participation – is required because not only the actual environmental impacts have to be mitigated but also the perceived risks coming from energy projects on these ecosystems need to be addressed, in which local communities and the public may have substantial interest.

The development and implementation of these benchmarks will also align with other laws regulating forest and biodiversity protection, namely the 2009 Forestry Law, the 1990 Biodiversity Conservation Law and the 2009 Environmental Protection and Management Law.

As an emerging economy with a significant increase in energy demand, supplying energy while reducing environmental impacts is definitely a balancing act.

Finding solutions, as elaborated above, is hence urgently required and if these solutions are applied appropriately, Indonesia is likely to secure its future energy in a sustainable way.

——

Fitrian Ardiansyah

The writer is climate and sustainability specialist, a doctoral candidate at the Australian National University, and the recipient of Australian Leadership Award and Allison Sudradjat Award. He can be reached at fitrian.ardiansyah@anu.edu.au

An Environmental Perspective on Energy Development in Indonesia

“An Environmental Perspective on Energy Development in Indonesia”. Authors: Fitrian Ardiansyah, Prof Neil Gunningham, Prof Peter Drahos.

A book chapter (Chapter 5) in M. Caballero-Anthony et al. (eds), Energy and Non-Traditional Security (NTS) in Asia, SpringerBriefs in Environment Security, Development and Peace 1.

Please check this link to access the chapter: http://www.springerlink.com/content/k34716127r953750/

or see the pre-published version of the chapter here: ESDP Vol 1 Ch 5 F Ardiansyah et al Environment Energy Indonesia

Abstract:

Indonesia faces an energy trilemma on the energy security, climate change goals and energy poverty fronts. Policies that focus exclusively on one prong of the trilemma may lead to unacceptable consequences in the others. Conceiving the predicament as a trilemma will encourage a more unified approach to its problem solving. Successful management will require a search for policy complementarities—the likeliest source of which may be the renewable energy sector—that allow the country to move forward on all three fronts. A reform of its bureaucracy to address implementation gaps in its energy policy will also be needed. The reduction in transaction costs associated with the implementation of Indonesia’s energy policy could be used as a broad criterion when considering these necessary changes.

Keywords:  Energy security – Energy poverty – Renewable energy – Biofuels – Climate change – Environmental impacts – Deforestation

Energy and NTS

 

Igniting the Ring of Fire: a Vision for Developing Indonesia’s Geothermal Power

Early July 2012, Published by WWF-Indonesia, Author: Fitrian Ardiansyah and Ali Ahsat.

WWF-Indonesia released a report, co-authored by Fitrian Ardiansyah and Ali Ashat, entitled “Igniting the Ring of Fire: A Vision for Developing Indonesia’s Geothermal Potential” – an essay that elaborates the challenges and opportunities involved in the development of geothermal energy in Indonesia, as well as gives a picture on their possible workarounds.

For the pdf file of the complete report: please read geothermal_report or alternatively click http://awsassets.wwf.or.id/downloads/geothermal_report.pdf

This report discusses economic, social, policy, financial and environmental aspects of geothermal energy development in Indonesia, including balancing geothermal energy development and forest protection, and setting the price right for geothermal investment.