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

Advertisements

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.

Getting the governance right to achieve sustainable land use management

By Fitrian Ardiansyah, published in Coal Asia, September 4 – October 20, 2013, page 86-87

for the pdf version, please see Opinion Fitrian Ardiansyah_CoalAsia_SepOct2013

CoalAsia_SepOct2013_getting the governanceTo have a well-managed landscape in Indonesia, it is clear that any particular policy or strategy formulated by the government must take into account and engage key development sectors involved in land management. These include, among others, forestry, agriculture, mining and infrastructure development.

Prior to discussing potential realistic solutions, however, one needs to understand the institutional framework – the governance – that oversees the land use in the country.

As many reports and studies have revealed, deforestation and land degradation in Indonesia are exacerbated by a lack of law enforcement; insufficient economic incentives for communities, private sector and local governments; and a lack of capacity in institutions responsible for managing these areas.

In 2006, for instance, a report released by the National Working Group on Peatland Management pointed out that although several areas of peat lands were supposed to be protected by law, the reality is that these areas have been logged, drained and converted because there is no or poor enforcement for this particular law.

Such situation has been dubbed one of the main causes for the recurrence of forest and land fires taking place in Sumatra and Kalimantan annually.

Another report in the same year shows that insufficient economic incentives would also accelerate deforestation. This report, published by the World Bank, argues that positive incentives are required and must go hand-in-hand with forest law enforcement and governance initiatives to increase the costs of non-compliance.

Insufficient incentives, on the other hand, would not result in a long term investment in and stewardship of forests and production facilities which are important to ensure the reduction of deforestation and land degradation.

When it comes to capacity in managing the remaining forests and important terrestrial ecosystems in the country, some studies reveal that Indonesia has been struggling in adequately protecting and sustainably managing its large forest areas.

Under Law No. 41 of 1999 on Forestry, the authority to manage approximately 100 million hectares of forest estate is more or less granted to the national-level forestry ministry who defines forest land use classifications, management, and permitted activities for forest areas.

In the past, centralized administration of forests appears to have had little effective management capacity, accountability, monitoring, or enforcement of access, practices, or outcomes in the field, leading to a high annual rate of deforestation.

A 2009 study carried out by the forestry ministry states that one of the indirect causes of deforestation is the difficulty of maintaining and monitoring large boundaries of production and protection forests, leaving these areas vulnerable to illegal logging.

According to Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in 2011, this situation has somewhat created a legal loophole for illegal loggers and illegal miners to continue their actions while avoiding legal consequences.

Dr Matthew Hansen and his team from South Dakota University in their 2009 study seem to support this argument by showing that between 1990 and 2000 Indonesia experienced 1.7 million hectares of annual deforestation rate and 0.7 million for the period of 2000-2005.

It is understandable that for a big country having large forest areas like Indonesia, a mere centralized system of forest monitoring is likely to be insufficient. Additional and strengthened decentralized forest management is required.

One of the mandates from the 1999 Forestry Law, as further defined by Government Regulation No. 6 of 2007, is that Indonesia’s forest estates shall be divided into forest management units (FMUs). These FMUs will be classified as having a specific function for protection, conservation, or production.

Local governments, under the coordination with the forestry ministry, are then given the responsibility to establish organizations to manage FMUs within their respective geographic areas of governance.

This arrangement, if done properly, not only can provide more decentralized forest management but also would bring about improvement of existing management of forest estates, especially since forest areas in Indonesia are extensive and it would be difficult to manage these in a strictly centralized way.

A number of organizations have argued that Indonesia needs to reform its current forest and land use governance, if the country hopes to successfully address the dynamic issues of forest and land use change.

In addition to issues between layers of governments, such dynamic situation mostly has resulted from to the overlapping of rights, authorities, roles and responsibilities among different developmental sectors.

In a 2010 study published by the KPK, unclear and problematic claims over forest and land areas, have led to difficulties in determining forest estates in the spatial planning and other development planning process.

In this study, the KPK found that an agreed synchronized map of forest areas which could be used by stakeholders did not as yet exist. Instead, there were at least four different versions which, utilizing various scales, were not compatible with each other.

This was perhaps one of the reasons why the Indonesian government through its REDD (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation plus) task force formulated one consolidated forest and peat land map, in collaboration with the forestry ministry and other key ministries and agencies, in the beginning of its work period.

Even with one agreed map, it is of course still very challenging to resolve any conflicting issues given the variety of interests of key developmental sectors in forest and land use.

Therefore, continuous work with key actors from these sectors, including corporations, local communities and civil society, in appropriately addressing the overlapping claims and authorities should become a priority.

The outcome of this continuous work hopefully would lead to the improvement of the governance and institutional framework of land use Indonesia and smooth the development of sustainable forest management.

Improving the governance and institutions of land use in Indonesia, however, requires exploration of options and incentives, which should satisfy the interests of those different but influential sectors.

The challenging question that needs to be answered further is: “What sort of options and incentives are available to help the country to retain its remaining forests while at the same time still allow its economy to grow?”

Finding the right incentives will never be easy. The government can create additional budget for encouraging sustainable management of forest and land use, and channel this through its intergovernmental fiscal transfer system.

Yet, such approach may not be sufficient and may not reach the targeted actors, i.e. influential local/ indigenous communities and/or private corporations. Dialogues that lead to a formulation of partnerships with communities and/or corporations need to be encouraged since without concrete involvement of these actors, actions to better manage forest and land could be meaningless.

Such dialogues and partnerships usually require the creation of the level of playing field, and the improvement of the level of transparency and accountability.

This is a big task for a country that has embraced an open democratic system in just more than a decade. But if the country can create such enabling environment, strong cross-sectoral coordination in forest and land use management may not be utopia anymore.

If key actors in the developmental sectors feel that their interests are represented and accommodated equitably, any forest and land use policy is likely to be endorsed and supported widely.

Taking into account the aforementioned considerations, it is now timely for the country to continue to get its governance right to achieve better land use management. No action or lack of it could well mean future disaster for the country that values its forest and land resources highly.

————————-

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.

Improved governance crucial to protect our most pristine forests

by Fitrian Ardiansyah and Erik Meijaard, published in The Jakarta Globe, 20 September 2013, Opinion.

Original link: http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/opinion/improved-governance-crucial-to-protect-our-most-pristine-forests/

A recent regulation issued by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono on the National REDD+ [reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation plus] Agency shows the government’s continuous willingness to better manage our environment. Yet, it also triggers an interesting question about whether the establishment of this new agency is sufficient to save our remaining forests.

Indonesia is one of the most important countries in the world for biodiversity and ecosystem conservation, and has more species than all other countries but Brazil. Also, because of its unique geology, the country has very high levels of endemism: species occur here but nowhere else.

Indonesia and its population have every reason to be proud of their incredible natural heritage. Nevertheless, more serious and comprehensive efforts appear to be needed to ensure that this heritage can be sustained and enjoyed by future generations too.

In Indonesia, some of the most pristine forests have been gazetted as protected areas. These are the cornerstone of ecosystem and wildlife conservation, and to a large extent, have provided human populations with valuable goods and services, including water and local climate regulation.

Protected areas are supposed to provide a safe haven for endangered animal and plant life, away from the human threats, such as over-exploitation and disturbance. In this country, however, the reality seems different. Two recent studies, for instance, found that Indonesian protected areas had suffered from significant deforestation between 2000 and 2010.

A study by Douglas Fuller of the University of Miami and colleagues — in press in the Indonesian Journal of Nature Conservation — is likely the first-ever assessment looking at all terrestrial protected areas in Indonesia, including national parks, and nature and wildlife reserves. The study reveals that between 2000 and 2010 these areas lost 3,700 square kilometers of forest, equaling about half the greater metropolitan area of Jakarta.

When it comes to the status of the areas, deforestation rates in nature and wildlife reserves were about twice as high as those in national parks. Such different deforestation rates may be due to the fact that national parks have been slightly better equipped with funds, human resources and technology compared to other protected areas.

A second study published in the journal PLOS ONE, and led by David Gaveau of the Center for International Forestry Research in Bogor, confirms similar findings.

This study assessed forest loss in Kalimantan between 2000 and 2010. An estimated 303,525 square kilometers or 57 percent of Kalimantan’s land area was covered by natural forest in 2000, of which 14,212 square kilometers had been cleared by 2010. Forests in oil palm concessions had been reduced by 5,600 square kilometers, while the figures for logging concessions are 1,336 square kilometers and for protected forests 1,122 square kilometers. The remaining deforestation happened in land with other uses, such as small-scale agriculture.

In relative terms the study showed that deforestation rates in timber concessions and protected areas were not significantly different. This is a surprising finding since timber removal is obviously allowed in logging concessions but not in protected areas.

This finding, however, can provide a crucial suggestion. This could mean regardless of the status of forests — either production or conservation and unless not changed to conversion forest — as long the areas are well managed, deforestation can be largely avoided.

Under Indonesian laws, logging concessions have to be managed sustainably and remain permanently forest-covered. If these concessions are well-managed, they can continuously function as wildlife habitats and host a wide range of forest species, as well as generate income for government, companies and surrounding communities.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature recognizes this conservation potential of well-managed timber concessions.

Still, this only works as long as the government does not license the conversion of these natural forest concessions to non-forest land uses, such as oil palm plantations, which are of far less value to wildlife, ecosystems and people’s livelihoods.

The remaining forests of Indonesia provide important wildlife habitats and are greatly valued by people for a range of products and services (including flood buffering, temperature control, but also a free source of bush meat and fish). The future of Indonesia’s forest wildlife and the prevention of natural disasters therefore greatly depends on preventing further forest loss in protected areas and timber concessions.

The two studies suggest, however, that much works needs to be done by the Indonesian government and society since either protected areas or logging concessions seem to be inadequately managed and not strong enough to prevent deforestation.

The core weaknesses of the present protected area management system, for instance, will have to be addressed urgently. Performance-based systems should help the government to reward improvement in management and penalize failure, increasing the accountability of those in charge. The new REDD+ agency could support such systems.

Sustainable management of remaining forest areas from which timber can be legally harvested is a second key strategy. President Yudhoyono, for example, committed in 2012 to maintaining at least 45 percent of Kalimantan’s land area as forest.

Achieving such a target requires integration of forest estate planning, including prevention of further conversion of the remaining forests and ensuring that other development planning, both at sub-national and national levels, is synergized. Also, improved governance of forests requires further reforms in forest and land use licensing and management.

Indonesia still has significant forest areas. The future of these valuable resources is in the hands of the government, private sector and public. We need to continuously make decisions and put forward actions that not only boost our current economic growth but also sustain it and secure the country’s future economy by keeping and sustainably managing our forests.

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

Erik Meijaard is a long-term Indonesia-based conservation scientist leading the Borneo Futures initiative as a consultant for People and Nature Consulting International.

Sustaining Southeast Asia’s forests

Published in East Asia Forum Quarterly Vol. 4, No.4, October-December, 2012, PAGE 18-20

by Fitrian Ardiansyah

for full East Asia Forum Quartelrly pdf, plese see EAFQ-4.4-WEB-FINAL

Sustaining Southeast Asia’s forests

Avoiding and reversing the loss and degradation of forests is a crucial element of any sustainable development and climate change solution formulated in Southeast Asia.

Southeast Asia’s forests contain some of the richest and most valuable resources and habitats on earth. These include the Greater Mekong Subregion that covers 60 million hectares of tropical forests and rivers in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam and China, and the Heart of Borneo that comprises 24 million hectares of equatorial rainforests stretching along the borders of Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei.

These forests and terrestrial ecosystems have a vital role to play in the fight against global warming. They also have significant economic and ecological value. Hundreds of millions of people depend on the healthy productive capacity of these natural systems to sustain key ecosystem services such as clean water, food and fibre.

These forests are also home to a significant part of the world’s biodiversity and possess a high level of endemism across all groups of plants and animals. Southeast Asia’s forests are the only place on earth where orang-utans, tigers, elephants and rhinoceroses still co-exist and where forests are large enough to maintain viable populations.

Deforestation and forest degradation are making a significant contribution to environmental degradation in this region and overall global emissions of greenhouse gases. In 2009, the Food and Agriculture Organization reported that deforestation rates in Southeast Asia remained high at 3.7 million hectares per annum. In general, forests and terrestrial ecosystems in Southeast Asia, including peatlands, wetlands and rivers, are in a state of rapid ecological decline due to human over-exploitation.

The degradation of forest and wetland habitats affecting hydrological regimes is threatening water supply and the viability of one of the most important freshwater fisheries in the world— including, for instance, in the Tonle Sap fishery in Cambodia where the larger migratory species have declined significantly. The biggest threat to the Mekong River’s ecological system is the long-time deforestation of the river basin.

The island of Borneo, as well as Sumatra and many other places in this region, has also experienced high deforestation rates. According to several studies, between 1985 and 2005 Borneo lost an average of 850,000 hectares of forest annually—roughly a third of the island’s total rainforests—due to indiscriminate logging and forests being cleared for timber and oil palm plantations.

The increasing frequency of forest and land fires between 1997–2007 is indicative of the pressure to deforest. It is a combination of plantation and timber companies, unresolved land tenure disputes and land clearing by a massive number of individuals are the main causes of these fires.

Because of these issues, the governments of Southeast Asia are under pressure to devise smart development strategies that not only promote economic growth but also conserve the areas’ globally important biodiversity, ecosystems and natural resources.

Regional cooperation is emerging. Initiatives include the Mekong River Commission (MRC), which coordinates the formulation and implementation of sustainable development for the Greater Mekong Subregion, and the Heart of Borneo initiative, which facilitates cooperation among parties in protecting, conserving and sustainably managing remaining forests and adjacent areas.

Since 2009, countries in the Greater Mekong Subregion have agreed to use the Biodiversity Conservation Corridors Initiative (BCCI) to accelerate efforts to address conservation and climate change. One BCCI initiative is to channel economic stimulus to the rural poor within the corridors. The aim of this initiative is to strengthen sustainable management of forest and water resources. As the people become poorer and need resources to get out of poverty, there is likely a huge pressure for further and faster natural resource extraction – hence, actions to address poverty tends to have positive results on the environment.

The Heart of Borneo recently launched a ‘green economy’ approach aimed at concretely and seriously tackling threats from unsustainable land-use activities and further improving enabling conditions like good economic policy. This will create positive incentives for stakeholders to employ sustainable practices and foster good governance, clear land tenure and reformed sectoral development.

Reports also show an increase in the private sector’s involvement in the promotion, development and application of sustainability principles in their management of key commodities including forestry (through the Forest Stewardship Council) and palm oil (through the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil).

In November 2007 only 0.8 million hectares of Southeast Asia’s natural forests were certified under the Forest Stewardship Council. Now more than 2 million hectares of natural forests have been certified under a similar scheme. In mid-2011, just three years after certification commenced under the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, the palm oil industry reached one million hectares of certified production area globally. The biggest contributors were Malaysia and Indonesia.

ASEAN has commenced the Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) initiative. Since 2008 ASEAN and its member countries have developed programs to improve in-countries’ capacity and have initiated demonstration projects so that stakeholders are ready to implement REDD+.

These efforts to retain the remaining forests of Southeast Asia may nevertheless be inadequate given constant pressures from global and regional demand for commodities like palm oil and timber. A 2010 UN report estimated that the illegal timber trade in Southeast Asia was worth US$3.5 billion.

There is urgent need for ASEAN countries to scale up their collaboration on deforestation so that they are seen as a strong front that can negotiate the channelling of financial and technical support to address deforestation in their region. At the United Nations Framework of Convention on Climate Change, ASEAN is not seen as a strong lobby group that can influence the negotiation of the financial and policy aspects of REDD+.

In setting up a monitoring system for deforestation, countries in the region can learn from Brazil, which is considered to have an advanced deforestation monitoring system. The Brazilian system combines real-time satellite observation and regular ground checking. Using an ASEAN platform, countries in Southeast Asia have the opportunity to replicate such a system in a cost-effective and transparent way.

Stronger collaborative efforts among countries, state and non-state actors in Southeast Asia is the key to significantly reducing deforestation and mitigating its impacts. Further involvement of producers in the REDD+ initiatives through timber concessions and incentives for oil palm plantations could accelerate the implementation of sustainable practices.

Financial institutions in the region and at global level also have a significant role to play. They must develop robust investment screening policies to discourage high-risk investment patterns leading to deforestation. Consumers of related commodities can also help by favoring goods that are produced through certified sustainable operations.

If done properly, efforts like these would lead to fundamental changes in how Southeast Asians manage, protect and sustain their forests. The impact of those efforts will be felt by the global community in the form of emissions reductions, and by people in Southeast Asia through their ability to maintain timber and non-timber forest production, water supply, and other ecosystem goods and services.

Fitrian Ardiansyah is a PhD candidate at the Australian National University and the recipient of Australian Leadership Award and Allison Sudradjat Award.

—————————————————————–

Vol.4 No.4: October – December, 2012
Energy, resources and food
About this issue
In this issue we address one of the most important concerns in Asia: security over natural resources or about how to ensure we have sufficient food, water, energy, and other resources at an accessible cost and within tolerable levels of risk now and into the future. Managing resource risks in an insecure world will differ by country, the type and possible magnitude of the risks, and national, regional vulnerabilities. Nevertheless, the multidimensional nature of resource security demands that critically important natural capital stocks be conserved at a regional and global level and that special consideration be given to the particular vulnerabilities of poor countries while following market-based approaches to ensure adequate resource supplies. Whatever the national approach adopted towards resource security, we stress that promoting resource security is not a zero-sum game. All countries can benefit from a multilateral and a sustainable market framework that provides incentives for producers and delivers reliable supply to consumers.

Indonesia’s forest: a year in moratorium

Published in COAL ASIA MAGAZINE, OPINION, JUNE 14-JULY 14, 2012, PAGE 133-134 and OGE ASIA MAGAZINE, OPINION, JUNE 25-JULY 25, 2012, PAGE 50-51

by Fitrian Ardiansyah

To see the pdf version, please click Opini_CoalAsia_July2012 and/or opini OGE

A little over a year ago, Indonesia issued a two-year moratorium on new permits for primary forest and peat-land clearing. To date, a critical question remains whether the country has come up with better forest and land use management while allowing other sectors to develop.

This moratorium is intended to contribute to the program of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+), and to some extent provide a degree of legal certainty in land use governance in Indonesia.

Prior to the issuance of moratorium, for instance in December 2010, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) found in its study on forestry policies and systems that unclear definitions and boundary of forest areas in Law No. 41 of 1999 on Forestry and other relevant regulations are perceived to be a key reason of chaotic land use management in this country that eventually leads to a significant increase in deforestation.

Furthermore, according to the KPK, this situation, 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). In fact, the KPK found that not all of these forest areas have been gazetted in law.

A study carried out by the Ministry of Forestry 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, mining and conversion.

The above situation has also created uncertainty among different sectors intending to utilize land for their development projects.

It is, therefore, not uncommon in Indonesia to have overlapping claims for power over state forests and peat lands, between national and sub-national levels, as well as among sectors regulated by different government ministries (i.e. forestry, agriculture, energy and mineral resources and public works).

The above ministries are often known to have overlapping policies on land use, including processes for obtaining permits.

Hence, the issue of whether the forest conversion moratorium or REDD+ program in general will achieve its goal will not necessarily depend on one particular sector, but rather on multiple sectors and actors involved in land use activities.

Given such complexity, it appears that the REDD+ taskforce, which is given a mandate by Indonesia’s President to develop the national REDD+ strategy and oversee the moratorium, has achieved some initial progress in working with different agencies and sectors, particularly to arrive at an agreed moratorium indicative map (MIM), which would contribute to avoiding confusion and creating legal certainty.

The agencies engaged include the National Survey and Mapping Coordinating Agency (Bakosurtanal), the Ministry of Forestry, the Ministry of Agriculture, the National Land Agency (BPN) and the President’s Delivery Unit for Development Monitoring and Oversight (UKP4).

The MIM, required to outline the areas covered in the moratorium, is being updated every six months incorporating the latest sets of data from the above agencies and results from site visits. A second MIM is currently available, albeit with some discrepancies of figures between the two maps, as reported by the taskforce.

Since there are many sectors, layers of government and actors involved, it is understandable that to get an agreed MIM, some additions or reductions of relevant forest and land cover figures are required. Also, negotiations and trade-offs are likely to take place among these sectors and actors.

The future of this moratorium (including the improvement of MIM) and the overall national REDD+ strategy will depend so much on whether the initiative could increase positive involvement of the businesses, actors, and layers of government that are influential in causing land use change.

The development sectors of forestry (e.g. logging concessions, industrial timber plantations), agriculture (e.g. oil palm plantations), mining, and infrastructure are the key players in Indonesia’s development, and therefore their involvement and coordination in the moratorium and REDD+ process is crucial.

Gaining positive involvement or support from these actors and sector is truly a challenge, especially if the moratorium and REDD+ strategy do not clearly lay out the subsequent steps that allow these sectors to develop options.

For instance, there is a need to further improve data quality and transparency, showing which areas are protected (“no go areas” for development) and are not (“go areas” – that could include fallow lands and degraded lands).

According to the World Resource Institute (WRI), although releasing the current map was a landmark step toward improved transparency, the additional data provided were incomplete, did not include metadata, were difficult to download, and were not up to date.

Without accurate data on forestry and other permits, it is a herculean task for the government to enforce the moratorium and for the private sector to invest in areas that will not replace forests or peat lands.

The WRI argues that technically sound, legally accurate, and up-to-date spatial data, including license and permit data, should be made available, independently reviewed, maintained, and continuously improved.

Another fundamental factor that could lead to attracting positive support from these actors and sectors is the provision of positive incentives to get out of unsustainable practices and eventually maintain and properly manage forests and peat lands.

Currently, the private sector, communities and local governments have little direct incentive to manage and conserve these natural ecosystems.

In fact, there are cases when incentives planned to be used for better forest management (e.g. the Reforestation Fund) have been abused. As a result, the figures of forest degradation and deforestation further increase dramatically.

On the contrary, there are big investments for large-scale development in different sectors, which lead to greater exploitation of forest and peat land resources.

Market access for sustainable products and REDD+ fund for better forest and land use management can be named as potential candidates of incentives provided for land use actors who would like to pursue sustainable practices.

The question, however, still remains as to whether these incentives will be able to compete with such big investments which have thus far been responsible for changing Indonesia’s land use patterns.

World Bank in 2006 argues that adequate positive incentives are required, and must go hand-in-hand with forest law enforcement and governance initiatives, to increase the costs of non-compliance.

According to the Bank, insufficient incentives, on the other hand, would not result in a long term investment in and stewardship of forests and production facilities which are important to ensure the reduction of deforestation and forest degradation.

A year of experience in implementing this two-year forest conversion moratorium provides a good reminder for Indonesia and its citizens that the challenges of achieving better land use and forest management while developing its economy are greater than ever.

The above mentioned issues, include, among others, increasing legal certainty as well developing options and incentives for sustainable practices, need to be further addressed, quickly and seriously.

Failure to address these issues may hinder the development and implementation of the moratorium, the overall REDD+ program and consequently disrupt Indonesia’s opportunity to develop its economy in a greener and sustainable way.

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 

Pushing forward to better land use

The Jakarta Post, Fitrian Ardiansyah and Thomas Barano, Jakarta | Sun, 27 May 2012, 8:00 AM

May and June are shaping up to show if Indonesia has achieved significant progress in promoting better land-use management, particularly in reducing deforestation and land degradation.

May 20, for instance, marks the completion of the first year of Indonesia’s two-year moratorium on new permits for primary forest and peat-land clearing. June 5 is World Environment Day, with its “Green Economy: Does it Include You?” theme — in which land-use management is considered to be one of six high-growth sectors in the green economy.

The moratorium is an integral part of REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, conservation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks, and sustainable management of forest) policy development and is expected to improve forest and land-use governance, especially in synergizing mapping and licensing systems.

A synchronized, synergized and agreed-to map — adhered by various sectors and layers of government — of forest and land use in Indonesia is fundamental to address the challenges facing our land-use management.

The recent debate between Greenpeace and the President’s special staff on climate change on the exact figure of forest cover loss has reaffirmed the importance of having a credible, reliable, accessible and transparent mapping system of forest and land use. Without that, Indonesia cannot measure and account for greenhouse gas emissions, land-use changes and forests.

More importantly, a credible map would lay the foundations for the settlement of land conflicts.

In December 2010, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) found in its study on forestry policies and systems that a synchronized map of forest areas that can be used by stakeholders did not exist. Instead, there were at least four different versions that, utilizing various scales, were incompatible with each other.

According to the KPK, the lack of a consolidated map, coupled with unclear definitions and boundaries of forest areas as well as a lack of fair procedures in designating forest areas, has weakened the legitimacy of 88.2 percent of forest areas, or more than 105.8 million hectares.

Despite the fact that it is very challenging to have an agreed map, given the variety of sectors and actors that have interests in forest and land use, it appears that this issue has been gradually addressed through the development and refinement of the moratorium-indicative map (MIM).

The REDD+ taskforce, which is given a mandate by Indonesia’s President to develop the national REDD+ strategy, has been working with different agencies to arrive at an agreed, indicative map of the moratorium, to avoid confusion and create legal certainty.

The agencies include the National Survey and Mapping Coordinating Agency (Bakosurtanal), the Forestry and Agriculture Ministries, the National Land Agency (BPN) and the President’s Delivery Unit for Development Monitoring and Oversight (UKP4).

The MIM is required to outline the areas covered in the moratorium and is being updated every six months to integrate the latest sets of data from additional agencies and to incorporate results from site visits.

To date, a second MIM is available, albeit with some discrepancies of figures between the two maps, as reported by the taskforce.

In the first MIM, the total moratorium area was 69.1 million hectares with, primary forests and peat-land accounting for 7.2 million and 10.68 million hectares. In the second MIM, the total moratorium area was reduced to 65.5 million hectares, with primary forests and peat-land covering 8.39 million and 5.9 million hectares.

Overall, the total change in moratorium area is 3.6 million hectares, with changes in primary forests and peat-land of 1.16 million and 4.76 million hectares.

The taskforce argues that such differences occurred because the first MIM only used definitions of natural-primary forests from the Forestry Ministry and definitions of peat-land from the National Development Planning Board (Bappenas) and Wetlands International, incorporating areas with ongoing land-use activities such as for estate crops and settlements, covered only by licenses issued by the ministry without any field-survey
components.

The second MIM, according to the taskforce, has covered information provided by different agencies involved. This map, for instance, has taken into account the definitions and data of peat-land from the Agriculture Ministry, licenses issued by the BPN, and some field studies and research on peat-land nationwide.

Since there are many sectors and actors involved, it is understandable that synchronizing the map may add or reduce the relevant forest and land cover figures. Also, negotiations and trade-offs are likely to take place among these sectors and actors.

To obtain a credible map, however, such processes need transparency that allows the wider public to access the map.

The recent case of the clearing and burning of Tripa peat-swamp forests for palm oil in Aceh’s Nagan Raya district is a clear example of a “small” but serious discrepancy of forest and land cover in the MIM that needs to be urgently addressed, especially when it comes to monitoring and evaluating land-use licenses and activities in more than 400 local governments.

The involvement of civil society in protesting the license issued for this land and reporting this case to the central government has eventually pushed the REDD+ taskforce, the Environment Ministry, the National Police and the Attorney General’s Office investigate this case.

This recent case clearly provides a valuable lesson. For instance, to avoid future land conflicts at the local level, improving spatial resolution of the MIM needs to be prioritized.

Further, it is imperative to produce a common map not only for the sake of legal certainty but to also provide credible and transparent mapping and licensing systems — feeding back to district/provincial land-use policies and regimes — so that land-use management will bring about better social, economic and environmental outcomes.

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