Indonesia packages tree plantation expansion
as emissions reduction strategy

Half a million hectares of new forests will be planted each year from now till 2020 at a cost of IDR 2.5 trillion (USD$269 million) per year, according to Forestry Minister Zulkifli Hasan. He said that Indonesia could expand forest cover by up to 21 million hectares by 2020 (see table 1).¹

Officially, there are 130 million hectares of forests in Indonesia, but by the minister's own admission, only 48 million hectares are in good condition.²

In September last year, President SBY promised that Indonesia would reduce emissions by 26% against business as usual projections by 2020. He said that cuts could reach 41% with international support.³

A new Ministry of Forestry document shows how it aims to follow up SBY's commitment and it fills in some of the detail to the minister's January announcement on new forests. Based as it is on targets for reducing emissions, the main focus is on targets for achieving a range of forestry department sub-programmes, broken down by province, year and target land to be covered. The end result is a sea of figures.

Emissions figures Last year the National Council for Climate Change (DNPI) estimated 2005 emissions levels at 2.3 billion tonnes (Gt) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). The most recent figures submitted by Indonesia to the UNFCCC are lower, with 2005 emissions totalling 1.99Gt.i Both these could be underestimates - a 2007 World Bank & DFID study put the country's total emissions at 3Gt per year.ii According to the DNPI, deforestation, forest degradation and forest fires caused 38% of the 2.3Gt total (850 Mt Co2e), while peat oxidation, fires and deforestation and degradation of peatland forests caused a further 45% of the total (1 Gt CO2e).iii The DNPI projected that the country's total level of carbon emissions under a 'business as usual' scenario would be 2.8Gt by 2020 and 3.6Gt by 2030.iv It calculated that taking action to reduce emissions in the main GHG-emitting sectors would reduce projected levels to 2.3 Gt by 2030 - back to the official level for 2005. i Summary for Policy Makers: Indonesia Second National Communication under the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This document refers to previous estimates of land use change and forestry (LUCF) and peat fires and explains why its estimates are lower (page 5). ii DTE 83 iii DTE 83 iv DNPI in DTE 83

It is hard to see how this top-down target-driven approach squares with the complex local realities on the ground, where land classified as forests by the forestry ministry in Jakarta may be part of an indigenous community's customary territory, or where other overlapping claims for access and resources may make any forestry programme extremely problematic to implement or sustain on the ground. It is also difficult to see how such an approach can accommodate the demands for consultation and participation from civil society and fulfil the country's international obligations relating to human rights (including indigenous rights) and economic and social.⁴

Whether or not planting new forests will do anything to help cut emissions is seriously doubtful too: plantation companies are still getting permits to develop plantations in existing forests, so they actually destroy efficient carbon storage systems, rather than create new ones. Going on past experience, the success rate for developing new timber plantations is very low, so that original carbon absorption capacity is not even being replaced in a limited way. Even then, it is not as if these much-reduced carbon stores will be left untouched. First they will be used for industry (pulp, ply, other wood products, biomass energy) and there is no guarantee that they will be replanted, if it no longer suits the developer to do so.

An August 2009 article by Chris Lang, the editor of www.redd-monitor.org focuses on another important argument against plantations as carbon sinks - the risk of fire.

"Imagine the following situation: a polluting company in the North pays a "carbon neutral" seller that promises to "offset" its emissions by planting trees. Let's assume that the trees are in fact planted and that they do absorb the entire amount of carbon emitted by the polluting company. Six years later, the plantation goes up in fire. The result will be that the burnt plantation will have released the entire amount of carbon that is was supposed to "offset". Which means that the plantation's only use was to allow polluting the company to avoid investing in what is most necessary from a climate perspective: cutting emissions."⁵

Of course forests can't just be seen as carbon stores: viewing them in this way is to make the same mistake made in the past which viewed them merely as timber stands. If all forests' social, economic, cultural, biodiversity and ecological functions are taken into account, it becomes even more obvious how vital it is to prevent their destruction in the first place. When they are lost, the impacts on local communities are devastating and multifaceted - on top of the loss of carbon involved. Yet more destruction is embedded in the forestry ministry's plans, including 420,000 hectares per year to be converted to oil palm plantations and other uses (see below).

When is a forest not a forest? New controversy over what constitutes a forest has been fuelled in Europe and Indonesia. In early February, a European Commission document was leaked, which states that oil palm plantations can be considered as forests. This prompted derision and outrage among environmental campaigners and is widely seen as a manipulation of terminology in order to present palm oil as a sustainable fuel (see separate article). The document shows, said Friends of the Earth Europe, " the disgraceful attempts to push palm oil through European laws designed to prevent forest destruction…" According to FoE, converting rainforest to oil palm plantations creates a huge 'carbon debt'. It would take 86 years for a palm oil plantation to make up for the amount of emissions released through the deforestation.i A matter of days later, a senior forestry ministry official announced that Indonesia was preparing a new decree to include oil palm plantations in the forestry sector, and to define oil palm plantations as forest. The move was aimed at anticipating the implementation of REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) schemes, he said.ii Though forestry minister Zulkifli Hasan denied any such plan a few days later, the news caused a similar condemnation in Indonesia as the EC leak did in Europe. Environmental groups WALHI and Greenpeace expressed concern that yet more deforestation would result. According to a carbon broker quoted by Point Carbon News, Indonesia would find it hard to sell carbon credits generated by oil palm plantations, if it was agreed that these plantations should qualify for REDD schemes. "I really doubt that any country, especially European countries, would be willing to support the development of oil palm plantation as part of REDD, or to buy any carbon credits from oil palm plantation through REDD", said Paul Butarbutar from South Pole Carbon Asset Management.iii The definition of a forest was among the controversial issues at Copenhagen in December, and remains unresolved. The UNFCCC uses the definition of forest adopted by the FAO, which includes tree plantations. Indonesia's own legal definition (in the 1999 Forestry Law, for example) does not include plantations, even though timber and pulpwood plantations are considered part of the forest estate.iv Indonesian CSOs have also been highly critical of a separate plan drafted by the forestry ministry to charge IDR1 million (ca USD100) for each hectare of forest already converted to oil palm plantations.v i FoE Press release 3/Feb/10 ii Jakarta Post 02/Feb/2010 iii www.pointcarbon.com 16/Feb/10 iv See also DTE 79 v AMPUH press release 23/Feb/10

More details of MoF plans

The information is presented as the ministry's follow-up to SBY's commitment of 26% reduction on business as usual (BAU) projections by 2020. The forestry sector has been asked to reduce emissions on BAU by 14% (=52% of the 26% target).

According to the document, this follow-up includes:

1. Increasing the carbon stock through the following programmes operated by the forestry ministry: HKm & Hutan Desa (Community and Village Forests), RHL DAS (Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan Daerah Aliran Sungai - Rehabilitating Forests and Land in Water Catchment Areas), HTI & HTR (Industrial Timber Plantations and People's Timber Plantations), HPH Restorasi (Logging Concession Restoration), and Hutan Rakyat Kemitraan (People's Partnership Forest - partnerships with companies);^v
2. Reducing emissions from deforestation through eradicating illegal logging, preventing fires and forest encroachment; regulating, permitting the use of forest areas [eg for mining], and the release of forest areas for conversion to other functions [eg plantations];
3. Reducing emissions from degradation through lowering the allowable cut and through restoring conservation areas;
4. Sustainable Forest Management through Intensive Silviculture, Selective Logging and Planting (TPTI), Reduced Impact Logging (RIL) and the certification of Sustainable Management of Production Forests (PHPL); ⁸
5. Protection Area and Conservation Area Management.

The targets for increasing carbon stock are broken down per year and per forestry scheme (see table 1) and then again per province per year per scheme. The figures indicate that industrial timber and people's timber plantations (HTI & HTR) have the highest 2020 target of 5.8 million hectares, followed by logging concession restoration (5.75 million ha), and community and village forests (5.5 million ha).

Table 1: Increasing carbon stocks through HKm & Hutan Desa, RHL-DAS, HTI & HTR, Hutan Rakyat Kemitraan
Year	Community & Village Forests (ha)	Rehabilitating Forests and Land in Water Catchment Areas (ha)	Industrial Timber Plantations and People's Timber Plantations (ha)	Logging Concession Restoration (ha)	People's Partnership Forests (ha)	Total (ha)
2010	500,000	300,000	450,000	300,000	50,000	1,600,000
2011	500,000	300,000	550,000	350,000	50,000	1,750,000
2012	500,000	300,000	500,000	450,000	50,000	1,800,000
2013	500,000	350,000	600,000	650,000	50,000	2,150,000
2014	500,000	350,000	550,000	750,000	50,000	2,200,000
2015	500,000	300,000	450,000	300,000	50,000	1,600,000
2016	500,000	300,000	550,000	350,000	50,000	1,750,000
2017	500,000	300,000	500,000	450,000	50,000	1,800,000
2018	500,000	350,000	600,000	650,000	50,000	2,150,000
2019	500,000	350,000	550,000	750,000	50,000	2,200,000
2019	500,000	350,000	550,000	750,000	50,000	2,200,000
2020	500,000	350,000	500,000	750,000	50,000	2,150,000
Total (ha)	5,500,000	3,550,000	5,800,000	5,750,000	5,750,000	21,150,000

Details of the timber plantation schemes (HTI & HTR) show that for the first five years (2010-2014), a total of 2,698,800 hectares is targeted for planting. Of the nineteen provinces targeted, West Kalimantan has by far the highest allocation of 585,000 hectares, followed by Papua with 250,000 ha, South Sumatra with 412,550 ha, and then jointly East Kalimantan and Riau with 240,000 ha each (see Table 2).⁹

Table 2: Target for Industrial timber and people's timber plantations 2010-2014 - area (ha)
No	Province	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	5-year total
1	Riau	50,000	50,000	45,000	45,000	50,000	240,000
2	Jambi	47,000	42,500	52,000	46,500	41,000	229,000
3	South Sumatra	85,000	84,550	79,000	84,500	79,500	412,550
4	Lampung	11,500	41,000	31,500	36,550	36,500	157,050
5	West Kalimantan	125,000	120,000	100,000	120,000	120,000	585,000
6	South Kalimantan	22,000	37,400	17,500	47,550	42,500	166,950
7	East Kalimantan	50,000	50,000	50,000	40,000	50,000	240,000
8	West Nusa Tenggara	10,500	10,400	10,450	20,450	15,400	67,200
9	East Nusa Tenggara	25,000	25,000	25,000	40,000	25,000	140,000
10	Maluku	5,000	10,000	10,000	30,000	10,000	65,000
11	Papua	40,000	50,000	50,000	60,000	50,000	250,000
12	North Sumatra	4,000	4,500	4,000	4,550	4,500	21,550
13	West Sumatra	1,500	1,000	1,000	1,500	1,250	6,500
14	Central Kalimantan	2,500	2,000	2,200	2,000	2,250	10,950
15	Yogyakarta	100	150	100	100	100	550
16	South Sulawesi	5,000	5,500	6,000	6,500	6,500	29,500
17	Southeast Sulawesi	12,000	11,000	11,000	10,500	10,000	54,500
18	North Sulawesi	3,000	2,500	2,000	2,500	2,000	12,000
19	North Maluku	1,500	2,000	2,000	2,500	2,500	10,500
Total		500,600	549,500	499,000	600,700	549,000	2,698,800

Forests for mining, plantations and military facilities

The MoF document also gives projections for "use of forest areas" for gold, nickel, oil & gas, coal, tin and other minerals, plus non-mining land uses such as roads, communications and defence and security facilities for the Indonesian military.

The 2004-2009 total for this kind of forest use is given as 1,197,727 hectares and the projection for 2010-2020 is 200,000 hectares per year, bringing the overall total to 3,397,727 hectares. The MoF is therefore working on the basis that an additional 2.2 million hectares will be given over to such uses between now and the end of the current decade.

Forest fires are also scheduled to decline from a projected 25,566 "hotspots" in 2010 to a mere 2,745 in 2020. In terms of CO2e reductions this is estimated at a gradual decline from 0.8 million tonnes of CO2e in 2009 to 0.2 million tonnes CO2e in 2015. Overall, the MoF scenario shows how the forestry sector becomes a net carbon sink rather than net emitter, if the MoF strategic plan is followed. Total emissions from forests are put at 1.24 Gigatonnes of CO2e, whereas forests will be able absorb 1.31 Gigatonnes under this plan.

REDD schemes

Three pieces of REDD legislation have been passed¹⁴ in the last two years and five pilot projects, (from over 20 planned REDD projects across the country) have formally recorded by the MoF (see box). These five schemes were officially launched in January 2010.

However, there has been vociferous opposition from civil society organisations to REDD related to carbon trading and offsetting, as well as to the government's plans for managing REDD projects in Indonesia. As well as serious concerns over corruption of REDD money,¹⁵ there are deep-seated fears that local communities could end up worse off under REDD.

Bernadinus Steni, from the Jakarta-based CSO, HuMa, visited a REDD pilot project in West Kalimantan recently. He reported that things are getting "messy" there, "with promises of large inflows of money and infrastructure development creating both great hope and extreme concern among local communities".¹⁶

"No REDD without rights!" was the campaign slogan of indigenous and civil society activists from around the world at the Bangkok and Copenhagen UNFCCC climate talks last year, and this applies especially well to the situation in Indonesia. One of the basic concerns with REDD is that indigenous rights are likely to be sidelined, or ignored completely, because at national level, recognition and protection of these rights is still sorely inadequate. Indonesia's REDD regulations do in theory allow indigenous communities to manage REDD projects, but in practice, the lack of national-level legislation to recognise such communities means that this is all but impossible to put into practice.¹⁷

The official pilot projects The following pilot projects are officially recognised as such by the MoF: Demonstration activities at provincial level in Central Kalimantan, as part of the Kalimantan Forest Carbon Partnership with Australia. In the early stages of implementation Demonstration activities at district level, 2 in East Kalimantan and one in West Kalimantan. At the early stage of implementation, supported by KfW Germany Berau District, East Kalimantan, in conjunction with The Nature Conservancy. This is in the early implementation stages. Integrated REDD and conservation in Meru Betiri National Park (East Java). This project is in the planning phase, and is funded by the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). Small Scale REDD project. This is an Indonesia-Korea partnership that is in the site identification phase.i i http://www.whrc.org/policy/pdf/AnOverviewofReadinessforREDD.pdf#search="Readiness" More background on other projects can be found in DTE 79 and DTE 82, including a critique of Australia's REDD plans which focused on carbon trading and offsetting. A new report by Friends of the Earth (FoE) Australia and Aid/Watch is also highly critical of the plans - see 'New Report exposes Australia's REDD offsets scam' on www.redd-monitor.org, which regularly posts updates on REDD projects in Indonesia and elsewhere. In February, Australia announced a further REDD demonstration project in Jambi, Sumatra ('REDD in the news: 1-7 March 2010', www.redd-monitor.org). It was immediately criticised by FoE Australia and Indonesia (WALHI) as an attempt to offset Australia's carbon emissions (Media Release 11/Mar/2010). Updates on REDD projects are also posted on the REDDI website: redd-indonesia.org/en/

Indonesia's poor record on upholding indigenous rights, and on consulting indigenous peoples and local communities affected by development schemes was also highlighted by CSOs last year. The indigenous peoples alliance AMAN and oil palm advocacy network Sawit Watch wrote to the FCPF arguing that Indonesia's R-PP (the plan which demonstrates that a country has prepared for REDD) did not meet the FCPF criteria and should not be accepted until improvements had been made.¹⁹ They also critiqued the FCPF approval process which failed to take into account key World Bank safeguard policies which offer some protections for communities.²⁰

The Indonesian CSO HuMa also wrote to the FCPF to underline the R-PP's failure to recognise the lack of recognition for indigenous rights in the Indonesian forestry law. The group also raised concern about the Forestry Department's mandate, considering its notoriously bad record in governance and persistence in continuing with damaging policies left over from the Suharto era.

Indonesia's R-PP plan has still not been accepted, although CSOs suspect that the FCPF is planning to accept it soon, after compromise procedures have been worked out that make it easier for controversial cases like Indonesia to fulfil acceptance criteria. The signs are that FCPF wants Indonesia in its scheme despite all the objections and problems, because it is too important a player not to be in it.

Progress reports both from FCPF and Indonesia's Ministry of Forestry posted on the FCPF website indicate that key issues remaining to be resolved include consultation with affected communities. According to the FCPF, remaining issues include agreement on what the FCPF grant will cover, agreement on the application of a Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment and Agreement on a plan for consultation and participation. Under a section called "main remaining issues" the FCPF reports lists participation of indigenous peoples and CSOs, and says that customary and land access rights have been highlighted by groups as the main issue. It also mentions a request for more qualitative participation, capacity-building and coordination of activities.²¹ A corresponding MoF report only mentions that stakeholder communication is "ongoing".²²

REDD at Copenhagen Was there any agreement on REDD at Copenhagen? The Copenhagen Accord, was the most prominent - though highly controversial and extremely weak - official output of the underwhelming UNFCCC summit in December 2009. The Accord refers to the immediate establishment of a mechanism including REDD+. REDD negotiations continued in the REDD sub-group under the AWG-LCA (Adhoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action) and agreed on many sections of the negotiating text, including references to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) - a major breakthrough. However, three intractable issues - global targets and financing regimes, reporting on safeguards and national/subnational carbon accounting & leakage - remained and no final agreement was reached by the COP Plenary.i Upcoming UNFCCC meetings relating to REDD include meetings in Bonn, Germany in April and in May-June 2010. For more details see UNFCCC website at unfccc.int/files/methods_science/redd/application/msexcel/20100112_redd_meetings_events_calendar.xls. i See Forest talks at a standstill as Copenhagen ends without agreement', Forest Watch Special Report, FERN January 2010, via www.redd-monitor.org

Signs of progress on recognition?

Following a sustained lobbying effort, the Poznan climate summit (COP 14) in 2008 first saw Indonesia's delegation leader Rachmat Witoelar mention the importance of respecting Indigenous Peoples rights in schemes to halt deforestation, though this did not translate to action at national level.²³

A December 2009 workshop on communal rights co-hosted by AMAN and the Ministry of Environment resulted in the new environment minister saying that the government was likely to recognise communal rights and the role of indigenous people in environmental management and protection.²⁴ The step follows the country's new Environment Law (No 32/2009), which stipulates that attention should be paid to recognising indigenous peoples and their traditional knowledge and rights in environmental management and protection.²⁵

The following month, AMAN and the environment minister signed an agreement committing AMAN and the ministry to work together to "increase the role of indigenous people in protecting and managing the environment". The cooperation includes: identifying indigenous peoples and their rights, empowering indigenous peoples and exchanging information about them.²⁶ The agreement was signed in front of 35 indigenous leaders, according to a ministry press release. This also said that follow up would include draft policies to empower and to recognise local expertise; developing criteria and methods to identify indigenous communities; setting up a database of adat (indigenous) communities and local knowledge, plus a range of activities to empower indigenous communities.²⁷

Ancestral Domain Registration Agency

Thanks to Bernadinus Steni from HuMa, www.huma.or.id who offered advice on this article. He is drafting a report on REDD in Indonesia for the next Accra Caucus meeting.

Thanks also to Patrick Anderson for his comments.

Note: this article has been slightly amended from the version in the print and PDF edition of the newsletter.

Notes