The future for Papuan forests

Down to Earth No 69  May 2006

Papuan forests are the focus of a power struggle between Jakarta and Jayapura. Legal and illegal logging are causing rampant deforestation, but have also disenfranchised the indigenous population. While a coalition of NGOs is calling for a complete stop to large-scale logging in West Papua, Indonesian and Papuan forestry authorities are trying to work out a new logging policy under Special Autonomy to benefit local livelihoods and manage forests sustainably.

How much is left?

Forest Watch Indonesia (FWI) recently analysed the official data and available maps for West Papua. Their results show that Papua's forests are disappearing much faster than had been thought (see box).

The main cause is large-scale commercial logging. As lowland forests in Sumatra and Kalimantan are progressively logged out, timber companies have shifted their attention to eastern Indonesia and Papua. The most extensive remaining forests are in Papua. The Indonesian government has zoned some 22 million hectares of Papuan forest as 'production forest'. Of the over 11 million hectares given to 65 logging companies, four million are in Papua's remaining intact forests - areas that conservationists are calling 'Paradise forests' (see box).

"Unless large-scale logging concessions are stopped, Papua's forests are doomed", said Christian Poerba, FWI's director. There is little monitoring of logging operations, particularly in remote locations, and companies often log illegally outside their concessions. So much larger areas are logged than permitted under their licences. Logging trails made by concessionaires also provide access for other illegal logging operations.

Threats to 'Paradise forests'

Greenpeace's flagship, Rainbow Warrior, arrived in Jayapura in March as part of its campaign to save the 'Paradise forests' of the Asia-Pacific from illegal and destructive logging. It then sailed along the Papuan coast and docked in Jakarta in April, where activists met forestry minister Kaban and environment minister Witoelar. Their message was that forest degradation and destruction threaten the livelihoods of West Papua's 2 million population and its wealth of flora and fauna (see box).

"A handful of companies have wiped out much of Indonesia's forests. They must be stopped from finishing off our last intact forests in Papua. The Indonesian government must put in place a moratorium on large-scale commercial logging activities in the intact forest landscapes of Indonesia, starting with Papua, until national and local forestry policies have been reviewed, proper landscape planning has been conducted and a significant increase in protected areas have been established," said Emmy Hafild, Executive Director of Greenpeace Southeast Asia.

If the Indonesian government is serious about controlling illegal logging, it should carefully monitor the activities of the six large wood-processing plants in West Papua which handle all the timber felled by the logging companies. When the Rainbow Warrior visited Sorong, activists watched plywood from the Henrison Iriana mill, a subsidiary of Kayu Lapis Indonesia (KLI) - one of Indonesia's largest logging companies, being loaded onto two ships. The shipments of 9,000 cubic metres of timber - equivalent to more than 2,500 trees - were destined for Korea, Japan and the US.

Greenpeace has handed this information and other data that shows companies with large-scale concessions to have broken forestry regulations and destroyed forests to the Forestry Department and Environment Ministry and is pressing them to take action. It also presented KLI with its 'Golden Chainsaw Award' and plans to target international buyers in a campaign to stop them buying KLI wood, which is exported mostly to the US, Japan, Canada and Netherlands.

Political incentives for change

Greenpeace is one of many CSOs calling for small-scale community logging as an alternative to large-scale concessions in West Papua. They point to PNG and the Solomon Islands as models of forest policy which respect indigenous rights while meeting local communities' needs. An Ecoforestry Forum, in which WWF-Sahel plays a leading role, has held meetings and field visits to PNG over several years to explore the possibilities for Papua. Forestry officials from Jakarta and Papua have been working together on a new policy for Papua's forests incorporating these inputs since September 2005. The political need for this is obvious for several reasons. Papuans are increasingly aware that while their rich natural resources - minerals and fisheries, as well as forests - make the biggest contribution to state revenues, they remain in poverty. In 1999, for example, production by industrial timber concessions in the Province reached 4.98 million m3, according to Forestry Department statistics. This would have generated approximately US$250 million in forest revenues (PSDH), plus an additional US$65 million in money for the national Reforestation Fund (DR). The reality is that extensive tracts of Papua's forests still have a high potential for timber extraction. Yet if a map of community land use is overlaid with the zoning for large-scale forest exploitation, the potential for further conflict in West Papua is immediately apparent.

The issue of who has the authority to determine forestry use has been a bone of contention since Indonesia introduced regional autonomy in 2001 - the more so in West Papua where Jakarta dragged its heels in implementing Special Autonomy.

In particular, there was no legal clarity over local concessions for co-operatives in the transition to decentralisation. According to Jakarta's interpretation of the national Forestry Act (No 41/1999), the only legal basis for communities to access timber was the 20 m3 per family allowed by regulation PP34/2002. Meanwhile, the Papuan authorities issued community logging permits (IPKMA) to cooperatives (Kopermas) which they considered legal, with the intention of increasing economic opportunities for indigenous Papuans - in line with Special Autonomy.

Matters came to a head when central government launched Operation Hutan Lestari II to curb 'illegal logging'. All community logging licences were withdrawn, leaving communities with no legal alternative to generate income from their forests. Marthen Kayoi, a senior Papuan forestry official, was charged with violating forestry law and detained for three weeks (see DTE 65). In February 2006, the court dismissed the cases against him - Jakarta and Jayapura have now agreed that issuing IPKMA was outside the definition of 'illegal logging'.

Challenges

Forestry officials from local and central government have had to confront several other dilemmas in their attempts to redefine Papua's forest policy over the last eight months.

Papua's governor and other elected representatives are keen to improve people's livelihoods and timber is the most obvious marketable product to generate higher incomes. However, selling Papua's resources quickly and cheaply to outsiders is a political bombshell: forests are a resource that must be protected for future generations. Meanwhile, Jakarta must face up to the fact that, under Special Autonomy, there is no 'state forest' in Papua as it all comes under the definition of community land. On the other hand, it does not want to set the precedent of granting logging rights to indigenous communities. Both sides recognise the need to avoid the problems of IPKMA permits, and to improve the Kopermas system (see box).

A radical forest policy

The result of the negotiations is a new forest policy for Papua with a sustainable system of forest management units (KPHP) based on river basins/watersheds (DAS) and adat territories. This means that the zoning of Papuan forests, imposed by Jakarta in the Suharto era, will have to be renegotiated.

Customary rights (adat) are a central element, partly because they can operate at a very small-scale: most clans (the smallest adat unit) control around 100 hectares. Another reason is that special autonomy legislation recognises adat. So one of the challenges now becomes how logging of adat forests can be supported legally. The most likely vehicle is a Perdasus - provincial legislation under the Special Autonomy law (No21/2001).

The draft Papuan forestry regulation gives Papuan communities the rights to manage small-scale logging businesses, similar to those in PNG. It will also bring Papua into line with the likely requirements for Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) which European Union member states will soon be negotiating with Indonesia as a means of stamping out the trade in illegal timber. It is, in many respects, a unique and ambitious policy instrument.

Firstly, a Perdasus has significant status. Unlike the usual local regulations (Perda), they can be issued without an Operating Regulation (PP) being issued at national level under Indonesian law. The only other Perdasus issued to date has been the one to establish the Papuan People's Assembly (MRP), now the highest authority in Papua. The only other Perdasus issued to date has been the one to establish the Papuan People's Assembly (MRP), now the highest authority in Papua.

Secondly, this regulation has far-reaching powers, providing the basis for the renegotiation of land allocation between communities and large-scale investors. It mandates the mapping of customary land; the recognition of customary institutions; and the involvement of Papuan people in all aspects of forest management, from planning to harvesting. Other progressive elements include the requirement for transparency in decision-making about licences; mechanisms for consultations with communities before land is allocated; an Ombudsman to investigate complaints; other mediation procedures; and third party audits.

Thirdly, central government and logging companies with an interest in long-term sustainable forest management have, so far, welcomed the proposal. Only 23 HPH are still operational in West Papua. The rest are stagnant or bankrupt. This partly reflects escalating conflict with local communities in the absence of adequate land administration. Others have lost out to hit-and-run operators. So a key argument behind the Perdasus is that it works to provide legal certainty for all involved - security of livelihoods for communities, security of investment (and incentive for SFM) for concessions, as well as security of revenues for government. It remains to be seen whether the forestry minister is prepared to do away with the production forest zoning which the new policy implies.

Strengthening local institutions

The proposed regulation will be meaningless unless politicians in Jakarta stop using West Papua's resources as their personal bargaining chips. Even as forestry officials were striving to reach agreement over the final form of the new policy, a massive deal to sell Papuan timber to China was announced (see FDI section, above).

The Papuan forestry service will also need to be strengthened if it is to implement the new Perdasus successfully. This includes substantial capacity building and service provision to communities in mapping and managing their forest resources. Illegal military control over forest resources is another barrier to sustainable forest management which must be eliminated.

Last, but not least, the Papuan people need a good understanding of their legal rights. International governments and organisations that want to protect Papuan forests should therefore look to developing strong civil society organisations, not stop at marvelling at new species in the 'lost world' of West Papua.

(Sources: Reuter 1/Mar/06; Greenpeace press release 15/Mar/2006, 12/Apr/06; Antara 12/Apr/06; Kompas 15/Apr/06; Jakarta Post 21/Apr/06)