Lately many people are debating the government's plan to create and implement a moratorium on forest policy. One of interest is the article in the Kompas daily Handadhari Transtoto (February 28, 2011) with fairly provocative title "'Suicide" with Forest Moratorium. "The article suggests a number of problems when the policy was enacted. As a member of the Standing Committee Forest Products Industry Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Indonesia (see Kompas, March 2, 2011), the view that Handadhari Transtoto anxiety most likely reflects the forestry industry towards a moratorium policy. So it is not surprising then managed to invite the government's response.
Secretary General of the Ministry of Forestry, Daryanto, said that the forestry industry is actually nothing much to worry about a moratorium on forest policy that still can be tried in production forests are damaged and displaced (Kompas, March 2, 2011). In addition, Daryanto also stressed that among non-governmental organizations do not oppose the draft forest moratorium Coordinating Ministry for Economy version with the draft of the Task Force designed REDD +
In order to understand the sit his case then we need to examine what exactly is the meaning of the idea of a moratorium on deforestation which is currently being received soroton public. For Transtoto Handadhari, meaning forest moratorium appears to be more on the prohibition of felling and utilization of forest areas for industrial activities that framed a long time. Indication that he understood in that context can be seen from the example of experience in Aceh and Vietnam moratorium has put forward. Policies that place a moratorium on the two stresses on the prohibition of cutting down trees in all areas for long-term moratorium until all prerequisites are met. Both in Vietnam or in Aceh, after the moratorium and then the wood needs to rely on supplies from outside the province (in the case of Aceh) and neighboring countries (in the case of Vietnam). Understanding this moratorium is not wrong, but the question whether the goal moratorium in the two cases together with the context of a moratorium which is currently being debated. What is different from the two models of the moratorium would I explain below.
There are two key elements which is the basic principle of a moratorium. First, the background of the underlying purpose pembelakuan moratorium, and second, the criteria for improvement of governance and management that will be corrected during a pause or moratorium on enforcement.
In view of the objectives that lie behind them, some were made with the aim to ban all logging activities, but some are made for the purpose of the arrangement. Thus, despite using the same words, but among those who push a moratorium on forest policy in fact does not necessarily have the same meaning and purpose to be achieved from a policy of moratorium.
Thus, one fundamental difference between a moratorium on forest policy in Aceh with a moratorium on deforestation which is currently being designed in my opinion the goal to be achieved. If it is in Aceh focus more on stopping logging after learning of a series of natural disasters with the culprit uncontrolled logging. While a moratorium on deforestation which is currently being compiled was primarily aimed at encouraging the improvement of governance and management of the forest to cut carbon emissions that accompany deforestation, forest degradation and changes in land use. In addition, the maturity, the moratorium imposed in Aceh long implementation period, while forest moratorium that was in the idea today during a break its application is limited. If you view the statement of Secretary-General of the Ministry of Forestry that there are two drafts of a moratorium on deforestation, the question we as lay public is whether the two draft moratorium is touted to have the same goal, namely improving the governance and management of the forest to cut carbon emissions. The emergence of two draft would indicate a difference between the two. The question is then whether the differences in the contents of the two drafts is a fundamental and influential in efforts to improve governance?
Because the two draft was not officially opened to the public, then we can not criticize the content. My aim through this paper, therefore, more to give an idea of why to improve forest governance and management of a moratorium is needed.
Sedehana enough to actually understand it. If we used an illustration those who are to clean up the house to rearrange the contents, a moratorium is like a pause to not receive guests at the time we clean up the house. In the context of improved forest governance was meant to hold first new permits before there is clarity about what we all, as a nation, agreed to in order, set the size used to organize it, what are the steps to make the arrangement, and so on.
Before you can understand about what should be in order, then we first need to know what is meant by non-forest area and forest area and the problems associated with governance and the management. In accordance with what is stated in the Forestry Law No. 41 of 1999 which became the foundation Ministry of Forestry, forest area is the area designated by the government. In case this is the area defined by the Ministry of Forestry as forest area. The reality is if we to the field, the forest area of this set can be areas that are still forested (still found stands of trees) or that are not forested. So do not be surprised if on paper the status of the forests but the facts on the ground there is no single stand of trees. Even in some places, forests are sometimes encountered in the field is the physical facts of oil palm plantations, highways, government buildings, residential areas, transmigration settlements, agricultural fields of the people, and so forth. This is important because what is proposed here that the above map is different from facts on the ground. If the difference between what is shown on the map and what happens on the field is very massive and widespread, certainly there are fundamental problems of our forest management. What is the root of the problem I will explain below.
Forest area claimed by the Ministry of forestry based on latest available data is 130 million hectares or about 68 percent of the total land area around the Indonesian archipelago. In some areas of this forest area there are almost covering the province (the case of Central Kalimantan Province), or district. In fact there are several districts splitting the entire district territory is forest. In fact, in the forest areas there should be no activities inconsistent with its land classification functions of production, conservation, protection, and conversion. So from the legal aspect, the facilities built by the government, people's activities, and private activities that have not received written permission from the Ministry of Forestry in essence can be considered "illegal." In the provinces and districts which currently almost entirely still a forest area that means almost all development activities and community life in the region was basically "illegal" from the perspective of the Forestry Law that became the foundation Ministry of Forestry.
There is a real fact not widely known widely and is actually very worrying. From the forest area of the claimed new Ministry of Forestry little has been done at the boundaries and determined, according to the Forestry Act. In the Ministry of Forestry is called an affirmation process forest. Referring to the decision of the Ministry of Forestry itself, there are four steps related to the strengthening of the forest. The first step is to prepare a map and suggestions about the boundaries of the region. Step two is to make the process of boundary delineation. At this stage usually arise differences of opinion, especially with people around the bus route boundaries of where lies the boundary between forest and park their rights. The negotiations therefore necessary to look for common ground with the parties that this disagree. Once there is agreement about the boundaries on the ground, then proceed with step three of pengesahaan area boundaries, including the determination of pal-stakes and boundary markers in the field. The final step is that all parties signed the minutes of boundary endorsement. Information about this boundary later incorporated into the Statute so that it can be seen by the public at large. This confirmation process is part of the work Panita Tata Limit established and approved by the Regent or the local mayor. The members of the committee are the elements of relevant government and local community representatives.
But the actual process is good enough the way it was slow. Until 2005, then about 12 percent of forest area that has been designated the Ministry of Forestry who have performed the inaugural boundaries (Contreras-Hermosilla and Fay, 2005). This figure may now have slightly increased, but I do not believe in the six years after that, there was a significant acceleration.
As a result of not doing this boundary delinasi process affecting a very large uncertainty. Many people who live around the forest did not know that the homes, farms, and they use area, according to government map of the forests. Many government buildings and facilities built in the region itself which, according to a map of the Ministry of Forestry is a forest area. Unclear boundaries on the ground also causes forest enforcement ineffective. So no wonder then that the conflict in forest areas as if there is no end and what is the subject of conflict is a multi-layered like tangled yarn. There's even an impression is left matted without a constructive solution. Local governments and local communities because they feel has never consulted to agree on the boundaries of the area to be no sense of belonging to the region. Pull attractive center of interest (in this case the Ministry of Forestry) and local (provincial and district) of forest area and non-forest area resulting in everywhere and this is one root of the problem why until now only a few provinces that successfully complete the Plan Provincial Spatial (RTRWP).
What I mentioned above is part of the governance issue that requires serious treatment, and even beyond the scope of the debate about the commitment of 1 billion dollar fund from the Norwegian Government on climate change. So serious in fact, because any policy issued by the government related to the allocation of land in forest areas in Indonesia will certainly lead to conflict.
By looking at the complexity of the problem, the improvement of governance needs to be thorough in the forest. In the pause that licensing is one component of a moratorium on deforestation in the context of improving governance should be used to re-arrange and agree on what indicators should be used to establish land-use functions that include not only pay attention to ecological safety factors, but safety also in social and economic context. These improvements should not only focus on the private interests of big capital and for the purpose of increasing revenue (revenue) local government alone, but also need to consider the interests of citizens that safety depends on the soundness of his life managing the natural resources around them. Problem of the slow process of strengthening the forest area which is based on the agreement of all parties on the region boundaries need to get serious attention and need to find the way that the fairest solution.
One of the conditions that determine "success" a moratorium on deforestation in the context of improving forest governance is a process must be inclusive. What is meant by this inclusive not only of actors involved in the process of determining criteria and direction of the arrangement, but also inclusive in terms of accommodating the interests not only from an economic standpoint, but also the interests of safety within an ecological context, in the context of food security, as well as in context of the safety and welfare of the community groups that had interests are often marginalized.
If the process is quite transparent, based on the principle of fairness to all parties, then the benefits will be felt by all. Improved governance is basically done consistently will increase the certainty of tenure (security of tenure) to all parties including the private sector. Certainty of tenure is a necessary condition that can not be in bargaining if we want to get the benefits of REDD scheme +
The hope is that the role to oversee the process of improving forest governance is run by a body that is relatively free "conflict of interest" and not biased interests of a particular sector. So far that was the complaint that many parties, that forest management is very biased interests of a particular sector.
If the guard is given away to the sector which has been also part of the problem, then it can be presumed that the results are not going anywhere. Opportunity to make real change has been given to them since the reformation of more than 10 years ago. But up to now in the forestry sector specific reforms to improve corporate governance aspects of the course is slow and its direction far from expectations. So there's no harm in us now try another strategy. It challenges a lot, but what's wrong for the try.
This is probably a must-have basic understanding of the Task Force (Task Force) under the coordination of REDD + UKP4 (Unit of Supervision and Control of Development). Though, personally, I'm actually less comfortable with the name of the Task Force that is associated with REDD (Reducing Emision from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), as memorable as if we perform repairs only for the purpose of governance REDD. Although indeed one of the benefits of doing this is improving governance Indonesia are most likely to capture the financial benefits of REDD schemes it. As described earlier, there should be no existence of the scheme and there is no promise of such funding from Norway, improving forest governance that we must do, not just for the sake of the environment such as what is voiced by the activists of social movements, but also for clarity mastery of the people, government, and business is being and will invest in Indonesia.
It seems to be seen also that it seems that might be done is a moratorium on granting permits for land use permit because of the new government is not possible to cancel the licenses already granted before the moratorium imposed policy. Worries that the moratorium has implications on the economic suicide is also not supported by the government's own data. The expansion of industrial timber estates and oil palm plantations can still be done without a new permit because 50 percent of plantation area that has been licensed was not planted (data Ministry of Forestry and Chairman statement APHI, Bisnis Indonesia, 17 February 2011), and millions of hectares of oil palm in Sumatra and Kalimantan, which is unlicensed (even partial status HGU) has not planted (data BPN).
Written by: Suraya Afiff
No comments:
Post a Comment