Deforestation and forests and
peatlands degradation has occured largely as a result of logging and land
clearing for palm oil and wood fibre plantations mainly in Kalimantan and
Sumatera islands and Islands of Riau. In a study by Asia Foundation, analyses
of experts’ opinions identified drivers of degradation in descending order:
palm oil, industrial timber plantations, coal mining, and actors who benefit
financially from forest exploitation. The provinces of Papua and West Papua are
now becoming the focal point for the Indonesia's government palm oil
development. The Merauke region of Papua
is now dominated by concessions, where land use dynamics are driven by the
government's Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate (MIFEE), while Sorong
and Manokwari regencies in West Papua province have become the palm oil
hotspots (Mongabay). Although the situation may be hard to definitively gauge
given spotty information, deforestation in Indonesian New Guinea may be more
widespread than any published data purport (Mongabay).
Presentely land and forest
governance in Indonesia is a very challenging field with main issues on the
improvement of transparency in decision making and increased communities'
participation--in order to make the government more accountable to the needs
and interests of forest dependent communities. The strengthening of the
national and local land and forest governance is required in addressing
deforestation and degradation and destruction of forests and peatlands in the
Country.
In the context of forest
dependent communities, gaps identified in an Asia Foundation study were,
unclear land tenure and uncertain land classifications, the influence of
business and political interests in policy and regulation, and ineffective land
use planning. Key strategies in inclusive sustainable forest management that
were identified were securing community land tenure and its integration into
spatial planning. To improve land and forest governance, the study recommends governmental,
researchers, donors and civil society to avail supports to communities to,
accelerate land classifications/tenure, integrate participatory maps into
spatial plans, monitor forests, conduct action research of land/forest
stakeholders, address financing, engage political economy analysis.
There were generally a nexus of
causes and effects of poor land and forest governance in Indonesia.
Decentralised governance since 2001 has caused local governments to be
unprepared in terms of technical and financial resources to implement effective
governance. Those are further combined
with unclear and overlapping regulations, culminates in consequence—low level
of enforcement, and subsequently low level of compliance/illegal activities—at
times, occurred as results of collusions of extraction enterprises and
officials. Consequently there have been great losses downstream, of/in income,
employment opportunities, government revenue, such as royalties and taxes, and
local as well as global environmental services. Illegal forest activities also
undermine legitimate forest enterprises by subjecting them to unfair
competition from under-priced products and by discouraging socially and
environmentally responsible long-term investments.
Poorly Excecuted Spatial Planning
Present poorly executed spatial
plans in the country is notably due to absence of a single map as a reference
to be used across different ministries and agencies in implementing geospatial thematic
works. There are on-going efforts to compile and synchronise data which will be
the basis for developing a single map for development in the country.
Greenpeace's interactive maps
have highlighted the vast scale of overlap of forest concessions--licences for
the same concessions in areas of 7 million hectares have been allocated to four
different companies. The Agency for Geospatial Information has also identified
a great number of overlaps of land uses and classifications, among forest
zones, mining concessions, transmigration area, borders, use permit, and
others. This overlap predominately
occurs when different agencies
issue licenses for the
same area but
in separate jurisdictions, for
instance protected areas, customary land, and resource extraction concessions. (Shahab, 2016; Forest Watch
Indonesia, 2017, In: Indonesia's One Map Policy: A Critical Look at the Social
Implications of a 'Mess' (PDF Download Available). Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319501418_Indonesia%27s_One_Map_Policy_A_Critical_Look_at_the_Social_Implications_of_a_%27Mess%27
[accessed Jan 15 2018].
Existing land and forest maps
have been widely known to cause disputes due to the overlap of land uses issue. According to data collected by KPA
(Agrarian Renewal Commission), a number of trends regarding land use conflicts
have risen since 2004. Over the past eleven years, the number of land-use
conflicts has increased 1,300% (Figure 2), the area of disputed land grew
exponentially (Figure 3), and the number of
injuries and arrests increased
3,975% and 3,871%, respectively (Figure 4). When you classify land
use conflicts (2004 through 2016)
by industrial sector, plantation and infrastructure cause the most
conflicts (43% and 31%
respectively), followed by forestry (7.3%) and mining (6.2%) (Figure 5).
For context, Indonesia’s national
elections occurred in 2004, 2009, and 2014. There have been
recent spikes in reported
conflicts with a drop between 2014 and 2015; however, conflicts quickly
The
report issued by the Consortium for Agrarian Reform demonstrates that in 2013
alone there were 369 agrarian conflicts involving lands with an area reaching
around 1.28m ha. Divided into sectors these conflicts comprised:
•
Plantation sector, 180 conflicts (48.78%);
•
Infrastructure sector, 105 conflicts (28.46%);
•
Mining sector, 38 conflicts (10.3%);
•
Forestry sector, 31 conflicts (8.4%);
•
Coastal sector/marine, nine conflicts (2.44%); and
• Other sectors, six conflicts
(1.63%). On average, almost every day there is more than one agrarian conflict
occurring in the country. And if we take a closer look at the data, most of the
conflicts happened due to problems with land overlapping. (https://oxfordbusinessgroup.com/overview/indonesia-introduces-one-map-policy-solution-overlapping-land-claims)
The government has endeavored to
accelerate efforts to correct the map through the One Map Policy (OMP), with
the main reference on basic geospatial map which is then synchronised
thematically with relevant ministries/agencies to produce a single national
geospatial reference. OMP is also a move to make drawing boundaries
a more democratic
process by including
local input and community
land claims. The map development has been scheduled for completion by
2019.
In the course of the map
development, government agencies have slowly withdrawn their promise of community
participation/transparency in order to speed up the process of collecting data.
As of late 2016, most involved government agencies have submitted their
existing thematic maps and BIG is in the process of verifying the data and
integrating it into their base geospatial information map, published in 20144
(Jong, 2016). (
Indonesia's One Map Policy: A Critical Look at the Social
Implications of a 'Mess' (PDF Download Available). Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319501418_Indonesia%27s_One_Map_Policy_A_Critical_Look_at_the_Social_Implications_of_a_%27Mess%27
[accessed Jan 15 2018].
WRI has close ties with the
national government and has worked with ministry officials
for some time. Their current
director was even the leader of UKP4 when the OMP was first
proposed. The maps produced by
WRI in partner with local communities are strong candidates for
incorporation into the OMP.
Other than the technical aspect
issue of existing map, there have been cases of the lack of political will to
adhere to spatial plans.
For example,
SEKALA, a geospatial consulting company which worked with the community,
published a report in 2008 that stated “[in Bali], government officials do not
adhere to spatial plans and issue land to villa developments when it has been
categorized for conservation or watershed management” (SEKALA, Nordic
Consulting Group & Papuan Civil Society Strengthening Foundation, 2008). (
Indonesia's
One Map Policy: A Critical Look at the Social Implications of a 'Mess' (PDF
Download Available). Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319501418_Indonesia%27s_One_Map_Policy_A_Critical_Look_at_the_Social_Implications_of_a_%27Mess%27
[accessed Jan 15 2018].
Lack Of Transparency On Key
Processes
The lack of political will to
adhere to spatial plan which have been consulted to community stakeholders is
an example of the lack of transparency in geospatial related activities. Political
will for spatial planning can be insecure, especially concerning economic
development and foreign investment. This issue could provide incentive for
officials implementing the OMP to work directly with the Corruption Eradication
Commission to maintain the
integrity of spatial
data while also identifying corruption from local
governments.
The Indonesian government
acknowledges the lack of transparency linked to corruption, such as corrupt
individuals selling concession concession licenses, use-rights, and resources
that otherwise may have not been available (i.e. been claimed by a different
stakeholder). KPK is actively involved in the issue of land disputes in
Indonesia and is currently entered into a ‘Joint Agreement’ with agencies
(including the Ministry of Forestry and Environment and the Ministry of
Agriculture) that promotes the collaboration between these various agencies
when granting land claims and land ownership (Astuti, personal communication, 22
Feb 2017).
Organizations with dominant
information and the authority to draw boundaries for
land use policies and business
concessions are the actors benefiting the most from mapping’s
inconsistencies. By using the
broad array of overlapping policies to their advantage, policy makers
and businessmen can claim
resources and access-rights to land without worrying about any
Failure to Comply With Land And Forest Laws And Regulations
ON one hand, the big corporations
have paved the way to more sustainable practices, e.g. the zero deforestation
policy, on the other is the “opaque” firms that continue to work in
ecologically sensitive areas. The failure of the Indonesian government to
reciprocate progressive reforms within palm oil industry is allowing
other
smaller,
more opaque firms to step in and start working in ecologically
sensitive areas that many larger firms avoid. While GAR’s failings undoubtedly
represent a step backwards, it is arguably the actions of the sections of the
industry not subject to the same reputational pressure that now pose the
gravest threat to Indonesia’s forests.
Several such companies were
featured in the report
Permitting
Crime, released by the Environmental Investigation Agency in December 2014.
This documents how these opaque companies continued to illegally destroy large
swaths of biodiverse, carbon-rich forests against the wishes of local
communities. The evidence indicates there are more than enough of these
companies to undermine the impact of the zero-deforestation commitments. (https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jun/11/palm-oil-industry-indonesia-corruption-communities-forests)
Collusion Between Local Officials And Business Interests
The statement that actors who
benefit financially play a role in causing deforestation and
peatlands degradation, received
35% agreement. Literature on forest governance suggests that
vested interests affect forest
and land governance in a number of ways, such as by profiting
from the expansion of oil palm
and industrial plantations for pulp and paper (Hunt 2010) (quoted from Asia
Foundation’s Study)
Poor governance contribute
significantly to occurrence of official and business interests collusions.
Presently, land use and classification attributes in maps and land use regulations
are significantly desynchronized —due to lack of coordination of different
regulating and sector entities at national, provincial and district levels. Thematic
maps are also often developed without availabilities of relevant biophysical
attributes of the areas. Such inconsistencies provide opportunities for making
“flexible discretions and interpretations” especially the administration of use
permits.
Poor governance processes were
identified to result in different licenses being
allocated for the same land area.
This occurs when one or more local and central authorities
issue licenses for an area of
land that conflicts or overlaps with an existing land title. There
are a number of reasons for this.
Decentralisation devolved authority to local governments to
issue land use regulations. Local
regulations are not however always aligned with national
regulations. Another complication
is that different land use types can have different, and often
conflicting, regulations and
license obligations. Inaccurate or conflicting maps is another
causal factor. Land use planning
processes rely on complete and accurate maps to provide
information about actual forest
conditions, including forest cover, land type and tenure
boundaries. Yet a lack of
coordination across horizontal and vertical levels of government,
unclear forest and land
allocations (KPK 2010), and a lack of clarity around land tenure
including for recognizing adat
tenure (McCarthy 2009) is resulting in inaccurate maps. The
implications of overlapping
licenses for land activities are, in some regions, resulting in more than the
total area of land being allocated for industry activities, leaving no land for
community use.
Lack Of Community Consultation And Participation
In an interview at SEKALA
headquarters, Pak Ketut mentioned
that several local NGOs and communities have mapped areas
and presented their data to the
government, only to be rejected (sometimes multiple times)
(personal communication, 29 Nov
2016).
The Roundtable on Sustainable
Palm Oil (RSPO) has also found that Golden Agri-Resources (GAR), the biggest
palm oil producer in Indonesia, has
failed
to respect the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous
communities.
Issues on One Map Policy
On the other hand, by making
spatial data legible to everyone in Indonesia – including
individual citizens – mapping
could be efficient and effective at the grassroots level. As long as
the data itself is correct, the
spatial organization of an area can be used to defend land claims. A
population with access to
official spatial data can more easily defend their land, as long as their
previous claims were recognized.
Within this authority however, lies another level of political
power. Communities are often
spoken of as distinct, unified entities when in reality they are
anything but. Conflict within and
between communities is quite common and whoever represents
these communities has the most
power when it comes to making claims to certain lands. Those
with more information, influence,
and a higher political position within the community are more
likely to have their voices heard
than other members of the community. This puts certain people
at a distinct disadvantage.
In their respective interviews,
Dr. Astuti and Dr. Kurniawan have argued that the
government will be the one to
benefit the most from the OMP. Dr. Astuti went so far as to say that
the government “will have a very
powerful surveillance mechanism to govern not only the private
sector, but also the indigenous
communities…and citizens of Indonesia” and that the “One Map
Policy, in a way...can be good in
terms of providing clarification for all the questions, but it also
provides a very powerful weapon
for the government” (Astuti, personal communication, 22 Feb
2017). The reason that the
government will claim more power from the OMP is because
communities are not able to use
spatial data as is: the “communities require support and resources
from the NGOs and the NGOs have
limited capacity because they rely on donor support” (Astuti,
personal communication, 22 Feb
2017). Dr. Kurniawan further states that the OMP “is intended to 35
strengthen the national
government’s power in order to control for land use development”
(Kurniawan, personal
communication, 7 Feb 2017).
Dr. Astuti and Dr. Kurniawan are
likely correct in their assertions and the Indonesian
government will, in the end,
benefit the most from the OMP when it is implemented. Dr. Astuti
brings up a good point when she
mentions that communities rely entirely on NGOs in order to
process spatial data. Funding
sources for NGOs are low and the more communities that want to
use the data provided by the OMP,
the more pressure will be placed on these NGOs.
Land Tenure Security and Improved Land Classification
In the study which analysed exoperts’
opinions on drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, Asia Foundation
found that tenure security and sustainable management approach are
interrelated—as unsecure property rights and land tenure results in a lack of
regulation and subjects forest to predatory use.
‘When local communities perceive
they will lose access to local resources… traditional land use controls
are often ignored, and
smallholders’ clearing and land grabbing often exacerbates the
corporate and government ones.’
Conversely, when property rights
are secure, local communities or other stakeholders are
more likely to manage forests
sustainably (Agrawal & Ostrom 2001; Contreras-Hermosilla &
Fay 2005). Providing forest
communities with secure forest tenure therefore becomes a
necessary condition for enhancing
their participation in forest protection (Safitri 2010).
Consequently, an intervention
identified to respond to this issue was the revision of land
tenure laws and property
rights to integrate adat (customary) and local community forest and
land management systems in
Indonesian law (Quoted from: Asia Foundation’s study).
Another issue is with regards to desynchronized
land use/land classification maps among government agencies, various levels of
government jurisdictions and ministries. Interventions to respond to these
issues include creating transparency in the allocation of land and forest
use permits by making land permit data publicly available (47%).
Transparency in the issuing of
permits will ensure that information on permits for logging,
mining, palm oil expansion and
other forest uses is publicly available, reducing instances of
overlapping permits.
