Topic: palm oil

Coming Soon: Global Forest Watch 2.0

James Anderson — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 08:03:32 -0500

Welcome to the home of Global Forest Watch 2.0, a powerful near real-time forest monitoring system that unites satellite technology, data sharing, and human networks around the world to fight deforestation.

GFW 2.0 is currently under development, and will launch in late 2013.

Read more below, and email gfw2@wri.org to participate in the pilot testing period or be notified when GFW 2.0 launches. Please note that as we prepare for the launch, the original Global Forest Watch website has been redirected to this page.

Watch a Short Preview of Global Forest Watch 2.0 at the UN Forum on Forests 10, in Istanbul.

Watch the full version here

Speakers:

Zulkifli Hasan, Minister of Forestry, Indonesia
Kerri-Ann Jones, Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Wu Hongbo, Under-Secretary-General, United Nations
Naoko Ishii, CEO and Chairperson, Global Environment Facility
Tim Christophersen, Senior Program Officer, Forests and Climate Change, UNEP
Nigel Sizer, Director, Global Forests Initiative, World Resources Institute

Photo by David Gilbert

WHY FORESTS, WHY NOW?

Forests provide food jobs, raw materials, climate benefits and more. But without clear, up-to-date information, governments, companies and communities lack the tools to monitor and manage these resources.

We can track a company’s financial information daily, but information about forests is often years out of date.

Deforestation continues today in part because by the time satellite images are available, analyzed, and shared, the forest clearing is long done. The illegal loggers have moved on; cattle are already grazing amidst stumps; the oil palm plantation has been established. We simply find out too late.

New technologies can overcome these challenges

Fortunately, a convergence of technologies and human networks offers the ability to address these challenges for the first time:

Advances in satellite and remote sensing technology, including the launch of NASA’s Landsat 8 in early 2013, and new private systems, enable higher spatial resolution analysis and much more rapid updates of information. This has enabled the development of near-real-time forest cover change detection.
Brazilian partner IMAZON, is making its Amazon Alert System available through GFW 2.0, and also the DETER system which is innovating in detection of forest degradation. Brazil has seen a remarkable drop in deforestation in the Amazon of almost 80 percent partly due to improved linked to more effective use of satellite imagery.
Cloud computing and open source software can now be used to rapidly process and interpret large volumes of satellite data at low cost by utilizing clusters of servers scattered around the world. Google Earth Engine’s team is partnered with Global Forest Watch 2.0 to optimize easy access to cloud computing-based forest cover information.
High speed internet connectivity enables sending data and forest maps processed in North America, Europe, or Singapore to laptops and mobile phones in Jakarta, Kinshasa, Lima, Vladivostok, and other corners of the globe.
Smartphones are more common than ever and can be used by anyone in the field to download maps and satellite images, as well as upload GPS coordinates and photographs from the ground.
Crowdsourcing using simple web interfaces can empower thousands if not millions of people to gather and share information, participate in forest monitoring, and hold decision-makers accountable. • Social media outlets are creating a flat, networked world in which information travels fast, communities self-organize, and people get mobilized.

ABOUT GLOBAL FOREST WATCH 2.0

These enhanced technologies and social movements are the foundation for Global Forest Watch 2.0. GFW 2.0 will unite a near-real-time deforestation alert system, complementary satellite imagery and monitoring systems, WRI’s data-rich collection of maps, mobile technology, and a networked world to create never-before-possible transparency for faraway forests.

The platform is currently under development, and will be launched in late 2013.

This powerful new platform will enable responsible companies, NGOs, the media, and progressive government leaders to hold those responsible accountable for forest management.

GFW 2.0 can be useful to multiple groups of users involved with the sustainable management of forests:

Buyers of sustainable commodities. GFW 2.0 will enable buyers of sustainably sourced commodities―such as certified timber, palm oil, soya, and beef―to confirm adherence to or violations of supplier commitments to “no deforestation,” “no clearing of high conservation value forest,” and related criteria.
Suppliers of sustainable commodities. GFW 2.0 will help suppliers of sustainable commodities prove to buyers, investors, governments, and NGOs that their commodities are adhering to best forest management practices, national laws, criteria of the relevant commodity roundtables, or investor lending conditions.
Governments. GFW 2.0 is designed to help progressive elements in governments better enforce sustainable forest management and forest protection laws. GFW 2.0 is also designed to be a trusted, independent, and user-friendly way to help investors in REDD+ and other forest conservation projects monitor performance and hold countries accountable to their commitments on greenhouse gas emission reductions and forest conservation.
Conservation and community organizations. GFW 2.0 will enable NGOs dedicated to forest conservation, indigenous rights, and forest communities to identify deforestation hotspots as they arise and quickly mobilize action to curtail further clearing.
The media. GFW 2.0 will enable local, national, and international media to ring the alarm bell on deforestation hotspots around the globe at a pace never-before-possible, and thereby put pressure on governments, companies, and others to curtail forest conversion and illegal logging in time

Applying new technology

GFW 2.0 combines satellites, new algorithms, cloud computing, mobile phone technologies, and WRI databases to connect images, maps, photos, and data with forest clearing alerts ultimately within two weeks of significant deforestation occurring.

Because GFW 2.0 will be powered by Google Earth Engine and Earth Builder, it will bring to target users a seamless experience of the best technology offered by WRI, Google, and their partners, as Bloomberg does for the world’s vast, complex array of financial information.

Mobilizing human networks

GFW 2.0 will mobilize networks of people to ensure sustainable management of forests and greater forest conservation. Global Forest Watch “anchor” NGOs in each priority country or region, will actively use and contribute content in an open-source, network model.

These groups will include ScanEx and its non-profit affiliate Transparent World in Russia, Imazon in Brazil and their Amazon-wide network of partners across the seven neighboring countries, the Observatoire Satellital des Forêts d’Afrique Centrale (OSFAC) which covers the Central Africa region. More partners in Canada, China, Europe, and the United States are joining every day.

Watch a Sneak Peek of GFW 2.0 presented at Rio+20

Video streaming by Ustream

Speakers:

Carlos Souza Jr., Senior Researcher, IMAZON
Charles Barber, Forest Division Chief, Bureau of Oceans, Environment and Science, U.S. Department of State
Rebecca Moore, Google
Nigel Sizer, Director, Global Forest Initiative, World Resources Institute

Watch UNEP’s press conference featuring GFW 2.0 at COP18 in Doha

Speakers:

Mr. Heru Prasetyo, Deputy I, Presidential Delivery Unit on Development Monitoring and Oversight, Government of Indonesia
Tim Christophersen, Senior Programme Officer, Forests and Climate Change, UNEP
Jane Feehan, Natural Resources Specialist, European Investment Bank
Nigel Sizer, Director, Global Forest Initiative, World Resources Institute

Watch a Sneak Peek of Global Forest Watch 2.0 at the U.S. Pavilion, COP18 in Doha

Video streaming by Ustream

Speakers:

Nigel Sizer, Director, Forests Initiative, World Resources Institute
Nirarta “Koni” Samadhi, Head of REDD+ Task Force Working Group on Moratorium Monitoring, Presidential Work Unit on Monitoring and Development Oversight (UKP4), Government of Indonesia
Per Fredrik Ilsaas Pharo, Director, International Climate and Forest Initiative, Norwegian Ministry of the Environment, Government of Norway
Tim Christophersen, Senior Program Officer, Forests and Climate Change, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

Read more about WRI’s forest work here.

RELEASE: Two New Online Mapping Applications Launched to Support Sustainable Palm Oil in Indonesia

James Anderson — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:08:26 -0400

Forest Cover Analyzer and Suitability Mapper to be used by business and government to reduce deforestation

The World Resources Institute (WRI) is launching two powerful online mapping applications that offer unprecedented capabilities to support industry and government efforts to achieve more sustainable palm oil production in Indonesia. WRI developed these web tools in consultation with the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and many of its members.

The Suitability Mapper empowers companies and government planners to use a standard, easily replicable method to find potential sites for sustainable palm oil production and plan field assessments for further investigation. The Forest Cover Analyzer provides a unique set of monitoring tools to help buyers, investors, and governments strengthen incentives for avoiding deforestation when developing new plantations.

“Palm oil holds tremendous opportunities for people and business in Indonesia—and should be produced in a way that avoids destruction of vibrant lands and forests,” said Andrew Steer, President of WRI. “These dynamic new online tools will enable companies to better identify the best places for palm oil production and assess deforestation and other factors that are critical for long-term sustainability of this industry.”

Palm oil is the world’s most traded vegetable oil and a major agricultural product of Indonesia, the world’s leading producer. Last year, Indonesia exported 23.5 million tons of crude palm oil, worth about US$19.7 billion. The rapid expansion of oil palm plantations has contributed in places to the loss of Indonesia’s biodiversity and carbon-rich natural forests. At the same time, Indonesia has become the world’s leading producer of RSPO-certified sustainable palm oil, which is produced according to a set of principles and criteria that include avoiding forest loss.

The RSPO was formed in 2004 with the objective of promoting the growth and use of sustainable palm oil products through credible global standards and engagement of stakeholders. The RSPO aims to transform markets to make sustainable palm oil the norm.

“Development of technology and tools such as WRI’s Suitability Mapper and the Forest Cover Analyzer enables RSPO members to practice sustainable oil palm production in a more credible way by identifying the land areas with the least impact to the environment,” said Darrel Webber, Secretary General of the RSPO.

“These two websites make it quick and easy to answer questions that we hear over and over again from industry and government officials” said Beth Gingold, POTICO Research Lead, WRI.

The Suitability Mapper helps users find potential sites for sustainable palm oil production, using a customizable map. The Forest Cover Analyzer allows users to view change in forest cover over time in areas of their choice, using up-to-date satellite data.

Both applications currently cover Kalimantan, the Indonesian portion of the island of Borneo, and will expand to other areas in the months to come.

The following are examples of data derived from the new applications:

There are more than 14 million hectares of potentially suitable land for sustainable palm oil in Kalimantan.
Kalimantan experienced more than 2 million hectares of forest cover loss from 2005 (the RSPO cut-off date for primary forest clearing) to 2010.
There are more than 33 million hectares of high conservation value forest and wetland in Kalimantan with high likelihood of containing high carbon stocks and levels of biodiversity.

The applications were developed in partnership with Sekala, Rainforest Alliance, SarVision, University of Maryland, South Dakota State University, and Puter Foundation. They were designed with Blue Raster and are powered by ESRI.

This project has received generous support from: The United Kingdom Climate Change Unit Indonesia, Johnson & Johnson Family of Consumer Companies, NewPage Corporation, Walmart, The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, and the International Finance Corporation - Biodiversity and Agricultural Commodities Program. (The International Finance Corporation is not responsible for the implementation or administration of this project).

Visit the website http://www.wri.org/project/potico for more information and to access the web tools.

Watch a video preview of the two tools here.

# # # #

RELEASE: Indonesian President Yudhoyono Honored with “Valuing Nature Award” in NYC

Michael Oko — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 18:10:14 -0400

Three leading global environmental and conservation organizations are honoring Indonesia’s President H.E. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono with the first-ever “Valuing Nature Award” for his leadership in recognizing the importance of natural resources and working to conserve them. Indonesia, with an area of nearly 2 million square kilometers (772,204 square miles) and over 2 hundred million people, is one of the most important countries when it comes to sustainability, particularly in relation to its globally important biodiversity, forest and marine resources. The award will be presented by the Nature Conservancy, World Resources Institute and WWF at a dinner in New York City, coinciding with the United Nations General Assembly meetings.

President Yudhoyono is specifically being recognized for his leadership in establishing the multilateral Coral Triangle Initiative, which will sustain extraordinary marine and coastal resources in six countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste. This region is one of the most biologically diverse areas, home to more than 75 percent of all known coral species and more than 37 percent of coral reef fish. In total, the coral reefs, mangroves, and associated natural habitats are valued at US $2.3 billion. These resources provide jobs, food, and business opportunities for millions of people in the region. Catalyzed by President Yudhoyono, the Coral Triangle Initiative brings together an unprecedented partnership of governments with public sector, private sector, NGOs and others, and offers a model for connecting marine conservation to the health and security of local communities.

Under President Yudhoyono’s administration, Indonesia pledged to achieve 20 million hectares of marine protected areas across the country by 2020, in which the protection will be strictly enforced and sufficiently financed. To date, Indonesia has achieved 13.4 million hectares of marine protected areas, considerably exceeding the target of 10 million hectares by 2010.

The three organizations recognize President Yudhoyono’s significant contributions to valuing nature and look forward to his continued strong conservation leadership.

Following are statements from representatives of the three organizations:

“Some leaders prioritize economic growth, others social equity, and yet others environmental protection. But Indonesia, under President Yudhoyono, is showing that smart environmental policies, smart growth policies, and smart social policies can be mutually reinforcing,” said Andrew Steer, President, World Resources Institute. “The world is watching and admiring this quest for a triple win.”

“There is an urgent need to scale up the pace and collaboration in marine conservation because the challenge simply cannot be conquered by one nation alone,” said Glenn Prickett, Chief External Affairs Officer for The Nature Conservancy. “President Yudhoyono understands this, and recognizes the extraordinary marine life abundance and diversity in the Coral Triangle region. His personal call for action to address threats in this globally important region led to the start of the Coral Triangle Initiative. Today, CTI has given the world a tremendous opportunity to value nature and realize the tangible benefits of it by managing the marine resources in a way that builds our natural capital.”

“The Coral Triangle Initiative has been a powerful catalyst for positive change in a region rich in biological diversity, but that desperately needs better protection for its precious and fragile marine and coastal resources,” said Catherine Plume, Managing Director of World Wildlife Fund’s Coral Triangle Program. “While important actions are underway, we hope that all stakeholders involved in this important initiative will redouble their sustainability efforts in the region.”

# # # #

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a leading conservation organization working around the world to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and people. The Conservancy and its more than 1 million members have protected nearly 120 million acres worldwide. Visit The Nature Conservancy on the Web at www.nature.org.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) is a global environmental and development think tank that goes beyond research to put ideas into action. We work with governments, companies, and civil society to build solutions to urgent environmental challenges. WRI’s transformative ideas protect the earth and promote development because sustainability is essential to meeting human needs and fulfilling human aspirations in the future. www.wri.org.

WWF is the world’s leading conservation organization, working in 100 countries for nearly half a century. With the support of almost 5 million members worldwide, WWF is dedicated to delivering science-based solutions to preserve the diversity and abundance of life on Earth, halt the degradation of the environment and combat climate change. Visit www.worldwildlife.org to learn more.

How to Identify Degraded Land for Sustainable Palm Oil in Indonesia

Maggie Barron — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:57:57 -0400

Summary

Palm oil production in Indonesia has the potential to generate local benefits if oil palm cultivation expansion follows sustainable planning and management practices, including respect for local interests and rights. Potential benefits include increased incomes, profits, and government revenues, reduced poverty, and improved natural resource management. Whether this potential is achieved will depend on how new areas for oil palm cultivation are identified.

This working paper demonstrates how to implement a quick and cost-effective method for identifying potentially suitable areas for oil palm cultivation. The method is designed in accordance with established standards for sustainable palm oil production, such as those of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO); incorporates relevant Indonesian laws and policies; and is consistent with proposed national REDD+ strategies to support palm oil production on low carbon degraded land. The method consists of a desktop analysis using readily available data and rapid field assessments. It is based on a set of indicators related to selected environmental, economic, social, and legal considerations.

This method can be used by companies as a first step in a site selection process for a certified sustainable plantation and can inform government officials and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in assessing land use policy options to support the expansion of sustainable palm oil production on degraded land. However, since it is designed primarily to rapidly identify the highest priority areas for further investigation, it should not be used to predetermine where oil palm cultivation expansion should occur.

Using this method as a first step in a site selection process can reduce the costs of implementing the additional due diligence activities required to confirm the suitability of a potential site for oil palm cultivation. These activities, which are outside the scope of this paper, include community mapping to document community claims and rights, conducting high conservation value (HCV) and social impact assessments, implementing a comprehensive free prior and informed consent (FPIC) process, and fulfilling legal requirements.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) and Sekala applied this method to identify nine potentially suitable areas in the Indonesian province of West Kalimantan for a pilot sustainable palm oil project under Project POTICO. These nine sites were identified through targeted field assessments of high priority sites identified through the desktop analysis using project-specific criteria and do not represent all potentially suitable areas in the province.

The desktop analysis, the first step in this method, classified a total of approximately seven million hectares of land in the provinces of West Kalimantan and Central Kalimantan as potentially suitable, using the best publicly available data at the time of publication.

This desktop analysis, associated data, and other supplemental materials will be made easily accessible on a “Suitability Mapper” application to be available on this website in mid-2012. The application will allow users to replicate the desktop portion of this analysis or generate their own suitability maps—using parameters of their choice—to guide their own targeted field assessments.

Produksi kelapa sawit di Indonesia berpotensi menghasilkan manfaat-manfaat lokal jika pengembangannya mengikuti praktek-praktek perencanaan dan pengelolaan yang berkelanjutan, termasuk menghormati kepentingan dan hak-hak lokal. Manfaat-manfaat potensial tersebut antara lain peningkatan penghasilan bagi masyarakat sekitar, peningkatan pendapatan pemerintah, pengurangan kemiskinan dan perbaikan pengelolaan sumber daya alam. Tercapainya potensi ini akan bergantung dari bagaimana perusahaan dan pemerintah mengidentifikasi kawasan-kawasan baru untuk penanaman kelapa sawit.

Laporan ini memuat sebuah metode cepat dan murah untuk mengidentifikasi kawasan-kawasan berpotensi cocok untuk budidaya kelapa sawit. Metode ini dirancang untuk mendorong produksi kelapa sawit pada lahan terdegradasi berkarbon rendah sesuai standar yang sudah ada untuk produksi kelapa sawit berkelanjutan, seperti Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO); sesuai dengan hukum dan kebijakan yang ada di Indonesia; dan juga konsisten dengan rancangan strategi nasional Pengurangan Emisi dari Deforestasi dan Degradasi Hutan (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation - REDD+). Metode ini terdiri dari analisis desktop menggunakan data yang telah tersedia dan juga peninjauan lapangan. Metode ini terdiri dari sejumlah indikator yang mempertimbangkan faktor lingkungan, ekonomi, sosial dan hukum.

Metode ini dapat digunakan oleh perusahaan kelapa sawit sebagai langkah pertama dalam proses pemilihan lokasi untuk perkebunan bersertifikat ramah lingkungan. Metode ini juga dapat menginformasikan pihak pemerintah dan organisasi non pemerintah (NGO) dalam membuat kebijakan yang mendukung ekspansi produksi kelapa sawit pada lahan terdegradasi. Namun, karena metode ini dirancang hanya untuk mengidentifikasi kawasan prioritas tertinggi untuk diselidiki lebih lanjut, seharusnya bukan menjadi satu-satunya penentu lokasi ekspansi perkebunan kelapa sawit.

Dengan menggunakan metode ini sebagai langkah pertama dalam proses pemilihan lokasi, perusahaan kelapa sawit dapat mengurangi biaya kegiatan-kegiatan tambahan yang dibutuhkan untuk memastikan kecocokan sebuah kawasan yang berpotensi dijadikan perkebunan kelapa sawit. Kegiatan-kegiatan tersebut, yang berada di luar lingkup pembahasan laporan ini, terdiri dari pemetaan partisipatif untuk mendokumentasikan klaim-klaim dan hak-hak masyarakat, melakukan penilaian Kawasan Bernilai Konservasi Tinggi (HCV) dan dampak sosial, menerapkan proses persetujuan atas dasar informasi awal tanpa paksaan (PADIATAPA/FPIC) yang menyeluruh dan memenuhi persyaratan hukum.

World Resources Institute (WRI) dan Sekala menerapkan metode ini untuk mengidentifikasi sembilan kawasan berpotensi di Provinsi Kalimantan Barat sebagai proyek percontohan kelapa sawit berkelanjutan di bawah Proyek POTICO (http://www.wri.org/project/potico). Kesembilan kawasan tersebut didapat melalui peninjauan lapangan yang berfokus pada kawasan prioritas tertinggi hasil dari analisis desktop, menggunakan kriteria khusus untuk konteks proyek tersebut dan tidak bermaksud untuk mewakili seluruh kawasan berpotensi di provinsi tersebut.

Langkah pertama dalam metode ini adalah analisis desktop yang mengklasifikasikan sekitar 7 juta hektar lahan yang berpotensi cocok di Provinsi Kalimantan Barat dan Kalimantan Tengah. Analisa ini menggunakan data-data yang tersedia untuk umum pada saat laporan ini ditulis. Analisis desktop, data terkait, dan materi-materi pendukung lainnya bisa diakses di situs web (http://wri.org/ publication/identifying-degraded-land-sustainable-palmoil- indonesia). Situs ini juga memungkinkan para pengguna untuk membuat sendiri sebuah peta kecocokan – menggunakan parameter pilihan mereka – untuk memulai penilaian lapangan sesuai dengan kebutuhan.

Indonesia's Moratorium on New Forest Concessions: Key Findings and Next Steps

Maggie Barron — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:50:39 -0500

The Indonesian moratorium on the award of new licenses in primary natural forests and peat lands, announced in May 2011, is an important step for improving management of forest resources by “pausing” business-as-usual and allowing time to implement reforms.

To quantify the moratorium’s coverage, exemptions, encroachments, and additionality (i.e., whether the moratorium extends protection to land not already protected), the World Resources Institute (WRI) analyzed the indicative moratorium map released by the Ministry of Forestry in July 2011. The objective of the analysis was to better characterize the moratorium’s potential impacts and identify opportunities for improvement.

The analysis concluded that the moratorium in its current state will not contribute to Indonesia’s greenhouse gas emission reduction goal of 26 percent by 2020. Although there are 43.3 million hectares (ha) of primary forests and peat lands and significant carbon stocks within the boundaries of the indicative moratorium map (IMM), the questionable status of secondary forests, the exemption of existing concessions, and the limited enforcement of the moratorium boundaries may result in gains being negated by other land-use emissions. Nonetheless, long-term positive impacts can still be achieved if significant governance reforms are accomplished during the moratorium period.

Indonesia’s Ambitious Forest Moratorium Moves Forward

Beth Gingold — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 15:49:11 -0400

A summary of key elements, and unanswered questions, in Indonesia’s recent moratorium on new forest permits.

On May 20, 2011, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono signed a Presidential Instruction (“decree”) putting into effect a two-year moratorium on issuing new permits for use of primary natural forest and peatland.

The highly anticipated moratorium is part of a broader $1 billion Indonesia-Norway partnership to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation (known as REDD+).

According to government statements, the decree applies to between 64 and 72 million hectares of primary forest and peatland, shown in a map attached to the decree. The decree highlights governance as a key area for improvement, critical in addressing the underlying causes of forest loss. The President calls on ministries and agencies to work together nationally and locally to implement the moratorium.

It is difficult to assess the likely effectiveness of the moratorium in achieving its goal of reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, since the decree includes a number of exemptions (such as cases in which licenses are pending) without providing details on the exempted areas’ location or size.

In order for the public to fully assess the impact of the decree, the government would need to make all exemptions public in such a way that a quantitative spatial analysis can be independently prepared and published. Only with this information can the various partners in Indonesia’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions see whether the spirit of the decree is being met.

In the meantime, this article provides a summary of how key elements are addressed, identifies unanswered questions to be further explored once the digital maps and additional information are publicly available, and suggests priority actions for the two-year moratorium period that can produce lasting benefits to Indonesia’s forests and the people and businesses that depend on them.

The moratorium makes progress in some key areas…

Despite stiff opposition from advocates of business as usual, a moratorium has been signed and issued.
It highlights the importance of improved governance.
It recognizes the importance of ministries and agencies working together to make implementation of the decree successful.
It includes a map of areas that should not be deforested. The representation of this decree in map form makes it easier for stakeholders to carry out monitoring and support law enforcement.

…but some important issues remain:

Areas of secondary forest are not covered. These are widespread and valuable for carbon, biodiversity and livelihoods.
There is no mention of the Minister of Mines and Energy in the decree, and it is not clear how permits for non-exempted mining activities (i.e. coal and minerals) will be addressed. The Ministry of Agriculture is also not mentioned in the decree.
Community-based forest management and other sustainable activities that do not result in forest conversion are not included in the exemptions.
No information is provided on the extent and location of existing permits that are exempted from the moratorium.
It is unclear what will happen with the many permits that may have been issued illegally.

What is addressed in the Presidential Decree?

The Presidential Decree gives instructions to specific government agencies regarding a two-year suspension of new permits on areas of primary natural forest and peatland shown in an attached “Indicative Map of New License Suspension” (Indicative Map).

The Presidential Decree addresses key elements in the following ways:

Objectives: Does the preamble clarify the objectives of a temporary suspension of new permits to achieve long term improvements in land use planning and permitting processes

The decree itself states that the objective is to balance economic, social, and cultural development and efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. The explicit inclusion of governance is notable and should be applauded, as this starts to get to the root causes of Indonesia’s high rates of forest loss. It will be especially important in the coming months to reach agreement on what specific improvements in governance are needed most and how these improvements can be achieved.

Definitions: Are terms clear and consistent with achieving the stated objectives

The decree does not include definitions of terms. The decree refers to primary natural forest and peatland, but not secondary forest. Large areas of secondary forest, with high carbon content and important biodiversity, will therefore likely not be covered by the decree.

The terms primary natural forest and peatland have not been defined in Indonesian law. In this context they have been interpreted as descriptions of vegetative cover and soil characteristics, as distinct from legal designations. The decree also refers to legal designations such as conservation forest, protected forest, and production forest, which have been previously defined in Indonesia’s 1999 Forestry Law. Media reports suggest there is ongoing confusion regarding whether or not primary natural forest refers to a legal designation.

Data: Are the data and maps that will be used or created to determine the areas impacted by the moratorium accurate and adequate

There is insufficient information on the data and methods used to develop the Indicative Map, and indeed, on who produced it. This map shows peatland and primary forests, yet there are no definitions of these terms. It is also not clear which areas are under which forms of protection, and whether any information on existing or already exempted permits was used to generate the map. Crucially, no information is provided on the extent, location, and status of existing and exempted permits.

A more detailed analysis can be conducted only once the digital maps, source data layers, associated methods, and accurate information on the extent, location, and status of existing and already exempted permits, are made publicly available.

Permits: Which permits are included and excluded from the moratorium?

The moratorium applies to “new permits” (e.g. for the clearing of land to start oil palm, timber or other large estate crops) in the areas specified by the Indicative Map, with a considerable number of notable exemptions, including those for:

forest area release and use permits that have been approved in principle by the Ministry of Forestry;
geothermal, oil and gas, electricity, rice and sugar cane development;
extension of existing and valid forest use permits (e.g. logging permits); and
ecosystem restoration concessions.

No exemptions are provided for the multiple types of use or management rights that can be issued to communities, even though community based forest management and monitoring has been recognized as an effective strategy for achieving sustainable forest management and balancing economic, social, and environmental development goals.

The types of permits which will not be exempted include loan use and business permit use for timber in natural forests issued by Ministry of Forestry, lease rights and use rights issued by the National Land Agency, and recommendations for and location permits issued by Governors and Regents/Mayors. There is no mention of exemptions or inclusion of forest use for mineral or coal mining.

The process for determining the validity of existing forest use permits is unclear. It is also not clear what the implications are for companies that have existing location permits (which are exempted) but not business use permits (called HGU permits). These existing permits may cover millions of hectares (an estimate from Daemeter Consulting is at least three million hectares).

Agencies: Which government agency is responsible for producing the relevant maps associated with the moratorium

Instructions to suspend issuing permits apply to all areas in the Indicative Map. This applies to the Ministry of Forestry, National Land Agency, as well as to all Governors, Regents and Mayors. The Minister of Interior is instructed to coach and supervise Governors and Regents in implementation.

For new permits that are exempted and may still be issued inside the Indicative Map areas, the Minister of Environment is instructed to reduce emissions of the business activities by issuing environmental licenses. It is assumed to mean that these licenses will restrict allowable GHG emissions.

The Ministry of Forestry is given primary responsibility for reviewing and updating the Indicative Map and reporting to the president at least once every six months, in cooperation with the Head of the National Spatial Planning Coordinating Agency, Head of the Coordinating Body for National Survey and Mapping, Governors, Regents, Mayors, and the Head of the REDD+ Task Force. The Head of the REDD+ Task Force is instructed to monitor implementation and submit a report to the president.

This updating process does not only have consequences on the physical delineation of primary forest and peatlands, it also moves the licensing authority on non-forested lands (other usage areas) to the Ministry of Forestry as stated in Section Four of the decree.

This decree does however involve many of the important ministries and agencies and specifies their role and the need to work together. This is an important step forward in managing lands and forests more efficiently and sustainably. This is also consistent with indicators of ‘good governance’.

Process: What processes will be put in place regarding reviewing permits, cooperation and coordination of government agencies, increasing transparency and participation, making maps and spatial data publicly available, and settling disputes

The decree includes some instructions to agencies regarding improving governance. For example:

The Minister of Forestry is instructed to: (1) improve policies on issuing permits on the use of timber in natural forest areas and (2) improve management of lahan kritis (“critical” or degraded forest) through ecosystem restoration concessions.
The Minister of the Environment is instructed to improve governance of business activities within the areas shown on the Indicative Map through environmental permits.
Multiple agencies are instructed to coordinate the map revision process and provide information to monitor and report to the President on a regular basis.
The Head of the National Spatial Planning Coordinating Agency is instructed to accelerate the consolidation of the Indicative Map into the spatial planning map revision as part of land use governance reform, in cooperation with other agencies. This could ensure that primary forest and peatland that is not already under some form of legal protection is appropriately zoned through the spatial planning process, with the status change lasting beyond the two-year moratorium period.

The decree does not make any specific provisions for reviewing or revoking permits, increasing transparency and participation, or making maps and spatial data publicly available.

The omission of an exemption for community forestry permits—when many exemptions were made including for industrial activities— is a major weakness in the decree.

Addressing Unanswered Questions

An effective moratorium would help to improve land use planning and permitting processes that contribute to Indonesia’s development goals and respect local rights, continuing beyond the two-year suspension period.

Important unanswered questions include:

What specific areas are included in the moratorium and what data and methods were used to identify them? What are the extent, location, and status of existing and already exempted permits? How will this information be made publicly available?
What instructions will be given to the Minister of Mines and Energy?
How will provisions be made to allow legal community-based forest management during the two-year period, and to strengthen local management options in the future?
How will government agencies interpret and by what process will they implement the instructions provided regarding ‘improving governance’?
What additional actions will be taken regarding the governance of areas not identified on the Indicative Map?

The Indonesian government can begin to help answer some of these questions by ensuring that a digital version of the Indicative Map, source data layers, associated methods, and accurate information on the extent, location, and status of existing and already exempted permits, are made publicly available.

What are additional priorities for the two-year moratorium period?

In addition, as acknowledged by the government, achieving these goals will require taking many actions in the two-year moratorium period that are not addressed in the Presidential Decree. This includes putting in place REDD+ policies such as improved land use planning and permitting processes, reviewing or revoking illegal permits, encouraging expansion of agriculture and timber plantations onto degraded land instead of forested land (e.g. sustainable palm oil expansion on degraded land) and developing incentives for existing permits on forested lands to be swapped for permits on degraded lands (e.g. voluntary land swaps).

The main purpose of this decree, as identified in a previous article, is to create time for the government, business and civil society to develop and implement changes that will lead to more sustainable land management while stimulating economic growth, such as:

Comprehensive, accurate, and regularly updated spatial data and maps on land cover and forest type, land use, land status, and land rights—including permits—made publicly available through easily accessible websites.
Revised land use plans (zoning) such that appropriate natural forest and peatlands are classified for conservation or sustainable management and appropriate degraded lands are classified for agricultural or other uses, through a process that incorporates best practices in participatory spatial planning.
Transparent and participatory processes for reviewing, revoking, reissuing, or relocating permits that are illegal or are in areas that are inappropriate for development, incorporating best practice stakeholder engagement and including the free prior and informed consent of relevant communities.

Whether this Presidential Decree contributes to achieving the goals of the Indonesia-Norway agreement on REDD+ is highly dependent on how remaining unanswered questions are addressed and what additional actions the Indonesian government takes—with the participation of industry and civil society—during the two-year period.

Indonesia’s Moratorium: An Opportunity for Forests and Industry

Beth Gingold — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:57:49 -0400

A highly anticipated two-year moratorium on new forest conversion permits could bring fundamental improvements to forest and land management in Indonesia.

Baca dalam Bahasa Indonesia | Read in Indonesian
Download PDF versi Bahasa Indonesia (PDF, 516 Kb)

In mid-2011, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is expected to sign a Presidential Decree for the implementation of a two-year moratorium on issuing new permits for conversion of natural forest and peatland. This planned moratorium was announced in May 2010 as part of a $1 billion Indonesia-Norway partnership agreement on reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (known as REDD+).

An effective moratorium will allow time for the government—with participation from industry and civil society—to develop improved processes for land use planning and permitting, create information systems and build institutions that can achieve Indonesia’s ambitious low carbon and agricultural development goals. These goals include both reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent and doubling palm oil production by 2020.

What is “conversion?”

Which permits are included in the moratorium will depend on how “conversion” is interpreted and defined. Conversion has been defined in different contexts to refer to a physical change in land cover (i.e. from forested to non-forested), to include a change in land use (i.e. from forestry to agriculture) or to a change in legal status (i.e. from inside to outside the Forest Estate). According to international definitions, timber harvesting or logging is not considered to result in deforestation unless it is followed by a long term change in land use.

Implementing an effective moratorium will require a well-deliberated, clear Presidential Decree that is consistent with Indonesia’s development goals, results in cooperation between government agencies and provides public access to relevant information. A several month delay has allowed time for the government to address concerns raised by industry and to reconcile several draft decrees submitted by multiple national government agencies. The drafts contain different interpretations of how the moratorium should be implemented, with different implications for forests and people.

The following analysis of the content of the publicly available draft presidential decrees identifies key elements of the expected decree and recommends priority actions for the two-year moratorium period that can produce lasting benefits to Indonesia’s forests and the people and businesses that depend on them.

What can an effective moratorium accomplish?

An effective moratorium would produce improved land use planning and permitting processes that achieve Indonesia’s development goals and respect local rights, continuing beyond the two-year suspension period.

The Current State of Land & Permit Allocation

Current processes have resulted in inefficient and inequitable land and permit allocations that are inconsistent with Indonesia’s development goals. For example:

In many areas, land that is not forested is legally classified as “forest” and therefore unavailable for agricultural expansion, while forested land is legally classified as “non-forest” and therefore at risk of conversion.
According to the Indonesian Palm Oil Producers Association, half of all existing concessions cannot be utilized because the land is inappropriate for plantations or inhabited by people who may claim the land as theirs.
Timber and oil palm plantations have been associated with costly ongoing social conflicts when expansion has occurred without respecting local rights.
Permits often overlap and have been issued in high conservation value forest and protected areas.

A common misperception reflected in the media is that the moratorium is designed to immediately halt all deforestation and prevent the expansion of industries such as palm oil, timber, and mining. However, according to the text of the Indonesia-Norway agreement, the moratorium is a two-year suspension of new permits for the conversion of natural forest and peatland.

Revoking existing permits—many of which may be illegal—appears to be outside the scope of the proposed moratorium. In addition, since the moratorium would only apply to new permits that result in conversion of natural forest or peatland it will likely not include selective logging permits or permits for oil palm cultivation in other areas.

The two-year period in which no new forest conversion permits are issued would provide the time for the Indonesian government to begin putting in place REDD+ policies such as improved land use planning and permitting processes, reviewing or revoking illegal permits, encouraging sustainable palm oil expansion on degraded land, and developing incentives for voluntary land swaps.

What are main elements of the anticipated Presidential Decree?

As of February 2011, at least three publicly available drafts had been submitted to the Indonesian president by different national government agencies.

All of the drafts contain the following:

Two-year suspension of new permits related to forest conversion.
Instructions to specific government agencies to suspend activities on issuing new permits related to natural forest and peatland conversion.
Exemptions for existing legal permits and activities in the national interest (e.g. energy generation).
Reference to a map that will guide implementation and be updated on a regular basis. These maps are not available for analysis, and may not yet exist.

However the draft decrees also differ substantially. The impact of the forthcoming Presidential Decree will depend on how it addresses the following key elements:

Objectives – Does the preamble clarify the objectives of a temporary suspension of new permits to achieve long term improvements in land use planning and permitting processes?
Definitions – Are terms clear and consistent with achieving the stated objectives? Key terms which have not yet been defined include: conversion, natural forest, primary forest, secondary forest and peatland.
Data – Are the data and maps that will be used or created to determine the areas impacted by the moratorium accurate and appropriate? Appropriate data will depend on definitions, but at a minimum would include information on land cover and forest type, land use, legal status, and land rights—including but not limited to permits.
Permits – Which permits are included and excluded from the moratorium? This will determine the project development options of companies, communities, and local governments, each with different economic, environmental, and social costs and benefits. If the moratorium exempts existing “legal” permits there will need to be a clear definition or process for reviewing legality.
Agencies – Which government agencies are given instructions, and which government agency is responsible for producing the relevant maps associated with the moratorium? Cooperation, coordination, and commitment to transparency by all relevant agencies will be critical to the success of the moratorium.
Process – What processes will be put in place regarding reviewing permits, cooperation and coordination of government agencies, increasing transparency and participation, making maps and spatial data publicly available, and settling disputes? The current lack of easily accessible public data on the appropriate national and sub-national scales is a major barrier to transparent and participatory policy-making.

What do the differences between the draft decrees mean?

Recent media reports reflect ongoing confusion regarding the objectives, content, and implications of the various draft decrees. Much of the public debate regarding the options has focused on how much and what type of land will be affected by the moratorium. Questions include: Will it apply to secondary or “degraded” forest and shallow peat (peat less than three meters deep)? Will forested land outside the “Forest Estate” (Kawasan Hutan) be included?¹

These options have significant implications for forests, people, and climate change. According to government statistics:

58 percent of forests (58 million hectares) in Indonesia are secondary forests.²
80 percent of peatlands (17 million hectares) in Sumatra, Kalimantan, and Papua are shallow peat.³
8 percent of Indonesia’s forests (8 million hectares) are located outside of the “Forest Estate.”⁴

Since none of the drafts contain definitions or provide the maps and data that the government will use during implementation, it is unclear how much and what type of land will be affected by the moratorium. The government has suggested that the moratorium could apply to 64 million hectares, although this estimate likely includes forested areas that are already under some form of protection.

An important factor that has received much less media attention is which permits will be included in the moratorium. Since the moratorium is only a suspension of new permits for conversion, the area that will be affected is not the total amount of natural forest and peatland, but rather the amount of natural forest and peatland that is not already under some form of legal protection and is not already covered by existing permits.

All of the drafts exempt existing legal permits from the moratorium, which is consistent with the text of the Indonesia-Norway agreement. Some drafts refer to legal permits for specific activities including timber, plantations, and mining, while others refer only to new permits related to forest conversion. None of the drafts refer to community timber plantations or other community rights.

None of the drafts clarify the definition of a “legal” permit or provide a review process for determining legality. Likewise, none of the drafts include procedures for revoking permits or refer to existing procedures such as those which have been recently implemented by the Ministry of Forestry.

Ambiguity regarding permits—combined with a lack of accurate public data on the extent, status, and location of all existing permits issued by different agencies, levels and geographical jurisdictions of government—makes it impossible to quantitatively assess the options presented by the various drafts. However the area affected by the moratorium is significantly reduced when available data on existing permits is considered.

What are priority actions for the two-year moratorium period?

Whether the moratorium is ultimately a success depends not only on the text of the Presidential Decree, but on what the Indonesian government—with the participation of industry and civil society—accomplishes within the two-year period.

In order to achieve its ambitious low carbon development goals, the Indonesian government can use the two-year moratorium period to begin to implement the following priority actions:

Produce comprehensive, accurate, and regularly updated spatial data and maps on land cover and forest type, land use, land status, and land rights—including permits—made publicly available through easily accessible websites.
Revise land use plans (zoning) such that appropriate natural forest and peatlands are classified for conservation or sustainable management and appropriate degraded lands are classified for agricultural or other uses, through a process that incorporates best practices in participatory spatial planning.
Develop transparent and participatory processes for reviewing, revoking, reissuing, or relocating permits that are illegal or are in areas that are inappropriate for development, incorporating best practice stakeholder engagement and including the free prior and informed consent of relevant communities.

A clear, well-deliberated Presidential Decree that results in an effective moratorium on new forest conversion permits can help Indonesia “buy time” in which to implement fundamental policy changes, ensuring that there is no return to ‘business as usual’ at the end of two years. If done effectively, this will bring long-term benefits for forests and industry.

[Top]

Moratorium Indonesia: Kesempatan bagi Hutan dan Industri

Sebuah moratorium yang akan menghentikan pengeluaran izin baru konversi hutan selama dua tahun sedang ditunggu-tunggu. Kebijakan ini dapat memperbaiki tata kelola hutan dan penggunaan lahan di Indonesia.

Pada pertengahan 2011, Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono diperkirakan akan menandatangani sebuah Instruksi Presiden (Inpres) yang menghentikan sementara pengeluaran izin-izin baru untuk konversi hutan alam dan lahan gambut. Rencana pembuatan moratorium ini diumumkan bulan Mei 2010 dan merupakan bagian dari kesepakatan kerjasama antara Indonesia dan Norwegia senilai 1 milyar dolar Amerika, untuk mengurangi emisi dari deforestasi dan degradasi hutan (juga dikenal dengan sebutan REDD+).

Apa yang dimaksud dengan “konversi”?

Izin yang akan dimasukkan ke dalam moratorium sangat bergantung pada penafsiran dan definisi “konversi”. Konversi telah diartikan dalam beberapa konteks sebagai perubahan fisik suatu tutupan lahan (misalnya dari daerah berhutan menjadi daerah tidak berhutan), untuk menandai adanya perubahan dalam penggunaan lahan (seperti dari hutan menjadi perkebunan), atau untuk mengubah status legal suatu kawasan (seperti dari Kawasan Hutan menjadi Areal Penggunaan Lain – APL). Menurut definisi internasional, penebangan kayu atau “logging” tidak dianggap deforestasi apabila tidak diikuti dengan perubahan penggunaan lahan jangka panjang.

Sebuah moratorium yang efektif dapat memberikan waktu bagi pemerintah Indonesia – tentu saja dengan dukungan dari sektor industri dan lembaga swadaya masyarakat – untuk memperbaiki perencanaan penggunaan lahan dan proses mengeluarkan izin baru baik di kawasan hutan maupun areal penggunaan lain (APL), menciptakan sistem informasi yang memadai, serta membangun lembaga-lembaga yang dapat mendukung target Indonesia yang pro-growth dan pro-green. Target yang dinilai cukup ambisius ini termasuk mengurangi emisi gas rumah kaca sebanyak 26 persen dan meningkatkan produksi kelapa sawit sebanyak dua kali lipat pada tahun 2020.

Moratorium ini harus dipikirkan secara matang. Instruksi Presiden tersebut harus jelas dan konsisten dengan rencana pembangunan Indonesia. Berbagai instansi pemerintahan perlu mendukung dan bekerja sama supaya peraturan ini berjalan dengan efisien. Penundaan penandatangan selama beberapa bulan ini telah memberikan waktu bagi pemerintah untuk mempertimbangkan kekhawatiran sektor industri dan merundingkan jalur tengah atas beberapa rancangan Inpres yang diserahkan oleh berbagai kementerian dan mengandung penafsiran berbeda tentang bagaimana moratorium ini akan dijalankan. Kebijakan yang dibuat akan sangat mempengaruhi kehidupan masyarakat setempat dan kelestarian hutan.

Berikut adalah kajian dari beberapa rancangan Inpres yang dapat diakses publik. Analisa ini mengidentifikasikan elemen-elemen penting dari Inpres yang akan ditetapkan dan merekomendasikan langkah-langkah yang perlu dilakukan dalam moratorium dua tahun ini, supaya menghasilkan manfaat yang berkelanjutan bagi hutan Indonesia, masyarakat setempat dan dunia usaha yang bergantung pada sektor ini.

Apa yang bisa dicapai oleh moratorium yang efektif?

Moratorium yang efektif dapat memperbaiki proses pemberian izin dan perencanaan penggunaan lahan yang mendukung target pembangunan ekonomi nasional dan menghormati hak-hak masyarakat setempat. Diharapkan efek moratorium ini bisa dirasakan lebih dari dua tahun.

Keadaan saat ini tentang lahan dan pengalokasian izin

Proses yang dilakukan selama ini dalam pengalokasian konsesi lahan dapat dinilai kurang efektif dan adil. Pemberian izin dilihat tidak konsisten dengan target pembangunan Indonesia. Sebagai contoh:

Di banyak daerah, lahan yang tidak berhutan berstatus “hutan” atau berada dalam Kawasan Hutan sehingga tidak dapat digunakan untuk ekspansi pertanian dan perkebunan. Sementara itu, banyak lahan berhutan tapi secara hukum berada di daerah yang diklasifikasikan sebagai Areal Penggunaan Lain (APL) dan secara legal dapat dikonversi.
Menurut Gabungan Pengusaha Kelapa Sawit Indonesia (GAPKI) setengah dari semua konsesi yang diterbitkan tidak dapat digunakan karena lahan tersebut tidak sesuai untuk dijadikan perkebunan kelapa sawit atau ditempati oleh warga yang sering kali menyatakan lahan tersebut milik mereka.
Banyak laporan terjadinya konflik sosial di Hutan Tanaman Industri (HTI) dan perkebunan kelapa sawit ketika adanya ekspansi industri-industri ini dimana hak masyarakat setempat sering tidak dihormati.
Izin-izin sering tumpang-tindih dan dikeluarkan di daerah hutan dengan nilai konservasi tinggi (HCV) dan daerah hutan yang sebenarnya dilindungi secara hukum.

Persepsi salah yang sering disebut dalam media adalah moratorium ini dibuat untuk menghentikan semua penebangan hutan di Indonesia dan menghambat ekspansi industri-industri seperti industri kelapa sawit, HTI, dan tambang. Namun, menurut isi dari kesepakatan Indonesia-Norwegia, moratorium ini adalah suspensi atas pemberian izin baru konversi hutan alam dan lahan gambut.

Pencabutan izin-izin yang sudah dikeluarkan – banyak di antaranya yang mungkin ilegal – sepertinya berada di luar rancangan moratorium ini. Selain itu, karena moratorium hanya diberlakukan pada izin baru konversi hutan alam dan lahan gambut, kemungkinan besar peraturan ini tidak mencakup izin penebangan pohon selektif (selective logging permits) atau izin perkebunan kelapa sawit di daerah APL.

Jangka waktu dua tahun, di mana tidak ada izin baru konversi hutan, memberi kesempatan bagi pemerintah Indonesia untuk mulai menjalankan kebijakan REDD+, seperti memperbaiki perencanaan penggunaan lahan, mengkaji dan mencabut izin ilegal, mendorong ekspansi perkebunan kelapa sawit yang berkesinambungan di “lahan terdegredasi”, dan mengembangkan insentif untuk melakukan “landswap” untuk pembangunan antara daerah berhutan dengan lahan yang tingkat karbonnya rendah.

Apa elemen-elemen utama dalam rancangan Instruksi Presiden?

Setidaknya tiga rancangan Inpres dapat diakses publik sejak bulan Februari 2011. Draft-draft tersebut telah diserahkan kepada Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono oleh beberapa lembaga pemerintah.

Semua draft mengandung hal-hal berikut:

Penghentian pengeluaran izin baru konversi hutan selama dua tahun.
Instruksi kepada lembaga-lembaga pemerintah terkait untuk menghentikan pemberian izin baru yang berhubungan dengan konversi hutan alam dan lahan gambut.
Pengecualian atas peraturan ini terhadap izin legal dan kegiatan yang dinilai menyangkut kepentingan nasional (seperti di bidang energi).
Sebuah peta yang menjadi panduan pelaksanaan moratorium yang dapat di-update secara teratur. Perlu dicatat bahwa peta ini belum ada sehingga tidak dapat dianalisa.

Namun, terdapat beberapa perbedaan mendasar pada rancangan-rancangan Instruksi Presiden tersebut. Dampak Instruksi Presiden yang akan ditetapkan akan bergantung pada beberapa hal penting berikut, yaitu:

Tujuan – Apakah peraturan ini dapat menjelaskan tujuan penghentian sementara pemberian izin baru untuk memperbaiki proses perencanaan penggunaan lahan dan pemberian izin baru di masa yang akan datang?
Definisi – Apakah istilah dan terminologi yang digunakan cukup jelas dan konsisten dengan pencapaian tujuan yang ada? Beberapa istilah yang belum didefinisikan dengan baik termasuk: konversi, hutan alam, hutan primer, hutan sekunder, dan lahan gambut.
Data – Apakah data dan peta yang digunakan atau yang akan dibuat untuk menentukan daerah yang termasuk dalam moratorium ini akurat dan sesuai? Data yang sesuai akan tergantung pada definisi yang ditentukan. Namun setidaknya data yang dimasukkan mencakup penutupan lahan, fungsi kawasan hutan, penggunaan lahan, status legalnya, dan persoalan-persoalan mengenai kepemilikan lahan.
Izin – Kejelasan tentang izin mana yang termasuk dan tidak termasuk dalam moratorium ini. Hal tersebut menentukan peluang-peluang bisnis dan pembangunan yang dimiliki oleh perusahaan, komunitas, dan pemerintah daerah (masing-masing dengan keuntungan dan kerugian ekonomi, lingkungan, dan sosial yang berbeda).
Lembaga dan Institusi – Lembaga/Institusi/Kementerian mana yang akan diberikan wewenang untuk mengimplementasikan moratorium ini? Institusi/Kementerian mana yang akan membuat peta-peta yang berhubungan dengan moratorium ini? Apabila terdapat pengecualian terhadap izin yang sudah dikeluarkan dan yang dinilai “legal”, perlu ada definisi yang baik atau proses yang jelas untuk mengkaji ulang legalitas izin tersebut.
Proses – Proses apa saja yang akan digarap untuk mengkaji ulang legalitas izin, kerjasama dan koordinasi dengan berbagai lembaga pemerintah, meningkatkan transparansi dan partisipasi, membuat peta dan data spasial publik, dan menyelesaikan konflik lahan?

Apakah arti dari perbedaan beberapa rancangan Instruksi Presiden?

Beberapa laporan media menggambarkan kebingungan mengenai tujuan, isi, dan implikasi beberapa rancangan Inpres. Sebagian besar debat publik mengenai pilihan-pilihan yang ada terpusat pada berapa banyak dan tipe hutan yang akan terkena dampak dalam moratorium ini. Pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang beredar termasuk: Apakah moratorium ini akan berlaku pada hutan sekunder atau hutan terdegredasi, dan lahan gambut dangkal (gambut dengan kedalaman kurang dari tiga meter)? Apakah daerah berhutan di luar kawasan hutan akan dimasukkan dalam moratorium ini?

Hal-hal ini mempunyai pengaruh yang signifikan bagi hutan, manusia, dan perubahan iklim. Menurut statistik yang dikeluarkan oleh Kementerian Kehutanan:

58 persen hutan (58 juta hektar) di Indonesia adalah hutan sekunder.
80 persen lahan gambut (17 juta hektar) di Sumatera, Kalimantan, dan Papua adalah lahan gambut dangkal.
8 persen daerah dengan tutupan hutan di Indonesia (8 juta hektar) berada diluar Kawasan Hutan.

Karena tidak ada satupun rancangan Inpres yang menjelaskan definisi tersebut ataupun petunjuk mengenai peta atau data yang akan digunakan oleh pemerintah untuk menjalankan moratorium ini, maka tidak jelas berapa banyak dan tipe hutan apa yang akan terkena dampak. Pemerintah Indonesia memperkirakan moratorium ini dapat diberlakukan pada 64 juta hektar area di Indonesia, meskipun kemungkinan prediksi ini termasuk daerah berhutan yang sudah dilindungi.

Sebuah faktor penting yang tidak mendapat banyak sorotoan media adalah izin mana yang akan dimasukkan dalam moratorium ini. Karena moratorium ini hanya merupakan penghentian sementara konversi hutan, daerah yang akan terkena dampak bukan semua daerah hutan alam dan lahan gambut, melainkan daerah hutan alam dan lahan gambut yang tidak dilindungi oleh peraturan tertentu dan belum ada izin atas daerah tersebut.

Semua rancangan Inpres membuat pengecualian atas izin yang masih berlaku. Hal ini konsisten dengan isi kesepakatan Indonesia-Norwegia. Beberapa draft menyebutkan izin-izin tertentu seperti izin pemanfaatan kayu, izin perkebunan, dan izin pertambangan, sementara terdapat draft lainnya yang menyebutkan izin baru yang hanya berhubungan dengan konversi hutan saja. Tidak satupun draft yang membahas persoalan hutan masyarakat atau hak-hak masyarakat lainnya.

Tidak ada draft yang menjelaskan apa yang dimaksud dengan izin “legal” atau mengacu pada sebuah proses yang dapat digunakan untuk mengkaji tingkat legalitas suatu izin. Prosedur bagaimana caranya untuk mencabut izin yang dinilai melanggar hukum, sebagaimana dilakukan baru-baru ini oleh Menteri Kehutanan, tidak dimasukkan pula dalam draft-draft yang ada. Ketidakjelasan tentang izin – ditambah dengan kurangnya data publik yang akurat tentang status hutan dan lokasi izin yang telah diterbitkan oleh lembaga-lembaga pemerintah di berbagai tingkat (pusat, propinsi, dan kabupaten) – membuat analisa kuantitatif pada rancangan Inpres sangat sulit dilakukan. Namun, daerah-daerah yang masuk dalam moratorium ini benar-benar berkurang ketika data publik mengenai izin yang masih berlaku dimasukkan.

Apa kegiatan utama yang perlu dilakukan ketika moratorium dua tahun ini keluar?

Kesuksesan moratorium ini tidak hanya bergantung pada isi dari Instruksi Presiden yang ditandatangani, tapi juga pada apa yang akan dicapai oleh pemerintah Indonesia – dengan partisipasi dari industri dan lembaga swadaya masyarakat – dalam dua tahun ke depan. Supaya Indonesia dapat mencapai target ambisiusnya untuk melakukan pembangunan ekonomi dengan beremisi karbon rendah, pemerintah dapat memanfaatkan moratorium dua tahun ini untuk mulai melaksanakan kegiatan-kegiatan berikut ini:

Memproduksi data spasial dan peta-peta yang lengkap, akurat, dan yang diperbarui secara teratur mengenai tutupan lahan dan tipe hutan, penggunaan lahan, status lahan, dan hak-hak atas tanah – termasuk informasi tentang lokasi izin yang telah diberikan – yang dapat dengan mudah diakses publik melalui internet.
Merevisi perencanaan penggunaan lahan (zoning) sehingga hutan alam dan lahan gambut yang sesuai diklasifikasikan untuk konservasi atau dengan tata pengelolaan yang berkesinambungan. Lahan terdegredasi juga harus diidentifikasikan sehingga dapat digunakan untuk kegiatan perkebunan atau penggunaan lainnya melalui proses yang menggunakan praktek-praktek terbaik dalam kegiatan perencanaan tata ruang secara partisipatif.
Mengembangkan proses yang transparan dan partisipatif untuk mengkaji ulang, mencabut, menerbitkan kembali izin-izin yang ilegal atau yang dilihat tidak sesuai untuk pembangunan, dan menggunakan praktek-praktek terbaik untuk berhubungan dengan instansi-instansi yang berkepentingan termasuk terjaminnya pemberian informasi kepada masyarakat setempat secara bebas, sebelum terjadinya “konversi” laha (prinsip FPIC).

Instruksi Presiden yang jelas dan benar-benar dipikirkan secara matang akan menghasilkan moratorium efektif yang menghentikan sementara pemberian izin baru konversi hutan dapat membantu Indonesia “menarik nafas sejenak” untuk membuat perubahan kebijakan fundamental dan memastikan tidak terjadinya skenario “business as usualbisnis seperti biasa” pada akhir dua tahun tersebut. Apabila dilakukan secara efektif, moratorium ini akan membuat keuntungan jangka panjang bagi hutan dan industri di Indonesia.

In Indonesia, “Forest Estate” is a legal designation referring to land under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Forestry (regardless of whether or not the land contains trees or forests). Land that is zoned Non-Forest Estate in some cases includes forest cover and peat. ↩
Source: Ministry of Forestry using Landsat imagery 7 ETM+ of 2005/2006 (217 scenes). Interpreted in 2007 and published in 2008. ↩
Source: Indonesian Development Planning Agency. 2009. Reducing carbon emissions from Indonesia’s peat lands. Table 1: “Land Use allocation (conservation, protection or development) and land cover in Indonesia’s peat land by main island with peat in 2006.” Data provided is for Sumatra, Kalimantan, and Papua only. These three regions contain the majority of peat in Indonesia. ↩
Source: Ministry of Forestry using Landsat imagery 7 ETM+ of 2005/2006 (217 scenes). Interpreted in 2007 and published in 2008. ↩

The World Bank Group, Palm Oil, and Poverty

Beth Gingold — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:11:01 -0400

The World Bank Group should aim to achieve and measure poverty reduction, not palm oil investments.

In March 2011, the World Bank Group (WBG)’s President Robert Zoellick is expected to decide whether to lift a global moratorium on WBG palm oil investment. The moratorium was instituted as a result of the findings of a 2009 internal audit (PDF, 4.5 Mb). The audit was triggered by civil society concerns regarding an International Finance Corporation (IFC) investment in a major palm oil company in Indonesia.

His decision will be based on a review of a revised version of this draft of “The World Bank Group Framework and IFC Strategy for Engagement in the Palm Oil Sector.” The strategy document is IFC’s response to this letter and is the result of an extensive public consultation process.

Palm Oil and Public Consultations

The World Resources Institute (WRI) was an active participant and “lead discussant” in the public consultation process. WRI’s input was informed by our experience from Project POTICO. This project aims to promote sustainable palm oil production on degraded land in Indonesia in accordance with the principle of free prior and informed consent and the principles and criteria of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). WRI is currently receiving funding from the IFC’s Biodiversity and Agricultural Commodities Program (BACP) to support related work. The IFC is not responsible for the implementation or administration of the project.

The WBG’s engagement in the palm oil sector has potential to contribute to poverty reduction and social and environmental sustainability if country- and project-specific IFC and World Bank strategies are designed and effectively implemented to achieve this mission.

If the WBG removes the moratorium on palm oil investment, it is critical that issues such as the treatment of free prior and informed consent are addressed on an institutional level, and that country- and project-specific strategies be guided by clear measurable objectives, informed by relevant research, implemented with appropriate staff incentives, and measured according to its long term success in achieving poverty reduction.

Agreement on Palm Oil Potential

Despite the focus of the media on the palm oil “controversy” and “debate”, which often pits proponents of “development” against those concerned with deforestation and human rights, many voices in the private, public, and civil sectors have recognized the potential of the palm oil sector to contribute to poverty reduction. Many groups have expressed agreement with key points detailed in the WBG strategy document such as:

Palm oil is the world’s most traded and most affordable cooking oil as well as a versatile product with many uses.
Oil palm, the crop that is used to produce palm oil, has a higher yield of vegetable oil per hectare than any other major oil crop.
Palm oil production has contributed to economic benefits such as government revenues, profits for companies, employment, and raised incomes for smallholders. In Indonesia—the world’s largest producer—the industry generated US$12.4 billion in foreign exchange from palm oil exports in 2009, and supports millions of jobs and opportunities for rural farmers.
Many of the negative consequences that have been associated with the sector can be avoided when rights of local people are recognized, land use planning considers long term social and environmental impacts, and companies follow improved practices such as those required for certification by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil.

In the recent public consultations, many stakeholders agreed that some form of IFC and World Bank engagement could contribute to poverty reduction. Many participants expressed continuing willingness to engage with the IFC and World Bank, noted ongoing improvements in the process, and welcomed revisions to the second draft such as increased focus on poverty and smallholders and emphasis on coordination between the World Bank and IFC.

Potential Challenges for Poverty Reduction

Whether this poverty reduction potential can be achieved will depend on how decisions are made regarding when and how to engage or invest in particular countries, programs, or projects. Investing in the palm oil sector should be viewed as one possible means to achieve poverty reduction, not a goal in itself.

As noted by many stakeholders, and acknowledged in the WBG document, different countries and policy contexts will require different responses by both the IFC and World Bank. For example, countries in Africa and Latin America—such as Ghana or Colombia—have relatively small industries with growth potential with their own opportunities and challenges, some similar and some quite different from those in Indonesia.

As acknowledged by the strategy, the “impacts of oil palm depend on where and how it is developed.” Information from the public consultation and research conducted by the World Bank demonstrate that under some conditions IFC investment in the palm oil sector is unlikely to reduce, and may increase, poverty. For example:

Investment in some business models may not result in poverty reduction. According to a World Bank analysis of district level data in Indonesia, only smallholder production—not production by private estates—is positively correlated with poverty reduction.
Investment in some business models may increase poverty. Large-scale land acquisition for agriculture has resulted in loss of livelihoods and increased poverty (PDF, 3.5 Mb) where the regulatory and policy environment did not recognize existing rights to land and natural resources or support sustainable practices.
In some countries the prospect of IFC financing may provide little leverage for improving company practices. For example, in Indonesia the palm oil sector is already “largely self-financing” according to the government (PDF).

Many of these challenges are not unique to the palm oil sector but rather depend on the IFC and World Bank’s institutional approaches to strategy and project implementation. Many problems can be avoided by following IFC’s existing performance standards with appropriate safeguards, and by effective coordination with the World Bank and host country governments. However, some of these issues have not yet been addressed on an institutional level (for example through the Performance Standards Review process)—such as the treatment of free prior and informed consent.

Both the institutional organization of the IFC and its standard monitoring and evaluation (M&E) tools encourage the separate treatment of “economic benefits” on one hand and “social and environmental costs” on the other. This institutional approach does not explicitly acknowledge that economic, environmental and social sustainability are key parts of poverty reduction, or sufficiently address equity concerns related to the distribution of costs and benefits among different groups. In addition, past experience (PDF, 4.5 Mb) has shown problems in implementation resulting from inappropriate staff incentives and insufficient training.

Recommendations for the World Bank Group

If the WBG removes the moratorium on palm oil investment, it is critical that country- and project-specific strategies include the following:

Application of relevant research and decision-making tools. Relevant research would need to address the following questions on an appropriate country and project level: Which models result in poverty reduction? What investment needs are not met by the private sector and could be addressed by IFC investment? What necessary policies are or are not in place and how are they implemented? A new “risk analysis tool” proposed in Annex XII of the WBG document may help address these questions.
Clear measurable objectives aligned with the WBG’s mission. Objectives should aim to achieve poverty reduction, not investment in a particular sector.
Clear roles and responsibilities for the World Bank and IFC. To ensure cooperation, mechanisms for coordination and communication should be established at the outset.
Suitable measures of success. M&E tools should measure indicators related to poverty and social and environmental sustainability. Current standard tools focus on measuring financial returns and positive development impacts, while negative development impacts—such as loss of livelihoods of local people and local environmental degradation—are treated separately as “social and environmental risks” to be mitigated. Local communities are not included as stakeholders under the IFC’s standard economic performance indicators.
Appropriate staff incentives and support. Staff incentives should be aligned with poverty reduction and social and environmental sustainability goals, and not based on financial returns. Staff members also need appropriate training and support, including incentives to cooperate and coordinate across teams and institutions.
Room for improvement. Any effective strategy should explicitly include processes that allow flexibility to continually improve and receive and incorporate feedback. The recent public consultation process, which demonstrated increasing transparency and continued openness to civil society inputs, can provide a positive basis for further improvements.

Converting Palm Oil Companies from Forest Destroyers into Forest Protectors

Craig Hanson — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 15:09:26 -0500

The following interview with Craig Hanson and Moray McLeish was conducted and compiled by Jeremy Hance and Rhett A. Butler for mongabay.com and is reposted with permission. Read the entire piece here on the Mongabay website.

In efforts to save the world’s remaining rainforests great hopes have been pinned on “degraded lands” — deforested lands that are presently sitting idle in tropical countries. Optimists say shifting agriculture to such lands will help humanity produce enough food to meet growing demand without sacrificing forests and biodiversity and exacerbating social conflict. But to date, degraded lands remain an enigma, especially in Indonesia, where deforestation continues at a rapid pace. Degraded lands are often misclassified by various Indonesian ministries—land in a far-off province may be listed as “wasteland” by Jakarta, but in reality is blanked by verdant forest that sequesters carbon, houses wildlife, and affords communities with food, water, and other essentials. Granting logging and plantation concessions on these lands can result in conflict and environmental degradation.

Therefore key to unlocking the potential of non-forest land, and thus setting Indonesia on a low carbon development pathway, is determining where degraded lands actually exist. But the process goes beyond mere land cover mapping. Decision-makers must have the full picture of the land: its ownership and use, its state of degradation and suitability for agriculture, and an understanding of the actions needed to restore it to productivity.

Under the billion dollar Indonesia-Norway partnership to reduce deforestation, some money has been allocated for degraded lands mapping. But even before the pact was signed this past May, the World Resources Institute (WRI) had launched a project to identify degraded lands in the country. Working with local partners, WRI is focusing on ways to address one of Indonesia’s most important drivers of deforestation: palm oil production.

Over the past twenty years, palm oil has emerged as a economic juggernaut in Indonesia and Malaysia. With its high yield, oil palm is an astoundingly profitable crop and accordingly, plantations have spread across Sumatra, Borneo, New Guinea, and other islands, taking a heavy toll on forests. By some estimates, more than half of oil palm expansion since 1990 occurred at the expense of forests. In the absence of action, the trend is expected to continue, driven by rising demand for vegetable oil.

WRI is interested in ensuring that future growth doesn’t lay waste to remaining forests. Therefore its mapping project aims to identify sites for “land swaps” whereby concessions on forest land could be shifted to deforested grasslands. The initiative also provides guidelines to plantation companies for obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of communities living near the degraded area and achieving Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) certification.

In a December 2010 interview with mongabay.com, WRI’s Craig Hanson and Moray McLeish discussed how the initiative could turn palm oil companies from drivers of deforestation into forest protectors.

Degraded Lands

What is the definition of degraded land?

“Degraded land” refers to areas that were cleared of their natural vegetation cover, now contain low levels of biodiversity and low stocks of carbon, and are not used for productive agriculture or human habitation. Alang-alang grasslands (Imperata cylindrica) are an example of such degraded lands in Indonesia.

Area cleared of forest where alang alang grass and tropical bracken now dominate the landscape. (Photo: Sekala)

Note that what we are talking about is not strictly degraded “land.” The areas do not necessarily have poor soil quality. Rather, what we are referring to is degraded “land cover.” The area’s ecosystem is degraded relative to what was there before—in the case of Indonesia, tropical rain forest.

Definitions fit within a context. Since the context in which we are working—breaking the link between oil palm development and greenhouse gas emissions—involves policies and actions designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the definition of “degraded land” given above is taken from a “forest carbon” perspective.

Definitions are important. The recent interaction between Greenpeace and the Government of Indonesia over “loose definitions” of land conditions, what lands may or may not be developed into plantations, and related matters highlights this importance.

Could secondary forests, which may have biodiversity or climate potential, be considered degraded land?

Many secondary forests (or degraded forests) certainly do have biodiversity and climate (carbon storage) potential. It is critical that these forests are identified and prioritized for rehabilitation. But other secondary forests may be so badly cleared that restoration is not economically feasible or practically realistic. This is why clear and pragmatic definitions of “degraded” are so important—to help stakeholders plan what to do with what land and where to focus efforts to maximize benefits to local people, biodiversity, the economy, and the climate.

Food or Forest?

Should degraded lands be restored to forests or converted to agriculture?

Decisions about degraded land use should be determined by individual countries in careful consultation with the communities living near them. The decisions should respect existing land rights, including customary use rights. Factors to consider when making choices about different land uses include: To what degree is agricultural expansion a direct driver of deforestation? What is the level of food security in the region or country? What is the relative ease, biophysically and economically, of restoring the land to either forest or farms? Is the area of degraded land in question adjacent to a waterway where erosion is a problem? What is the country’s forest conservation and REDD+ aspirations? In short, these considerations are about what ecosystem services are desired from these landscapes.

How these and other questions are answered should guide decisions regarding the optimal use of a particular degraded area. For example, if agricultural expansion into natural forests is the number one driver of deforestation in country X and the country has committed to curbing deforestation, then utilizing already cleared and degraded areas as a “pressure-relief valve” for agricultural expansion may make sense. However, if agricultural expansion into forests is not a driver of deforestation in country X but another issue, say erosion, is a big concern, then restoring degraded areas back to their natural ecosystem (e.g., forests) may make the most sense.

And finally, we shouldn’t forget that it isn’t necessarily “either/or”. Some tracts could be restored to agro-forestry landscapes.

Since degraded land at one time was usually forest, shouldn’t some degraded land be reforested for biodiversity and climate?

Yes, certainly. This relates to our earlier point of needing to manage land to provide a bundle of ecosystem services—freshwater, erosion control, climate regulation, food, recreation and cultural values, etc. As a result, some degraded areas should be restored back into forests or whatever natural ecosystem the landscape was before it was degraded, especially where these areas provide valuable ecosystem services such as freshwater.

Potentially how much degraded land worldwide could be restored to forests?

A recent analysis by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and partners suggests that there are more than one billion degraded hectares globally—an area larger than Brazil—that offer forest landscape restoration opportunities. These lands could be restored to their native forest state, creating habitat for wildlife, reducing erosion, ensuring clean water supplies, and combating climate change by absorbing carbon dioxide, or restored into mosaic, agro-forest ecosystems.

Global Map of Forest Landscape Restoration Opportunities

Some of these lands could be cultivated, as well. But exactly how much could and should be turned into cultivation requires a more detailed country-by-country analysis that includes asking “cultivation for what?” We have not conducted that assessment. This should be a participatory process. Furthermore, one should note that WRI’s analysis only looked at degraded forests; we did not look at degraded grasslands, wetlands, or other ecosystems.

How does one identify degraded lands that could be amenable for agriculture, such as palm oil?

While the specifics will differ by crop, by region, etc., most methods would need to screen for biophysical suitability, economic viability, social acceptability, and legal availability of the land.

Along with partners, WRI has developed a methodology for identifying degraded lands, determining which of these are economically viable and socially acceptable for sustainable oil palm, and assessing their legal availability for plantation development. Figure 1 summarizes the key screens used in this methodology:

Environmental. The area is degraded from a forest carbon perspective (e.g., <40 tons of carbon per hectare). Developing the area will not result in significant greenhouse gas emissions or reduce critical environmental “high conservation values” including biodiversity preservation and clean water supply;
Economic. The area is biophysically capable of profitable oil palm production in terms of climate, topography, and soil properties. Highest priority areas meet minimum plantation size and proximity to infrastructure requirements;
Social. Local people are likely to benefit from plantation establishment and agree to participate in a free prior and informed consent process; and
Legal. Legal land status allows for conversion to oil palm plantation and expansion does not conflict with existing concessions or other rights, including traditional rights of indigenous communities.

Measurable parameters underlie these screens.

Figure 1: Screening Criteria for Identifying Acceptable Areas for Sustainable Oil Palm Expansion

One should note that some areas that are acceptable according to environmental, economic, and social criteria may be currently unavailable to planters for legal reasons. For example, some of these degraded areas may not be zoned for agricultural activities. This does not mean, however, that the area should necessarily be removed from consideration, since zoning can be changed.

Challenges Confronting Degraded Land

Often logging a forest is used to pay the ‘down payment’ on starting a plantation. Given this, how would new plantations on degraded land be financed?

This may be true in some cases, particularly when stands of commercial timber-rich forest are granted for palm oil. But times may be changing. In collaboration with the Prince’s Rainforests Project and agricultural economist Thomas Fairhurst, we recently interviewed a number palm oil companies in Indonesia about the value to them of expanding into land with tree cover vs. expanding into areas without trees. Many stated they would rather expand onto non-forested land due to the set-up costs and the lengthy bureaucratic processes of getting a permit in forested areas. None of the companies interviewed cited financing—and thus the need for a timber cut to generate cash—as a factor restricting their expansion. Rather, they emphasized the importance of improved spatial planning as the main requirement to reach oil palm development targets as well as forest conservation goals in Indonesia.

In some places such as Indonesia, degraded land has been claimed by small-scale farmers or local communities. How should landownership be determined in such cases?

In all cases, genuine land use and ownership claims must be respected, including the claims of indigenous peoples. In many cases, such claims are not clearly documented, are overlapping, or are conflicting. Our close partner, Sekala, has shown community mapping to be an effective and conflict-reducing way of agreeing and documenting land ownership and use claims – both within a community, and between a community and government or land-using industry.

If communities are to be compensated for providing degraded land to companies, who will pay them?

Of primary importance is ensuring a fair decision making process. The approach of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) has been designed to help ensure that communities are not forced into relinquishing land against their will, and that they are appropriately compensated for any land based values or use rights they do choose to relinquish.

Land Swaps

How would land swaps work?

One approach for reducing deforestation and peatland degradation in Indonesia that WRI has been working on is to divert planned oil palm plantations away from natural forests and toward degraded lands instead. We sometimes refer to this as a “land swap”. Under a swap, a company that has a permit to clear a tract of natural forest and convert it into an oil palm plantation does not “exercise” that permit but rather develops the plantation on a roughly equivalent-sized tract of degraded land, such as an alang-alang grassland (Imperata cylindrica). Under our model, plantation development in the degraded area follows the procedures of the RSPO (Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil), including obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of communities living near the degraded area. Likewise, a sustainable forest management or conservation plan is put in place for the forest previously slated for conversion. Ecosystem restoration concessions (ERCs) are one mechanism for pursuing the latter. Under an ERC, the government grants the permit holder long term rights to sell ecosystem services produced by the land in return for the obligation to manage the land for ecosystem conservation or restoration with only limited extraction.

Land swaps are part of a broader strategy of utilizing degraded land for plantation development as a means of relieving agricultural pressure on natural forests. In essence, land swaps are an approach for undoing the mistakes of the past—that is, permits or concessions that were allocated on natural forests or peat lands. But only allocating oil palm plantation permits on degraded lands going forward—a strategy supported by Indonesia’s president—would prevent mistakes in the future.

In short, degraded land utilization could allow a country to have its palm oil and its forests, too.

You have written that for degraded land to be used for agriculture it should be “physically suitable, economically viable, legally available, and socially acceptable to nearby communities”. How much land do you think actually fits all of these requirements?

Based on field surveys in just one portion of Borneo, we believe that there is a lot of such land, enough to help relieve some of the pressure agriculture has on natural forests. But “how much degraded land is there?” is less important than “where are these areas?” Answering the former is helpful for headlines; answering the latter is required for land-use decisions. Our methodology is aimed at figuring the latter out. The important thing now is to apply this methodology at national, provincial and district levels, developing maps of where environmentally sustainable agricultural expansion could potentially occur.

Having Your Food and Forests, Too

Moray McLeish — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:48:23 -0500

Expanding agriculture onto already degraded lands could relieve pressure on the world’s remaining forests.

Enabling tropical countries to boost their economies and feed global populations while conserving forests and combating climate change is a developmental and environmental nut that has yet to be cracked. On Thursday, The Prince of Wales will gather international leaders from governments, environmental and social NGOs, agribusiness and finance sectors to highlight ways in which agricultural production can expand without causing further deforestation. One of them is revolutionary in its practicality - restoring degraded lands to absorb agricultural expansion.

This novel approach has enormous potential.

The world is awash with degraded land, which doesn’t necessarily mean land with poor soil quality. Rather, it is land where natural vegetation—often forests—was cleared years ago and where the forests did not recover. These areas often have low levels of biodiversity and low stocks of carbon.

The World from a Forest Landscape Restoration Perspective: (Click to enlarge)

Download High Resolution Bitmap (PNG, 3300 x 1650 px, 3.9 Mb)

A recent analysis by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and partners suggests that there are more than one billion degraded hectares globally—an area larger than Brazil. Some of these lands can and should be restored to their native forest state, creating habitat for wildlife, reducing erosion, ensuring clean water supplies, and combating climate change by absorbing carbon dioxide. But others could be utilized for agriculture and thus relieve pressure on the world’s remaining virgin forests while creating local livelihoods.

Imagine a future where increased demand for beef, soya, and palm oil is met not by converting tropical forests and carbon-rich peatlands but by utilizing just a portion of these degraded areas.

Area cleared of forest where alang alang grass and tropical bracken now dominate the landscape; Indonesia. (Photo: Sekala)

The Prince of Wales has. Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has, too, when he announced a policy to develop Indonesia’s palm oil industry on degraded lands instead of in forests. This is visionary leadership.

The Norwegian government sees this future, as well. In May of this year, Norway committed $1 billion to Indonesia if the country can demonstrate reduced tropical deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions. Utilizing degraded lands is a pillar of this commitment.

WRI has been lending this vision practical support in Indonesia, working to divert planned oil palm plantations away from natural forests and on to degraded land. We have been popularizing this strategy by constructively engaging palm oil companies, NGOs and government agencies. Using satellites and field surveys, we have mapped the province of West Kalimantan to identify tracts of degraded land that are candidates for sustainable oil palm. In addition, we have initiated a pilot “land swap” that will steer a planned plantation away from natural forests on to a tract of degraded land.

The Prince of Wales and Craig Hanson, Director of WRI’s People and Ecosystems Program, discuss degraded land. Photo credit: Moray McLeish

Our experience suggests, however, that if degraded lands are to absorb agricultural expansion at sufficient scale, countries need to answer three key questions: “what, where, and how?”

First, “what is degraded land?” Governments, companies, and NGOs who may have different perspectives must agree on a definition. And if sustainable agricultural expansion is to be achieved, the definition will need to include some threshold for carbon and biodiversity content below which the area can be considered “degraded.”
Second, “where is the degraded land?” To put degraded land into productive agricultural use, governments, companies, and farmers need to know exactly where these areas are located. And these lands need to be physically suitable, economically viable, legally available, and socially acceptable to nearby communities. Working with other NGOs and the Prince’s Rainforests Project, WRI has developed a methodology for identifying degraded lands that meet these criteria for oil palm development in Indonesia.

If we are to feed nine billion people by 2050, successfully tackle climate change, and conserve the world’s biodiversity, we need to break the link between food security and deforestation.

Third, “how can degraded land be transformed into productive use?” Analyses have shown that converting degraded areas to agricultural production can be financially attractive. However, local communities need to have given their free, prior, and informed consent before tracts of land are restored into farms, plantations, or ranches. At the same time, the “cost” of expansion into virgin forests needs to increase—through policies and enforcement—since degraded land is often a symptom of a cheap frontier.

Agricultural development has traditionally pushed forward into forests. But the time has come to look back to the areas cleared years ago. If we are to feed nine billion people by 2050, successfully tackle climate change, and conserve the world’s biodiversity, we need to break the link between food security and deforestation. As Thursday’s meeting convened by The Prince of Wales will highlight, using degraded lands is an important part of severing that link.

We just might be able to have our food and forests, too.

FAQ: Indonesia, Degraded Land and Sustainable Palm Oil

Beth Gingold — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 14:37:06 -0400

Common data and clear definitions will enable the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil and REDD+ policy-makers to achieve a shared goal: sustainable oil palm expansion on degraded land in Indonesia.

In May 2010, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono announced a national policy to develop oil palm plantations on “degraded land”– instead of on forest and peatland — as part of an ambitious plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). Indonesia’s draft national REDD+ strategy, which has been made available for public consultation, reflects this intention.

The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), comprised of over 350 members from government, NGOs, and businesses, has developed a set of principles and criteria for sustainable palm oil production. According to the RSPO, new plantations in Indonesia must not replace primary forest or reduce high conservation values and should use “previously cleared and/or degraded land.”

This November, the RSPO convenes in Jakarta as REDD+ policy-makers continue developing a degraded land national policy. This piece answers frequently asked questions by both groups and aims to provide a common factual starting point for moving the policy dialogue forward.

Who makes the decisions?

Implementation of a national policy for Indonesia will require effective participation by many decision-makers in the public, private, and civil sectors engaged in planning and management related to the palm oil sector (Table 1). Companies that have already committed to sustainable practices in accordance with the RSPO stand to benefit from—and can contribute to—this effort.

Table 1. Critical Decisions and Decision-Makers
Decisions	Decision-Makers
National strategy development – How to balance national priorities including REDD+, food security, poverty reduction, and biodiversity preservation?	Government (national)
Spatial planning – Which areas are acceptable for plantation expansion or other activities? Decisions include legal land classification/zoning.	Government (national/province/district)
Project planning – Which projects should occur in these areas? Decisions include permitting and free prior informed consent. Decisions will be highly influenced by market factors.	Government (district/local)
	Communities
	Companies
	Civil Society
Project management – How are projects implemented (i.e., according to Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil Principles & Criteria and/or legal/government sustainability criteria?)	Companies
	Employees/smallholders
	Communities
Measuring, reporting & verification and enforcement – How are plans/management monitored and enforced?	Government (national/province/district)
	RSPO/industry bodies
	Civil Society

To participate in meaningful debate around this proposed policy, decision-makers across sectors need to have a common understanding of the answers to the following frequently asked questions:

What is degraded land?
How much degraded land is there in Indonesia?
How much oil palm expansion is expected in Indonesia by 2020?
How can acceptable areas for sustainable expansion be identified?
What can be done to enable critical decision-makers to address these questions?

Right now there is simply not enough accurate spatial data to answer these questions for the entire archipelago. This gap can be addressed by a well-designed “degraded land database” that may be developed under the Indonesia-Norway partnership on REDD+, and/or by the “spatial data management mechanism” described under Indonesia’s draft national REDD+ strategy (Section 3.2.1, paragraph 1.c).

What is “degraded land”?

Area cleared of forest where alang alang grass and tropical bracken now dominate the landscape. (Photo: Sekala)

In the context of developing policies to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation, degraded land refers to areas with low carbon stocks, typically with low tree cover.

There is no single internationally-approved definition of “degraded land” and no single corresponding definition in Indonesian law or policy. The policy dialogue regarding reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) has suffered from this lack of clarity regarding definitions.

Land degradation is generally understood as a human-caused process that results in long term loss of natural productivity.

Forest degradation generally refers to loss of services provided by forested ecosystems, including but not limited to carbon storage.

According to Indonesia’s draft national REDD+ policy:

“Degradation is the change in the forest that has negative impacts on the structure or function of stand or forest land, so that it reduces the forest capacity to provide forest services/products. In the REDD+ context, degradation may be interpreted as the forest carbon stock degradation.”

No specific level of carbon stock degradation is specified.

Government officials, private companies, NGOs, and academics have used the term “degraded” in multiple contexts to describe land with a wide variety of characteristics. General terms that have been used interchangeably with “degraded land” include:

Degraded forest – secondary or selectively logged forests that provide reduced levels of ecosystem services, including but not limited to carbon storage. Ecologists and environmental NGOs are concerned that allowing the conversion of these forests could result in significant carbon emissions as well as lost “co-benefits” such as biodiversity preservation.
Marginal/waste land – areas with low agricultural productivity and economic potential. Companies are concerned that these areas would be unprofitable to develop.
Idle/unused/abandoned land – areas that are empty or not being used productively, often from a legal standpoint. These terms are controversial because legal designations do not always consider existing local or traditional rights, claims, or uses.

In Indonesia, related legal terms include:

Lahan kritis (literally “critical” land, often translated as “degraded”) — land legally designated as having reduced ecological functions by the Ministry of Forestry, based on biophysical characteristics.
Tanah terlantar (unused/abandoned land) — land on which a permit has been issued but has not yet been utilized by the permit-holder.
Lahan tidur (idle land, set-aside lands, literally “sleeping” land) — areas that are considered unproductive according to national or provincial regulations.

Under WRI’s Project POTICO, degraded land refers to areas that were cleared of forests long ago and that now contain low carbon stocks and low levels of biodiversity, such as alang alang grasslands. According to a detailed economic analysis conducted by WWF and fieldwork carried out by WRI’s local partner Sekala, many of these areas have suitable soil for oil palm cultivation, can produce comparable yields relative to recently deforested land, and are viewed as unproductive by local communities.

How much “degraded land” is there in Indonesia?

If degraded land refers to areas that were cleared of forests long ago and that now contain low carbon stocks, various sources suggest that there are likely at least 6 million hectares of degraded land in Indonesia (an area larger than the Indonesian province of Aceh).

Since there is no single definition of degraded land, estimates of the extent of degraded land in Indonesia vary widely. Therefore the extent, location and status of Indonesia’s “degraded” land—particularly from a social and legal standpoint—remain unclear.

Many quoted estimates do not include sufficient information regarding how the estimates were made, or what definitions were used. In many cases, estimates refer to legal land status rather than carbon stock levels. Recent estimates related to the extent of degraded land that may be used for oil palm in Indonesia include:

6 million hectares of degraded land “available for oil palm expansion” according to a senior official of the Indonesia Investment Coordinating Board (Reuters 2010).
7 million hectares of unused/abandoned degraded land (“tanah terlantar yang kondisinya sangat kritis”) according to Ministry of Forestry, February 2010.
8.5 million hectares of alang alang grassland (Garrity 1997).
7-14 million hectares of degraded, abandoned lands that may be used for agricultural development according to Fitrian Ardiansyah, director of climate and energy WWF-Indonesia, (Jakarta Post 2010).
12 million hectares of “idle land” the National Land Agency (BPN) indicates could be used for business purposes, according to the Forestry Minister (Jakarta Post 2010).
31 million hectares of “unused land” considered “suitable” and “available” for agriculture (Agricultural Research & Development Body 2007, cited in Indonesia’s draft REDD+ policy).
40 million hectares of “degraded forests” within the forest estate according to the Forestry Minister (Jakarta Post 2010).
55 million hectares of land designated as non-forest, in other words, land outside the forest estate (Ministry of Forestry 2008, cited in Indonesia’s draft REDD+ policy).

To understand the possible implications of a national policy to promote the development of land that is “degraded” from a carbon standpoint will require distinguishing between terms that refer to physical status and carbon content, and those that refer to legal status.

How much oil palm expansion is expected?

Experts expect 3-7 million hectares of land will be required to accommodate expected oil palm expansion in Indonesia up to 2020.

How much land is considered “enough” for expansion will vary depending on different viewpoints regarding how much and/or whether expansion is desirable in a particular area. Considering this question on a national scale disregards critical questions related to the distribution of the costs and benefits of expansion, particularly at a local and district level.

Estimates of the current area of land under cultivation for oil palm in Indonesia range from 6-8 million hectares. Total expansion will be highly dependent on global demand, yields, and many other factors.

Recent estimates for projected or expected expansion in Indonesia by 2020 include:

3 million hectares, predicted by experts to meet the growing global demand.
5 million hectares to fulfill national production target of 40 million tons crude palm oil by 2020.¹
7 million hectares projected expansion using FAO data as a base case scenario (Wicke et al, 2008).
20 million hectares of planned concessions according to an assessment of provincial spatial plans. However, the same study found that in the past only about one third of the 18 million hectares of forest cleared under planned oil palm concessions have resulted in plantation establishment.

These estimates suggest that there is likely enough degraded land to accommodate the expansion expected to achieve Indonesia’s production goals by 2020.

How can acceptable areas for sustainable expansion be identified?

Acceptable areas for sustainable oil palm plantation expansion can be identified using a methodology that balances environmental, economic, social, and legal considerations—including but not limited to whether an area is degraded.

Just because a tract of land is degraded does not necessarily mean that the tract is acceptable for sustainable palm oil expansion. There is a significant and growing consensus—as reflected by growing industry participation in the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and in recent government statements—regarding the need to balance environmental, economic, and social concerns in order to ensure that the expansion of oil palm plantations is “sustainable.” Identifying acceptable degraded areas for expansion will require that policy-makers develop a participatory decision-making process informed by accurate and up-to-date spatial data that addresses environmental, economic, social, and legal considerations.

WRI and Sekala have developed a working methodology for identifying acceptable areas for sustainable palm oil using a set of criteria that address these considerations (Table 2). This methodology consists of a desktop analysis using available data and applicable screening criteria, followed by fieldwork for verification and in-depth site analysis. WRI and Sekala are engaging with other organizations conducting similar assessments—including WWF, Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy, and Fauna and Flora International—to further develop this methodology.

Table 2. Screening Criteria for Identifying Acceptable Areas for Sustainable Expansion
Considerations	Screening Criteria
Environmental — Is the area environmentally suitable? Can be assessed and mapped using a combination of spatial data analysis and on-the-ground visits—using established methodologies for identifying high conservation values (HCV).	Carbon Stocks (above and below ground)
	Biodiversity (HCV 1,2,3)
	Ecosystem Services (HCV 4)
	Forest Regeneration Potential
Economic — Is utilizing the area for a plantation economically viable? This will vary between oil palm growers—including smallholders—and depend on management practices.	Agricultural suitability (climate, topography, soil)
	Size
	Proximity to infrastructure
Social— Is converting the area to a plantation acceptable to local communities? Needs to be determined through a participatory planning process that addresses “free prior and informed consent.”	Risk of displacement (HCV 5)
	Risk of loss of cultural identity (HCV 6)
	Local people benefit from balanced economic development and are interested in participating in free prior informed consent process.*
Legal— Do zoning and other regulations allow the degraded area to be used for plantations? Can be changed—and may need to be clarified—by policymakers.	Legal land status (zoning)
	Legal claims (permits)

*These criteria should be primarily understood as screening criteria for responsible projects, unlike the rest of the screening criteria listed here which apply to identifying acceptable areas for plantations.

Figure 1 shows another way of looking at the screening criteria:

Figure 1. Screening Criteria for Identifying Acceptable Areas for Sustainable Oil Palm Expansion

Some areas that are acceptable according to environmental, economic, and social criteria may be currently unavailable to planters for legal reasons. For example, some of these degraded areas may be legally classified as forest where agricultural activities are not allowed. These legal barriers can be removed by policymakers. However, developing a transparent and fair process for removing legal barriers requires accurate information. Current spatial data regarding legal feasibility—such as the location of outstanding permits or other rights and claims—is often unavailable or inconsistent across multiple data sources.

How can decision-makers address these questions?

A publicly accessible website that provides up-to-date, accurate spatial data and established methodologies for identifying acceptable areas for expansion can enable improved decision-making for sustainable palm oil across the public, private, and civil sectors.

A well-designed “degraded land database” or “spatial data management mechanism” as proposed by national REDD+ policy-makers can support improved decision-making for sustainable palm oil on all levels if it:

Contains comprehensive, accurate, and regularly updated spatial data;
Takes the form of a publicly available and easily accessible web-based application that allows users to generate maps based on pre-determined screening criteria and user-defined parameters;
Is designed to address needs of relevant decision-makers—including REDD+ policy makers, national and local government officials, private companies, communities, and civil society organizations (Table 1);
Includes sufficient data to carry out the desktop analysis portion of a common methodology for identifying acceptable areas for sustainable expansion (Table 2); and
Is integrated with the “independent institution for a national monitoring, reporting and verification system” also described in the Indonesia-Norway agreement.

Ensuring public access to accurate up-to-date spatial data would provide all decision-makers with a common basis for taking actions—and engaging in constructive dialogue—regarding the development of degraded land.

Feed the World. Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry 2010. ↩

What’s Next for Indonesia-Norway Cooperation on Forests?

Kemen Austin — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:14:06 -0400

In May 2010, Norway agreed to contribute up to $1 billion towards reducing deforestation and forest degradation and loss of peatland in Indonesia, which now account for more than 80 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. The “Letter of Intent” is a promising first step, yet the two countries must still settle key details of the agreement. Below is WRI’s analysis of the Letter of Intent and recommendations for what should be addressed next.

Deforestation and forest degradation in Indonesia have led to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and biodiversity loss of global significance. The recently announced Indonesia-Norway Letter of Intent (LOI) on “Cooperation on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation” aims to support Indonesia’s national strategy to reduce emissions from the land use sector, and to contribute to the international forest and climate dialogue. The effective implementation of this phased strategy can help protect Indonesia’s carbon- and biodiversity-rich tropical rainforests while promoting local prosperity.

Forest Cover Loss in Indonesia, 2000-2005: The Starting Point for the Norwegian Billion to Reduce Deforestation

The initiative proposed in the Letter of Intent will be funded by Norway with US $1 billion, with $100 million paid up front and the rest as contributions-for-delivery. Implementation will occur in three phases:

1. A preparatory steps phase to be achieved by January 2011, including:

Development of a national strategy to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (known as REDD+);
Establishment of a special coordination agency;
Formation of an independent institution for monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV);
Establishment of a funding instrument based on payment for emissions reductions; and
Selection of a province-wide pilot project.

2. A readiness phase starting in 2011 and lasting 3-4 years, including:

Capacity building, policy development and implementation in 1-2 pilot provinces;
Legal reform to address land tenure conflicts, compensation claims and law enforcement;
A two-year suspension of new forest conversion concessions;
Creation of a degraded land database; and
Development of an independent international verification mechanism.

3. A contributions-for-verified-emission-reductions phase beginning in 2014 which will allow Norway and potentially others to pay for emission reductions through a fund mechanism.

The phased approach and payments based on deliverables is a promising strategy. Additionally, emphases on alignment with international processes, coordination with other REDD+ initiatives (both multi- and bi-lateral), participation of all stakeholders, and full transparency are important. However, because of the inherent briefness of such a LOI, ultimate success will depend on the details.

Next Steps for Protecting Forests

Over the coming months, Norway and Indonesia will write a document detailing the deliverables of this agreement, planned for release in October 2010. If it is to fulfill its potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation, forest degradation, and peatland conversion in Indonesia, the agreement that emerges should address at least five critical objectives:

Coordinate agencies. The LOI mentions two new institutions, a “special agency reporting directly to the president” and an “independent institution for a national monitoring, reporting and verification system”. The roles and responsibilities of these institutions relative to those of the already existing National Climate Change Council (DNPI) and National Development Planning Agency (BAPPENAS) will need to be clarified. The roles of these four institutions also will have to be clarified in light of the new Climate Change Center announced during the G-20 meeting in Toronto as part of the U.S.-Indonesia Comprehensive Partnership. In addition, the new institutions will need to be coordinated with the horizontal (between ministries) and vertical (national, provincial and district government) decision-making structures of Indonesia.
Clarify definitions. Point VII.C of the LOI introduces a degraded land database as a pillar of a strategy to expand agriculture development onto degraded areas instead of into forests. However, a clear definition of “forest,” “degraded land” and “peat” is missing. Definitions are important; for example, defining peat based on depth can result in very different definitions of peatland as peat depth varies considerably. Similarly, the screening criteria to classify land as degraded or suitable for agriculture are not mentioned. Environmental, economic, legal and social factors should be taken into account in these definitions. Without clear definitions, the push to utilize “degraded land” could result in the clearing of high value secondary forest or agro-forests important for communities, or even incentivize the “creation” of new degraded land, which then becomes available for development by virtue of its legal status.
Develop a low carbon land use strategy. The forest monitoring system mentioned in the LOI (the monitoring, reporting and verification system or “MRV”) will be a tool to measure greenhouse gas emissions and inform where emissions occur, but will not actively reduce emissions. Thus, Indonesia first should develop a low carbon land use strategy that targets development onto lands with low carbon content (for example, zoning tree-less areas as candidates for agricultural development), while incentivizing protection or other sustainable uses in dense forest areas. With all the pressures on forests from oil palm, timber, pulp and paper expansion, mining and other activities, a spatially-explicit national land use strategy vetted and integrated with all horizontal and vertical agencies, through a participatory process, will be a critical step in reducing emissions from the land use sector.
Address existing concessions. Although the announcement of a two year suspension of “new concessions for conversion of peat and natural forest” in 2011 is an important step to lower greenhouse gas emissions, this suspension does not address existing concessions. Many companies already have been issued clear-cut licenses for agricultural or timber-plantation development on forested areas that have not yet been converted, and more concessions may be issued between now and the end of 2010. The government has suggested this problem may be addressed through “land swaps” implemented on a voluntary basis in cooperation with civil society and industry. However, since no specific policies have been announced, it is unclear that the moratorium will result in reduced deforestation in the short term. It is essential that a final agreement include plans for the existing, but not yet exercised licenses that are not addressed by the moratorium.
Define the emissions reference level. The LOI says that in phase 3 (point VIII.A), payments will be based upon a reference level and Indonesia’s pledges. This refers to the pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 41 percent below a historical baseline with international assistance. However, historical reference levels can vary considerably by choosing different data sources or choosing different time periods on which to base the reference level (e.g. the 1990-2000 deforestation rate was 1.8 million ha/yr, while the 2000-2005 deforestation rate was 0.7 million ha/yr according to Hansen et al. 2009). In order to achieve desired reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the reference level should be set to encourage continued reductions below current emissions levels.

A Good Start

The LOI demonstrates significant support for Indonesia’s national strategy to reduce emissions from the land use sector. In order to be successful, the forthcoming agreement should include further clarification of institutional arrangements, define key terms such as “degraded land,” incorporate plans for low carbon land management, clarify what will fall under the conversion suspension, and determine which reference level will be used. If these elements are clarified, the partnership between Norway and Indonesia holds great promise for achieving reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.

Degraded Land, Sustainable Palm Oil, and Indonesia’s Future: A new policy to develop oil palm on degraded land could protect Indonesia’s forests. But what does “degraded” really mean?
Low Carbon Palm Oil for Indonesia?: An upcoming United States-Indonesia partnership is an opportunity to tackle deforestation.
Map: Forest Cover Loss in Indonesia

Degraded Land, Sustainable Palm Oil, and Indonesia’s Future

Beth Gingold — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:29:27 -0400

A new policy to develop oil palm on degraded land could protect Indonesia’s forests. But what does “degraded” really mean?

In May 2010, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono declared a policy to develop oil palm plantations on “degraded land” instead of forest or peatland. As part of national REDD+ strategy to be developed under a groundbreaking $1 billion partnership with Norway, this policy has the potential to allow the palm oil industry to continue to expand—generating profits, government revenues, and jobs—while reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.

Although questions remain regarding the details of Indonesia’s strategy to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+), the Indonesian government has recently suggested that there are 6 million hectares of degraded land (an area larger than the Indonesian province of Aceh) that could be used for oil palm expansion—enough to achieve the country’s national target of doubling palm oil production by 2020 without additional deforestation.

Whether the expansion of oil palm plantations on degraded land is sustainable will depend largely on how important details—such as the meaning of “degraded”—are addressed during implementation.

Debating Definitions: What is “Degraded Land?”

Past estimates of the extent of degraded land in Indonesia have ranged widely—from 12 to 74 million hectares—as some studies have used definitions limited to biophysical characteristics such as tree canopy cover while others have included social or economic considerations.

A degraded land policy designed to reduce emissions from deforestation should consider a “forest carbon” perspective—in other words, the use of degraded land for oil palm plantations should not lead to significant carbon emissions. Such degraded lands, for example, could be areas that were cleared of forests long ago and that now contain low carbon stocks and low levels of biodiversity, such as alang alang grasslands. In this sense, degraded land would have low standing biomass, low below-ground carbon storage and low forest regeneration potential.

Both industry and civil society groups are concerned that the location and status of the “degraded” areas referred to by the partnership—particularly from a social and legal standpoint—are unclear. Meanwhile, REDD+ policy-makers and environmental NGOs are concerned that allowing the conversion of “degraded” secondary forests could result in significant carbon emissions as well as lost “co-benefits” such as biodiversity preservation.

In addition, there is a significant and growing consensus—as reflected by growing industry participation in the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and in recent government statements—regarding the need to balance environmental, economic, and social concerns in order to ensure that the expansion of oil palm plantations is truly “sustainable.” This would include, but would not be limited to, whether an area is degraded from a forest carbon perspective.

A major challenge facing national REDD+ policy-makers and decision-makers at all levels is a lack of a common methodology—and the associated accurate and up-to-date spatial data—for identifying acceptable areas for sustainable oil palm plantation expansion.

Implementing a Degraded Land Policy for Sustainable Palm Oil

A Degraded Land Database

To address this challenge, the partnership has proposed to establish a “degraded land database.” A well-designed publicly available database would provide the necessary spatial data to implement a common methodology for identifying acceptable areas for expansion. A critical step toward determining what information needs to be included in this database is the development of a transparent and systematic methodology for prioritizing acceptable areas for sustainable palm oil development, that includes a working definition of degraded from a forest carbon perspective.

This step should be informed by ongoing related efforts by NGOs such as WRI, WWF, Conservation International, the Nature Conservancy and Fauna & Flora International and incorporate relevant industry or market guidelines such as those developed by the RSPO.

A Common Methodology for Identifying Degraded Land

Under Project POTICO, WRI and Indonesian partner Sekala have developed a working methodology for identifying degraded land that is acceptable for sustainable oil palm plantation expansion. According to this methodology, an acceptable area would fulfill four criteria:

Environmental. The area is degraded from a forest carbon perspective. Developing the area will not result in significant greenhouse gas emissions or reduce critical environmental “high conservation values” including biodiversity preservation and clean water supply;
Economic. The area is biophysically capable of profitable oil palm production in terms of climate, topography, and soil properties. Highest priority areas meet minimum plantation size and proximity to infrastructure requirements;
Social. Local people are likely to benefit from plantation establishment and agree to participate in a process to obtain free prior and informed consent; and
Legal. Legal land status allows for conversion to oil palm plantation and expansion does not conflict with existing concessions or other rights including traditional rights of indigenous communities.

Figure 1. Screening Criteria for Identifying Acceptable Areas for Sustainable Oil Palm Expansion

These screening criteria are applied in a multi-step process consisting of a desktop analysis followed by field visits to assess individual sites (Figure 1). The desktop analysis uses relevant spatial data based on satellite information, aerial imagery, and other sources to assess factors that can be measured and mapped objectively—such as carbon content. Field work is required to verify the results of the desktop analysis and assess factors that can only be determined on a site level, especially those related to social acceptability.

Figure 2. This POTICO map of West Kalimantan identifies areas that have no/low potential (orange), medium potential (green), and high potential (pink) for sustainable oil palm expansion.

WRI and Sekala recently applied this method to develop a map identifying potentially acceptable areas for sustainable oil palm plantation expansion in the province of West Kalimantan (Figure 2). This map was used to guide field assessments of over two dozen potential sites. This experience has shown that a process to determine whether or not an area is acceptable for sustainable oil palm expansion should consider that:

Environmental acceptability can be assessed and mapped using a combination of satellite data, aerial imagery, and on-the-ground field visits. However, available spatial data is currently not sufficiently accurate to confidently identify areas that are environmentally suitable without field verification.
Economic viability will vary between oil palm growers. Government officials can use screening criteria to generate maps of areas where it is possible to grow oil palm with reasonable yields based on climate, topography, and soil type. However, private companies will require additional information—such as proximity to infrastructure, the location of their existing operations, and mills—to determine which of these areas meet company-specific requirements for viability.
Social desirability needs to be determined through a participatory planning process that addresses “free prior and informed consent.” Information related to social desirability—including the current uses, claims, and traditional rights—is often unavailable prior to conducting fieldwork. Maps of acceptable areas can provide input into a participatory planning process but should not pre-determine where oil palm plantations are established.
Legal feasibility can be changed—and needs to be clarified—by policy-makers. Some areas that are acceptable according to environmental, economic, and social criteria may be currently unavailable to planters for legal reasons. For example, some of these degraded areas may be legally classified as forest where agricultural activities are not allowed. This does not mean, however, that the area should necessarily be removed from consideration as acceptable for sustainable oil palm plantations. These legal barriers can be removed by policy-makers. However, developing a transparent and fair process for removing legal barriers requires accurate information. Current spatial data regarding legal feasibility—such as the location of outstanding permits or other rights and claims—is often unavailable or inconsistent across multiple data sources.

To support this methodology, a comprehensive “degraded land database” would need to include sufficient spatial data to assess these environmental, economic, social, and legal criteria.

Actions for National Policy-Makers

The success of a national strategy to support the expansion of sustainable oil palm plantations on degraded lands rests with planning and management decisions by various groups and individuals. Important decision-makers will include national, provincial and district government officials, companies, and communities—for example, those involved in REDD+ strategy development, spatial planning and permitting, project planning, law enforcement, and MRV (measuring, reporting and verification). A “degraded land database” can inform all of these decision-makers.

National policy-makers can begin the implementation of an effective and equitable national policy to develop sustainable oil palm plantations on acceptable degraded areas by taking the following actions:

Ensure that the proposed “degraded land database” is designed to support improved planning and management decisions for sustainable palm oil. The database should contain comprehensive, accurate, and regularly updated spatial data and take the form of a publicly available and easily accessible web-based application that allows users to generate maps based on pre-determined screening criteria and user-defined parameters. To ensure the database is used effectively, the developers of the database should work with important decision-makers—including REDD+ policy makers, national and local government officials, private companies and civil society organizations—to collect input for database design, produce common definitions and methodologies, and develop appropriate awareness-raising and capacity-building activities.
Identify data gaps, establish a process for collecting and updating data on a regular basis, and facilitate data sharing between government agencies. Many datasets are not sufficiently accurate and are sometimes contradictory. Information that is as relevant as possible should be included in the database, and limitations of existing data should be publicly identified and explained.
Provide publicly available maps of areas that are degraded from a forest carbon perspective and a common methodology for identifying acceptable areas for sustainable oil palm expansion. Although some screening criteria such as social desirability can only be determined through site-specific fieldwork, a publicly available map of areas that fulfill the environmental and economic criteria can provide a common starting point for policy-makers, companies, and civil society.
Identify and remove legal barriers to the development of areas that are otherwise environmentally, economically, and socially acceptable. Unlike the other screening criteria, legal feasibility can be changed by policy-makers. Based on accurate spatial data, policymakers can develop land use zoning and permitting procedures to remove legal barriers to sustainable oil palm development in degraded areas. These procedures should be consistent with best practices in participatory spatial planning and the principle of free prior and informed consent.

If defined and designed effectively, the proposed “degraded land database” will help Indonesia achieve its low carbon and agricultural development goals through sustainable oil palm expansion on degraded land.

Low Carbon Palm Oil for Indonesia?: An upcoming United States-Indonesia partnership is an opportunity to tackle deforestation.
What’s Next for Norway-Indonesia Cooperation on Forests?
Map: Forest Cover Loss in Indonesia 2000-2005

Low Carbon Palm Oil for Indonesia?

Beth Gingold — Thu, 20 May 2010 08:57:04 -0400

An upcoming United States-Indonesia partnership is an opportunity to tackle deforestation.

In a June visit, President Barack Obama and President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono are expected to formalize a new “Comprehensive Partnership” between the United States and Indonesia, two of the world’s leading greenhouse gas-emitting nations. While the details of this partnership have not yet been released, one thing is certain: a true comprehensive partnership between these two countries is an unprecedented opportunity to address the global climate challenge through reducing emissions from deforestation.

Indonesia has announced that a key strategy for “low carbon prosperity” is the use of degraded land rather than forested or peat land for oil palm plantation expansion. The effective implementation of this strategy—combined with international support for avoiding deforestation—can help protect Indonesia’s globally significant carbon- and biodiversity-rich tropical rainforests while promoting local prosperity.

Forests and Palm Oil: Contradictory Policies?

In late 2009, Indonesia committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent by 2020, or by 41 percent with foreign assistance. Land use change from deforestation and peat land conversion has accounted for more than 80 percent of Indonesia’s annual greenhouse gas emissions. Indonesia aims to achieve a majority of its targeted reductions by reducing emissions from deforestation and peat land conversion.

At the same time, in response to growing global and local demand, Indonesia aims to approximately double its current palm oil production to 40 million metric tons per year by 2020. By some estimates this will require an additional 5 million hectares of oil palm plantations (an area larger than Switzerland).

Current expansion plans include the conversion of forest and peat land. (Photo: WRI)

Palm oil is a lucrative crop; it is used as a common cooking oil and biofuel, as well as an ingredient in many processed foods and cosmetics. Palm oil production generates profits, employment, infrastructure development and government revenue.

Even with substantial yield improvements, further expansion of land use will be necessary to achieve these production targets. Many plantations are already planned on land that is currently forested. If the planned expansion occurs at the expense of forest and peat lands–—as it has in the past—Indonesia will be unable to achieve its emissions reductions target and the world will suffer the irreplaceable loss of Indonesia’s biodiverse tropical forests.

An Alternative: Palm Oil on Degraded Land

An attractive alternative is to expand palm oil production on degraded land instead of forested or peat land.

In this context, degraded land refers to areas that were cleared of forests long ago and that now contain low carbon stocks and low levels of biodiversity, such as alang alang grasslands. According to economic analyses by WWF¹ and Indonesia’s National Development Planning Agency², as well as fieldwork carried out by WRI and local partner Sekala, many of these areas have suitable soil for oil palm cultivation, can produce comparable yields relative to recently deforested land, and are viewed as underproductive by local communities.

Area cleared of forest where alang alang grass and tropical bracken now dominate the landscape. (Photo: Sekala)

A number of studies indicate that there is enough degraded land to accommodate Indonesia’s expected oil palm expansion past 2020. The Indonesian government estimates that a strategy that diverts future oil palm expansion away from peat to degraded land could reduce projected greenhouse gas emissions by 37 percent without a significant reduction in total economic benefits.

The Challenge: Implementation

Recognizing this opportunity, WRI and Sekala have been working to divert planned oil palm plantations away from forests to degraded land instead—a kind of “land swap”—in West Kalimantan, Indonesia (see project POTICO). WRI and its partners have identified four key challenges to implementing an effective, equitable nationwide strategy for using degraded land for plantation expansion:

Technical. Policy-makers lack the accurate land cover and land use spatial data needed to develop and implement an effective degraded land utilization strategy. This shortcoming constrains the government’s ability to identify degraded land suitable for oil palm expansion and to conduct land use monitoring and enforcement activities.
Legal. In many areas, physically degraded land is legally classified as “forest” and therefore unavailable for agricultural expansion, while forested land is legally classified as “non-forest” and therefore at risk of conversion.
Social. Oil palm plantation projects face high risk of social conflict due to land tenure issues. This is especially a problem on degraded lands which tend to have more claims than forested areas. Historically, poorly managed projects have resulted in highly unequal distribution of costs and benefits of expansion, leading to the marginalization of local communities.
Financial. Many permits for plantation development on forested land have already been issued. Changing these permits and ensuring the long term sustainable management of the forest will likely require financial incentives for local stakeholders—companies, communities, and governments—who expected to benefit from plantation development. These incentives could include payments for reducing emissions from deforestation or revenues from low impact forest uses.

A Vision for a United States-Indonesia Partnership

The United States-Indonesia Comprehensive Partnership can overcome these challenges by supporting the following actions:

Develop accurate and up-to-date spatial data to assist Indonesia’s execution of a strategy to utilize degraded land for oil palm development.
Based on this data, revise land use plans (zoning) such that degraded areas are classified for agricultural use while forest and peat lands are classified for conservation or sustainable management, through a process that incorporates best practices in participatory spatial planning.
Issue future permits according to these revised land use plans, through a process that incorporates best practice stakeholder engagement, including obtaining free prior and informed consent of relevant communities.
Develop financial incentives (e.g., via a fund, low interest loans, or other mechanisms) for companies, communities, and local governments to relocate planned plantations from forested to degraded land, and to generate benefits from low impact uses of the forested land previously slated for conversion.
Establish a public measuring, reporting and verification (MRV) system to enable Indonesia to enforce compliance with the degraded land utilization strategy and demonstrate progress toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions from land use change.

By supporting these activities, the U.S.-Indonesia Comprehensive Partnership can create improved livelihoods in Indonesia through sustainable agricultural expansion while avoiding deforestation and reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.

More Information

WRI and NewPage Launch Partnership to Protect Indonesian Forests

T. Fairhurst and D. McLaughlin, “Sustainable Oil Palm Development on Degraded Land in Kalimantan.” WWF, 2009. ↩
Indonesian National Development Planning Agency (BAPPENAS) “Reducing carbon emissions from Indonesia’s peatlands,” 2009 ↩

Rainforest Preservation Project Underway in Indonesia

Jessica Forres — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:26:44 -0400

Palm Oil, Timber and Carbon Offsets (POTICO), a project of the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the NewPage Corporation, is making progress toward conserving rainforests in Indonesia by creating an ecologically and fiscally sustainable palm oil industry.

“Oil palm plantations are one of the leading threats to Indonesia’s forests,” said WRI president Jonathan Lash. “POTICO’s revolutionary approach will help a region grow one of its largest industries while protecting its forests.”

Palm oil is a ubiquitous ingredient used in consumer goods, such as snack foods, soaps and cosmetics. To meet growing demand, companies clear-cut large tracts of land to plant oil palm plantations. This has led to the loss of more than 15 million acres of rainforest in Indonesia -one of the top five global emitters of greenhouse gases.

The three-year initiative will help improve the global environment by diverting planned oil palm plantations away from primary rainforests and locate them in areas that have been logged and degraded. Such “swaps” will help ensure that the oil palm industry can expand to meet demand yet reduce deforestation.

The project team recently launched a Web site (ProjectPOTICO.org) with statistics and maps of deforestation in Indonesia, videos on the environmental and social impacts of unsustainable palm oil and up-to-date progress reports. In the field, the team is mapping degraded areas on the Indonesian side of Borneo and working with a number of palm oil industry players in pursuit of the first set of POTICO swaps.

“The project clearly aligns with our desire to see the world’s forests managed as sustainably as we manage our own, ultimately promoting positive climate change,” said Rick Willett, president and chief executive officer for NewPage. “We are pleased to now have a Web site where the public can learn more about the effects of deforestation around the world and strategies for fostering sustainable forest management in the future.”

Topic: palm oil

Coming Soon: Global Forest Watch 2.0

WHY FORESTS, WHY NOW?

ABOUT GLOBAL FOREST WATCH 2.0

RELEASE: Two New Online Mapping Applications Launched to Support Sustainable Palm Oil in Indonesia

Forest Cover Analyzer and Suitability Mapper to be used by business and government to reduce deforestation

RELEASE: Indonesian President Yudhoyono Honored with “Valuing Nature Award” in NYC

How to Identify Degraded Land for Sustainable Palm Oil in Indonesia

Summary

Indonesia's Moratorium on New Forest Concessions: Key Findings and Next Steps

Indonesia’s Ambitious Forest Moratorium Moves Forward

What is addressed in the Presidential Decree?

Addressing Unanswered Questions

What are additional priorities for the two-year moratorium period?

Indonesia’s Moratorium: An Opportunity for Forests and Industry

What can an effective moratorium accomplish?

What are main elements of the anticipated Presidential Decree?

What do the differences between the draft decrees mean?

What are priority actions for the two-year moratorium period?

Moratorium Indonesia: Kesempatan bagi Hutan dan Industri

Apa yang bisa dicapai oleh moratorium yang efektif?

Apa elemen-elemen utama dalam rancangan Instruksi Presiden?

Apakah arti dari perbedaan beberapa rancangan Instruksi Presiden?

Apa kegiatan utama yang perlu dilakukan ketika moratorium dua tahun ini keluar?

The World Bank Group, Palm Oil, and Poverty

Palm Oil and Public Consultations

Agreement on Palm Oil Potential

Potential Challenges for Poverty Reduction

Recommendations for the World Bank Group

Converting Palm Oil Companies from Forest Destroyers into Forest Protectors

Degraded Lands

Food or Forest?

Challenges Confronting Degraded Land

Land Swaps

Having Your Food and Forests, Too

FAQ: Indonesia, Degraded Land and Sustainable Palm Oil

Who makes the decisions?

What is “degraded land”?

How much “degraded land” is there in Indonesia?

How much oil palm expansion is expected?

How can acceptable areas for sustainable expansion be identified?

How can decision-makers address these questions?

What’s Next for Indonesia-Norway Cooperation on Forests?

Next Steps for Protecting Forests

A Good Start

Read More:

Degraded Land, Sustainable Palm Oil, and Indonesia’s Future

Debating Definitions: What is “Degraded Land?”

Implementing a Degraded Land Policy for Sustainable Palm Oil

Actions for National Policy-Makers

Read More:

Low Carbon Palm Oil for Indonesia?

Forests and Palm Oil: Contradictory Policies?

An Alternative: Palm Oil on Degraded Land

The Challenge: Implementation

A Vision for a United States-Indonesia Partnership

More Information

Rainforest Preservation Project Underway in Indonesia