ICEL

ICEL

Jika Tak Laksanakan Rekomendasi KLH, IKPP Segera Dilaporkan

Kabar-banten.com – Pemkab Serang akan melaporkan PT Indah Kiat Pulp and Paper (IKPP) ke pemerintah pusat jika tidak melaksanakan rekomendasi hasil audit lingkungan wajib dari Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup (KLH). KLH memberikan batas waktu sampai akhir September 2013 kepada PT IKPP untuk melaksanakannya. 

Demikian antara lain terungkap dalam Diskusi Publik ”Memulihkan Sungai Ciujung Pascaterbitnya Rekomendasi KLH dan Hasil Audit Lingkungan Wajib” di Rumah Makan “S” Rizky, Kota Serang, Selasa (30/7). Diskusi ini digelar Wahana Hijau Fortuna (WHF) dan Front Kebangkitan Petani dan Nelayan (FKPN) serta difasilitasi Indonesian Centre Enviromental Law (ICEL).

Diskusi yang diikuti perwakilan masyarakat terdampak dari enam kecamatan di Kabupaten Serang, organisasi mahasiswa, dan organisasi massa ini menghadirkan enam pembicara. Mereka adalah H Aeng Haerudin (Ketua DPRD Banten), AKBP Dr. Dadang, SH, MH (Kasubdit Kriminal Khusus Polda Banten), Yani (Kabag Pencegahan Badan Lingkungan Hidup Kabupaten Serang), Ahmad Sholeh (anggota Komisi IV DPRD Kabupaten Serang), Raynaldo Sembiring (peneliti ICEL), dan Daddy Hartadi Rohmaluddin (Kadiv Advokasi WHF).

Kawal hasil audit
Dalam diskusi tersebut seluruh pembicara sepakat mendukung setiap program pencegahan dan pelestarian lingkungan hidup. Mereka juga sependapat rekomendasi hasil audit lingkungan wajib dari KLH terhadap PT IKPP perlu terus dikawal.

Terkait perkara ini, Dadang menyatakan, pihaknya akan mengumpulkan berkas permasalah ini sebagai bahan kajian pihak kepolisian. Dadang sependapat jika kejahatan terhadap lingkungan ini bisa dikategorikan luar biasa. Akan tetapi, untuk memasukkan kejahatan lingkungan sebagai hal luar biasa bukan domain polisi, melainkan politik.
Dadang menegaskan, pihak Polda Banten akan berupaya menegakkan hukum lingkungan secara terpadu. Pada tahun ini, menurut catatan Dadang, tidak ada satu pun perkara lingkungan hidup yang ditangani PPNS.

Pada bagian lain, dia mengakui, keterangan ahli terkadang menjadi hambatan dalam penangan perkara lingkungan hidup. Hal ini artinya, “scientific evidence” sebagai bukti hukum harus benar-benar menjadi dasar untuk pengajuan perkara ke proses hukum.

Kabag Pencegahan Badan Lingkungan Hidup Kabupaten Serang, Yani dalam pemaparannya lebih banyak menjelaskan kronologi perkara dugaan pencemaran ke Sungai Ciujung. Menurut dia, sejak 2010, Pemkab Serang sudah menemukan indikasi adanya pencemaran Sungai Ciujung dari PT IKPP.

Sejak dugaan pencemaran itu mencuat, Pemkab Serang kemudian tidak memberikan izin pembuangan limbah kepada PT IKPP. “Hal ini malah yang menjadi dasar pelaksanaan audit lingkungan hidup,” katanya.

Pada 2011, Komisi VII kemudian melakukan kunjungan kerja. Dari hasil kunjungan kerja ini kemudian muncul rekomendasi untuk melaksanakan audit wajib PT IKPP.

Pada awal 2011, pemkab bersama dengan Komisi IV DPRD Serang mendiskusikan beberapa aspek yang dilanggar PT IKPP menjadikannya masuk ke dalam kelompok usaha wajib melakukan audit wajib.

“Pada Juli 2011, kami diundang untuk RDPU di Komisi VII DPR. Baru pada awal Februari 2012 dibahas ruang lingkup audit wajib yang dilakukan. Itu pun setelah Pemkab dan DPRD Serang ke Jakarta,” katanya.

Perlu sinergi
Yani menjelaskan, sejauh ini rekomendasi dari audit ini belum dilaksanakan IKPP. “Bahkan, kami dengar ada usulan dari IKPP untuk mundur pelaksanaannya,” katanya menilai, dalam penanganan perkara ini perlu ada sinergi antar pusat dan daerah.

Sementara itu, anggota Komisi IV DPRD Kabupaten Serang, Ahmad Sholeh, sangat mendukung perjuangan masyarakat untuk mengembalikan Ciujung seperti sedia kala. “Saya punya pengalaman personal dengan Ciujung.

Saya paling keras kalau bicara soal lingkungan hidup. Bukan uma soal Ciujung, soal pasir di Pabuaran (Padarincang) juga saya keras berbicara di media,” katanya.

Sholeh mengaku, sudah benar-benar melihat dampak dari pencemaran ini. Oleh karena itu, diharapkan tidak ada toleransi lagi terhadap perkara pencemaran ini.

“28 September 2013 batas akhir IKPP harus melaksanakan hasil rekomendasi audit lingkungan hidup. Ini yang harus dikawal,” tuturnya.

Raynaldo Sembiring (ICEL) memaparkan, ada tiga dasar hukum yang bisa dijadikan pijakan untuk analisis audit PT IKPP. Ketiga dasar itu, UU No. 32/2009, Permen LH No. 3/2013 tentang Audit LH dan SK Ketua MA No. 36/KMA/SK/II/2013 tentang Pemberlakuan Pedoman Penanganan Perkara Lingkungan Hidup.

Ia menilai, dokumen audit lingkungan hidup bukan dokumen mati. Hasil audit ini seharusnya menjadi rujukan bagi instansi pemerintahan (eksekutif, legislatif, dan peradilan) untuk pembaruan kebijakan pengelolaan lingkungan hidup yang mencakup ”green policies”, ”green budgeting”, ”green bench”.

Pembicara terakhir Dady Hartadi (WHF) menjelaskan, pencemaran Ciujung ini juga berdampak ekonomi, yaitu rusaknya tambak-tambak masyarakat sekitar Sungai Ciujung. Padahal, perekonomian masyarakat bergantung pada tambak-tambak tersebut.

“Setelah Sungai Ciujung tercemar dan tambak-tambak rusak, perekonomian masyarakat surut. Hal ini menunjukkan pencemaran lingkungan hidup telah mendegradasi kualitas hidup masyarakat Serang,” katanya. 

 

Activists Demand Environment Minister’s Transparency on The Concession Map

Thejakartapost.com – Environment Minister Balthasar Kambuaya’s remark made on July 17 that he would not publish the concession had sparked criticism from environment activists.

The remark Balthasar made was a response to Singapore Minister of Environment and Water Resources Vivian Balakrishnan, who had asked him to reveal to the public the name of any individuals or companies that had been allowed to exploit Indonesian forests.

Carole Excell of the World Resource Institute said Balthasar’s remark had contradicted Indonesian government’s commitment in practicing Open Government Partnership (OGP).

RUU P3H Disahkan, Koalisi Siapkan “Judicial Review” ke MK

Mongabay.co.id –  Selasa (9/7/13) akhirnya rapat paripurna DPR RI menyetujui pengesahan RUU Pencegahan dan Pemberantasan Perusakan Hutan (P3H) menjadi Undang-undang. Namapun berganti, sebelumnya RUU Pemberantasan Perusakan Hutan (P2H).

Wakil Ketua DPR Pramono Anung memimpin rapat paripurna itu. “Apakah bisa menyetujui RUU P3H untuk disahkan menjadi Undang-undang?” Pramono bertanya pada para anggota DPR yang hadir. “Setuju….” Diapun mengetuk palu tanda setuju.

Koalisi Masyarakat Sipil untuk Pelestarian Hutan menilai, pengesahan UU ini sebagai babak baru ketidakpahaman DPR atas perundang-undangan yang dibuat dan kebutuhan masyarakat yang terdampak langsung. Merekapun telah mempersiapkan materi judicial review UU ini ke Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK). “Kami sedang rapatkan dengan koalisi dan tentukan materi yang akan kami ajukan ke MK,” kata Siti Rahma Mary dari HuMa di Jakarta, Selasa(9/7/13).

Diduga Terlibat Kebakaran Hutan, 117 Perusahaan Dilaporkan ke Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup

Mongabay.co.id – Koalisi masyarakat sipil melaporkan 117 perusahaan ke Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup, Rabu(26/6/13). Perusahaan-perusahaan ini diduga terlibat dalam kebakaran hutan dan lahan di Sumatera, hingga menyebabkan pencemaran dan kerusakan lingkungan udara di atas ambang batas kesehatan.

Muhnur Stayahaprabu, Manager Advokasi Hukum dan Kebijakan Walhi Nasional mengatakan, dari 117 perusahaan ini 33 perkebunan, 84 hutan tanaman industri dengan lokasi 99 persen di Riau.

“Kami menduga kebakaran bukan semata terjadi begitu saja, melainkan ada kepentingan korporasi yang jelas mendapatkan keuntungan di balik kebakaran lahan dan hutan itu,” katanya dalam rilis kepada media, di Jakarta, Rabu (26/6/13).

Reforming FOI Laws in Asia Urged to Help Environment

FreedomInfo.org – Asian countries need to improve their freedom of information laws as one component of providing better environmental information to the public, according to a statement issued May 1 from a conference in Jakarta attended by “representatives of governments, international organizations, civil society organizations, and academia from China, Indonesia, Japan, Mongolia, Philippines and Thailand.”

The issuance of  the “Jakarta Declaration” came at the end of three-day conference conducted as part of STRIPE, “Strengthening the Right to Information for People and the Environment,” a two-year research project undertaken by the World Resources Institute’s Access Initiative with its partners, the Thailand Environment Institute (TEI) and Indonesian Center for Environmental Law (ICEL).

“The project has sought to assess the use of the Freedom of information Law in Indonesia and Thailand to obtain access to discrete types of environmental and pollution control information, the availability of proactively released information on air and water and the challenges faced by communities and activists in heavily polluted areas to obtain information on air and water quality,” according to a description.

The Declaration includes numerous recommendations, many related to FOI and some about the need for laws mandating collection and disclosure of environmental data.

“Laws that guarante a specific right of access to environmental information without a request need to be operationalized to ensure quick and timely access to environmental information,” says one recommendation among several that promote proactive disclosure.

In proposing the Asian governments improve their FOI laws, the Declaration says that areas of priority in the region include:

a.       Protection of public officials from being sued for the release of information under FOI laws;

b.      Penalties and administrative sanctions where public officials intentionally breach the law;

c.       Reforming broad exemptions in FOI laws and ensuring the public interest is considered in deliberations whether to grant or refuse information;

d.      Removing limitations of the right to information to only citizens;

e.       Lowering fees for making requests and obtaining copies of documents;

f.       Removing requirements for people to provide a reason to make a request;

g.       Inclusion of private corporations that are required to carry out public functions and state owned enterprises within the scope of the law;

h.      Developing up-to-date archive and records management laws that mandate the collection, retention and management of information by governments;

i.        Ensuring that information commissioners are independent  and have sufficient power to order the release of information.

A related set of recommendations are aimed at effective implementation of FOI laws and the list is:

a.       Providing appropriate incentives to government officials to ensure compliance with FOI requirements;

b.      Allocation of necessary budgetary and other resources to ensure efficient and timely administration;

c.       Appointment of information commissioners with the tools to ensure adequate enforcement of the FOI law and providing methods for the disclosure of their decisions;

d.      Implementation of proactive disclosure provisions in FOI laws;

e.       Public education and training to empower civil society and communities to make full use of the right;

f.       Improving training for government officials and systems for tracking, transferring and monitoring requests,  and regular monitoring and reporting on the operation of the law;

g.       Collecting statistics on the number of requests submitted by the public, publication of FOI decisions, information declared public, and decisions or recommendations of information commissioners;

h.      Review of the operation and compliance with the law, by legislative bodies and information commissioners.

KLH Akan Perbaiki Metode Penilaian Peringkatan Perusahaan (Bahasa) KLH Akan Perbaiki Metode Penilaian Peringkatan Perusahaan

SatuNegeri.com – Salah satu komitmen Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup(KLH) untuk mendorong keterbukaan informasi kepada publik, adalah dengan memperbaiki metode Program Penilaian Peringkat Perusahaan, dengan menerapkan Pollutan Release and Transfer Register – PRTR.

Deputi VII KLH Henri Bastaman mengatakan, PRTR merupakan sebuah sistem yang mengumpulkan dan menyebarluaskan secara proaktif – via internet, informasi lingkungan dan komposisi zat berbahaya yang dilepas industri ke wahana lingkungan hidup.

Selama ini KLH telah menerapkan program Proper lewat pemeringkatan perusahaan berdasarkan tingkat kepatuhan terhadap peraturan perundang-undangan di bidang lingkungan berdasarkan metode color – coding. Namun, beberapa kalangan mengatakan, metode ini belum cukup mengakomodir ketersediaan informasi lingkungan masyarakat.

Sementara, Peneliti Indonesian Center for Environmental Law – ICEL Dyah Paramitha mengatakan, Proper tak cukup karena yang diumumkan hanya hasil pemeringkatan ditunjukkan dengan warna. Untuk proses, kriteria, dan data pendukung penilaian tidak disediakan kepada publik. “Jadi partisipasi masyarakat tidak dapat dilakukan,” katanya.

Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup Perbaiki Proper Melalui PRTR

Energitoday.com – Terkait pemenuhan hak atas informasi lingkungan, Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup – KLH berkomitmen mendorong keterbukaan informasi kepada publik. Salah satu wujud KLH adalah dengan memperbaiki metode Program Penilaian Peringkat Perusahaan, dengan menerapkan Pollutan Release and Transfer Register – PRTR.

Deputi VII KLH Henri Bastaman mengatakan, PRTR merupakan sebuah sistem yang mengumpulkan dan menyebarluaskan secara proaktif – via internet, informasi lingkungan dan komposisi zat berbahaya yang dilepas industri ke wahana lingkungan hidup. “KLH menyambut baik sistem PRTR dan mendukung diimplementasikan sistem ini di Indonesia,” katanya di Jakarta.

Dia menambahkan, selama ini KLH telah menerapkan program Proper lewat pemeringkatan perusahaan berdasarkan tingkat kepatuhan terhadap peraturan perundang-undangan di bidang lingkungan berdasarkan metode color – coding. Namun, beberapa kalangan mengatakan, metode ini belum cukup mengakomodir ketersediaan informasi lingkungan masyarakat.

Sementara, Peneliti Indonesian Center for Environmental Law – ICEL Dyah Paramitha mengatakan, Proper tak cukup karena yang diumumkan hanya hasil pemeringkatan ditunjukkan dengan warna. Untuk proses, kriteria, dan data pendukung penilaian tidak disediakan kepada publik. “Jadi partisipasi masyarakat tidak dapat dilakukan,” katanya.

Perbaiki Program Proper, KLH Siap Terapkan Sistem Informasi Lingkungan Proaktif

Mongabay.co.id – Pemerintah Indonesia melalui Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup (KLH) berkomitmen mendorong keterbukaan informasi kepada publik, terkait pemenuhan hak atas informasi lingkungan.  Salah satu wujud, KLH bersedia memperbaiki metode progam Proper, dengan menerapkan Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR).

PRTR merupakan sebuah sistem yang mengumpulkan dan menyebarluaskan secara prokatif (via internet) informasi lingkungan dan komposisi zat berbahaya yang dilepas industri ke wahana lingkungan hidup. “KLH menyambut baik sistem PRTR dan mendukung diimplementasikan sistem ini di Indonesia,” kata Henri Bastaman, Deputi VII KLH di sela-sela Konferensi Internasional tentang Hak Penguatan Informasi bagi Masyarakat dan Lingkungan, di Jakarta, Rabu(1/5/13),

Selama ini, KLH telah menerapkan program Proper lewat pemeringkatan perusahaan berdasarkan tingkat kepatuhan terhadap peraturan perundang-undangan di bidang lingkungan berdasarkan metode color-coding. Namun, beberapa kalangan  metode ini belum cukup mengakomodir ketersediaan informasi lingkungan masyarakat.

Dyah Paramitha, Peneliti Indonesian Center for Environmental Law (ICEL)  mengatakan,Proper tak cukup karena yang diumumkan hanya hasil pemeringkatan ditunjukkan dengan warna. Untuk proses, kriteria, dan data pendukung penilaian tidak disediakan kepada publik.  “Jadi, partisipasi masyarakat tidak dapat dilakukan.” Dalam konferensi inipun diusulkan penerapan PRTR dan KLH menyambut baik. “KLH sedang memilah informasi lingkungan yang akan dipublikasikan kepada publik,” ucap Henri.

Di dalam, UU No. 32/2009 tentang Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup (PPLH) juga mengatur kewajiban pengumuman dokumen-dokumen lingkungan. Kebijakan lain yang mendukung peraturan keterbukaan informasi publik dan lingkungan, antara lain instrumen berbasis lingkungan yang berbentuk insentif dan disinsentif. Instrumen ini, diharapkan bisa mendorong pemenuhan hak atas informasi lingkungan hidup.

“KLH berkomitmen mendorong keterbukaan informasi lingkungan kepada publik mencontoh negara-negara lain.  KLH ingin belajar dari negara lain tentang bagaimana mengemas informasi mudah dipahami masyarakat. Hingga masyarakat tidak dirugikan dengan sifat data lingkungan yang terlalu teknis,” kata Henri.

Konferensi yang dilaksanakan 29 April – 1 Mei 2013 di Jakarta, menyoroti temuan, pembelajaran, dan strategi negara-negara di Asia (Indonesia, Thailand, China, Mongolia, Filipina, dan Jepang) dalam mendorong pemenuhan hak atas informasi lingkungan hidup.

Beberapa permasalahan yang dapat dipetakan, seperti informasi lingkungan yang disediakan pro-aktif oleh pemerintah minim. Juga respon pemerintah terhadap permohonan informasi minim, format dan standar informasi sulit dipahami masyarakat, dan biaya memperoleh informasi mahal.

Informasi Lingkungan: Masyarakat Terdampak Tanpa Akses

Masyarakat terdampak pencemaran tak punya akses keterbukaan informasi lingkungan. Padahal, sudah diamanatkan Undang-Undang Nomor 14 Tahun 2008 tentang Keterbukaan Informasi Publik.

”Keterbukaan informasi lingkungan mendukung partisipasi masyarakat untuk mengatasi berbagai persoalan lingkungan,” kata Deputi Menteri Lingkungan Hidup Bidang Pembinaan Sarana Teknis Lingkungan dan Peningkatan Kapasitas Henri Bastaman, di Jakarta, Selasa (30/4), pada pertemuan regional World Resource Institute bekerja sama dengan Indonesian Center for Environmental Law (ICEL) dan The Access Initiative.

Menurut Henri, keterbukaan informasi lingkungan diterapkan dengan baik di negara maju seperti Jepang dan Amerika Serikat. Keterbukaan informasi mendorong partisipasi masyarakat dan memengaruhi kebijakan pemerintah dalam menjaga lingkungan.

Direktur ICEL Henri Subagiyo mengatakan, pertemuan regional itu membahas program penguatan akses keterbukaan informasi lingkungan di Indonesia dan Thailand. Ada dua program di Indonesia, yaitu di Serang, Banten, dan Jepara, Jawa Tengah.

”Keterbukaan informasi lingkungan kurang berjalan baik. Informasi yang semestinya wajib disampaikan ke publik saja banyak yang tak disampaikan,” kata Henri.

Ia mencontohkan, permasalahan warga Serang dihadapkan pada pencemaran Sungai Ciujung dari limbah industri pulp dan kertas. Informasi status sungai yang semestinya disampaikan pemerintah daerah, sampai sekarang belum jelas.

”Penguatan akses keterbukaan informasi lingkungan yang dilaksanakan di Jepara karena adanya pencemaran dari aktivitas kegiatan pembangkit listrik tenaga uap (PLTU) di sana,” kata Henri.

Kesulitan warga

Deddy Hartadi dan M Bakri, yang mewakili warga di Serang dan Jepara, mengatakan, selama ini warga masih mengalami kesulitan memperoleh akses keterbukaan informasi lingkungan. Tidak ada yang dibuka kepada publik tentang apa yang sebenarnya terjadi.

”Pada musim kemarau, kami menghadapi pencemaran Sungai Ciujung karena debit dari hulunya hampir nol. Air sungai yang mengalir berupa limbah industri,” kata Deddy.

Bakri mengatakan, pencemaran yang diduga akibat aktivitas pembangkit listrik tenaga uap menyebabkan kematian ikan- ikan laut.

”Dalam setahun, bisa terjadi tiga sampai empat kali kematian ikan massal di pantai yang memanjang hingga 3 kilometer dan 1 kilometer ke arah tengah laut,” ujar Bakri.

Lebih parah lagi, menurut Bakri, setiap hari banyak ikan mati karena tersedot masukan air (water intake) ke mesin pembangkit listrik. Sejauh ini, warga belum bisa mengakses informasi dampak lingkungan akibat aktivitas PLTU tersebut. 

Sumber berita: Kompas, 1 Mei 2013 

CSOs call for REDD+ National Strategy to be implemented

Downtoearth-indonesia.org – Indonesian CSOs are calling for the country’s REDD+ National Strategy, published in June last year, to be fully implemented to respect the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.[1] In a  January statement, the Coalition for Saving Indonesian Forests and Global Climate, which includes the indigenous peoples’ alliance AMAN, Forests Watch Indonesia, HuMA, ICEL, KPSHK, Sawit Watch and Greenpeace, stated that the National Strategy:

…was prepared with an aim to improve Indonesian forest governance fundamentally and comprehensively. The preparation process was relatively transparent and has involved relevant stakeholders. It acknowledges that currently Indonesian forest governance is facing acute problems, which require extraordinary solutions, aside from ‘business as usual’ measures…[2]

Along with the moratorium on clearing primary forests and peatland signed in May 2011, the REDD+ National Strategy is one of the agreed outcomes set out in the Letter of Intent (LoI) that Indonesia signed with Norway in May 2010 as part of a USD 1 billion REDD+ deal. In addition to the moratorium, the first ‘preparatory phase’ of the agreement, included:

  • setting up a National REDD+ Agency (to be prepared by a REDD+ Task Force) to be fully operational by the end of 2011
  • setting up an independent Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) Institution
  • setting up an interim financing instrument to handle the preparatory phase
  • developing a REDD+ National Strategy, into a national action plan,[3] and which “proposes methods for implementing FPIC and equitable benefit-sharing”
  • selecting a pilot province for REDD+.[4]

The deadline for setting up the National REDD+ Agency has now been missed by more than one year. The long delay plus the apparent deprioritising of the REDD+ National Strategy (Stranas REDD+), published in June last year, is now causing concern among CSOs in the Coalition.

CSOs involved in consultations to develop the REDD+ National Strategy have pushed to ensure that it contains much of the language of reform they would like to see adopted in the forestry and other natural resource sectors. They are alarmed that the hard-won gains in the REDD+ National Strategy could be lost if it is deprioritised. One indication that this is happening, they say, is the fact that the Strategy has been afforded only weak legal status, through a decree issued by the head of the REDD+ Task Force[5] whereas it should have been issued as a Presidential Regulation at the very least. Another indication is the fact that the National Strategy can’t be implemented because the President has not yet signed a draft regulation to establish the National REDD+ Agency, despite having received it in October 2012. The life of the Task Force has now been extended until the Agency has been established, with a new deadline of June 2013.[6]

Land tenure reform, FPIC and human rights protections in the REDD+ strategy

Indonesia’s REDD+ National Strategy is a 40 page document prepared by the Indonesian REDD+ Task Force and published in June 2012. It has the long term goal of ensuring that Indonesia’s forests become a net carbon sink by 2030. The medium term goal is to achieve the 26-41% reduction in the country’s emissions over projected business as usual levels by 2020. The short term goal (2012-2014) is to improve institutions, governance, spatial plans, and the investment climate to fulfil Indonesia’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining economic growth.

The Strategy sets out its human rights agenda as early as page five, under one of the five principles, where, under the principle of fairness, it states that:

“REDD+ is implemented on the basis of the principles of equality for all and human rights protection in forest management, including for women and communities vulnerable to socio-economic and environmental change.”(p.5)

It also provides for participation by civil society in the REDD+ Agency, whose members will include community groups, indigenous peoples’ organisations and CSOs as well as industry, academic institutions and representatives of government ministries and institutions (p.11).

Under the heading ‘Land Tenure Reform’, the Strategy states that people have a constitutional right to certainty over boundaries and management rights for natural resources. “Land tenure reform is an important prerequisite to create the conditions required for successful implementation of REDD+.” It then sets out that this will be pursued through:

1.     Instruction by the Government to the Home Affairs Ministry and the National Land Agency to implement a survey of land occupied by indigenous peoples and other communities.

2.     Support the National Land Agency to resolve land tenure disputes using existing statutory out-of-court settlement mechanisms.

3.   Harmonization and revision of natural resources management regulations and policies to ensure the principle and processes of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) are internalized in the issuance of all permits for the exploitation of natural resources (p.18).

Under the ‘Conflict Resolution’ heading in a section on the Moratorium, there are more commitments on human rights. The steps to be taken on conflict resolution are:

a.    Involve local communities in all processes, from planning to implementation and evaluation, throughout the new permit moratorium period;

b.    Formulate alternative models for natural resource related conflict resolution based on the fulfilment of human rights as stipulated in international human rights conventions and national legal instruments that have adopted human rights principles;

c.    Effectively take advantage of every opportunity to resolve conflicts through the application of local customs and practices, along with establishing a conflict resolution team with representatives from various sectors and independent parties;

d.    Formulate regulations that require non-government institutions (including Forest Management Units run by State-Owned Enterprises) to formulate standard operational procedures which incorporate principles of inclusiveness through FPIC and other human rights standards. (p.20-21)

There is also encouraging text on sustainability under the ‘Strategic Programs’ section. Implicitly this challenges land use policies as currently practised and which promote mega-projects like MIFEE[7] in Papua. Under a heading, ‘Implementation of an Economy Based on Sustainable Natural Resources Management’ the REDD+ Strategy states it is:

“based on best practices in the management of land for farming, plantations, silviculture and mining. The application of best practice principles is meant to increase the productivity of land without increasing emissions or the risk of other environmental damage, while ensuring adequate benefits from the exploitation of natural resources without expanding the size of cultivated areas.” (p.22)

There is also some attention to gender perspectives in the Strategy, included in a section about changing work paradigms and culture. Here, gender sensitivity is listed as one of five principles to be addressed (p.25).

A substantial section on safeguards (financial, social and environmental), states that social safeguards need to be designed specifically to protect and benefit vulnerable groups including indigenous peoples, local communities and women (p.29).

Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)

Under the ‘Stakeholder Participation’ section, there are several paragraphs under on implementing FPIC principles.

“The National REDD+ Agency is to implement and apply in all REDD+ programs and projects. The purpose of this approach is to ensure fairness and accountability for indigenous peoples and local communities whose lives and rights will be affected by REDD+ activities.” (p27).

The section sets out seven principles for implementing FPIC as follows:

1.    The application of this protocol involves consultation with the relevant indigenous peoples, local communities, and other members of the public affected by the implementation of REDD+ programs/projects/activities;

2.    Consultation is carried out without force, intimidation, manipulation, or pressure in any form to seek the consent of indigenous peoples and local communities who are potentially affected by REDD+ programs/projects/ activities;

3.    Effective and fully participative consultation involves indigenous and local communities in every step and process that affects them either directly or indirectly. The participation of indigenous peoples can be done through their traditional authorities, or through representative organizations selected on the basis of traditional systems adhered to by the given indigenous community.

4.    Consultation aims to achieve broad consensus or the specific agreement of the indigenous and local communities potentially affected. There are various forms of agreement: tentative agreement, temporary agreement, partial agreement, agreement with specific stipulations, agreement with other options, and full agreement; all of which are decided upon by the concerned public through legal mechanisms, indigenous law practices, or local traditions and habits;

5.    Consultation is based on complete, balanced, honest, unbiased, and easily understood information concerning the alternatives and choices existing for the public within the implementation of REDD+ activities, along with the consequences of each alternative choice. This information is meant to create leeway for broad consensus, with all parties having access to existing opportunities;

6.    Consultation with the public must be done within an adequate frame of time before permits are legalized or activities commenced, and must be done respectfully with adherence to all stipulations and time considerations required within the consultation process;

7.    The FPIC consultation process is the beginning of ongoing or regular communication between members of the community and the would-be implementers of REDD+ activities. There must be agreement on the manner of public consultations, its protocols and mechanisms, including those for complaints and conflict resolution relating to each stage of REDD+ activities.

There is, however, no mention of the right to withhold consent as an option for indigenous peoples or communities.[8]

Legal reforms required for REDD+ and the TAP MPR IX, 2001

Another potential strength of the Strategy is its reference to a key piece of legislation passed by Indonesia’s highest legislative body, the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), in 2001. The Assembly’s decree (TAP MPR IX, 2001, on Agrarian Renewal and Natural Resources) was intended to prepare the ground for the reform of all sectoral laws affecting land and natural resources management. Over a decade later, this decree has still not been implemented, but recently TAP MPR IX/2001 has been brought back onto the table in government discussions about land and land reform.[9]

TAP MPR IX, 2001 is highlighted twice in the REDD+ National Strategy document, once under a section about reviewing and strengthening policies and regulations. Here, the Strategy sets out the REDD+ Agency’s mandate to establish a ‘climate-friendly’ legal framework. This, it says, will function as a more detailed manifestation of TAP MPR IX, 2001.  

“The legal framework thus formulated will then function as the basis for evaluation, harmonization, and implementation of the various strategies for policy strengthening. These steps toward the review and perfecting of policies and regulations include, but are not limited to, the revision of regulations on Forestry and Spatial Planning. In this way, the implementation of REDD+ and overall improvements to forest and land use governance will have a solid legal basis.” (p17)

Second, under the ‘Legal Basis’ heading of a chapter about directing the implementation of the REDD+ National Strategy, the documents states:

“The National Strategy has been formulated to function as an integral part of the existing legal framework. However, to ensure its implementation, it is necessary to undertake reform of the existing legal framework so that it becomes stronger, clearer, and harmonized with forest and peatland resource management. Such a sustainable legal framework for the handling of climate change issues may be based on an interpretation of People’s Consultative Assembly Decree concerning the Reform of Agricultural and Natural Resource Management (No. IX/MPR/2001). The REDD+ Agency will coordinate within the scope of this legal framework.” (p.39)

A continuing debate

The call to implement the REDD+ National Strategy by the Coalition for Saving Indonesian Forests and Global Climate is a reflection of a strategic approach that many CSOs have adopted toward the question of REDD+.  They fully recognise that REDD+ is accompanied by huge risks both in terms of impacts on people and forests as well as on the broader level of climate justice.  They are clear too that the REDD+ National Strategy is far from perfect. As highlighted in a forthcoming analysis by HuMa[10], the obstacles to achieving the much-needed reforms identified in the Strategy are formidable. On top of the question of legal hierarchy, or lack of legal clout, the Strategy shifts the task of initiating the legal reforms to the yet-to-be-created REDD+ Agency, thus delaying any progress until that agency is created. While waiting for this to happen, says HuMa, conflicts over land and resources are growing in number, including in those areas which may be included under REDD+ schemes in future.

Another problem identified by HuMa is the fact that the Strategy draws its authority from laws – including the 1999 Forestry Law – that it has identified as in need of reform, which in turn makes the strategy’s own legal basis shaky. Also, the Strategy has failed to take on board last year’s decision by the Constitutional Court to restrict the application of the Forestry Law.[11] The change requires the forestry ministry to go through four stages when determining an area as part of the state forest zone, whereas previously it merely had to ‘designate’ an area as forest. The new ruling means that forests could be at even greater risk of being grabbed by developers than they were before, but it also provides an opportunity to introduce the reforms that the National REDD+ Strategy says are needed. Either way, the Strategy should be based on current law, not the previous version.

Civil society involvement in the preparations to introduce REDD+ policies and programmes in Indonesia has at the very least succeeded in underlining the urgent need for thoroughgoing reform in the way the country’s natural resources are governed and managed. This need for reform, and the need make the recognition of human rights part of the policy framework for REDD+ is now being acknowledged in an official government strategy.

Meanwhile the effectiveness of REDD+ pilot schemes themselves is also increasingly in doubt. Although some significant areas of forest have been allocated to such schemes, their effectiveness has been widely questioned. There is little evidence that deforestation has slowed inside these set-asides. There is even less evidence that such schemes have slowed deforestation outside of them. REDD+ pilots have yet to lead to local communities securing tenurial rights and control of their lands and forests.

Furthermore, in view of the stalemate at the UNFCCC and the unlikelihood of the emergence of a cap-and-trade global market in ‘forest carbon’, international donors are increasingly worried that whatever forest set-asides are achieved under the national REDD+ programme are unlikely to be sustained without a continuing stream of financial rewards to investors and scheme operators. ‘We are concerned that REDD+ pilots schemes are just unsustainable enclaves that have little connection to, or influence on, wider land use plans. Without urgent action to secure local peoples’ control of such areas, these schemes will just fizzle out when the donors leave’ says Marcus Colchester of the UK-based Forest Peoples Programme.

Thanks to Bernadinus Steni from HuMa, www.huma.or.id, and Marcus Colchester and Patrick Anderson of FPP www.forestpeoples.org who offered advice on this article.


[2] See ‘Saving Indonesia’s Remaining Forests Can No Longer be Delayed’ by the Coalition for Saving Indonesian Forests and Global Climate, 28/Jan/2013.

[3] Draft 3 of the National Action Plan is available in Indonesian athttp://www.satgasreddplus.org/download/Draft_3_RAN_REDD+_12Des2012.pdf.

[4] See DTE 89-90, November 2011 for more background.

[5] SK Ketua Satgas REDD+ No. 02/SATGAS REDD PLUS/09/2012 tentang Strategi Nasional REDD+

[6] See statements made by representatives of Greenpeace Indonesia and HuMA at a press conference in Jakarta 28 January 2013, reported in Kompas 29/Jan/2013,http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2013/01/29/03045698/stranas.redd.terancam.sia-sia

[7] See information on MIFEE campaign page.

[8] For fuller information on and discussion on FPIC principles and their application see Forest Peoples Programme at http://www.forestpeoples.org/guiding-principles/free-prior-and-informed-consent-fpic.

[9] See DTE 93-94, ‘Policies and practice: favouring big business over communities’ December 2012, for more background.

[10] Nasib Tenure dalam STRANAS REDD+, Perkumpulan HuMa, forthcoming.

[11] See Daemeter Consulting: ‘Constitutional Court Decision on Indonesia’s Forest Zone Could Lay Groundwork for Sustainable Low Emissions Development’ athttp://www.daemeter.org/news/constitutional-court-decision-on-indonesias-forest-zone-could-lay-groundwork-for-sustainable-low-emissions-development/and also ‘Indonesian CSOs call to save Indonesia’s remaining forests’, DTE 95, March 2013, for more background on the Constitutional Court’s decision and its implications.