Monitoring

Monitoring

In a Webinar in 13 July 2020, was held by Chatham House, a think tank institution with international reputation based in London. The minister of Environment and Forestry was invited to share experiences on Indonesian effort in increasing forestry governance quality. In the Webinar, the Minister said:”lesson learned that can be taken by the countries in the world from the development of SVLK is the importance of long term commitment of multistakeholder from cross-sectors on supporting SVLK”. One of the multistakeholder that is mentioned by the Minister is “Independent Monitors Consortium” which is expected to conduct monitoring independently towards policy and SVLK implementation.

Concerning the monitoring of forest and SVLK in Indonesia, in this introduction part, I will quote a lot an academics thesis written by a senior activist in SVLK monitoring named Zainuri Hasyim. Independent monitoring of forest was begun since 1990’s on a global level. The main foundation of this idea is the need for an explanation and statement independently (impartial) on the suitability that is arranged and material that occurs. An independence is useful for giving which statement process that truly meets the requirements or those which don’t. In 2005, has been well-known a term called ‘independent forest monitors’ which is defined by Global Witness as:

“…. The use of independent third party that is in accordance with the agreement with the government authority, gives an assessment of legal compliance, and observation and guidance concerning official forestry law enforcement syste”.

Independent Monitors and SVLK regulations before the existence of Job Creation Act have been defined clearly and details, even until Perdirjen (Directorate General Regulation). However, after the existence of Job Creation Act and followed by the issuance of Government Regulation on Forestry and Permen LHK 8/2021, where there are many mergers concerning forestry, included SVLK, so the description and arrangement of SVLK are being summarized, included concerning monitoring which is only described in 5 articles. It is interesting when we see article 22 paragraph 1: ‘SVLK activity

can be held monitoring by Independent Monitors’. Does the word ‘can’ imply that can be carried out and included it could be not do? Or, the word “can” means the monitoring is not a quite important matter so that it uses ‘can’ instead of uses ‘must’? This is quite worrying, as if denying what becomes the commitment in the next paragraph which places Independent Monitors as a ‘goalkeeper’ from accountability, credibility, and integrity of this timber legality system.

In Indonesia, for strengthening the monitoring movement, the forestry Independent Monitors affiliates in some alliances. In 2020 in Jakarta, a year after SVLK is regulated in the Minister of Forestry Regulation, 29 non-governmental organizations and network from Aceh until Papua established Independent Forest Monitoring Network (Jaringan Pemantau Independen Kehutanan or JPIK). This network in 2017 consisted of 88 institutions and 528 individuals with 24 vocal points who the role is to monitor the implementation of SVLK. Based on personal communication with the dynamist of JPIK, in 2021 JPIK consist of 64 institutions and 525 individuals with 24 vocal points which spread over 26 provinces. There is also the institutional structure, that is 5 honorary councils and 1 National Dynamist. Several JPIK’s monitorings which have a wide impact, including: (1) Logging and illegal timber trade cases disclosure, revocation of accreditation permit of certification agency, expose forestry criminal practice and forest encroachment; (2) Sytem improvement through information access test, Independent Monitors security, strengthening SVLK standard, data and information access, and the funding sustainability, and regulation improvement; (3) capacity building of Independent Monitors through training that has reached more than 750 people from various circles, such as local community indigenous people, students, journalists, and environmentalists.

Beside JPIK, there are also 2 non-governmental organization networks which focus on forest and environment monitoring, they are Sumatera’s Alliance of Independent Forestry Monitors (APIKS), Eyes of Forest (EoF), and Anti-Forest Mafia Coalition (KAHM). APIKS is almost the same with JPIK, that was established after the existence of SVLK regulation in 2009. However on its way, APIKS

expands their network for not only on SVLK issue, but also forestry issue in general and specifically boils down to the acceleration of the achievement of Good Forestry Governance in Sumatera. While EoF is a non-governmental organization based in West Kalimantan and Riau which focuses on data information provision either spatial or numeric for forest monitoring advocacy. Then KAMH is a coalition in national level which consists of various non-governmental organizations especially organizations which based in Jakarta and its surrounding. KAMH focuses on the effort of forestry mafia in concession forest and large scale plantation. From the 4 networks/ coalitions of forestry Independent Monitors, they often collaborate and work together in crucial issues and in national level. Beside hundreds of companies that have been monitored, in 2016 this collaboration was succeeded in compiling a training module on SVLK Monitoring for Community.

From the study conducted by Hasyim (2017), we could learn from SVLK Independent Monitoring which has been carried out all this time and has an objective in the improvement of forestry governance with 4 main measuring tools, they are inclusivity, transparency, and continuity. Then, what are the problem according to Hasyim? 1. Inclusivity: there are some things which become the weakness of SVLK in relation to Independent Monitors, that is the rules for Independent Monitors and administrative requirements in monitoring. The low number of SVLK monitoring which carried out by Independent Monitors if it is compared with certification number makes an assumption that the performance of Independent Monitors is less active because the activeness measurement is based on the number of monitoring and it culminates in the complaint reporting as the procedure in SVLK. 2. Transparency: the weakness in SVLK in the relation to Independent Monitors is the practice towards data and information access. While in the interactivity aspect,

Independent Monitors still face challenges, they are the interaction with other stakeholder in SVLK, the capacity of the