JPIK Newsletter 17th Edition “The Monitor”

The Monitor, January 2022 | 02 ISSN 2685-5224

Independent Forest Monitoring Network

The Monitor

Newsletter 17th edition, www.jpik.or.id

03

When the Communities Monitor the Sustainability and Legality Assurance System (SVLK)

27

The Environment Irony: The Climate Crisis Need Real Actions, Not Rhetoric

30

Aru Islands: Relations between Human and the Environment

TPL Is Not Eligible for PHL Certification

ISSN 2685-5224 A Message from JPIK researcher, Asti Maulita

It has been two years since the Covid-19 pandemic has changed almost the entire fabric of life, from the way we interact with others to the way we survive. The Covid-19 pandemic has put pressure on economic and social conditions in Indonesia and has warned us about the damage to the relationship between humans and nature. The pandemic is a warning, if we don’t take care of our forests and biodiversity, we don’t take care of ourselves. Because when we talk about nature, we are talking about forests, and when we talk about forests we are also talking about human life, living things, and the existing ecology.

In a routine event held by Forest Watch Indonesia, the Indonesia Forest Expo 2021 discusses forest issues that currently continue to threaten. However, we still have a chance because Eastern Indonesia can still be saved. The people of Eastern Indonesia still rely on their livelihood by managing natural resources directly, so there is no reason not to take care of nature. The relationship between humans and nature is inseparable, as reflected in the Aru Islands, where the people manage natural resources for survival through local knowledge and traditional practices.

An unprecedented opportunity is also present because of the Covid-19 Pandemic, an opportunity to change a new direction for the health of the earth to protect and restore forests in its policies. Stopping and reversing deforestation is an important part of a strategy to reduce the likelihood of future pandemics, and reconstruct the relationship between humans and nature.

One of the climate policies and commitments made on a global scale to combat the climate crisis is the Conference of the Parties (COP). Until this year, entering the 26th conference, there are still climate action failures. The Indonesian government has also yet to provide concrete solutions to the problems of the climate crisis, including deforestation and carbon pollution. Real action from the government is needed to ensure the survival of the Indonesian people and their biodiversity without exception.

In this 17th edition of the Newsletter, apart from highlighting the implementation of the COP and the stories of people from eastern Indonesia in protecting forests, it also raises an important issue from the book review “People Monitor” which tells how indigenous/local communities in five provinces in Indonesia monitor the SVLK. at their respective locations. With the interest and knowledge base of indigenous/local communities on the sustainability of their living space, it is time to become the main foothold in the implementation of SVLK and monitoring. The newsletter in this edition also discusses several themes including; how is the monitoring collaboration involving the Forest Management Unit (KPH) in Jambi Province, the readiness for the implementation of small industries in Sukabumi Regency in the implementation of the SVLK, and the findings of violations at PT Toba Pulp Lestari (TPL) in the implementation of sustainable forest management.

Happy reading!

Independent Forest Monitoring Network (JPIK) Babakan Sari VI No.5, Bantarjati, North Bogor, Bogor City, West Java, 16129 Tel: 0251 8574842 Email: jpikmail@gmail.com Jaringan Pemantau Independen Kehutanan @laporjpik @laporjpik

The Monitor is a quarterly newsletter published by the Independent Forest Monitoring Network (JPIK). This newsletter serves as a forum for sharing information about JPIK’s activities and partners, as well as other related parties, regarding the current state of forest management in Indonesia. JPIK invites you to participate as a writing contributor, with a writing length of 1,000-2,000 words using Microsoft Word along with supporting photos.

The Monitor, January 2022 | 02

CONTENT

Editor: Tim Seknas JPIK

3

When the Communities Monitor the Sustainability and Legality Assurance System (SVLK)

8

Collaboration in Monitoring SVLK Implementation

11

Readiness of Small and Medium Enterprises and Communities Forestry in Sukabumi District on SVLK Implementation

19

TPL Is Not Eligible for PHL Certification

27

The Environment Irony: The Climate Crisis Need Real Actions, Not Rhetoric

30

Aru Islands: Relations between Human and the Environment

33

Interesting Exhibition, Indonesia Forest Expo (FOREXPO) 2021, Forest Watch Indonesia (FWI) Promoting Eastern Indonesia

03 | The Monitor, January 2022

When the Communities Monitor the Sustainability and Legality Assurance System (SVLK)

By Agus Budi Purwanto1

A

fter the New Order government in Indonesia, the phrase “engagement” to “mainstreaming” of local/ indigenous communities to manage natural resources in Indonesia emerged until now (Li 2000). However, the phrases are based on interests, knowledge, and policies not rooted in the local/ indigenous communities. In the timber legality management policy, mainstreaming the local/ indigenous communities in the monitoring aspect is far from the hopes, constrained by the procedural and capability (Ichwan

et al., 2021). Timber legality management is about how the timber and forestry business unit complies with the existing policies and impacts the local/ indigenous communities in various sectors. The production of legal timber is not different from the production of forestry and timber itself.

the current Sustainability and Legality Assurance System (SVLK) and monitoring, and ideas of SVLK monitoring by the local/ indigenous communities to address the question.

How to create the enabling environment for local/ indigenous communities’ roles in monitoring timber legality? This article outlines relations between deforestation and certification,

In the past 30 years, our earth has lost 178 million hectares of forest, equal to Indonesia’s total land area (FAO & UNEP, 2020). There are various causes. In 1999-2000, the main cause of deforestation

Deforestation & Certification

One of the writers of Rakyat Memantau: Dinamika pemantauan SVLK oleh masyarakat adat/lokal di Indonesia (2021). Active daily in ARuPA and PPLH Mangkubumi.

1

The Monitor, January 2022 | 04 developmental regime was imposed in developed countries that own tropical forests. As an illustration, FAO estimated that every year between 1981 to 1990, the world lost 16.7 million hectares of tropical forest (Varagis et al. 1993). However, in the same 1980s, there were critical momentums on the new ways to combat deforestation, from boycotting timber sourced from tropical forests to forest certification.

was the massive and careless forest exploitation, without considering the ability of forest and trees regeneration. On the global scale, from 2000 to date, 40% of deforestation is caused by big-scale plantation and farming.

Other causes are subsistence farming, population growth, urban expansion, infrastructure, and mining. For the past 30 years, Indonesia’s highest deforestation rate happened from 1996 to 2000, with a scale of 3.5 million hectares per year.

From 2002 to 2014, it decreased from 600 thousand to 400 thousand hectares. The lowest deforestation is in 2020, with 115 thousand hectares in total (SEIFO KLHK 2020).

On a global and national scale, tropical forest deforestation peaked in the 1980s when the

In an interesting article on forest certification, based on Klooster (2005)however, they are often compromised by the interests of more powerful agents. Utilizing the concept of governance in global commodity networks, this article examines the mainstreaming of forest certification. By working with retailers, forest certification expanded rapidly. The retailer focus, however, limits the spread of forest certification among medium-sized, small, and community forest management operations. It also raises questions of fairness because it imposes costs on forest managers without providing compensation through higher prices. NGOs now implement programs to make Forest Stewardship Council (FSC there are four phase of combatting forest destruction efforts through certification: (1) boycotted timber sourced from the tropical forest and direct actions targeting the big scale timber traders and logging companies; (2) environmental organisations joined forces with the timber businesses and other stakeholders to develop

environmental certification as a boycott alternative and expression of dissatisfaction on the forest management by the international and national government; (3) coalitions of non-government organisations, cross-government organisations, and government agencies aggressively promoted certification through pressuring traders and demanded for certified forest products from their suppliers, and provided incentives to the forest management unit to certify their forests; (4) currently ongoing, certification promoters try to improve the impact of environmental certification through programs, so that it’s more accessible and beneficial for the forest management units.

Klooster concluded that this nonstate or voluntary certification is well implemented and documented out of all those steps. However, instead of decreasing the forest destruction, the big companies dominated the benefit from the certification, instead of the small scale forest management units in the south that implement this scheme.

Certification is costly, with the results is contrary to the incurred cost.2 The voluntary and non-state certification approach tried to implement a new approach through timber legality (and its verification) through state and mandatory approaches. There are two main causes of this change from a voluntary sustainability certification scheme to a mandatory legal one. First, slow certification progress

See (Klooster 2005, 415) In 1983, an Economic Professor from Clemson University in U.S. America, named Bruce Yandle introduced Bootleggers and Baptists concept to explain how the moralist’s and environmentalists (Baptists) interests seem to be adopted by the government through regulation, but basically the businessman (Bootleggers) who adjust and enter without being seen in the regulations and still gain profit from it. “…The Baptists, lubricate the political machines with part of results that they expected. They just in it for the money.” See (Smith and Yandle 2014) 2

05 | The Monitor, January 2022 until 2005, with only 10% of the world’s forests certified.

It is suspected caused by too difficult certification standards, especially for the developing countries. Therefore, the solution to address the bottleneck issues, one of them is legality, was sought (Cashore and Stone 2012).

Second, the state’s interest to take control and authority from the institution and power in forestry. In the voluntary certification scheme, the power lies on the market, not the state (Giessen et al., 2016).

There are visible differences, with forest certification being a market scheme advocated by the environmental awareness from the non-government organisations, highlighted on the timber buyers and sellers, and applied globally with the same standard.3 The list of standards displayed leads to the branding of the forests managed sustainably and the timber produced from sustainable management and processing. While the timber legality focuses on the legal timber products, which means the harvesting, transporting, and processing is not conducted illegally. The state-based approach applies to both the origin and destination countries, based on the critiques on the sustainable forest certification that cannot address corruption and recognition of local/ indigenous communities’ rights on natural resources. Another critique of this certification on the destination country is that it

makes a profit for big companies for their capacity to meet the green market (Setyowati and McDermott 2017).

There are initiatives by the destination countries (consumers) such as the United States of America with the Lacey Act 2008, Europe with the EU Timber Regulation 2013 (the first time in 2005), and Japan with the Clean Wood Act 2016. The origin countries or producers welcomed it by developing standards and criteria on what is legal and agreeing on the certain mechanism in the consumer countries, including Indonesia.

SVLK & Monitoring Since 2009, it’s been a decade for Indonesia to issue policies on timber legality on its harvesting, distribution, and trading. This policy has three objectives: to manage production forests sustainably, implement good forest governance, and eradicate illegal logging and trading.

The policy is in the form of the Minister of Environment and Forestry Regulation (PermenLHK) with the phrase known as an acronym, SVLK or Timber Legality Assurance System, which mandatorily must be complied by timber and forestry business actors.

SVLK is an initiative that has been through long processes involving many stakeholders

from the government, business actors, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), and organisations and agencies competent in standard development, academics, business associations, and communities supported by the international donor agencies.

Up to 2016, Indonesia is the first country to successfully obtain the Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (FLEGT) license by signing the Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPA) with the European Union.

Meanwhile, in the last decade, the government has revised the SVLK regulations seven times.4 The last revision is the issuance of the PermenLHK 8/ 2021, which consist of 911 pages and covers a lot of forestry management, including SVLK. In the PermenLHK, the acronyms of SVLK changed from the Sistem Verifikasi Legalitas Kayu or the Timber Legality Assurance System to Sistem Verifikasi Legalitas dan Kelestarian or Sustainability and Legality Assurance System.

In each regulation on SVLK since 2009, the Independent Investigators and monitoring activities have always been an inseparable part. PermenLHK 8/2021 consists of 5 articles on the Independent Investigators.

Article 244 clause 2 mentioned that ‘Monitoring conducted on the public service on the SVLK as an effort to maintain accountability, credibility, and integrity”. Other than the multi-stakeholders processes,

Two certification agencies are Forest Steward Council (FSC) and Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). In Indonesia, there is a similar organisation, Indonesian Ecolabelling Institute (LEI) in 1990s.

4 Since its issuance in 2009, regulation on SVLK have been revised 7 times. These are the revisions: Minister of Forestry Regulation (Permenhut) 38/2009; 68/2011; 45/2012; 42/2013; 43/2014; 95/ 2014; Ministry of Environment and Forestry (PermenLHK) 30/2016; and 21/2020. In 2020, the Government of Indonesia issued a Law No. 11/2020 on Job Creation that in principle simplify and combined regulations. In the forestry sector, there is derivative of the law, the Government Regulation (PP) 23/2021 on Forestry Management. Based on those two policies, the Minister of Environment and Forestry issued a regulation No.8 / 2021 on Forest Management Plan Development and Governance, and Forest Utiliization in Protected and Production Forests. The regulation is very thick with total of 911 pages, and include many affairs in it, including SVLK. Currently, SVLK policies refer to that PermenLHK 8/2021 regulation.

3

The Monitor, January 2022 | 06

The book “People Monitor” can be found at the link https://jpik.or.id/rakyat-memantau/

monitoring is needed to maintain accountability, credibility, and integrity of the legality verification, from formalisation, standardisation, audit, and labelling. A unique blend was created between the state authority and the market demand during those four steps.

The rights of indigenous/ local communities and corruption are not yet highlighted as the main concerns (Setyowati and McDermott 2017). Therefore, SVLK implementation also depends on what extent the monitoring can be done and improve the SVLK itself.

In a webinar conducted in the mid-last year, the Minister of Environment and Forestry said, “countries in the world can take the lessons from the development of SVLK. The important thing is the long-term commitments of various relevant stakeholders to support SVLK”.

One of the stakeholders meant by the Minister is “the consortium of independent investigators” who are expected to monitor the policies and implementation of SVLK independently (TRIC 2020).

We can learn about forest monitoring and SVLK in Indonesia from Zainuri Hasyim (2017). There are four issues with SVLK monitoring: the inclusiveness of SVLK monitoring regulations with many administrative requirements; lack of data and information transparency by the government; lack of interactivities between the investigators and other stakeholders; and continuity of funding for the investigators. Based on those four problems, Hasyim provided recommendations to simplify monitoring reports so that wider communities can also do it; certainty for government’s or other authorities to follow up the monitoring report; guarantee for information transparency from the government and other authorities; improvement of interaction between the investigators and certification agencies and management unit; and for the government to provide and facilitate monitoring funding from various sources.

The Communities-Based Monitoring Based on those problems and suggestions provided by Hasyim (2017), I try to compare it with the statement by the Minister mentioned previously.

I want to highlight just one keyword of the SVLK success stated by the Minister, “longterm commitment” of various stakeholders to support SVLK. A commitment, especially a long-term one, is highly related to those stakeholders’ interests.

It means that the interest is proportional and parallel with the commitment. As stated by a rural expert, Ian Scoones, “Politics of interest have central roles in forming structural conditions which decide our lives” (Scoones 2020, 173).

Let’s look at the surface of the politics of actors’ interests in SVLK. As the regulator and representation of the state, the government is interested in providing institutions, organisations, and policies so that forest governance is improved. The certification agencies are interested in

07 | The Monitor, January 2022 getting certification clients from the timber or forest management, processing, and exporter industries in Indonesia. The sellers and buyers of legally certified timber have business interests, while the environmentalists are interested in nature conservation and sustainability.

The environmentalists are often represented by the nongovernment organisations that conduct independent monitoring.

What is the interest of local/ indigenous communities who live inside and around the forest and timber management industry on SVLK implementation?

If we use the perspective of livelihood, forest and environment are complex living spaces for local/ indigenous communities. Complex means economical, ecologic, and cultural relations between the local/ indigenous communities and the forest and environment.

Based on the various interests of actors, I would like to convey that long-term commitment is not about how big and long the commitment is but how the interests of each actor can support the scale and duration of their commitment.

After the basis of commitment become an important thing in monitoring, another thing that we need to look at is which knowledge will be used to implement SVLK and at the same time maintain the credibility of this system through monitoring?

What knowledge is decided as important and neglected as unimportant? In verifying timber legality, it involves how to measure, calculate, asses, validate, and evaluate realities.

It all poured in the government regulations along with its technical guidance.

Hasyim (2017) stated that reporting mechanisms still become a scourge for

independent investigators because they are demanded to comply with the regulated standards. The knowledge decides what kind of realities fit or are logical, which boils down to which realities are considered important and unimportant according to whom. If we look at the politics of interests, the communities are the ones who have long term interests for their livelihood. The communities’ knowledge of forests likely differs from the knowledge of the SVLK system and its operationalisation.

The water springs inside the concession are perhaps legally owned by the concession, but if the springs were gone, it is illegal based on the communities’ knowledge. Suppose, through the naked eye, the communities witness the logging that is considered unsustainable, but the company has done it based on their annual work plan.

Using the existing reporting and monitoring mechanism, how can the communities complain about it?

Returning the Politics Based on that awareness, I invite all readers to discuss this matter, to look again and revisit how the SVLK monitoring conducted by the local/ indigenous communities can contribute to addressing the challenges of monitoring that have existed so far.

Based on the SVLK monitoring conducted by local/ indigenous communities in 5 provinces in Indonesia coordinated by PPLH Mangkubumi and JPIK, we witnessed how the interestsbased and the communities knowledge manifested in the SVLK monitoring. The monitoring was conducted in Central Kalimantan, North Maluku, West Papua, East Java, and Semarang Central

Java. Out of five provinces, local/ indigenous communities monitored 32 timber companies, produced 34 reports sent to the authorities such as certification agency, Directorate General (Dirjen) of Sustainable Forest Management (PHL) and Directorate of Law Enforcement (Gakkum) in the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, and Provincial Environment Office (Ichwan et al. 2021). Almost all reports have been followed up, in the form of certificate revocation, warnings, and law enforcement.

Therefore, looking at the SVLK credibility problem through independent monitoring must use the perspective of politics of interests and knowledge of actors involved in SVLK. In this matter, the interests and knowledge of local/ indigenous communities must be the main concern to answer the Minister’s expectation of stakeholders’ long-term commitment to support SVLK. The local/ indigenous communities are physically and non-physically closest to the industries and the forests.

The Monitor, January 2022 | 08

Collaboration in Monitoring SVLK Implementation

By Firdan Sukma - Komunitas Konservasi Indonesia Warsi (KKI Warsi)

F

orests are nature blessings that benefit this country, including in Jambi Province.

In the 70s to 90s decade, Jambi is one of the areas with the highest timber production in Indonesia. Companies got Forest Business Rights to log the timber. When it started to decrease, forest conversion started. Some became industrial plantations, and others had lower status and then became palm oil plantations, transmigration, and mining areas. Years passed, the remaining natural forests are in the protected and conservation forests. However, illegal logging is still happening, making Jambi more barren. Based on analysis by the Geographical Information System (GIS) team of KKI Warsi in 2020, the remaining Jambi’s forest cover is 882,272 hectares or 18% of Jambi’s forest areas.

Stopping illegal activities and ensuring timber distribution complies with the regulation is a must to protect the remaining forest, provide certainty of timber utilisation without any violations, and resolve the doubt of Indonesian timber products consumers at the global market.

Indonesia has applied timber legality regulation for business actors in the forestry sector, from upstream to downstream. In 2009, a system was established to ensure the timber distributed from Indonesia was sourced from clear and accountable sources. This system is the Timber Legality Assurance System (SVLK), which now its nomenclature in the Minister of Environment and Forestry (PermenLHK) No.8 the Year 2021 have changed into the Sustainability and Legality Verification System (SVLK).

It is a system that guarantees the sustainability of forest management and legality both for timber and non-timber forest products through performance assessment certification for sustainable forest management (S-PHL), legality certification (S-Legalitas) and independent declaration of forest products.

This system ensures that Indonesian forest products are sourced from legal and verified sources, including timber products.

The Roles of Monitoring Looking at the Jambi’s forest, it consists of 696,334 hectares of conservation area; 181,548 hectares of protected forest (HL); 259, 491 hectares of Limited Production Forest (HPT); 968, 590 hectares of Production Forest (HP); and 11,423 hectares of Production Forest that can be converted (HPK). With those massive production potentials, forest areas made Jambi Province one of the buffers for the national timber industry both for export and internal demand.

SVLK has a complex system and is considered an effort to prevent timber distribution from illegal activities/ illegal logging, especially if various stakeholders implement the monitoring aspect.

The authority responsible for monitoring activities in the forest is the Production Forest Management Office (BPHP) of the Ministry of Environment and Foresty (KLHK) and Provincial Forestry Office with the Forest Management Unit (KPH) as the subordinate. Referring to Article 3 of PermenLHK No. 12/ 2016 on Organisation and Governance of Production Forest Management Office letters (c) and (d), BPHP is designated to monitor and evaluate the Production Forest and Forest Product Industries.

BPHP must monitor and evaluate the SVLK implementation on the ground, conducted using Forest Product Management Information System (SIPUHH) application and direct field monitoring.

09 | The Monitor, January 2022

KPH has the authority to monitor and assess forest management activities, based on the Article 4 clause (2) letter (c) of Minister of Home Affairs Regulation (Permendagri) No. 61 the Year 2010 on Guidance of Organisation and Governance of Protected Forest Management Unit and Production Forest Management Unit in the Subnational Level.

Collaboration and communication between KPH and BPHP are not optimised for the monitoring activities due to the different mechanisms and coordination paths. KPH coordinated with the provincial forestry office, while BPHP coordinated with the KLHK. The difference in communication lines caused vertical relations between both institutions to be not well developed and, as a result, caused long access and line of communication for coordination.

For example, it needs letters exchange and time-consuming approval only to share data.

SVLK also allows communities to be involved in the SVLK

monitoring by becoming Independent Investigators (PI).

The independent investigators are neutral and free from the conflict of interest with the LPVI and permit holders. PI works to maintain the accountability, credibility, and integrity of the SVLK itself.

If the institutions have their issue on coordination, then PI also faces challenges, especially on resources limitation on budget and lack of awareness to be involved in the monitoring.

With these conditions, the roles of each institution must be optimised to be able to monitor each activity in the forest areas.

Dissemination Effort Based on KKI Warsi data, only 28 out of 127 timber business permits imposed SVLK. Other than that, 47 are not active, 11 are currently in the certification process, 19 have revoked certificates, one industry is frozen, two are denied, and 19

are not SVLK-ed. It means that SVLK implementation in the Jambi Province industry sector only reached 40%. Unfortunately, most industries with their license revoked, frozen, rejected and not SVLK-ed are small and medium scale industries. SVLK is not implemented due to inaccessible information on how to get a certificate, not following up the next surveillance and the cost of getting the certificate that is considered not affordable. It showed that small and medium scale timber industries need assistance and funding support to implement SVLK. This condition must be addressed urgently to prevent the timber from unclear sources from entering the SVLK supply chain.

KKI Warsi and Jambi Province Forestry Office, supported

by FAO-FLEGT Programme, disseminated information and monitored SVLK implementation in Jambi Province. It is done to urge business actors to implement SVLK fully. The monitoring conducted by 9 Production Forest Management

The Monitor, January 2022 | 10 Unit (KPHP) in Jambi Province, namely Muara Jambi, Tebo Barat, Tebo Timur, Tanjung Jabung Timur, Tanjung Jabung Barat, Sarolangun Hilir, Bungo, Batanghari, and Merangin that conducted for 6 months from October 2020 to March 2021 in each working area. For six months, 85 management units have been monitored and informed. 22 out of 85 management units are implementing SVLK, while others are revoked and did not know about SVLK. For the management unit with SVLK, we conducted a post audit related to violations and shortcomings during SVLK implementation. We disseminated the information on SVLK to industries that do not have SVLK. We found disobedience by the business actors related to the standard that has been set in SVLK in several locations.

Moreover, several management units also conveyed complaints about the SVLK implementation, such as the added value for legal timber that is still the same as timber without an SVLK certificate. Moreover, we also found communities who own industry <2000 m3 per year to get the timber legality certificate. We found this in 6 timber storages in Tanjung Jabung Barat. It showed that information on SVLK has not been well disseminated at the grass roots level; while SVLK is mandatory for all timber trading, it must be legal and verified.

The problem is that KPHP or Forestry Office does not have the authority to take action on the violations that happened on the ground. The monitoring was only to disseminate information and educate the management units they visited—moreover, KPHP, with limited resources, also difficult to complain to the certification agencies. For example, KPHP Batanghari only

has two forestry officers, so it is impossible to monitor and report complaints if management units do not implement the SVLK.

Monitoring Database After monitoring, KKI Warsi with Jambi Province Forestry Office also developed a website to optimising data dissemination.

It contains information on forest conditions in Jambi Province.

It can be accessed on www. kehutanan.jambiprov.go.id.

Initially, Jambi Provincial Forestry Office had its website but faced challenges on its management.

It can be seen from the lack of publications and information on the website. Therefore, a revamp was needed for the new menu so all stakeholders could use and optimise the website.

One of the menus added is the database on post-audit data. Post audit data is data from timber industry monitoring conducted

by Forestry Office with KPH in Jambi Province. It is done to disseminate information to a relevant audience on the timber governance situation and the compliance of each industry on their obligations to implement SVLK, the standard rule on forest governance.

Existing post audit data on the Jambi Provincial Forestry Office website can be a solution to address the inaccessible data for the Independent Investigators.

They often find it difficult to access data and information related to the management unit.

The independent investigator is one of the important pillars in SVLK implementation to ensure the forestry business actors comply with the regulation.

Post audit data consists of the company name, SVLK certification validity period, type of certificate, certification

agency, number of SVLK certificates and findings from the monitoring. Those data can be the reference for the independent investigators to monitor further the industry location, which initial data can be accessed through the website.

Improving SVLK Monitoring and Implementation SVLK exists to combat illegal logging and promote legal timber managed from sustainable forest areas. However, if the SVLK regulation is not wellimplemented, the effort would not achieve its main objective.

Therefore, the government must consider the lessons from SVLK implementation in Jambi Province.

The central government better assign the local government to facilitate the acceleration of SVLK as a priority agenda. It can be done by assigning the local government with the target for assistance and accelerating SVLK implementation in each area, especially areas with timber potentials.

Moreover, an improvement on monitoring/ evaluation and regulation/ law enforcement, and firm sanctions for management units proven to conduct violation, must be imposed. It is critical, considering that the management unit assumes that event non-SVLK permit holders can still operate their business. It made the SVLK holders feel they did not get the incentive, and it is in vain to comply with the SVLK regulation. (Wahyu Priyanto).

11 | The Monitor, January 2022

Readiness of Small and Medium Enterprises and Communities Forestry in Sukabumi District on SVLK Implementation

by Absolute Indonesia.

This assessment was conducted before the issuance of the latest revision on the Sustainability and Legality Assurance System (SVLK) as regulated in P.08/ 2021.

T

he Sustainability and Legality Assurance System (SVLK) is a tracking system developed through a multistakeholder approach to combat illegal logging and promote Indonesian legal timber. This system ensures that the timber and its products produced in Indonesia are sourced from legal and verified sources.

SVLK is regulated through the Minister of Environment and Forestry (PermenLHK) Number 21 the Year 2020 and its derivative regulations.

There are two concepts or ways to ensure sustainability standards and timber legality in implementation. It is (1) to ensure the standard compliance with the certification scheme conducted by the independent third party (Certification Agency/ LS) to obtain the Sustainable Production Forest Management Certificate (S-PHPL) and Timber Legality Certificate (S-LK). The number (2) is to ensure the standard compliance in the scheme of Supplier Conformity Declaration (DKP). This scheme refers to the international

standard adopted as the Indonesia National Standard (SNI), SNI/IEC 17050:2010 on conformity assessment - DKP.5 DKP aims to guarantee the conformity of the identified objects with certain requirements and make it clear who is responsible for its conformity.

DKP applies for timber and timber products sourced from the community forests6 except for the natural timber type and its follow-on distribution of the plants sourced from the State-owned Forest Company

SVLK: Proses Menuju Tata Kelola Bertanggung Gugat, JPIK 2018 The term community forest used in this article refers to the forest managed by the communities, land owned and/or can be accessed by the communities with its legality have been guaranteed (outside forest areas) 5

6

The Monitor, January 2022 | 12 (Perhutani) that already obtained S-LK. It considers as low risks on timber and timber products circulation, that the owners of Community Forests can implement, Registered Transit Area (TPT), home industry, and small and medium scale enterprises (IKM) or industries that fully produce or use the raw materials.

Based on the consideration of easier timber management and administration, and timber legality guarantee can be assured, DKP implementation is expected to be a solution and incentive, in the form of easier legality guarantee for timber sourced from the Community Forestry, both for logs and timber processed by industry without the high-cost certification activities. However, on its implementation, no holistic information dissemination on the procedures and monitoring on the issuance and usage of DKP are weak. There is no useful information available on the results of random inspection and special inspection of DKP monitoring that is supposed to be conducted by the government7.

Ironically, DKP has been implemented for six years since its first issuance through the Forestry Minister (which changed to Minister of Environment and Forestry) Regulation Number 43 the Year 2014.

Timber Production and Performance of Timber Processing Industries in West Java Province The West Java Province has forest areas with conservation forests, protected forests, and production forests, reaching 22.10% of the total West Java area. From that figure, the total of the Production Forest and Limited Production Forest reached 380,753.53 hectares. West Java Province also has forests managed by the communities in the form of Community Forest with a total area of 702,695.46 hectares (West Java Forestry Statistic, 2019).

CDK I CDK II CDK III CDK IV CDK V CDK VI CDK VII CDK VIII CDK IX

Up to 2020, the total production of logs sourced from the forest managed by State-owned Forestry Company (Perum Perhutani), through Forest Management Unit (KPH) located in the West Java area reached 2,421,288 m³ (West Java Statistic Bureau, 2020). The total timber production by the community forest is 1,189,501 m³. Out of 27 districts/cities in the province, Sukabumi District and City are the biggest suppliers of timber sourced from the community forests, with 416,138.92 m³.

It is significant to fulfil raw material demand for the timber processing industry, especially small and medium scale timber sawmills in West Java Province.

: Bogor District and City, Depok City dan Bekasi District : Karawang, Purwakarta and Subang Districts : Sukabumi City and District : West Bandung and Cianjur Districts, and Cimahi City : Garut District, Bandung City and District : Tasikmalaya City and District : Ciamis and Pangandaran District dan Banjar City : Cirebon City and District, Kuningan and Majalengka Districts : Sumedang and Indramayu Districts

Production of Communities Timber in West Java Province in 2020.

Source: West Java Forestry Office and CDK8 III, (2020) and Analysis by Absolute Indonesia (2021)

Independent Invsetigator Position Paper: 2 Tahun Pelaksanaan Lisensi FLEGT, Kredibilitas dan Akuntabilitas Sistem Verifikasi Legalitas Kayu (SVLK) Harus Ditingkatkan, 2018 8 CDK (Forestry Office Branch) is the extension for operational of Provincial Forestry Office on deliver services and monitoring in forestry sector 7

13 | The Monitor, January 2022 Circulation and Timber Legality Certification The raw material is not only supplied by the Community Forest and Perum Perhutani in the province, but also from 11 provinces in Indonesia, namely Banten, Central Java, Yogyakarta, East Java, Bangka Belitung, Bengkulu, Jambi, South Sumatra, Lampung, West and South Kalimantan, to meet the demand for raw material from the timber processing industries in West Java.

Timber from those 11 provinces sourced from the management rights holders/ Perum Perhutani, Communities Forests Owner, Logs-Registered Transit Area (TPT-KB), and Timber Forest Product Primary Industry (IPHHK)9. Based on analysis of RPBBI data in 2019, there ware no timber sourced from the Natural Forest and Plantation Forest Timber Forest Product Utilisation Business Permit (IUPHHK-HA and IUPHHK-HT) holders that enter the supply chain in West Java. RPBBI data also do not provide detailed information on the type of timber, so it is not easy to know the uses of timber from the national forest, especially the type of timber used by the plywood industry. Timber forest products sourced from the Community Forest, Perum Perhutani, and timber sourced from other provinces are processed into semi-finished materials and finished goods by the industries and timber/ timber products traders in West Java.

It was then marketed to meet the demand in the province and distributed to several provinces in Java, Jakarta, and Banten.

Meanwhile, 232 exporter units produce their products and 22 non-producer exporters/ traders

9

Provinces of Raw Material Suppliers for West Java Industries

Total of Forestry Products Exporters in Districts/ Cities in West Java in 2020.

Source: Timber Legality Information System (SILK), Certification Agency (2020) and Analysis by Absolute Indonesia (2021)

market the products abroad.

Cirebon is the district with the highest number of exporter companies, with 136 units.

As a requirement on timber commerce, including trading inside and outside the country, the Communities Forests and timber processing industries must meet the SVLK and DKP provisions. However, very little

SIRPBBI, KLHK, diakses pada 1 Mei 2021 dibidang kehutanan

is known on the total area and certification of communities and individuals-owned forests or the management units.

Based on Absolute Indonesia’s analysis and field monitoring, data and information on communities forest certification and its institutions and timber processing industries certification are very limited and have no exact and detailed figure yet for the West Java Provincial level.

The Monitor, January 2022 | 14 Implentation of SVLK and/or DKP and Community Forest and IKM in Sukabumi District Sukabumi District is the biggest district in West Java with ± 419.970 hectares area and administratively directly adjacent with Bogor District on the north, Indonesian Ocean on the south, Lebak District on the west, and Cianjur District on the east.

Sukabumi District has potential for massive dry land, and currently mostly are plantation, moor, and forests10.

On the dryland, there are communities forests spread across 47 subdistricts, with an indicative area reaching 14,805.62 hectares, which in 2020 produced 416,138.92 m³ of timber. The figure includes timber sourced from the Community Forest located in Sukabumi City. This production contributes 0.73% of the national timber demand or 2.08% if we measure based on the production of Communities Forests in the West Java Province. In the same year, 2020, the national timber

demand reached 57.1 million m³ per year and can only be met by the timber sourced from the natural forest (IUPHHK-HA) and plantation forest (IUPHHK-HT) with 45.8 million m³ per year11.

Timber produced from the Communities Forests mostly became the raw material for the timber processing industry located in Sukabumi District/ City.

Based on data from the West Java Provincial Forestry Office and CDK Region III, registered timber

processing industries and own a registered Timber Forest Product Management Industry Business Permit (IUIPHHK), have produced sawn wood and veneer in District/ City Sukabumi up to 2019 with a total of 15 units. This number increased to 17 units in 2020.

Absolute Indonesia conducted a study and field monitoring.

Out of all industries, it is found that three have obtained the certificate and are still active, namely CV Citra Alam Sejati,

Total of IUIPHHK in Sukabumi District. City. Source: CDK Region III (2020) and Analysis by Absolute Indonesia (2021)

PT Tunas Aroma Murni and CV Budi Manis. Three have their certificates revoked, namely CV Sinar Mulya Mandiri, PD Laksana Abadi, CV Bina Kayu, and the rest 11 are uncertified IUIPHHK.

Indicative Areas and Timber Production of Communities Forests in Sukabumi District and City. Source: CDK III and West Java Provincial Forestry Office (2020) and Analysis by Absolute Indonesia (2021)

10 11

https://jabarprov.go.id/index.php/pages/id/1042 Jurnal Perencanaan Pembangunan Wilayah dan Perdesaan, February 2020, 4 (1): 14-3

Meanwhile, based on West Java Forestry Statistics data in 2019, 48 industries produce sawn wood, two plywood industries, nine other timber industries, and six companies that export forestry products.

Those industries spread across Sukabumi District/ City, and their certifications are yet to be known for certain.

15 | The Monitor, January 2022 Understanding of Communities Forests and Small and Medium Enterprises Owners on the SVLK and DKP To understand further on the SVLK and/ or DKP implementation, Absolute Indonesia conducted indepth monitoring in 4 subdistricts in Sukabumi District, namely Kabandungan, Kalapanunggal, Bojong Genteng and Parung Kuda. The monitoring was focused on the small and medium enterprises whose raw material is sourced from the Communities Forests, and most of the production is sawn wood.

Monitoring conducted on 20 Communities Forest owners, and 46 industries with eight industries yet to have legality/ business unit in the form of CV (Commanditaire Venneootschap) and PD (Trading Company), 38 industries have their Trading Business Permit Letter (SIUP) and TDP (Company Registration Certificate).

Based on the interview and field monitoring, it can be concluded that the Communities Forests and IKM understanding were weak. It was shown by 20 Communities Forest owners who did not know about timber management and did not know and just heard about SVLK and DKP for the first time because of the interview. The same confessions also came from the small and medium enterprises, with 36 not knowing the regulation on SVLK and DKP. Seven enterprises claimed that they have heard about SVLK and DKP but do not understand its meaning and objectives, and the rest three enterprises said they know and implement SVLK because of the requirements requested by their buyers.

However, it ended because of the burden on cost for the initial certification and surveillance and no more buyers who requested SVLK.

The Monitor, January 2022 | 16 Interesting things emerged from the interview, and long discussion, from a total of 66 respondents. They all feel the need and importance of implementing SVLK and DKP because they can guarantee the legality of distributed and traded products. However, there are requirements for the initiative to be implemented (1) dissemination of information and training/ capacity building on SVLK and use of DKP; (2) assistance and readiness process on obtaining SVLK; (3) affordable funding; (4) guaranteed market for SVLK products.

processing industries do not track the validity of the letter/ document of timber transporting because they consider that signature and stamp on the note or receipt can be considered legal and accountable.

Timber processing industries have implemented SVLK before implementing DKP when receiving natural wood, though it is cultivated on the Communities Forest. The industries also use DKP if the timber is processed and distributed/ traded sourced from Perum Perhutani.

Meanwhile, timber traders (middlemen) take care of the logs transporting letters if the logs will be sent/ distributed Compliance on Licensing, outside of the area/ district.

System, and Procedures of Those letters are notes from the Timber Trading and Circulation village government, attached by SPPT-PBB (Notification Letter on Based on the field monitoring, it Payable Tax – Land Tax), a copy is found that most of the timber of the farm/ community forest’s processing industries in the four identity card, and a photo of the subdistricts do not have complete logs. permits. Those industries also supply the companies’ needs that do not require documents on timber management or have The Local Government legality/ business entity. They Position in SVLK and DKP do not need to obtain a license Implementation and neglect the timber trading Roles of the Provincial Forestry and distribution system and Office and CDK on administration procedure. provision, including services, Most of the monitored industries monitoring, and control on get their timber supply from the logging, trading, circulation, Communities Forests and other processing, and tracking, are sources from Perum Perhutani. important to achieve efficient Besides raw material from their and fast delivery service related districts, it is also supplied from to SVLK. As the field’s technical Bogor, Cianjur, Ciamis, Banjar implementation unit, the local Districts and Lebak District in government and CDK are Banten Province. expected to be proactive in their duties and functions based on The validity and documentation their authority. of timber transporting and processed products marketing The West Java Governor documents sourced from the Regulation Number 21 the Year Communities Forest, mostly 2019 on Revision of the West the industries in 4 subdistricts Java Governor Number 69 the claimed to implement it.

Year 2017 on Development and However, it is only in the form, Organization Structure of Office note, or receipt as a payment Branch and Local Technical supporting document. The Implementation Unit in the West

17 | The Monitor, January 2022 Java Provincial Government explicitly regulate the roles of CDK. It is to (1) assist and develop the community’s forests, manage the city’s forests, and conserve the outside of the state forest. The (2) monitors and controls the forest product processing, marketing, and non-timber/ timber forest product primary industries. The (3) coordinates and implements operational technical on subaffairs of forest management, utilisation, protection, assisting and empowering communities, forest/ land rehabilitation, and conservation of natural resources.

Though CDKs roles have been regulated, information on the absence of the assistant officers at the field was received. Absolute Indonesia confirmed that one of the forestry extensionists in CDK Region III confirmed the information with no one asking for coordination or request to be informed on SVLK and DKP implementation, especially in Kabandungan, Kalapanunggal and Bojonggenteng Subdistricts.

However, in 2021 CDK region III will focus their program to disseminate information in the Jampang Tengah area as part of the UPHR (Communities Forest Management Unit) program.

Conclusion and Recommendations Forest certification has been widely promoted as the instrument to establish a global standard on responsible forest management practices for the

environment and social issues and provide incentives to the producers who have complied with the standards and have access to the green market (Tysiachniouk & Mc Dermott, 2015). However, the promotion is still partial and seems to be conducted with a business as a usual approach because it does not significantly impact the governance improvement in the field, especially on Communities, Forest managers and smallmedium enterprises.

As a policy, SVLK has requirements to be implemented and achieve its objectives.

Edward III formulated four factors as the problems and preconditions for the successful implementation, communication, resources, bureaucracy or implementer manner, and organisation structure, including the bureaucracy workflow. Other opinions stated that target groups’ compliance is important in determining successful policy implementation12.

Understanding SVLK can grow from the SVLK policymaking processes and implementation, with the communication and information dissemination strategies being determinant factors. Though the government claimed that SVLK implementation developed through a long public consultation process involving various stakeholders, most respondents stated that they do not know enough about the objectives, procedures, and benefits of SVLK. The involvement of representatives of forestry industries associations and other stakeholders in the

SLVK policymaking processes could not represent many interests. There is no information system in the associations to ensure the information can reach the target groups in the field13.

Strengthening and scale-up of communities forest and timber processing industries are urgent, so we do not miss the momentum on forestry governance improvement, which is currently developing, and the support from the forestry

Implementasi Kebijakan: Apa, Mengapa dan Bagaimana; Haedar Akib, Public Administration Journal, vol 1, Number 1 year 2010 13 Yang Legal Yang Beruntung, 2012 12

The Monitor, January 2022 | 18

business actors that are growing year by year. Based on the analysis and field monitoring, Absolute Indonesia recommends the central government, local government, CDK, associations, and other related stakeholders to: a) Disseminate information and assist the Communities Forests managers and small and medium enterprises in a massive, holistic, measurable, and planned manner immediately

b) Disseminate the recent information on SVLK and DKP achievement and progress, and ensure the communication products can be understood and received by those at the field and grass roots level. c)

Build capacity through training adjusted with the needs of forestry business actors in each area

d) Improve delivery of business licensing services with the

principle of easy, affordable, and fast. With doing so, the industries will not hesitate to obtain a permit e) The guaranteed market for the timber products with SVLK certificate and can be guaranteed its legality through DKP is to implement policy on procurement on goods and services for the government facilities and infrastructure.

19 | The Monitor, January 2022

TPL Is Not Eligible for PHL Certification

By Deden Pramudiana – The Independent Forest Monitoring Network (JPIK) Monitoring and analysis by the Independent Forest Monitoring Network (JPIK) on the certification assessment of PT Toba Pulp Lestari

P

T Toba Pulp Lestari (PT TPL) is a pulp company in Toba Lake, North Sumatra.

This massive pulp company is affiliated with the Royal Golden Eagle group and APRIL (the second biggest pulp and paper company in Indonesia). Most of its stocks are owned by the Indonesian tycoon, Sukanto Tanoto.

PT TPL, previously named PT Inti Indorayon Utama, has obtained a permit from the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK) through Forestry Minister Decree Number 493/

KPTS-II/1992 dated 1 June 1992 on Rights Holder for Industrial Plantation Forest, and have been revised eight times, with the latest is Minister of Environment and Forestry Decree No. SK.307/ Menlhk/Setjen/ HPL.0/7/2020.

The total area is 167,912 hectares.

Timber Product Management Unit Business of Industry Plantation Forest (IUPHHK-HTI) PT TPL comprises five sectors spread across 12 districts. Tele Sector with 68,339 hectares area in Humbang Hasundutan and Samosir Districts, Aek Raja Sector with 46,081 hectares area

in Central Tapanuli and Toba Samosir Districts, Habinsaran Sector with 24,304 hectares area in Toba Samosir District, Aek Nauli Sector with 20,426 hectares area in Simalungun District, and Padang Sidimpuan Sector with 28,903 hectares area in Padang Sidimpuan District.

Since its establishment and operations, PT TPL has received critiques from many and demanded to be closed because it is considered to rob the communities livelihood, destroy communities forests, pollute the river and the Toba

The Monitor, January 2022 | 20 Lake. However, to date, PT TPL continues to operate, despite the complaints received by KLHK.

Indication of Violations on the Aspects of Preconditions, Ecology, and Social in SVLK

The forest destruction also happened due to logging on natural forests conducted by PT TPL. Last 2016, the Independent Forestry Monitoring Network (JPIK) sent a complaint letter to the Certification Agency Ayamaru related to kemenyan tree (Styrax sumatrana) logging in the customary forest. Furthermore, in 2019 JPIK also sent a complaint report on the violence toward the children and two citizens by PT TPL in Sihaporas.

1.

Environment destruction caused by the factory’ waste disposal is another problem. Before PT Indorayon changed into PT TPL, the waste storage or the aerated lagoon was broken on 2 March 1994. It has polluted the Asahan River and caused many fish to die. The farmland owned by Op. Sinta Manurung and communities In Parbulu Subvillage, Banjar Ganjang Village, Parmaksian Subdistrict, Toba District were also damaged because of the waste from PT TPL nursery. The incident was reported to the Directorate General of Law Enforcement Ministry of Environment and Forestry (Gakkum KLHK) Sumatra Region in 2019. It has been three years and has not been resolved yet14.

Preconditions Aspect The indication for violation on the precondition aspect lies in the certainty of permit holders area and management rights. In the resume of the first surveillance of PT TPL by PT Ayamaru, the score was good because PT TPL has obtained legal documents and completed border administration in line with the realisation of the process/ activities to decide the border, and have developed a conflict resolution mechanism. However, based on the media’s information and other organisations such as AMAN Tano Batak and KSPPM, PT TPL was violent toward the Natumingka indigenous communities in May 2021. At that time, the Natumingka indigenous

communities blocked the PT TPL staff who were about to plant eucalyptus in Natumingka customary area. The area claimed to be located in the PT TPL concession. The conflict showed incongruity with the good score given by PT Ayamaru.

2. Ecology Aspect Initial information on violation on ecology aspect was obtained, as follow: •

Plants in the protected forest.

The information on plants in the protected forest was received from AMAN Tano Batak and KSPPM, then JPIK tried to analyse through map overlay. The concession is indeed located in a protected forest.

To date, efforts to maintain and reclaim the community’s livelihood continues, with the emergence of a movement called Alliance to Close TPL. The alliance is a form of solidarity of indigenous people and civil society, to insist the government and related stakeholders follow up on the communities’ demands.

Overlay Map based on JPIK Analysis, 2021

14

https://betahita.id/news/detail/6261/kehadiran-pt-tpl-di-tano-batak-menyeret-banyak-permasalahan.html.html

21 | The Monitor, January 2022 •

Land clearing in natural forest, eucalyptus planting in Other Use Area (APL) and on the riverbanks PT TPL practices land clearing and planting eucalyptus in areas where its concession is protected, such as riverbanks and green lines. It is found in Tele, Aek Nauli, and other sectors (September 2015). Logging in natural forests in Aek Nauli Sector happened from July to September 2016. The river was hoarded to build a road inside their concession.

The satellite image analysis by Forest Watch Indonesia (FWI) showed that from 2013 to 2016, there was massive deforestation with 2,108 hectares inside the PT TPL concession. Of 115 thousand hectares of the company’s concession, only 15% is natural forest (17 thousand hectares) located inside the concession, with 27% have changed into plantation forest. That is why PT TLP is still converting the natural forest inside their concession. The same thing also happened in Habinsaran, Aek Raja, Padang Sidempuan and Tele Sectors (July 2021). PT TPL also opened a natural forest and planted a new area with eucalyptus. They logged the natural wood, including more

than 30 cm diameter of Kulim (Scorodocarpus borneensis) and Kempas (Koompassia malaccensis) trees. The clearing was conducted in Habinsaran Sector in Natumingka Village, Bobrbor Subdistrict using excavators and is estimated to last from April to May 2021. Moreover, JPIK monitoring from 30 June to 6 July 2021 in Aek Raja Sector has found a new land-clearing close to the creek, only ±1 meter.

We also found plants in the riverbank, where the communities use the river to take a bath, wash, and drink water.

It is ironic because natural forests and protected forests have High Carbon Stock (HCS) and High Conservation Value (HCV). It is also home to protected flora and fauna, such as Sumatran tiger, Samosir goat, and flora and fauna as explained in the APRIL sustainability report, 2020, with 241 animals and 273 plants species recorded in all concessions. There are also 13 plant and animal species classified by the IUCN as “endangered” on that list.

Eucalyptus trees in the riverbank (coordinate, X: 98,816441 Y: 2,122724)

The Monitor, January 2022 | 22 PT TPL also plants in an area categorised as the Other Use Area (APL) inside their concession.

PT TPL should exclude APL function from their concession permit because the forest utilisation permits are in production forest areas. It is not right

to use the APL area, which is not designated for forestry. That inclusion of APL area in PT TPL concession has worsened the land tenure conflict with the communities15.

New land clearing in Aek Raja Sector (coordinate, X: 98,820308 Y: 2,127947)

Violations by TP PTL are one of the incongruities between the field operations with the Work Plan of Timber Product Utilisation Business on Industrial Plantation Forest (RKUPHHKHTI). It consists of forest sustainability, business continuity, ecological balance, and communities social and economic empowerment aspects as regulated in the Minister of Environment and Forestry Regulation No. P.11/MENLHK/ SETJEN/KUM.1/3/2019 on Changes of Periodical Forest Inventory and Work Plan of Timber Product Utilisation Business on Industrial Plantation Forest. PT Toba Pulp Lestari also violated Law No. 18 the Year 2013 on Prevention and Combatting Forest Destruction Article 12 and 13 by logging in the forests that not in line with the forest utilisation permit; such as logging and planting eucalyptus in the radius/ distance up to 200 meters from the edge of spring and river banks in swamp area; 100 meters from the riverbank; and 50 (fifty) meters from the creek bank.

Eucalyptus trees in APL Area (Source: KSPPM, AMAN Tano Batak, and Jikalahari. Coordinate: N02°09’32.6” E098°51’25.3”)

Source: Monitoring by JPIK and FWI, September 2015; Monitoring by FWI, July 2016; Monitoring by KSPPM, AMAN Tano Batak and Jikalahari, June 2021; JPIK and Aman Tano Batak, July 2021 and Alliance to Close TPL 15

23 | The Monitor, January 2022 3. Social Aspect

due to hit with hard objects, several broken bones on fingers and arms. The act continued the next day, with additional numbers of officers. They forced the communities to meet their demand through forced requests for blankets and pillows for sleep. On that day, dozens of people were injured, houses damaged, and several went missing.

Other than violations of the preconditions and ecological aspects, PT TPL also violated social aspects on the conflict resolution mechanism indicator. On the first surveillance by the Ayamaru Certification Agency, it was considered good, despite the information from the field that conflict with the indigenous communities was still happening.

Indigenous communities also face violence, arrest, abduction due to the human rights violations by PT TPL, from 1998 to 2021, as follow16: •

In July 1998, 800 personnel consisting of police, military police, mobile brigade attacked the communities who had guarded the area at Simpang Sirait Uruk for 30 days to block the trucks from entering the PT TPL location.

The communities were chased to their home, lamps/ lights were destroyed, and the authorities damaged electricity. Communities were hurt with the hit by the officers, one person arrested, dragged, beaten, trampled, and thrown into ditches who later found in a coma. The injuries were serious, with the wide wound on the head, bruises all over the body

•

In September 1998, the communities protested again and two young men from Tambunan Village, Balige arrested by the police. The next day hundreds of people and women blocked the road at the Sirait Uruk. One person was arrested, and dozens of women were injured hit with batons. Because of the incident, the communities were angry, and in a short time, 2,000 people from various villages came, and a clash happened.

After the communities left the location and returned home, the Mobile Brigade and the Air Defense Artillery from Titi Kuning, Medan destroyed, damaged, looted, and shot civilian houses. Some of the houses were looted, and the children and elders were hit. It was very scary with many victims.

One person was shot on the leg, 50 women injured and bruised caused by batons, an elder woman (80 years) abducted when working in the paddy field, 15 persons were arrested and put into a truck and abducted by the officers.

Later, it is known that they were arrested in Taturung Police, and seven persons faced severe abuse and must be hospitalised at Dewi Maya Hospital, Medan. One person was hospitalised at Vita Insani Pematangsiantar because he was hit on the eyes with a gun, and 30 individuals went missing. On the same day, abuse by the authorities on 2 Lumban Batu villagers. The victims were hospitalised at Parparean Porsea Hospital. In the same village, houses (stalls) owned by a villager were destroyed, and the commodities were robbed. The Head of Tangga Batu I Village was also abused until battered.

•

In November 1998, officers abducted and abused 17 young men.

The officers brought and interrogated them at Porsea Police. Fourteen of them must be taken to the Emergency Unit of Porsea Hospital due to gunshot wounds,

Source: Manalu, Dimpos, Gerakan Sosial dan Perubahan Kebijakan Publik; Studi Kasus Perlawanan Masyarakat Adat Batak VS PT Inti Indorayon Utama/PT Toba Pulp Lestari di Sumatera Utara, dan KSPPM, AMAN, FWI, JPIK, Aliansi GERAK Tutup TPL 16

The Monitor, January 2022 | 24 bruises, lacerations, and broken bones.

•

•

•

In June 2000, at dawn around 01.30, officers abducted those on the night shift at Sirait Ucuk.

The kidnapping caused thousands of people, and a high schooler from Patane Village was shot dead by the police.

whenever there is a refusal.

•

In July 2000, a Janji Matogu villager was arrested and jailed.

The communities were shocked and terrified, so they moved to another village.

In November 2002, civilians were beaten, 18 persons were arrested at Taturung Police when protesting at the Head of Porsea Subdistrict Office to demand unfulfilled promises.

•

In April 2003, the communities protested at Sirait Uruk and were beaten with gunshot wounds, bruises, sprains, and fractures.

•

In June 2009, there were two cases of criminalisation of civilians who protect their customary area. Eight citizens of Pandumaan and Sipituhuta were arrested and named as the suspect. To date, the legal proceedings on those eight civilians remain unclear. The police always said that their status is still listed on the people search

•

•

In 2010, intimidation and criminalisation on the indigenous communities descendant of Ama Raja Medang Simamora, Suddung Simamora arrested by the Doloksanggul Police. The arrest was based on the offence of the destruction of eucalyptus trees. The Doloksanggul Police arrested Suddung Simamora for three days. He was finally released due to the demonstration by the indigenous communities descendant of Ama Raja Medang Simamora.

In February 2013, the police officers arrested 31 individuals who denied PT TPL, 16 of them named suspects and arrested in North Sumatera Police Headquarters in Medan. They were released due to communities pressure, and the process was discontinued.

In July 2015, the Public Relations of PT TPL reported Sammas Sitorus to the Toba Police with the accusation of torture on one of their colleagues during a demonstration at the front of PT Toba Pulp Lestari. The police then named Sammas Sitorus as suspect and proceeded to Balige Court. After

eight months of trial, Balige Court decided to free Sammas from the accusation. Balige Attorney then appealed to the Supreme Court, strengthening the Balige Court decision to free Sammas Sitorus.

•

In February 2017, PT TPL reported Sakkan Simanjuntak and Lambok Simanjuntak to the North Tapanuli Police with the accusation of burning the land on their concession.

•

In September 2019, dozens of PT TPL workers expelled and provoked Nagori communities, Sihaporas Village, Pamatang Sidamanik Subdistrict.

The situation was heated, and the workers hit a three-year-old child and an adult. Ironically, the victims from the communities are the ones who were sued at court and charged guilty, while the molester free from lawsuits.

•

October 2019, PT TPL deployed armed police and army to intimidate Ompu Umbak Siallagan indigenous communities in Dolok Parmonangan, Dolok Parmonangan Subdistrict, Simalungun District. At that time, a civilian was farming on the customary land.

After that, PT TPL reported two civilians accused to occupy the state forest.

25 | The Monitor, January 2022 •

In June 2020, PT TPL reported 5 Huta Tornauli indigenous communities in Tornauli Subvillage, Manalu Dolok Village, Parmonangan Subdistrict, North Tapanuli District with an accusation of farming without a permit in the forest area. They are Buhari Job Manalu, Manaek Manalu, Nagori Manalu, Damanti Manalu, and Ranto Dayan Manalu.

•

On 4 September 2020, PT TPL conflicted with the Natinggir indigenous communities. Dozens of PT TPL officers escorted by the security came to the Natinggir indigenous community working on their customary land.

The company tried to stop all activities done by the communities, but the people fought. The company pressured the communities to state that they have a legal permit on the area and that the community does not have any right to work on the land.

The community and the company argued.

•

•

On 27 November 2020, Op Panggal Manalu indigenous community in Aek Raja was threatened and forbade

by PT TPL to work on their farm land, which is their customary land.

December 2020, 5 Ompu Ronggur Descendant Indigenous community, reported by TPL to the

police. They are Dapot Simanjuntak, Maruli Simanjuntak, Pariang Simanjuntak, Sudirman Simanjuntak, and Rinto Simanjuntak with accusation of using the state forest.

•

In January 2021, Op Ronggur Simajuntak indigenous community got a call from the Taput Police due to a report by PT TPL on an accusation of farming on the concession land.

The land is customary land of Op Ronggur Simanjuntak indigenous community.

•

20 April 2021, Pastor Faber Manurung and around 15 citizens of Parbulu, Parmaksian Subdistrict, protested in Pangombusan Village, Parmaksian Subdistrict.

They protested the environmental degradation they faced for a long time and the absence of a PT TPL nursery waste disposal permit.

•

24 April 2021, PT TPL damaged the plants owned by Nagasaribu Onan Harbangan indigenous community.

The Monitor, January 2022 | 26

•

On 18 May 2021, Natumingka indigenous community, Borbor Subdistrict, Toba District, was threatened by and got violent from PT TPL and the police.

The threat faced by the community is not the first time. Previously, they have been visited several times by the security of PT TPL and the police when working on their customary land.

Previously on 24 October 2020, three Natumingka indigenous communities were named suspects due to the PT TPL report.

The human rights violation happened because of the absence of boundaries set administration, and the encroachment of kemenyan forest resulted in the loss of indigenous communities’ livelihood. Based on the field monitoring and analysis on the certificate on the Timber Legality Assurance System (SVLK) scheme, it is found that PT TPL has conduct violations. However, in the resume of surveillance results by PT Ayamaru Sertifikasi, PT TPL got a “good” score because already obtained legal document and complete border administration according to the execution of border setting and agreement have developed the conflict resolution mechanism.

However, in reality, the conflict

on borders are still happening to date. It showed the mismatch between the “good” score given

by PT Ayamaru to PT TPL. PT TPL does not comply with the preconditions aspect regulated on the Sustainable Forest Production Certification (S-PHPL). This aspect is critical and most influential, so the incompliance on that preconditions aspect has shown that other aspects such as ecology, production, and social are also problematic. The certificate is supposed to be revoked.

27 | The Monitor, January 2022

The Environment Irony: The Climate Crisis Need Real Actions, Not Rhetoric Della Azzahra Soepardiyanto – Political Science Student, University of Indonesia

T

he Global High-Level Conference on Climate Is Back

Before the phrase Conference of Parties emerged, in 1992, the United Nations held a HighLevel Conference called Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

The conference resulted in agreements of its participant countries that the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere must be stabilised to prevent dangerous hazards caused by human activities that impact the climate. Since the agreement came into effect in 1994, the United Nations started to hold conferences with the participation of every country

in the world in a global climate high-level conference usually called the Conference of Parties (COP).

After its absence last year due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of Parties finally returned. The 26th Conference of Parties or COP 26 was held in Glasgow, Scotland, from 31 October to 12 November 2021. The world leaders gathered to express their concern on earth for the sustainability of human life. They talked about tackling the climate change crisis, emission measurement, and innovation to promote

decarbonisation of electricity, thermal, manufacturing, farming, and transportation.

The Government Rhetoric on the President Speech in COP26 President Jokowi, as the leader and representative of Indonesia in COP26, shared his speech. It consisted of the current condition in Indonesia and efforts that are currently undergoing and will be done by Indonesia to contribute to tackling the climate change crisis. However, unfortunately, many consider that the president speech is different from what is being said and done.

The Monitor, January 2022 | 28 “communities” mentioned in that statement need the development that potentially destroys their livelihood?

If we look in detail, the statement is not in line with Law No. 32 the Year 2009 on Environment Management and Protection.

Article 1 Clause (2) stated that “Environmental management and protection is a systematic and integrated effort to conserve environmental function and prevent pollution and environmental damage, including planning, utilisation, control, maintenance, monitoring, and law enforcement.”

In his speech, Jokowi said that “Indonesia contributes to tackling climate change.” He also shared several achievements, including the decreased deforestation rate, through the statement, “the deforestation rate has decreased significantly in the past 20 years.” Is that true?

One global environmental organisation, Greenpeace, denied Jokowi’s statement on the decreased deforestation rate.

They said the data presented by the government does not match with the facts. Based on Greenpace (2021), “Deforestation in Indonesia increased from 2.45 million hectares in 2003-2011 to 4.8 million hectares in 2011-2019” (Greenpeace, 2021).

Dynamics of Development and Deforestation in Indonesia Not only that, debate on deforestation in Indonesia was

worsened by the statement of the Minister of Environment and Forestry, Siti Nurbaya Bakar, on her Twitter account. On 3 November 2021, she tweeted, “The massive development in President Jokowi era must not be stopped for the sake of carbon emissions or by the name of deforestation.” The twit emerged big question mark on the public. How could an environment minister support the development that potentially destroys the environment?

The government is supposed to act for the sake of and by the people’s name, not for the success of a regime’s work program.

In the next tweet, she said, “If the concept is no deforestation, it means there would be no road. Then what about the communities? Must they live isolated? While the state must be present in the middle of its people.” However, does the

Siti Nurbaya Bakar said that the development must keep ongoing for the values and goals to develop national targets for the people’s welfare socially and economically in line with the mandate of 1945 Law. However, it is such a confusing irony because environmental management and protection are human rights that Indonesia, as a democratic country, is supposed to provide a constitutional guarantee. The contradictive statement by the Minister of Environment and Forestry, Siti Nurbaya Bakar, have caused people’s sceptical attitude that law function has shifted to be used as a tool and mask for the authorities to legalise and legitimate their unreasonable objectives.

Carbon Market and Carbon Price Are False Solutions to Tackle Climate Crisis If we refer back to COP 21 in 2016, the Paris Agreement, it was agreed that the earth temperature increase could not be more than 2˚ Celsius.

However, now the earth temperature has increased by 1.5˚ Celsius. The earth temperature increase has caused

29 | The Monitor, January 2022 many forests burnt by the natural cause, though in some cases due to other factors. In short, forest fires could happen as a natural incident due to the greenhouse effect, with the carbon produced cannot go out from the earth blocked by the atmosphere and caused the continued heat cycle on earth. The heat can cause forest fires.

However, in his speech in COP26, Jokowi said, “Carbon market and carbon price must be part of efforts to tackle climate change.”

Carbon trading is considered a solution for climate change because the Indonesian forests absorb the carbon produced by the industrial countries. It means that Indonesia mindfully legalises the carbon business that allows big companies from the industrial countries to donate their carbon pollution by paying Indonesia.

It is a false solution to tackle climate change.

The Roles of the State for the Indigenous Peoples In reality, carbon trading is just a capitalist business that is only beneficial for certain political elites. Many people were harmed by those carbon markets and prices, including the indigenous people. Indigenous peoples have their institutions and rules to manage relations between communities and their surrounding environment. The communities developed based on the common living spaces, genetic, or even both. They use the forest as their livelihood, a natural habitat for flora and fauna. They also take resources from the forest, cut trees, open farm or settlement areas, and optimise forest products, both timber and non-timber, considering the ecosystem balance based on their custom.

Unfortunately, the government

often give authority to forest restoration to tackle climate change to the outsider who does not even fully understand the forest like the indigenous communities with their forests.

It is part of carbon trading. The donor countries give funding to Indonesia as remuneration of forest restoration as part of the responsibility for the carbon pollution they produced.

However, the outsiders often violate regulations and customary law implemented from generation to generation by the indigenous communities, such as entering forbidden areas, exploiting the forest without considering the ecosystem balance, and many others. Those things have caused tension between the government, outsiders, and indigenous communities. On the other side, the power imbalance often puts the indigenous communities at the corner.

The government is supposed to do its tasks to implement its subsidiary principle, as explained by Abraham Lincoln and mentioned in the Etika Politik by Franz Magniz Suseno (2016). It said that “The people or the higher institution support its members or more limited institutions when they cannot satisfactorily fulfil their duties. While what can be done satisfactorily by more limited communities units should not be undertaken by the higher communities institutions.”

The government as the state apparatus is supposed to be a facilitator to support, complete, and guarantee preconditions for the welfare of indigenous communities to practice the values they believe. The government should not limit the capacity of the communities.

As the higher authorities, they only have the right to take over the affairs when the lower units

can not fulfil it as intended to be. The state is supposed to play their roles for the people. The communities play their roles for their members. The state cannot control what the communities can do and the communities toward its members (Suseno 2016). Therefore, it is time for the indigenous communities to be sovereign and self-determination on their communities, forest, and land in their customary areas. The state is also supposed to provide and guarantee the indigenous people to preserve their values and ways to take care of its members when they can do it satisfactorily. The function of the state is to support and complete the communities’ efforts and not to replace or extinguish them (Suseno, 2016).

Real climate problems are challenges and threats for the countries in the world, including Indonesia. However, the government’s statement did not solve the climate crisis problems, including deforestation and carbon pollution. Instead, rhetoric, falsity, and hypocrisy by the government are the ones that colonise the climate itself. To prioritise development is not wrong, as long as accordance with the sustainable development principles that highly recognise ecological rights as stated in the constitution. The government should not neglect the impact of development on the environment. Real action by the government is needed, with serious and ambitious efforts to tackle climate crises to ensure human’s life survival, especially Indonesian people.

The Monitor, January 2022 | 30

Aru Islands: Relations between Human and the Environment

By Aziz Fardhani Jaya

Savanna at the location of Tordouk tradition

N

ature and humans are one inseparable unity. The nature condition and its dynamic changes have shaped humanity and decided their ways of living and values. The connection between the two is a complex relationship (social, economic, culture, and ecology) so that in practice, it can not be simplified only in one dimension.

Communities in Aru Islands have a close relationship with nature.

Forests, ocean, coastal areas, savanna, and islands are their living spaces and livelihood. The

connection can be seen from the community’s life that heavily depends on the natural resource (subsistence) and uses the local wisdom to manage the natural resources. It has shaped the communities’ culture through spiritual bonds in historical ways—for example, the history and symbol of Mata Belang or striped eye17 that uses natural signs18.

As the small islands’ geographic span, Aru Islands have abundant natural and diverse natural potential. Up to 2018, 832 islands

have been identified in the Aru Islands19. The lowland tropical rainforest landscape covered almost 75%20 of the islands, with unique biodiversity. The rich mangrove ecosystem also has around 11 families with 25 species, spread across 156,524 hectares21 is the natural fortress of the coastal areas from the abrasion threats. Moreover, the savanna ecosystem in the southern part stretched far wide as far as the eyes can see, completing the natural wealth in Aru Islands.

Mata belang is a unitary family consists of several families similar to a clan which have kinship/ family ties and similarity of history in Aru communities.

18 Forest Watch Indonesia. 2015. Potret Kondisi Hutan dan Masyarakat di Kepualaun Aru, Maluku: Page 24 19 Data analysis by Forest Watch Indonesia Year 2019 20 Forest cover of Aru Islands is around 605 thousand hectares. Data analysis by Forest Forest Watch Indonesia Year 2018 21 Mangrove cover data analysis of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry in 2018 17

31 | The Monitor, January 2022 Aru communities’ natural resources and agricultural sources (land, forest, hill, ocean, etc.) are controlled and managed collectively on the clan level. Each clan has their area to be managed, called Petuanan22. Though controlled by the communities, those who do not belong to the clan, even outsiders, can access the petulant. The requirement is that the person obtains a permit from the respective clan.

Aru communities have their local wisdom and tradition to utilise and conserve their nature in managing their natural resources. The local wisdom can be knowledge, insights, beliefs, and customs owned and

disseminated collectively to all communities’ members using the local language. One of the local wisdom is Bakar Alang-alang Tordauk.

Tordauk is hunting together tradition conducted with burning the reeds23. This tradition is conducted once a year by the communities in South Aru. It is done when the dry season ends or before the rainy season come. Another sign is that the communities burn the smaller reeds first in their village. After it is all gone, then the bakar alangalang Tordauk will start.

animal and will grow even more fertile after all reeds have been burned. The new reeds will grow fast in the rainy season so that the animal feed is available for the whole year.

The Tordauk tradition has important meaning as a communal space between villagers and the clan to hunt together. Around 12 villages in South Aru follow the Tordauk tradition, Marafenfen, Popjetur, Gaimar, Doka Barat, Doka Timur, Laininir, Jerol, Lor-lor, Jelia, Feruni, Ngaiguli, and Fatural Villages.

The people believe that the new grass can grow through burning the reeds for animal feed. The grass will be the food for the

South Aru communities conducted a ceremony before the Bakar alang-alang Tordauk (Photo: FWI 2018)

22 23

Petuanan is a customary area of Aru communities that they own from generations to generations.

Cahyono Eko et all. 2019. Bioregion Papua: Hutan dan Manusianya. Forest Watch Indonesia.

The Monitor, January 2022 | 32 Moreover, Tordauk is a way to unite villages close by distance and its kinship, social, and cultural relations. Tordauk is the bond and serves as a reminder across generations that the communities in south Aru are one big family living together in the same living space24.

Dal Sir Savai Dam Sir Aja Jelburom Matvui tradition on the Batuley communities in the northern part of Aru is one of the sasi on the sea that bans sea cucumber processing25. The ban is on processing the seafood and covering the beach and sat included in the petuanan area.

Aru people have a life philosophy called Sita Kaka Walike, which uphold fraternity, help each other, share lives, work together, and live in harmony with nature.

That bond is based on the similarity of history and origins of the people. For example, Aru people believe that their ancestors came from Eno Karang Island. Then divided into several families or belang and spread across Aru islands.

The sea cucumber sasi traditional ceremony is conducted every three to five times a year.

The communities believed the timeframe was the age of productive sea cucumber to be harvested. When sasi is applied, communities cannot harvest the sea cucumber except when the sasi opening ceremony is conducted. The sasi opening ceremony usually last for two days with a series of rituals and prayers as a sign of gratitude to God and wish for the abundant catch.

They also have another thing called Sasi. It is a form of the communities’ local wisdom to manage areas and natural resources. In general, Sasi practices can be easily found in the eastern part of Indonesia (Maluku and Papua). Similarly, Arui people also practice Sasi to manage their natural resources and living space.

The challenge relies on how the local wisdom can be adopted and made as to the basis for the local development plan. The local government should trust the indigenous communities to manage their natural resources through their local wisdom and traditions practised. Using outside knowledge concept from outside have caused failure to prosper the communities, and even becoming the cause of forests destruction and degradation of environmental quality.

**

Those examples showed the bond between Aru communities with their environment and living space. They live and shape life based on the condition of each environment. It showed that Sasi used to be a ban to utilise the existence of communities or access natural resources has been going on for a long at a certain period. It aims to time. They manage natural optimise natural resources and resources for their livelihood prevent destruction. For Aru communities, sasi is implemented and environmental sustainability through local knowledge and in areas (land and ocean), farm crops, natural products (swallow, traditional practices. hunted animals, seafood, trees) and other objects related to the communities’ life.

Ibid Heatubun SY, Lewier M, and Latupeirissa E. 2020. Sastra Lisan Batuley Dalam Upacara Adat Dal Sir Davai Dam Sir Aja Jelburom Matvui di Desa Kabalsiang Kecamatan Aru Utara Timur Batuley Kabupaten Kepulauan Aru. https//doi.org/10.30598/mirlamvol1no2hlm265-286 24 25

33 | The Monitor, January 2022

Interesting Exhibition, Indonesia Forest Expo (FOREXPO) 2021, Forest Watch Indonesia (FWI) Promoting Eastern Indonesia

By Zahra Amani – The Independent Forest Monitoring Network (JPIK)

I

ndonesia Forest Expo 2021, usually called Forexpo 2021, is an event where Forest Watch Indonesia (FWI) campaigns forestry issues in Indonesia.

This time in Forexpo 2021, FWI presented “Eastern Indonesia: Our Last Chance”. The event was held for three days, from 1 to 3 December 2021, packed with talk shows, film screenings, poetry reading, and art performances.

Talkshow “Forest and Human in Eastern Indonesia: Our Last Chance” One of the Forexpo 2021 events is a talk show titled “Forest and Human in Eastern Indonesia: Our Last Chance”. Opened by Chairman of FWI Supervisory Board, Abdon Nababan, he mentioned in his opening speech,

“The humans of the archipelago in eastern Indonesia can not be separated from nature. They rely on their life by directly managing natural resources, so they have no reason not to conserve nature.

We also have the same chance because eastern Indonesia still can be saved.”

Furthermore, FWI Director Mufti Barri shared the threats on forests in eastern Indonesia, including Papua and North Maluku. The natural wealth in Papua and North Maluku is at threat due to the companies permits and licenses. Mufti Barri also said that we need to learn from the communities in Aru Islands, where they reject the massive land clearing even when the company is still in the initial process to get their permit.

On the other side, forests are inseparable from the life of indigenous people. Before Indonesia existed, the indigenous communities lived in harmony with nature and forest. However, the forests have been decreasing since the establishment of this country. Mama Aleta as the woman activist living witnessing her forests robbed by the investors explained that the communities will prosper if nature is intact and undisturbed by others. For example, forests were cleared when mining was conducted, and women could not find herbal medicine and others.

“Do not strip this earth. We need this earth still with its clothes and fully covered,” said Mama Aleta. Simon Kamsi, an activist in Aru Islands, explained how the Aru people heavily depend on its nature. With the destruction of nature, all of its habitats are

The Monitor, January 2022 | 34 also gone. That is where the Aru Islands battle started.

A writer from Maluku, Eko Saputra Poceratu, fights through writings in literacy discourse. The low literacy on environmental problems affects the communities’ decision-making, so the companies trick and deceive the communities. With low literacy, how can we analyse ongoing threats? Therefore, strengthening literacy is needed in Maluku. Writings are to serve so that the writing to express and voice environmental problems is important.

Disseminating Research Result of Forest & Human in Eastern Indonesia Erynola Moniharapan from Pattimura University spoke about the food crisis threat due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic is a momentum to improve food security because the producing country will secure their internal food security. Based on Law No. 12 the Year 2012 on Food, it is stated in Article 41 to diversify food based on local resources and in Article 42 to diversify optimising the yard and strengthen the local food. The local food potential in eastern Indonesia is sago with a high carbohydrate level. The government have started to process the sago starch. Even with the advancement, issues are still faced in sago processing industries, such as the limitation on the staple, processing technology, and infrastructure with the area where sago planted located far away.

The harmony between humans and nature, as shared by Aryo Condro, is on the relations

between the tropical Indonesia condition with the abundance of its flora and fauna. The maximum rainfall and optimum temperature support abundance vegetation in the equatorial area.

This abundance of vegetation is a potential for rich species of biodiversity. Not only that, flora and fauna in Indonesia can also stock a high carbon level. Challenges also increased with the massive extinction in the Anthropocene era, climate change, and continually decreased conservation area.

It must be noted how the government and stakeholders manage to preserve the conservation area and maintain Indonesia’s biodiversity.

Talkshow “The Eyes of the Media: Have We Fair When Looking at Eastern Indonesia?”

This session started with the moderator question to Bagja Hidayat, a representative from Tempo. Why highlight the Papuan forests? He then answered, our job is to play the role of media as an institution that can give voice to those who need it. Jakarta citizens will not necessarily understand a significant event in Papua. That is where media can play their roles, to bring proximity of matters in Papua to the Jakarta citizens through highlighting the Papuan forests.

Furthermore, Jean Bisay from Jubi also shared how information in Papua is not well delivered.

Elisabeth Asrida of Mongabay Indonesia shared the importance of women involvement in information gathering. Ask the women when doing the in-depth interview because they will talk more. Women who are the group

leaders can influence others to conserve the environment in their surrounding areas.

Roy Murtadho of Indoprogress said that consolidating all levels through various groups to be advocated the higher level is needed. Problems in Papua need to be discussed by everyone.

There are no other ways other than discussions, good talks, debate, and comparing data and facts. If not, violence will keep on happening. Bagja Hidayat continued that before becoming a discourse, Papua cases must be viral, so the people know more about it. The civil society consolidation must be strengthened. Civil society organisations must continue to talk about Papua until Indonesians know that Papua is important and must be put in the spotlight.

Talkshow “Forestry Crimes in Eastern Indonesia” Egi Primayoga of the ICW Political Corruption Division shared that the state lost IDR 1,255 trillion in the forestry sector, with IDR 7,23 billion is in the form of bribery. The modes are embezzlement, abuse of budget, abuse of authorities, bribery, and fictive reports. The vulnerable point for corruption occurred during licensing, spatial plan, companies’ obligation manipulation, and weak monitoring of the companies.

Moreover, the indication of state loss due to other deforestation reached 2,547,023,080 m3 volumes of timber that have been deforested and five times unrecorded timber compared to the recorded figures. Findings from ICW budget tracking in the forestry sector showed

35 | The Monitor, January 2022 chaos in data and recording, not optimum monitoring, lack of public participation, and weak transparency. For the prevention, transparency aspect is critical to get and able to access information on forestry.

Furthermore, strengthening enforcement officers’ monitoring happened due to unsynchronised between prevention and action.

The Director of Pusaka Bentala Rakyat Foundation, Franky Samperante shared two major cases that, up to date, are still unclear. Firstly, the red soil project. The investor gained a permit from the KLHK for forest conversion, though environmental permits have been found. The project then developed a timber industry that has a license with a fake signature. The second case in 2018 was an illegal logging case involving the Head of Papua Provincial Forestry Office with JJO initials. The case started when the Papua Police arrested a businessman with FT initials and evidence of IDR 500 million suspected as a bribe for an illegal logging case in Jayapura District.

JJO was suspected to be involved in the case, with the suspect FT arrested on a red-handed operation. However, the case is considered unfinished by several non-government organisations in Papua because the sentence for FT did not give a deterrent effect, with currently FT has freed.

Then JJO, as the Head of Papua Provincial Forestry Office, was suspended on 25 January 2019.

In following up the forestry crimes, a representative of the Indonesian police stated four crimes in forestry sectors, illegal logging, unlicensed mining in the forest area, unlicensed plantation, and forest and land fires. Illegal logging in Central

Kalimantan has been followed up for 45 days and another 45 days remaining. In West Kalimantan, the members have been caught, and after investigation, evidence was found. The local police found heavy equipment in unlicensed mining in Central Kalimantan. It has been agreed that integrated law enforcement will be done for the forest and land fires. Not too many cases are reported in Papua, and the highest cases are from Kalimantan. The limitation to do the investigation in 90 days is limiting the investigation.

Era Purnama Sari explained how the protection on the indigenous communities, who lost access and control on their customary areas, including forest. It has caused poverty among the indigenous people. There are no clauses in the law stating that the state would permit forest usage when permits from the indigenous communities have been sought, not like mining that needs communities permission.

When the people lost access to their land, they lost their identity. The forestry law made it easy to design areas to function only through the assignment.

However, no criminal law is applied to the assigning process because it does not follow forest designation. The indigenous communities who harvest timber daily are supposedly not punished with criminal law.

However, the criminal code is not applied to the designation process, though the forest area designation process did not properly conduct before. When the companies conducted illegal logging, the officer stated that it was just because the designated areas had not been formally issued. There is a double standard on forestry crimes, depending on the subject.

Agung Ady Setyawan of FWI added that the forestry crimes are more advanced, and the licensing processes can be falsified, so it should be investigated further. In Aru Islands, there is timber transported from the port that is caught after being investigated by the KPK. This kind of report is important. When there is the next report similar to the previous one, the information will complete how forestry crimes happened. So once there is a similar case, it can be handled faster.

The Monitor, January 2022 | 36 Reference

Commodity Network.”

Journal of Rural Studies 21 (4): 403–17. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j. jrurstud.2005.08.005.

Cashore, Benjamin, and Michael W. Stone. 2012. “Can Legality Verification Rescue Global Forest Governance?: Analysing Li, Tania Murray. 2000. the Potential of Public and “Articulating Indigenous Private Policy Intersection Identity in Indonesia: to Ameliorate Forest Resource Politics and the Challenges in Southeast Tribal Slot.” Comparative Asia.” Forest Policy and Studies in Society and Economics, Emerging History 42 (1): 149–79.

Economic Mechanisms for Global Forest Governance, Scoones, Ian. 2020. Penghidupan Berkelanjutan & 18 (May): 13–22. https:// Pembangunan doi.org/10.1016/j.

Berkelanjutan. Translated forpol.2011.12.005.

by Nurhady Sirimorok.

Giessen, Lukas, Sarah Burns, Seri Kajian Petani Dan Muhammad Alif K. Perubahan Agraria.

Sahide, and Agung Yogyakarta: Insist Press.

Wibowo. 2016.

Setyowati, Abidah, and “From Governance Constance L. McDermott. to Government: The 2017. “Commodifying Strengthened Role of Legality? Who and State Bureaucracies in What Counts as Legal Forest and Agricultural in the Indonesian Wood Certification.” Policy and Trade.” Society & Natural Society 35 (1): 71–89.

Resources 30 (6): 750–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. https://doi.org/10.1080/08 polsoc.2016.02.001.

941920.2016.1239295.

Hasyim, Moh Zainuri. 2017.

Smith, Adam C., and Bruce “Peran Pemantau Yandle. 2014. Bootleggers Independen dalam Sistem and Baptists: How Verifikasi Legalitas Kayu Economics Forces and (SVLK) di Indonesia.”

Moral Persuasion Interact Yogyakarta: Universitas to Shape Regulatory Gadjah Mada.

Politics. Washington, D.C: Ichwan, Muhammad, Agus Cato Institute.

Budi Purwanto, Deden TRIC. 2020. “Di Ultah Chatham Pramudiana, Zainur House, Menteri Siti Rohman, and Munif Nurbaya Jelaskan SVLK Rodaim. 2021. Rakyat Dan Peran Hutan Di Masa Memantau: Dinamika Pandemi Covid-19.” TRIC pemantauan SVLK oleh Indonesia (blog). July masyarakat adat/lokal di 18, 2020. https://tricIndonesia. Yogyakarta: indonesia.com/berita/svlk/ BP ARuPA, PPLH di-ultah-chatham-houseMangkubumi, JPIK, FAO. menteri-siti-nurbayaKlooster, Dan. 2005. jelaskan-svlk-dan-peran“Environmental hutan-di-masa-pandemiCertification of covid-19/.

Forests: The Evolution Varagis, Panayotis N, CA Primo of Environmental Braga, and Kenji Takeuchi.

Governance in a

1993. “Tropical Timber Trade Policies: What Impact Will Eco-Labeling Have?” World Bank. https://documents1. worldbank.org/curated/ en/535441468741004003/ pdf/multi0page.pdf.

KOMPASTV. (2021). Pidato Jokowi di COP26: Pamer Kontribusi Indonesia Penanganan Perubahan Iklim. Diakses dari https:// www.youtube.com/ watch?v=-7Xgcy0LwYQ Nugraheny, D. E. (2021).

Kontroversi Pernyataan Menteri LHK soal Pembangunan dan Deforestasi. Accessed from https://nasional. kompas.com/ ead/2021/11/05/06255601/ kontroversi-pernyataanmenteri-lhk-soalpembangunan-dandeforestasi?page=all Pristiandaru, D. L. (2021). Apa itu COP26 dan Mengapa Penting? Diakses dari https://www. kompas.com/global/ ead/2021/11/03/071227770/ apa-itu-cop26dan-mengapapenting?page=all Suara Mahasiswa Universitas Inonesia. (2021). Aksi Iklim Kembali Digelar, Menanti Aksi Nyata Pemerintah.

Accessed from https:// suaramahasiswa.com/ aksi-iklim-kembali-digelar Suseno, F. M. (2016). Etika Politik: Prinsip Moral Dasar Kenegaraan Modern (edisi ke-8). Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

Indonesia Constitution Number 32 the Year 2009

37 | The Monitor, January 2022

Save Our Forests

The Monitor, January 2022 | 38

01 | The Monitor, January 2022

JPIK regularly publishes Newsletter once every 3 months, this newsletter as one of the media to share information about JPIK and partners, and other related parties about the current condition of forest management in Indonesia. JPIK invites you to participate as a contributor, you can send your writing to the address and contact below: Independent Forest Monitoring Network Babakan Sari VI No.5, Bantarjati, North Bogor, Bogor City, West Java, 16129 Tel: +62 251 8397371 Email: jpikmail@gmail.com