‘Great’ SBY: Senior official seethes at how long it took the previous president, notorious for his indecisiveness, to name board members for the agency in charge of administering $1 billion in deforestation-slowing programs
By Adelia Anjani Putri Jakarta Globe 4 Nov 14;
Yogyakarta. When Indonesia signed a $1 billion deal with Norway in 2010 on a program to halt deforestation, then-president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono set up a task force to oversee the program’s initiatives for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, or REDD+.
Since then, the task force has become the main national institution to handle all REDD+ related affairs in an attempt slow the world-leading rate at which Indonesia is losing its forests.
The Jakarta Globe’s Adelia Anjani Putri spoke with Heru Prasetyo, chairman of the REDD+ Management Agency, or BP REDD+, to discuss the programs under his office’s supervision and public awareness of forestry issues, during a recent UN-sponsored workshop on REDD+ in Yogyakarta.
Tell us about the formation of the REDD+ Management Agency.
After the letter of intent was signed between the Indonesian and Norwegian governments on May 26, 2010, the government immediately formed a task force. While waiting for the presidential decree for the management agency’s formation, all preparation was delegated to the coordinating minister for the economy, Hatta Rajasa; the National Development Planning Agency [Bappenas]; and the President’s Delivery Unit for Development Monitoring and Oversight [UKP4]. The UKP4 worked on the agency’s structure, strategy and budget to later give to Bappenas. The Forestry Ministry then chose a pilot province.
To realize the pilot program, Bappenas had to conduct an audit of the Forestry Ministry, which resulted in an analysis of the ministry’s problems in managing forest fires and land protection — inevitably sparking the ministry’s anger. The ministry then did its own analysis and strategy.
Meanwhile, the presidential order was issued in September 2010 and Norway was asking where to send the funds.
The now-legal task force compiled the strategies drawn up by Bappenas and the Forestry Ministry and turned them into one comprehensive plan. The strategy was completed in mid-2012 and proposed to President Yudhoyono by the end of the year. After eight months of asking for approval from the relevant ministries, he finally approved the agency’s structure and strategy by issuing another presidential regulation in August 2013.
The process was delayed for months as President Yudhoyono took three months to decide who would be the agency’s chief. The agency was officially launched in January 2014. I proposed four names to the president to be my deputies, and again he only officially approved the names by the end of May. It took almost a year from the agency formation to decide the board. That shows how “great” our government was.
The ministries also had their own egos, making it difficult for them to work together on a new approach. The condition was also worsened by the conflicting regulations issued by each ministry.
Given those problems, how do you see the merger of the forestry and environment ministries by President Joko Widodo, and how will that affect REDD+ projects?
Notwithstanding the merger, there will always be difficulties when it comes to the implementation. The merger will help simplify the process in the field but it might create an internal conflict inside the ministry. I think as long as they have a good spirit and intention, the whole process can be done much faster.
The challenge now lies in the leader’s ability to combine the two ministries. It requires a clear direction and a firm leader with the right attitude and ability. The success of Siti Nurbaya [as minister] will be seen in her ability to handle the merger well, and it won’t be easy.
BP REDD+ is ready to provide assistance and consultation based on previous efforts of making several institutions work together and cases done before.
What is public awareness like toward the REDD+ program? Do people know about it? Do the relevant public officials at least know about it?
Some know about the project and admit it, some choose to not admit that they don’t know about it. I think when it comes to related officials in the previous cabinet — the Forestry Ministry, the State Land Agency [BPN], the Environment Ministry, Bappenas, etcetera — they had to have known about the REDD+ project because we came and talked to them. Our previous task force handling the program even consisted of people from those institutions.
However, whether the program becomes an important issue and a priority is another thing. Lately we found that maybe the officials don’t know much about REDD+ as a whole thing but rather from its projects and plans, i.e. the handling of forest fires, the protection of indigenous peoples.
The actors involved in the program know about REDD+ but the not all of those who are in charge of making the policies aware about it. The main reason is that they know that following the REDD+ plan means that they cannot go through with their business-as-usual program, which is seen by them as more important. There’s a reluctance from them to support REDD+.
Does the REDD+ approach elicit a reaction that it’s merely a trick by developed countries to throw cash to developing countries and let them deal with the climate change problem?
People can always come up with reasons when it comes to avoiding the need to change their habits, including the false sense of nationalism in this case. Even in developed countries there are people who think that climate change is a myth. This is not a matter of developing or developed countries, it’s a universal problem that forces everyone to change, and change is never simple and easy to accept.
In developing countries, for instance, people reject the idea of climate change not because they feel that the idea is imposed by other countries but rather because accepting it means that they have to do something about it, including changing their lifestyle — something that even their own governments can’t even tell them to do.
Developing countries blame their developed counterparts for their wasteful lifestyles in worsening climate change, and thus become reluctant to improve the condition. On the other hand, the developed countries see that the developing ones aren’t willing to do their best in battling climate change and decide to slow down their funding assistance for forestry programs. The vicious cycle continues as the developing countries decline to save their environment as there is no assistance coming and they can’t afford to undermine their economic growth.
Beside the policy change, does REDD+ have grass-root programs to directly touch the people?
We do. Starting from our pilot province, Central Kalimantan, we’ve set up a green village and green school program. We’ve also trained people to change their ways of planting. We’ve done some activities, even though those activities don’t always reduce [carbon dioxide] emissions directly, but we are preparing the people to change their lifestyle to reduce emissions.
Do the programs administered by BP REDD+ have sound legal footing?
As you know, REDD+ comprises complex matters. It needs a law on indigenous land ownership; funding unbounded to bureaucracy; and a worldwide accepted carbon-counting system. All these require their own legal basis, but that’s not REDD+ because the issues stand by themselves. We need legality for each of the elements to later integrate them in a comprehensive program. It would be really useful if the comprehensive program has its own law; but even if it doesn’t, it doesn’t matter as the issues already have their own legality.
The letter of intent initially stated the program would be done in 2013, but now BP REDD+ says it’s been delayed to 2020. What happened?
Those who signed the LOI — from the Forestry Ministry, the presidential adviser on climate change — didn’t know the exact conditions in the field.
For indigenous people and land, for instance, they have a different standing. The Forestry Ministry initially thought that the issue was non-existent and every problem could be solved with a top-down approach. Many things, including the effects of political reform and regional autonomy, weren’t considered when they signed the agreement. That’s how we see it.
For Norway, which stands removed from the situation on the ground here, the faster [emissions can be reduced], the better. It’s good that Norway chose this hands-off approach.
We at BP REDD+ conducted field trips to see the situation. Who would’ve known that the Dayak people wanted the government not to stop [oil palm planter] Sinar Mas’s move to buy their land from them? I went to Badau in West Kalimantan and met the tribal chiefs. Nine out of 10 wanted the central government to stay away from the plan. I met the one chief who rejected the idea and found out that Sinar Mas promised to buy the land for only Rp 250,000 [$20.60] per hectare and let them work in the plantation for Rp 25,000 a month plus a commission from the harvest. He blamed the government for not giving them a decent living. He instead chose to guard his territory so his descendants can still be master of an area full of trees.
It’s sad to see the poor trading their land just so they can fulfill their basic needs. That’s the kind of thing we can only find through thorough field trips and interviews. Norway didn’t know about it, and neither did the ministry people.
The LOI stated that the program would be done by 2013. We came to the signees and show them the reality and problems of forest restoration, revitalization and forestry policy changes. We now have a deal on how to handle the problems and the time needed to do so.
Q: How do you see the new government’s commitment to environmentally responsible development?
Let’s wait. We also have to influence them. There are three possibilities: accept it, reject it, or stay unaware of the importance of environmentally responsible development. That’s why we need to influence them so the positive goal can be chosen. Knowledge and understanding are the keys to get their support. Proper information is needed to get desirable policies.
We’ve met with the new ministers before they were sworn in as many of them worked for the government before and I know them personally. We’re not starting from scratch. We’ve approached and informed them, even though they haven’t made the programs.
Can Indonesia achieve a balance between environmental stewardship and economic growth?
It’s hard, but it’s doable. The first thing we have to do is to admit that it is indeed hard. People may see it as a trade-off, but only on a short-term view basis. It will be painful, especially for those involved in the extractives industry, to stop doing what they’re doing now and try to replace it with a better alternative. That’s where the government comes in with subsidies and aid.
A green economy requires the idea to be well received and then applied; the wider public must join the movement. We need to cut the fuel subsidy, use renewable energy, take a non-deforestation approach. We’ve started to go in that direction, so I would say that Indonesia has started to nurture a green economy. Yes, we can do it, but it’s not going to be easy.
