office: email: tel: web: bintuni bay communities want ... 95...their living conditions - during the...

Bintuni Bay communities wantaccountability at Tangguh

Communities have criticised the lack of transparency and unfulfilled promises at the giant Tangguhgas installation operated by UK-based energy multinational BP in Papua Barat.

At a recent three-day workshop in Bintuni,Papua Barat, communities affected by theTangguh gas operation demanded that BP andthe Indonesian government listen to theirconcerns and enable them to have a say overtheir lives, their livelihoods and the future ofBintuni Bay.

During his state visit to the UK inNovember 2012, Indonesia's President SusiloBambang Yudhoyono received an honoraryknighthood from the Queen in recognition of

closer ties between the two countries. ThePresident also signed a string of agreementson trade, defence and education while in theUK. Most notable amongst these was a dealworth US$12.1 billion to expand productionat BP's gas extraction and liquefied natural gas(LNG) processing operations in Bintuni Bay,Papua Barat province (see box for moredetails).1

More recently, President SBY waswined and dined by another European

government and another agreement relatingto natural resource exploitation in PapuaBarat province was signed. German industrialgiant Ferrostaal is to build a US$ 2 billionpetrochemical processing plant in Bintuni Bay,using Tangguh gas as feedstock.2 Last year, aninitial agreement to develop a petrochemicalplant in Bintuni Bay was signed with LG ofSouth Korea.3

Developing the oil and gas sector inPapua Barat is part of Indonesia's Masterplanfor the Acceleration and Expansion ofIndonesia Economic Development, (MP3EI) -a central government initiative which hasdrawn criticism for all but ignoring social andenvironmental sustainability and climate

No. 95, March 2013

office: Greenside Farmhouse, Hallbankgate, Cumbria CA82PX, England, email: [email protected] tel: +44 16977 46266 web: www.downtoearth-indonesia.org

Sign up for oure-newsletter at www.downtoearth-indonesia.org

Inside...

Forests / REDD+:Call to save Indonesia’s forestsCSOs call for REDD+ strategy to be implementedGovernment reduces Papua’sforest zone

Environmental Justice:Indonesian Bishop’s call

Landgrabbing:MIFEE-affected communities want their land back

Mining:Bumi board ignores concerns about coal impacts in Indonesia

46

9

11

12

15

(continued next page)

Protesting coal impacts at Bumi EGM: see page 15

Participants working on a list of recommendations to submit to BP, at November 2012 workshop,Bintuni. (Photo: Mnukwar)

2

DOWN TO EARTH No. 95, March 2013

change concerns.4 In Papua Barat at least, itappears that MP3EI is gathering pace.

Local communities whosecustomary lands and resources are targetedfor such schemes are struggling tocomprehend what is happening to theirregion and to get their voices heard. Theyhave seen outsiders exploit the local timberresources for many years now, but this latestwave of exploitation appears to be on adifferent scale entirely.

Voicing concernsCommunity concerns about Tangguh wereraised at a three-day workshop held in thesmall town of Bintuni, Papua Barat, fromNovember 21st-23rd, 2012. The workshopwas titled "Managing natural resources in ajust way and respecting the rights ofindigenous communities under SpecialAutonomy". Given the context of increasingresource exploitation in Bintuni Bay, it wasnot surprising that local communityrepresentatives approached the workshopwith some scepticism. It was clear thatparticipants were fed up with hearing aboutpromises and initiatives that lead nowhereexcept to pave the way for more incursionsinto their lives.

The workshop was built around adiscussion with the communities living inBintuni Bay of DTE's report Tangguh, BP andInternational Standards.5 BP's gas extractionand liquefaction project is located on thesouthern shore of the Bay, while Bintuni, theclosest town, is on the northern shore.However, it was clear from the start that thecommunities' overriding priority was to makethe most of an opportunity to meet anddiscuss the impacts of this project and otherdevelopments affecting them. On the final dayof the workshop, the discussion wasextended to include BP staff and localgovernment representatives.

The Manokwari-based human rightsorganisation LP3BH and the Papua BaratNGO Advocacy Network were the leadworkshop organisers, while facilitation wasshared between LP3BH, a Bintuni communityorganisation called Bin Madag Hom, and DTE.

The sessions were attended byaround 70 community representatives fromvillages and representatives of local women's,inter-faith and youth groups from the Northand South shore communities, all of whomhave been affected by the Tangguhdevelopment. It was the first workshop of itskind to be organised by NGOs for thesecommunities, in which participants couldspeak openly, on an equal footing withcompany and government representatives.

On the first day, participants sharedtheir experiences of living with Tangguh. "Weused to live in relative harmony beforeTangguh came", said one participant. "Sincethe project came, our lives have changed.People have become envious of each other,

especially between the North and Southcommunities, between those who get betterfacilities and those who don't."

The communities also said theywere not happy about outsiders getting goodjobs at the project while the local people onlyget menial, casual work. The impact onaccess to fishing grounds was a seriousconcern and, for some communities on thesouth shore, the dislocation they felt by beingdisplaced by BP's LNG processing plant.6

Behind all this, was an awareness that the livesof people living in Bintuni Bay were changingdue to forces beyond their control, and thatthese changes would lead to a future thatshowed no sign of bringing an improvedstandard of living. As an example of this,participants cited the lack of electricity inBintuni District, which had been one of thepromises made to communities.

On the second day, there was adiscussion of the content of DTE's report - acompilation of the social, human rights andenvironmental commitments made by theTangguh project. The majority of participantswere not aware of the key BP documentssetting out the social and environmentalstandards for the Tangguh projectdevelopment, presented by DTE.Communities had given their opinions to thecompany - mostly their wishes to improvetheir living conditions - during the Amdal(Environmental Impact Assessment) processat the start of the project, and had beenwaiting to see their aspirations fulfilled.

Participants were also interested tolearn about BP's global operations and theprofit the company makes.The stark contrastbetween the earning power of the companyand the standard of living of the local people

who have been exposed to this 'partialmodernity' by the company, added to theirsense of unfair treatment.

At the request of the localcommunities and Papuan CSOs organising theworkshop, the final day included a meetingwith representatives from BP and the localgovernment planning department (Bappeda).The discussion was very frank and communityparticipants were openly critical both of BP'srecord and that of Bappeda. This gave anindication of the strength of feeling generatedby the unequal relationship between localcommunities and the powerful institutionsand business exploiting the natural resourcesof Bintuni Bay.

The workshop resulted in a seriesof recommendations to BP and localgovernment (see box, next page).

The dialogue process betweencommunity and BP representativesestablished during the workshop was takenfurther at a TIAP (Tangguh IndependentAdvisory Panel) meeting held in Jakarta acouple of weeks after the workshop. Theworkshop recommendations were formallypresented both to BP and the localgovernment representative, as well as beingconveyed to the TIAP panel byrepresentatives of LP3BH.

Will BP listen?It is clear from the community concernsraised at the workshop that over the life ofTangguh so far BP has not been able toadequately address the impacts of its thecurrent operations in Bintuni Bay. Now it isexpanding Tangguh and this is likely to bringeven bigger impacts. Concerns have beenrepeatedly raised by civil society in Papua,Indonesia and internationally and now localcommunities have conveyed their ownconcerns directly to the company and localgovernment.

In the last few years, BP has beenforced to acknowledge negative impacts of itsoperations in other parts of the world:following the Deepwater Horizon explosionand oil spill disaster in the USA, BP currentlyestimates US$ 42 billion in clean-up andcompensation costs.9 It remains to be seenhow BP will respond to community demandsfor accountability in Papua Barat.

For more background on Tangguh see: DTE89-90, November 2011

Notes:1. See: The Jakarta Globe, Nov 2, 2012.

‘Indonesia and Britain ink deals on trade,defence, education.’http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/indonesia-and-britain-ink-deals-on-trade-defense-education/553799

2. This was a Letter of Intent, or initialagreement. See: The Jakarta Globe, Mar 6,2013. ‘Ferrostaal to build US$2b plant In

Expansion at TangguhThe expansion of BP Tangguh, which wasformally agreed in London, involves buildinga third 'production train' which is plannedto be fully operational by 2018. This willincrease the production capacity at theTangguh plant by 3.8 million tonnes ofLNG per annum to a total of 11.4 mtpa.As part of the deal for this third train, asignificant proportion of the gas will go tothe domestic market in Indonesia via thestate electricity company PT. PLN as wellas feeding the proposed petrochemicalplant (see main text).

BP is the operator of the Tangguh projectand owns a 37.16% stake in it.7 BP'spartners are Japan's MI Berau BV, whichholds a 16.3% stake; China's CNOOC Ltd.(13.9%), Japan's Nippon Oil Exploration(Berau) Ltd., (12.23%), Japan's KGBerau/KG Wiriagar (10%), LNG JapanCorporation (7.35%) and Australia-basedTalisman (3.06%).8

(notes continue next page)

3

W.Papua’http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/business/ferrostaal-to-build-2b-plant-in-w-papua/577270, andhttp://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=875008.

3. See 'Big Plans for Papua' in DTE 91-92, May2012 at http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/big-plans-papua.

4. ‘Big Plans for Papua’, as above. 5. See http://www.downtoearth-

indonesia.org/story/tangguh-bp-and-international-standards.

6. The development of the Tangguh projectinvolved the relocation of a whole village tomake way for the LNG processing plant.BP built a new resettlement village for thedisplaced community which was officially'opened' in 2004. See Tangguh, BP andInternational Standards, April 2011, athttp://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/tangguh-bp-and-international-standards

7. See: The Financial Times, Nov 1, 2012. ‘BPwins approval for Tangguh expansion’.

8. See The Jakarta Post, 7/Sep/2012, 'BP to sell40% of third LNG train's output to PLN',http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/09/07/bp-sell-40-third-lng-train-s-output-pln.html

9. See : The Guardian, Feb 22, 2013. ‘BP andgovernment lawyers prepare for battle overenvironmental cost of spill.’

The following document was drafted at the Bintuni workshop by community participants andhanded to BP and the local government representative on the final day.

Recommendations The Forum from the workshop "Managing natural resources in a just way and respecting therights of indigenous communities under Special Autonomy" which was held in Bintuni Bay,Papua Barat on 21-23 November 2012, at the Steenkool Hotel, makes the followingrecommendations to the Bintuni Bay Regional Government and BP Tangguh:

To the Bintuni Bay regional government:1. There needs to be transparency and a pro-people approach by the executive and

legislative branches of the regional government.2. There needs to be openness and transparency on the part of the Regional Government

(executive and legislative) about the activities of BP Tangguh which relate to thedistribution of oil and gas revenues to the indigenous communities.

3. The Regional Government should encourage the adoption of regional legislation on thedistribution of oil and gas revenues as a matter of urgency.

4. The Regional Government must form a Regional Information Commission.

To BP Tangguh:1. This forum requests that BP Tangguh reviews its AMDAL (Environmental Impact

Assessment).2. To date, the non-physical aspects of development undertaken by BP Tangguh covering

education, health and home economics (family-based economic activities ) has notfulfilled what was promised. BP Tangguh should immediately step up the communitydevelopment programme.

3. This forum requests that the Government and BP Tangguh Management bring BPTangguh President (William Lin) to meet directly with the seven indigenouscommunities in Bintuni Bay District; alternatively, that the government and BP Tangguhfacilitates the seven communities to meet directly with the BP Tangguh President inthe UK.

4. We expect BP Tangguh to conduct workshops like this one every year in Bintuni BayDistrict.

5. The company must openly provide information to the indigenous communities, thewider community and the government on every policy decision it makes regardingexploration.

Bintuni, 23 November 2012.

Translated by DTE, March 2013

BP and Bappeda representatives at the community workshop (left and centre), with facilitator fromBin Madag Hom speaking (right). (Photo: Mnukwar)

Community participant from Gemapuan (awomen’s CSO) reads out the recommendationsto BP and local government representatives onthe final day of the November workshop inBintuni, Papua Barat. (Photo: Mnukwar)


(continued from previous page)

4

Call to save Indonesia’sremaining forests

As the end of the two-year moratorium on clearing primary forests and peatlands draws near, the fate ofIndonesia's forests and forest-dwelling peoples is once again in the spotlight.

forests / REDD+

Thirty seven Indonesian civil societyorganisations, including indigenous peoples'organisations, national and regional NGOscalled on their government to take urgentaction to save the country's remaining forestsin January. The CSO Coalition for SavingIndonesian Forests and Global Climateoffered a stinging critique of the currentmoratorium on the issuing of new permits toexploit primary forests and peatlands. Theynow want it to be strengthened andextended.They also want Indonesia's REDD+National Strategy, published in June last year,to be fully implemented to respect the rightsof indigenous peoples and local communities.

The call for action comes asPresident Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono'sgovernment finds itself under intense butconflicting pressure to protect the forests onthe one hand, and to open them up for morelarge-scale commercial exploitation -including mining, energy, food andinfrastructure projects - on the other. Thepalm oil developers and other businessgroups in favour of pushing ahead with theMP3EI (Masterplan for the Acceleration andExpansion of Indonesia EconomicDevelopment, announced in 2011),1 are liningup with allies in powerful governmentministries to make more land available todevelop their projects. At the same time,Indonesia's international climate changemitigation commitments2 oblige it to protectforests in order reduce emissions fromdeforestation and peatland degradation.REDD+ schemes like the $1 billion deal withNorway signed in 2010, required Indonesia tomake measurable cuts in carbon emissionsfrom forests against projected 'business asusual' levels.

The current moratorium, which hasonly weeks left to run, is a key part ofIndonesia's agreement with Norway. When itwas launched in May 2011, the moratoriumreceived a luke-warm welcome from CSOswho pointed to numerous loopholes allowingcompanies to continue clearing forests forplantations and other projects.3

In 2012, a year after theMoratorium was declared, a group of twelve

CSOs called for a "performance-basedMoratorium" with a set of pre-definedconditions against which any significantchange could be measured. They stated thatthe Moratorium should not be limited bytime, but should be determined by theattainment of its forest managementsustainability targets, including the fulfilmentof environmental and social safeguards.4 Thisdemand for a performance-basedmoratorium has been repeated in the latestcall from an expanded Coalition of CSOs.

Moratorium:the verdict so farThe Coalition statement draws attention tothe huge problems that face forestgovernance reformers in Indonesia.Deforestation is continuing despite themoratorium, while its effectiveness has beendiminished by its limited two-year duration,the lack of proper legal status in the stateforest zone, and the fact that less than half ofIndonesia's provinces have finalised spatialplans for their regions.5 Local governmentsare undermining the moratorium byreclassifying areas of forest as non-forest sothey can be excluded from the moratoriumand opened up for development.

Last year, local politicians seeking toreduce the central government's control offorest lands, succeeded in their appeal to theConstitutional Court to restrict theapplication of the Foresty Law. The courtdecided to redefine 'forests' as areas that have


The full Coalition statement is available at:

http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/sites/downtoearth-indonesia.org/files/Call%20to%20save%20forests-final.pdf.

Photo by DTE

5


been both 'denoted and gazetted' as such(instead of 'denoted or gazetted'), therebyplacing in doubt the status of some110,000,000 ha of Indonesia that hadpreviously been administered as State ForestAreas but never gazetted.The decision resultsfrom an appeal by provincial and district levelauthorities who are seeking greater powerover land allocation decisions (the main waythey fund their election campaigns and enrichthemselves). If such areas are defined asoutside 'forests', then there is a big risk - if notimmediately then in the medium term - thatthese areas could be handed out toagribusiness investors, leading to a massiveacceleration of forest loss and takeover offorest peoples' lands.6

Meanwhile, the moratorium hasbeen seriously weakened by intensivelobbying from industry and other ministries:there are exemptions for the exploitation ofenergy resources like coal.

In some instances, the area coveredby the moratorium has been adjusted toaccommodate damaging large-scale projectswhich will do nothing to reduce emissionsfrom deforestation. In Papua, for example, thearea allocated for agribusiness under the giantMerauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate(MIFEE) scheme, was excluded from theMoratorium.7 Elsewhere, businesses havecarried on clearing forests regardless ofwhether they fall under the moratorium ornot, most notoriously in the case of palm oilplantation developer PT Kallista Alam inAceh.8

Kuntoro Mangkusbroto, head of thePresident's Delivery Unit for DevelopmentMonitoring and Oversight (UKP4), isnevertheless upbeat about the moratoriumresults. UKP4 is overseeing the all-importantprocess of monitoring and refining themoratorium map. According to Kuntoro, themoratorium has achieved a lot, though it is"still not perfect".9

Both Kuntoro and the forestryministry agree that the Moratorium should beextended. This idea is opposed by theagriculture minister who says the ban isunnecessary and should be replaced bystricter criteria for issuing licences for palmoil plantations.10

'Degraded land'Indonesia's secretary general at the forestryministry, Hadi Daryanto, has also suggestedthat oil palm should continue expanding inareas of degraded forest land extending toalmost 24 million hectares, rather than usingmore primary forests. This well-worn'degraded land' argument is now widely seenas invalid because it suggests that the land isof little value or use, whereas in fact it is verylikely to be claimed and used by indigenouspeoples and/or local communities. As

highlighted in the 2011 Bali Declaration onHuman Rights and Agribusiness in SE Asia:

While many land developmentprogrammes and policies focus on areasconsidered to be "empty", "marginal" or"degraded", States should recognize that thereare few areas truly unoccupied or unclaimed,and that frequently land classified as such is infact subject to long-standing rights of use, accessand management based on custom. Failure torecognize such rights will deprive localcommunities and indigenous peoples of keyresources on which their wealth and livelihoodsdepend.11

In fact Hadi Daryantoacknowledges the difficulty by recognisingthat oil palm companies "don't want degradedland because normally people are there, andto remove them is expensive."12 KuntoroMangkusubroto, on other hand, says morepalm oil can be produced without extendingthe amount of land under cultivation. "Youcan increase productivity", he told Reuters inJanuary.13 This approach is also reflected inthe REDD+ National Strategy published byKuntoro's REDD+ Task Force in June 2012.

Notes1. See 'Big Plans for Papua' in DTE 91-92, May

2012, http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/big-plans-papua. The

MP3EI document is available online inEnglish athttp://www.depkeu.go.id/ind/others/bakohumas/bakohumaskemenko/PDFCompleteToPrint%2824Mei%29.pdf and in Indonesian athttp://www.depkeu.go.id/ind/others/bakohumas/bakohumaskemenko/MP3EI_revisi-complete_%2820mei11%29.pdf.

2. As reiterated in Indonesia's REDD+National Strategy, Indonesia is committedto reducing emissions by 26 percent fromthe 'Business as Usual' developmentscenario by 2020 through utilization of itsown funds and without sacrificingdevelopment in other sectors, or by 41percent with international assistance. Seehttp://www.satgasreddplus.org/download/150612.REDD+.National.Strategy.Indonesia.pdf. For more background, see DTE 84,March 2010, http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/indonesia-packages-tree-plantation-expansion-emissions-reduction-strategy

3. See 'REDD in Indonesia - an update', DTE89-90, May 2011 athttp://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/redd-indonesia-update

4. See http://huma.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Moratorium-Berbasis-Capaian-Mei-2012.pdf

5. Information about progress with passingregional regulations on spatial plans atprovincial and district level is athttp://www.penataanruang.net/

6. Marcus Colchester (pers. comm. February2013).

7. See also separate articles pages 9 and 12.8. This company cleared forests in Aceh's

Tripa peat swamp and, following a legalchallenge by WALHI, had its licencerevoked in September last year (seehttp://www.redd-monitor.org/2012/09/07/indonesian-court-revokes-oil-palm-concession-in-tripa-peat-swamp/). According to UKP4's HeruPrasetyo, the company never had sufficientlegal basis to operate in the disputed area(see http://www.redd-monitor.org/2012/09/20/interview-with-kuntoro-mangkusubroto/. PT Kallista Alam'sthree concession areas can be viewed athttp://news.mongabay.com/2012/0321-aceh_vs_wahli.html. The 'new' concessionarea marked on that map is the one whichwas at first included as off-limits in the firstmoratorium map, then excluded from therevised map (revision 1) released inDecember 2011 (see http://www.redd-monitor.org/2012/03/28/the-tripa-peatswamp-in-aceh-is-ablaze-despite-the-moratorium/). It is included again in the2nd and 3rd revision maps (compare map0519 in revision 1 with revisions 2 and 3from the links on the moratorium mapaccess page at http://webgis.dephut.go.id/.)

9. See 'Top Indonesia Official Throws WeightBehind Keeping Forest Clearing Ban',Reuters 18/Jan/2013,http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/18/indonesia-forests-kuntoro-idUSL4N0AN2J620130118

Accessible mapsOne positive aspect of the moratorium isthe fact that the maps showing themoratorium areas are being made availableto the public online, as part of thegovernment's 'One Map' policy.This policyhas, in turn, provided Indonesia'sindigenous peoples alliance,AMAN, aplatform to publicise its own initiative tomap of indigenous territory and publiclyrequest that these are included in theofficial maps. 14

The portal giving access to a variety ofmaps, including the moratorium maps, is athttp://maps.ina-sdi.or.id/home/index.html,with a list of available maps available under'galeri'. However, when DTE tried to accesssome of the maps mid-February many ofthe map layers were not accessible andthere was not an obvious means ofaccessing information about, say, mining andoil & gas concessions.This information isalso not accessible via the most obviousplace - the Energy and Mineral ResourcesMinistry website. In contrast, there is awhole wealth of maps publicly available viathe Forestry Ministry's website atwww.webgis.dephut.go.id, including archivesathttp://www.dephut.go.id/index.php?q=node/59 as well as the moratorium maps in allfour versions.

(continued on page 8)

6

In a January statement, the Coalition forSaving Indonesian Forests and GlobalClimate, which includes the indigenouspeoples' alliance AMAN, Forests WatchIndonesia, HuMA, ICEL, KPSHK, Sawit Watchand Greenpeace, stated that the NationalStrategy:

"...was prepared with an aim to improveIndonesian forest governance fundamentally andcomprehensively. The preparation process wasrelatively transparent and has involved relevantstakeholders. It acknowledges that currentlyIndonesian forest governance is facing acuteproblems, which require extraordinary solutions,aside from 'business as usual' measures..." 2

Along with the moratorium on clearingprimary forests and peatland signed in May2011, the REDD+ National Strategy is one ofthe agreed outcomes set out in the Letter ofIntent (LoI) that Indonesia signed withNorway in May 2010 as part of a USD 1billion REDD+ deal. In addition to themoratorium, the first 'preparatory phase' ofthe agreement, included:

setting up a National REDD+ Agency (tobe prepared by a REDD+ Task Force) tobe fully operational by the end of 2011setting up an independent Monitoring,Reporting and Verification (MRV)Institutionsetting up an interim financing instrumentto handle the preparatory phasedeveloping a REDD+ National Strategy,into a national action plan,3 and which"proposes methods for implementingFPIC and equitable benefit-sharing"selecting a pilot province for REDD+.4

The deadline for setting up the NationalREDD+ Agency has now been missed bymore than one year. The long delay plus theapparent deprioritising of the REDD+National Strategy (Stranas REDD+), publishedin June last year, is now causing concernamong CSOs in the Coalition.

CSOs involved in consultations todevelop the REDD+ National Strategy havepushed to ensure that it contains much of thelanguage of reform they would like to seeadopted in the forestry and other naturalresource sectors. They are alarmed that thehard-won gains in the REDD+ NationalStrategy could be lost if it is deprioritised.

CSOs call for REDD+ National Strategyto be implemented

Indonesian CSOs are calling for the country's REDD+ National Strategy, published in June last year, to be fullyimplemented to respect the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.1


Indonesia's REDD+ National Strategy is a40 page document prepared by theIndonesian REDD+ Task Force andpublished in June 2012. It has the long termgoal of ensuring that Indonesia's forestsbecome a net carbon sink by 2030.Themedium term goal is to achieve the 26-41%reduction in the country's emissions overprojected business as usual levels by 2020.The short term goal (2012-2014) is toimprove institutions, governance, spatialplans, and the investment climate to fulfilIndonesia's commitment to reducegreenhouse gas emissions while maintainingeconomic growth.

The Strategy sets out its human rightsagenda as early as page five, under one ofthe five principles, where, under theprinciple of fairness, it states that:

"REDD+ is implemented on the basis of theprinciples of equality for all and humanrights protection in forest management,including for women and communitiesvulnerable to socio-economic andenvironmental change."(p.5)

It also provides for participation by civilsociety in the REDD+ Agency, whosemembers will include community groups,indigenous peoples' organisations and CSOsas well as industry, academic institutions andrepresentatives of government ministriesand institutions (p.11).

Under the heading 'Land Tenure Reform',the Strategy states that people have aconstitutional right to certainty overboundaries and management rights fornatural resources. "Land tenure reform is animportant prerequisite to create theconditions required for successfulimplementation of REDD+." It then sets outthat this will be pursued through:

1. Instruction by the Government to theHome Affairs Ministry and the NationalLand Agency to implement a survey ofland occupied by indigenous peoples andother communities.

2. Support the National Land Agency toresolve land tenure disputes usingexisting statutory out-of-courtsettlement mechanisms.

3. Harmonization and revision of naturalresources management regulations andpolicies to ensure the principle andprocesses of Free, Prior, and InformedConsent (FPIC) are internalized in theissuance of all permits for theexploitation of natural resources (p.18).

Under the 'Conflict Resolution' heading in asection on the Moratorium, there are morecommitments on human rights.The steps tobe taken on conflict resolution are:

a. Involve local communities in allprocesses, from planning toimplementation and evaluation,throughout the new permit moratoriumperiod;

b. Formulate alternative models for naturalresource related conflict resolutionbased on the fulfilment of human rightsas stipulated in international humanrights conventions and national legalinstruments that have adopted humanrights principles;

c. Effectively take advantage of everyopportunity to resolve conflicts throughthe application of local customs andpractices, along with establishing aconflict resolution team withrepresentatives from various sectors andindependent parties;

d. Formulate regulations that require non-government institutions (including ForestManagement Units run by State-OwnedEnterprises) to formulate standardoperational procedures whichincorporate principles of inclusivenessthrough FPIC and other human rightsstandards. (p.20-21)

There is also encouraging text onsustainability under the 'Strategic Programs'section. Implicitly this challenges land usepolicies as currently practised and whichpromote mega-projects like MIFEE7 in

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

(continued next page)(continued on page 8)

7


Papua. Under a heading, 'Implementation ofan Economy Based on Sustainable NaturalResources Management' the REDD+Strategy states it is:

"based on best practices in the managementof land for farming, plantations, silvicultureand mining.The application of best practiceprinciples is meant to increase theproductivity of land without increasingemissions or the risk of other environmentaldamage, while ensuring adequate benefitsfrom the exploitation of natural resourceswithout expanding the size of cultivatedareas." (p.22)

There is also some attention to genderperspectives in the Strategy, included in asection about changing work paradigms andculture. Here, gender sensitivity is listed asone of five principles to be addressed (p.25).

A substantial section on safeguards (financial,social and environmental), states that socialsafeguards need to be designed specificallyto protect and benefit vulnerable groupsincluding indigenous peoples, localcommunities and women (p.29).

Free, Prior and InformedConsent (FPIC)Under the 'Stakeholder Participation'section, there are several paragraphs underon implementing FPIC principles."The National REDD+ Agency is toimplement and apply in all REDD+ programsand projects.The purpose of this approach isto ensure fairness and accountability forindigenous peoples and local communitieswhose lives and rights will be affected byREDD+ activities." (p27).The section sets out seven principles forimplementing FPIC as follows:

1. The application of this protocol involvesconsultation with the relevant indigenouspeoples, local communities, and othermembers of the public affected by theimplementation of REDD+programs/projects/activities;

2. Consultation is carried out without force,intimidation, manipulation, or pressure inany form to seek the consent ofindigenous peoples and local communitieswho are potentially affected by REDD+programs/projects/ activities;

3. Effective and fully participativeconsultation involves indigenous and localcommunities in every step and processthat affects them either directly orindirectly.The participation of indigenouspeoples can be done through theirtraditional authorities, or throughrepresentative organizations selected on

the basis of traditional systems adheredto by the given indigenous community.

4. Consultation aims to achieve broadconsensus or the specific agreement ofthe indigenous and local communitiespotentially affected.There are variousforms of agreement: tentative agreement,temporary agreement, partial agreement,agreement with specific stipulations,agreement with other options, and fullagreement; all of which are decided uponby the concerned public through legalmechanisms, indigenous law practices, orlocal traditions and habits;

5. Consultation is based on complete,balanced, honest, unbiased, and easilyunderstood information concerning thealternatives and choices existing for thepublic within the implementation ofREDD+ activities, along with theconsequences of each alternative choice.This information is meant to createleeway for broad consensus, with allparties having access to existingopportunities;

6. Consultation with the public must bedone within an adequate frame of timebefore permits are legalized or activitiescommenced, and must be donerespectfully with adherence to allstipulations and time considerationsrequired within the consultation process;

7. The FPIC consultation process is thebeginning of ongoing or regularcommunication between members of thecommunity and the would-beimplementers of REDD+ activities.Theremust be agreement on the manner ofpublic consultations, its protocols andmechanisms, including those forcomplaints and conflict resolution relatingto each stage of REDD+ activities.

There is, however, no mention of the rightto withhold consent as an option forindigenous peoples or communities.8

Legal reforms required forREDD+ and the TAP MPRIX, 2001Another potential strength of the Strategy isits reference to a key piece of legislationpassed by Indonesia's highest legislative body,the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), in2001.The Assembly's decree (TAP MPR IX,2001, on Agrarian Renewal and NaturalResources) was intended to prepare theground for the reform of all sectoral lawsaffecting land and natural resourcesmanagement. Over a decade later, thisdecree has still not been implemented, butrecently TAP MPR IX/2001 has been broughtback onto the table in governmentdiscussions about land and land reform.9

TAP MPR IX, 2001 is highlighted twice in theREDD+ National Strategy document, onceunder a section about reviewing andstrengthening policies and regulations. Here,the Strategy sets out the REDD+ Agency'smandate to establish a 'climate-friendly' legalframework.This, it says, will function as amore detailed manifestation of TAP MPR IX,2001.

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

Second, under the 'Legal Basis' heading of achapter about directing the implementationof the REDD+ National Strategy, thedocuments states:

"The National Strategy has been formulatedto function as an integral part of the existinglegal framework. However, to ensure itsimplementation, it is necessary to undertakereform of the existing legal framework sothat it becomes stronger, clearer, andharmonized with forest and peatlandresource management. Such a sustainablelegal framework for the handling of climatechange issues may be based on aninterpretation of People's ConsultativeAssembly Decree concerning the Reform ofAgricultural and Natural ResourceManagement (No. IX/MPR/2001).TheREDD+ Agency will coordinate within thescope of this legal framework." (p.39)


8


One indication that this is happening, they say,is the fact that the Strategy has been affordedonly weak legal status, through a decreeissued by the head of the REDD+ Task Force5

whereas it should have been issued as aPresidential Regulation at the very least.Another indication is the fact that theNational Strategy can't be implementedbecause the President has not yet signed adraft regulation to establish the NationalREDD+ Agency, despite having received it inOctober 2012.The life of the Task Force hasnow been extended until the Agency has beenestablished, with a new deadline of June2013.6

A continuing debateThe call to implement the REDD+ NationalStrategy by the Coalition for SavingIndonesian Forests and Global Climate is areflection of a strategic approach that manyCSOs have adopted toward the question ofREDD+. They fully recognise that REDD+ isaccompanied by huge risks both in terms ofimpacts on people and forests as well as onthe broader level of climate justice. They areclear too that the REDD+ National Strategyis far from perfect. As highlighted in aforthcoming analysis by HuMa,10 theobstacles to achieving the much-neededreforms identified in the Strategy areformidable. On top of the question of legalhierarchy, or lack of legal clout, the Strategyshifts the task of initiating the legal reforms tothe yet-to-be-created REDD+ Agency, thusdelaying any progress until that agency iscreated.While waiting for this to happen, saysHuMa, conflicts over land and resources aregrowing in number, including in those areaswhich may be included under REDD+schemes in future.

Another problem identified byHuMa is the fact that the Strategy draws itsauthority from laws - including the 1999Forestry Law11 - that it has identified as beingin need of reform, which in turn makes thestrategy's own legal basis shaky. Also, theStrategy has failed to take on board last year'sdecision by the Constitutional Court torestrict the application of the Forestry Law.The change requires the forestry ministry togo through four stages when determining anarea as part of the state forest zone, whereaspreviously it merely had to 'designate' an areaas forest. The new ruling means that forestscould be at even greater risk of being grabbedby developers than they were before, but italso provides an opportunity to introduce thereforms that the National REDD+ Strategysays are needed. Either way, the Strategyshould be based on current law, not theprevious version.

Civil society involvement in thepreparations to introduce REDD+ policiesand programmes in Indonesia has at the very

least succeeded in underlining the urgentneed for thoroughgoing reform in the way thecountry's natural resources are governed andmanaged.This need for reform, and the needmake the recognition of human rights part ofthe policy framework for REDD+ is nowbeing acknowledged in an official governmentstrategy.

Meanwhile the effectiveness ofREDD+ pilot schemes themselves is alsoincreasingly in doubt. Although somesignificant areas of forest have been allocatedto such schemes, their effectiveness has beenwidely questioned. There is little evidencethat deforestation has slowed inside theseset-asides. There is even less evidence thatsuch schemes have slowed deforestationoutside of them. REDD+ pilots have yet tolead to local communities securing tenurialrights and control of their lands and forests.

Furthermore, in view of thestalemate at the UNFCCC and theunlikelihood of the emergence of a cap-and-trade global market in 'forest carbon',international donors are increasingly worriedthat whatever forest set-asides are achievedunder the national REDD+ programme areunlikely to be sustained without a continuingstream of financial rewards to investors andscheme operators. 'We are concerned thatREDD+ pilots schemes are just unsustainableenclaves that have little connection to, orinfluence on, wider land use plans. Withouturgent action to secure local peoples' controlof such areas, these schemes will just fizzleout when the donors leave' says MarcusColchester of the UK-based Forest PeoplesProgramme.

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

Notes1. The National REDD+ Strategy is available in

English athttp://www.satgasreddplus.org/download/150612.REDD+.National.Strategy.Indonesia.pdf and in Indonesian athttp://www.satgasreddplus.org/download/180612.Strategi.Nasional.REDD+.pdf.

2. See Saving Indonesia's Remaining Forests CanNo Longer be Delayed by the Coalition forSaving Indonesian Forests and GlobalClimate, 28/Jan/2013 at http://downtoearth-indonesia.org/sites/downtoearth-indonesia.org/files/Call to save forests-final.pdf.

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

4. See DTE 89-90, November 2011 for morebackground, http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/redd-indonesia-update#_edn3

5. SK Ketua Satgas REDD+ No. 02/SATGASREDD PLUS/09/2012 tentang StrategiNasional REDD+

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

7. See information onhttp://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/campaign/mifee

8. For fuller information on and discussion onFPIC principles and their application seeForest Peoples Programme athttp://www.forestpeoples.org/guiding-principles/free-prior-and-informed-consent-fpic.

9. See DTE 93-94, 'Policies and practice:favouring big business over communities'December 2012, for more background,http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/policies-and-practice-favouring-big-business-over-communities

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

11. See Daemeter Consulting: 'ConstitutionalCourt Decision on Indonesia's Forest ZoneCould Lay Groundwork for Sustainable LowEmissions Development' at http://www.daemeter.org/news/constitutional-court-decision-on-indonesias-forest-zone-could-lay-groundwork-for-sustainable-low-emissions-development/ and also separatearticle on page 4 for more background onthe Constitutional Court's decision and itsimplications.

(continued from page 6)

10. 'Indonesia's Forestry Ministry SeeksMoratorium Extension' , Reuters,14/Jan/2013,http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/01/14/indonesia-forest-idUKL4N0AJ13520130114

11. See DTE 93-94, December 2012 athttp://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/international-landgrabbing-picture-update, and for thefull Bali Declaration,http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2011/12/final-bali-declaration-adopted-1-dec-2011.pdf

12 'Indonesia's Forestry Ministry…' Reuters14/Jan/13 as above.

13. See 'Top Indonesia Official..', Reuters,18/Jan/2013 as above.

14. See 'recent moves' section in 'policies andpractice: favouring big business overcommunities, DTE 93-94, December 2012at http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/policies-and-practice-favouring-big-business-over-communities.


9


The forestry minister's decree (number 458,2012, signed in August last year) will withdrawforest status from 376,385 hectares, changethe forest function in 5,736,830 hectares andbring 45,258 hectares of non-forest land intothe forest estate.2 This means that the netloss to the forest zone amounts to 331,127hectares.

The decree follows requests for thechanges from Papua's governor to bring theregion's forest status into line with theprovincial spatial plan which is currently beingfinalised. However the forestry minister didnot approve one of the changes requested bythe governor, deciding instead to keep thestatus of an area of 285,344 hectares onDolok Island in the western part of Meraukeas 'conversion forest' (see map). As stated indecree 458, this was done in order to create"investment opportunities for non-forestdevelopment" (it is not clear what change thegovernor had requested for this area).

Part of Dolok is covered by a200,000 hectare concession, according to theMIFEE investment plan issued by formerdistrict head and MIFEE promoter JohanesGebze. The concession was held by PTAnugrah Rejeki Nusantara, a company whichwas bought in 2011 by the giant oil palmproducer and trader Wilmar.3 The permit waslater relocated to Animha district, accordingto the campaign group, awasMIFEE.4

Indonesia's forest classificationsystem divides forests into conservation,protection and production forests, the lastgroup consisting of production forests thatcan be exploited for timber while remainingas forests, as well as conversion forests, whichcan be cleared for non-forest use such asfood and energy crop plantations.

In the list of changes set out indecree 458, the largest area of forest to betaken out of the forest zone, was previouslyclassified as conversion forest (232,297hectares) and some of this is likely to havebeen deforested already. However, some9,662 hectares of conservation forest, 44,532hectares of protection forest, 39,468 hectaresof limited production forest and 50,426hectares of production forest has also beentaken out.

The majority of the changes relatingto forest function will be viewed as more

positive by conservationists: 634,601hectares of production forest is reclassified asprotection forest, and 1,274,174 hectares ofconversion forest is now limited productionforest. On the other hand, a total of 151,151hectares of production forests (includinglimited production forests) is now conversionforest. (The full list of changes is listed in tableformat in the decree).

Indigenous rights left out ofthe pictureFor areas of forest being converted to non-forest uses, the decree recommends that thePapua governor "gives or strengthens therights over forests being changed to non-forest, where these areas have become placesin which local communities live and farm, sothat there is certainty in those areas."

Accordingly, on the mapsaccompanying the decree (see example map),small areas around villages have been takenout of the forest zone - a move whichappears to ignore the fact that customarylands extend over areas far beyond the areasoccupied by buildings and cultivated plots.

Customary areas often include large areas offorest used for hunting, gathering food andother forest products as well as forestscontaining sacred sites. The fact that noreference to customary land is made at all inthis decree underlines the lack of progresstowards recognising the customary rights ofindigenous Papuans over their land andresources.

The lack of recognition forindigenous rights over land and resources hasprompted Papuan civil society organisationsto launch their " Save People and Livelihoodsin the Land of Papua" campaign (see also page12). It has also prompted internationalcriticism of Indonesia - at last year's UNreview of the country's human rightssituation5 and from the UN Committee onthe Elimination of Racial Discrimination(CERD).6

Conflicting mapsThe forestry maps accompanying decree 458,do not accord with the Indonesia'smoratorium map for Papua. Now in its 3rdrevision the moratorium map shows areas

Government reduces Papua's forest zone

Indonesia's forestry minister has signed a decree to change the extent and function of the area officially classifiedas forest in Papua province.

The move will see changes to more than six million hectares, including areas targeted by agribusinesses in theMerauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate (MIFEE) development zone in the southern part of Papua.1

The pink areas on the map are classified as conversion forest - forest for conversion to other uses. Dolokfills the bottom left hand part of the map.Map source: http://musnanda.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/3308.pdf

10


subject to the two-year moratorium onclearing primary forests and peatland,announced in May 2011.7 As the end of thetwo-year period draws near, it remains to beseen how the new Papua map will fit with theattempt by the President's UKP4

development delivery unit to create a singlemap that can be used for all developmentdecision-making,8 and how far Papua'sprovincial government can assert itsownership of the regional developmentagenda. What isn't at all clear is how far thelocal community voices will be heard in areaswhich are targeted for agribusinessdevelopment or which are already beingcleared, such as MIFEE. As reports from theMIFEE project area continue to make clear,the rights of indigenous Papuans are beingswept aside as companies rush to grab landfor large-scale plantations for food andenergy crops aimed at domestic and exportmarkets, destroying the sources of food andlivelihood that have nurtured the indigenousMalind and Anim communities forgenerations.

Notes1. It is not clear how this decree relates to the

2012 ruling by Indonesia's ConstitutionalCourt, which requires that forests must begazetted (ditetapkan) and not as previously"designated/denoted (ditunjukkan) orgazetted" in order to gain legal status aspart of the State Forest Zone. SeeDaemeter Consulting: 'Constitutional CourtDecision on Indonesia's Forest Zone CouldLay Groundwork for Sustainable LowEmissions Development' at http://www.daemeter.org/news/constitut

ional-court-decision-on-indonesias-forest-zone-could-lay-groundwork-for-sustainable-low-emissions-development/ and alsoseparate article on page 4 for morebackground on the Constitutional Court'sdecision and its implications.

2. The decree (without the maps) is online athttp://www.dephut.go.id/apl/uploads/SK.458_2012_PerubahanPeruntukanKH_Papua_.pdfThe maps are available fromhttp://musnanda.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/sk-menhut-no-458-mengenai-perubahan-peruntukan-kawasan-hutan-papua/

3. See awasMIFEE, 'MIFEE ploughs on, despitehitting rocky ground', athttps://awasmifee.potager.org/?page_id=62,and Reuters, 26/May/2011 athttp://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/WLIL.SI/key-developments/article/2331149. Formore background on Wilmar, seehttp://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/how-much-land

4. See https://awasmifee.potager.org/?p=2935. See 'separate article, page 12.6. See http://www.downtoearth-

indonesia.org/campaign/mifee for morebackground.

7. See also separate article page 12.8. See http://www.downtoearth-

indonesia.org/story/indonesia-s-one-map-policy.

The cross-hatched areas around these villages inMerauke district have been taken out of theforest zone. The yellow area is classified asproduction forest.

corporations, the manipulation of policies andthe use of the security forces to push thesethrough; and the unfair way in which theIndonesian government resolves agrarian andnatural resources-related conflict, by sidingwith corporations.

As a result, the number ofindigenous Papuans is in decline, due to "thesystematic loss of life", says FKP PK.Indigenous peoples in Papua and Kalimantanare being sidelined due to populationinvasions (through the government'stransmigration programme and migrant job-seekers); women and children are being mostaffected by socio-economic, cultural andpolitical disruption and there are frequentinter-community conflicts as well as conflictsbetween the communities and thegovernment (security forces) and betweencommunities and investors. "Communities'efforts to defend their rights are viewed asactions obstructing development" and theyare criminalised when they oppose the theftof their land. Natural disasters - droughts,floods, haze from forests fires, crop pestoutbreaks - have resulted from clearing land,while large-scale investment is threateningthe forests and fields that communities

depend on for their food, and they are losingtheir livelihood sources. "Traditional values,knowledge and culture are being pushed asidebecause there is no place for these in themodel of development being pursued by theIndonesian Government."

The FKP PK letter ends by urgingthe Catholic Church to:

Continue to speak out against injusticesin economic investment practices;Encourage policy makers at national orprovincial level to review or halt policiesthat work against the people of Papuaand Kalimantan;Urge government leaders at national orprovincial level, the judiciary, securityforces and investors: to stop practiceswhich violate basic human rightsand which deprive people of theirlivelihoods by force, and to start afair process based on justice andtruth; 5

Ensure that all Church organisations: thecommissions, the parish priests, prayerleaders, religious orders, Catholiceducation institutions, and other groupsshare the same concern and join thisstruggle.

Notes1. The full letter is available in Indonesian at

http://www.mirifica.net/artDetail.php?aid=7778

2. FKP PK consists of the Justice and PeaceSecretariats (SKP) of the various dioceses inPapua, the Justice and Peace Commissions(KKP) of the various dioceses inKalimantan, the Franciscan Secretariat inPapua for Justice, Peace and the Integrity ofCreation (SKPKC), the JPIC Missionaries ofthe Sacred Heart in Indonesia and theIndonesian Bishop's Conference'sCommission for Justice, Peace and Migrantworkers pastoral care.

3. Letter from Forum Keadilan dan PerdamaianPapua - Kalimantan, 24 October, 2012. Fullletter available online athttp://www.caritas.org.au/docs/walkasone/recovering-the-rights-to-life-of-the-indigenous-peoples-of-papua-and-kalimantan.docx?sfvrsn=4.

4. For more background on MP3EI see DTE91-92, May 2012 athttp://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/big-plans-papua

5. Emphasis as in original document (thisversion is slightly abridged).


11


Short-termism in politics and the denial ofenvironmental justice makes matters worse,say Indonesia’s Catholic bishops, calling onpoliticians, business and the Christiancommunity to take steps to protectresources, livelihoods and the right to life ofcurrent and future generations.

The environment was the majortheme of the annual Indonesian CatholicBishops conference which was held in Jakartafrom 5-15th November 2012. The pastoralletter issued on the final day of theconference, is titled "Involvement of theChurch in preserving the integrity ofcreation". It reminds Catholics that, if usedresponsibly, there are enough naturalresources for the needs of everyone -irrespective of race, religion and social status -for current and future generations. "Natureshould be treated justly, and managed andcultivated with full respect and responsibility."Instead, say the bishops, it has been exploitedwith greed and carelessness without regardfor the common good, by the irresponsiblefelling of forests and clearing of land forplantations and mines.The letter continues:

"The environment has been damaged, there arenatural disasters, social conflict arises, there is nolonger access to natural resources, and localcommunities and indigenous peoples, womenand children are marginalised.This situation ismade worse by policies which are based on thepolitical interests of the moment and short-termthinking which denies environmental justice.Theresults include the accumulation of waste,pollution of the rivers and seas, the air and theland, and the depletion of natural resourceswhich causes large-scale harm to theenvironment."1

The Catholic Church, say the bishops, has longshown concern for environmental problems.In Indonesia, concern was previouslyexpressed through its 2005 pastoral letter, andthe Church is continuing to make many effortsin education, advocacy and negotiations toovercome environmental destruction.

The letter uses the term 'eco-pastoral' (ekopastoral) to describe thecombined care for humanity and theenvironment. The bishops appeal to allCatholics to work together and with othersinvolved in efforts to protect the environmentto raise awareness and preserve the integrity

of creation. The letter concludes with specificmessages for politicians, businesspeople andthe wider Christian community, as follows:

To our brothers and sisters who are inpublic policy-making positions: policiesconcerning the use of natural resourcesand regional spatial planning should bringgreater prosperity for communities andpreserve the environment. Laws that denycommunity interests need to be reviewedand there needs to be tighter control ontheir implementation.To our brothers and sisters who work inthe business world: the use of naturalresources should not just be foreconomic advantage, but also for socialbenefit: local communities' right to lifeshould still be fulfilled and the availabilityof natural resources for futuregenerations should still be guaranteed.Moreover, productive businesses by poor,marginalised communities, especiallyindigenous peoples, peasants andfisherfolk, and those who are vulnerableto climate change and natural disasters,need more support.

To all Christians: Christians shoulddevelop a new way of living, of living inharmony with nature, based on anawareness of and care for theenvironment.This is a part of themanifestation of faith and preaching, in theform of action to restore the integrity ofcreation.To do this, we need joint efforts,for example recycling rubbish, savingelectricity and water, planting trees,movements to promote ecologicalconcerns and persuasive legal advocacyon the right to life, sustainability and theenvironment. Educational institutions inparticular are expected to play a majorrole in the movement to raise awarenessof environmental problems and theimportance of local wisdom.

Indigenous populationdecline, resource destructionand abuse highlighted inappeal for Church action inPapua and KalimantanThe Bishops will have been aware of thestrength of feeling on the urgent need forenvironmental justice among the Catholiccommunity in Papua and Kalimantan inadvance of the conference in November. Theprevious month, the Catholic Justice andPeace Forum for Papua and Kalimantan (FKPPK)2 wrote to the Bishops to urge the churchtake action to support local efforts to protectcommunity livelihoods, natural resources andhuman rights in Papua and Kalimantan.3 "It isnot enough for the Church just to care", itsaid.

The FKP PK letter describes thesituation for people and environment in Papuaand Kalimantan as being 'in disarray'.Exploitation of natural resources, it says, isbeing facilitated by the MP3EI economicmasterplan,4 government policies whichignore the ties between indigenous peoplesand their land, and the conversion of land forlarge-scale projects which is damagingcommunity assets and destroying sources oflivelihood. "In effect it destroys life". Otherfactors contributing to the destruction ofcommunities and the environment in the tworegions include investments which will benefitonly a small number of people or

Indonesian Bishops call forenvironmental justice

Indonesia's Catholic Church leaders have expressed concern about the over-exploitation of natural resources andthe resulting social conflict and marginalisation of vulnerable communities.

Photo by DTE

(continued on page 10)

12


MIFEE-affected communities want theirland back

A round-up of recent material about communities affected by the Merauke Integrated Food & Energy Estate(MIFEE) project in Papua.

Landgrabbing

Indigenous communities living along the Bianand Maro Rivers in Merauke, southern Papua,have demanded the return of their customarylands taken for the Merauke Integrated Foodand Energy Estate (MIFEE) mega-project. Aset of demands issued after four days ofcommunity discussions in December 2012also called for the revoking of locationpermits covering their customary land andfor the companies involved to restore thedamage done and pay compensation toaffected communities.

A key component of thegovernment's unwieldy MP3EI economicmasterplan for Papua, MIFEE was officiallylaunched in 2010 amid concerns over humanrights, environmental and social impacts. Theproject involves the conversion of indigenousland, including forests and peatlands, intoplantations growing food, energy and othercrops and is expected to prompt an influx ofmigrant workers to meet the sharplyincreased demand for labour.

Describing the current situationalong the Bian and Maro Rivers, a documentoutlining the communities' demands says thatriver water has been contaminated, killingfish, turtles and other water animals. It can nolonger be used for drinking, cooking andbathing by the communities. Children bathing

in the river and swamp waters havedeveloped skin, digestion and respiratoryproblems, and now community membersmust walk many miles to get clean water.

Meanwhile, the destruction ofcustomary forests has meant sources of food- including animals and sago - are becomingscarcer as are forest products needed formedicines, clothes and customary equipment.

The communities accuse thecompanies of failing to provide informationabout the land policies and permits affectingtheir land and failing to involve the localindigenous community organisation or manyof the land right-holders in the consultationprocess - only engaging clan leaders andpeople whose land had already been clearedfor development.

In addition, the communities havebeen misled over the status of the land leasedto the companies. They were told bycompanies and local government that theywould get their land back, but havediscovered that after the 35 year lease periodends, the land will instead revert to the state- a situation to which they strongly object.1

A press release issued by SawitWatch and SKP KAMe2 adds that the Bianand Maro River community lands have beencleared by oil palm companies by burning,which has polluted the water in the rivers andswamps, damaged or wiped out cultural sites

IntimidationTo secure logging areas in Merauke Regency,several companies are using the services ofIndonesian state security forces.

"And that's been kept secret, and we wantto let people know that.They are involvedfrom the moment when plans are firstpresented to the people right up until thedevelopment starts in the field", saidPaustinus Ndiken, the Secretary of MalindBian Customary People's Association inJayapura.

According to him, the involvement ofsecurity forces personnel has meant that ithas been easier for the companies topersuade people to surrender their land.

"There have been times when they have alsobeen there asking the people to give theirland over to the companies, a prominent

community member was once even beatenup while the company was presenting itsplans.The situation was tense at thatmoment, I don't know why, and then acustomary leader was suddenly struck by amember of the security forces", he stated.

He added that the people didn't agree withpolice or military intervention in theprocess of discussions to transfer landrights. "If they want to keep the area secure,fair enough, but don't get involved in thisprocess - that's the business of customarylandowners, the government and thecompanies and no-one else", he said.

Extract from State Security Forces are stillbacking up companies in Merauke, Source:http://www.aldp-papua.com/?p=8037,translated by awasMIFEE - seehttps://awasmifee.potager.org/.

MIFEE campaign poster: "Hands off Malind indigenous land"

13


and caused irreparable damage to the naturalenvironment. These two organisations backthe community demands for restoration,compensation and the return of communitylands, but also call on the Indonesiangovernment to immediately respond to theUN Committee on the Elimination of RacialDiscrimination, which has raised concernsabout the MIFEE project.3

Six oil palm plantations havecurrently begun operations on indigenousMalind Anim land in Merauke, according toSawit Watch and SKP KAMe: PT DonginPrabhawa (Korindo Group4), PT Bio IntiAgrindo (Korindo Group ), PT Central CiptaMurdaya (CCM), PT Agriprima Cipta Persada,PT Hardaya Sawit Papua and PT Berkat CitraAbadi (Korindo Group).

There has been controversy aboutthe official status of the land, and specificallywhy this region of Papua was excluded fromIndonesia's two-year moratorium on clearingprimary forests and peatland, announced inMay 2011.5 Asked by REDD-Monitor's ChrisLang why this was the case, seniorgovernment official Heru Prasetyo explainedthat land that had previously been classified aspeatland (which would be included in themoratorium) was not as extensive as hadbeen thought.6 Heru Prasetyo is Deputy IUKP4,7 and a member of the government'sREDD+ Task Force.

The moratorium map has beenrevised three times so far - all versions can beviewed on the Forestry Department'swebsite at http://webgis.dephut.go.id/. Fromthe maps covering the MIFEE area, thereduction in the area considered to bepeatland is very clear when the first andrevised maps are compared (see, for example,Map 3408 in the first moratorium map athttp://appgis.dephut.go.id/appgis/moratorium/PAPUA-3408.jpg and in the most recent (3rdrevision) map at http://appgis.dephut.go.id/appgis/moratorium_rev3/PAPUA-3408.jpg.These maps, with peatland areas colouredpink/orange, are copied below.

Government statements have alsoindicated that MIFEE is being downscaled -from over a million hectares in extent (as setout, for example, in the MP3EI economicmasterplan for Indonesia8) to around onefifth of that size.According to Heru Prasetyo,who gave the figure of 220,000 hectares inSeptember last year, this is due to a review ofwhat is feasible, and takes into account areasthat need to be protected (includingindigenous peoples' sacred lands).9

However it is evident that serioussocial, environmental and human rightsimpacts are continuing whatever the project'sofficial extent. Recent media reports of a visitto Papua's capital Jayapura by representativesof the local indigenous peoples' association

and other people affected by MIFEE, compiledand translated by the campaign groupawasMIFEE, provides evidence from theground. They report broken promises aboutthe facilities or compensation the companiessaid they would provide, as well as theconcerns over the future ownership of theland, pollution and the related health andlivelihood impacts. Coercive behaviour by themilitary is another part of the picture (seebox, page 12), along with wages that are toolow to provide for daily needs paid tovillagers who have handed over their lands.

MIFEE material online

See https://awasmifee.potager.org/ formore reports and links.

Land Grabbing for Food and Biofuel, MeraukeIntegrated Food and Energy Estate (MIFEE)Case Study, by Aliansi Gerakan ReformaAgraria (AGRA) and Pesticide ActionNetwork Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP),April 2012,http://www.panap.net/en/fs/post/food-sovereignty-wfd-2012/1289

'Destroying Local Livelihoods With Mifee'by Brooke Nolan, Jakarta Globe, Janury 20,2012,http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/corporatenews/destroying-local-livelihoods-with-mifee/566402

A new video produced by Gekko Studio,Pusaka and SKP-KAME Mama Malind suHilang (Our land is gone) conveys thedeep sense of loss felt by local peoplefrom Zanegi Village, Merauke, whose landsare being cleared in the MIFEE area.TheMalind Anim are hunter gatherers who relyon the forest for their livelihoods.TheIndonesian company, Medco, is clearingthousands of hectares of forest, planning toconvert 169,000 hectares of land toindustrial tree plantations. Based oninterviews with community members andfeaturing an interview with the CatholicArchbishop of Merauke, the film showshow the loss of their forests has affectedthe lives and livelihoods of the MalindAnim. One interviewee - a casual labourerworking for Medco - speaks about how hewas beaten and shot at by members of thesecurity forces after he had become angrywith a Medco foreman and shouted at him.See Gekko website for this and otherGekko videos.

This video follows Ironic Survival, a filmabout the MIFEE project by Papuan Voices,an empowerment and film productionproject. See http://www.papuanvoices.net/

A section of the first moratorium map in Papua with shaded areas indicating off-limits areas.

Same section, third version of moratorium map, with reduced shaded areas.

14


Papua-wide callPapuans have repeated calls for a stop todestructive investment projects at a broaderregional level. In September, Papuanindigenous men and women's leaders andNGOs from seven indigenous regions inPapua called on Indonesia to "immediatelystop all activities and new investment licencesfor natural resources exploitation which aredestructive and which harm the indigenouspeoples of Papua, Indonesia and the world."The call was made in a declaration signed by22 representatives attending the secondcongress to "Save People and Livelihoods inthe Land of Papua" which was held inManokwari in September 2012. In thedeclaration, the participants, who includedMalind indigenous leaders Maria Nemo andPaulus Samkakai stated that the sufferingendured by the Papuan people for 43 years10

was caused not only by the annexation oftheir political rights, but also by thesystematic denial of their basic rights overtheir natural resources, above and belowground, in the seas and air.They also affirmedtheir support for an honest, open and fairdialogue with the Indonesian government,mediated by a neutral third party.11

UPR - Indonesia rejects UNMIFEE recommendationsSeptember 2012 also saw a disappointingresponse from Indonesia to UNrecommendations on MIFEE and Papua. Theoccasion was the follow-up meeting to theJune 2012 session of the Universal PeriodicReview - a process which reviews the humanrights record of all 192 UN member statesonce every four years. Here, members of theUPR Working Group maderrecommendations to invite UN SpecialRapporteurs on Human Rights, IndigenousPeoples' Rights and the Right to Food to visitPapua.12

Ten Indonesian and internationalcivil society organisations, including Down toEarth, had highlighted concerns about humanrights, natural resources management andclimate change in Indonesia, in a submissionto the UPR. Specifically on MIFEE, this CSOsubmission had also called on theGovernment of Indonesia to invite the UNSpecial Rapporteur on the Right to Food andthe Special Rapporteur on indigenouspeoples' rights to visit the MIFEE project areain Merauke.13

Indonesia was obliged to give itsresponse to the UPR Working Group at thefollow-up session in September. Here, therecommendation was again made to invitethe Special Rapporteurs on the Right to Foodand the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.However this recommendation was rejected

by Indonesia.14 Recommendations acceptedby Indonesia did include one to invite theSpecial Rapporteur on Freedom ofExpression.This visit was due to go ahead inmid-January 2013, but has been delayed dueto restrictions set by the Indonesiangovernment which would prevent theRapporteur visiting prisoners in Jayapura andAmbon.15

Notes1. Demands and Aspiration of Indigenous Peoples

of River (Kali) Ban - River (Kali) Maro, Papua,Merauke, 18 December 2012, signed by 23indigenous community members fromBaidub, Boha, Bupul, Erambu, Kindiki, Kweel,Muting, Pachas, Poo and Tanas villages. Theland status problem identified by thecommunities is one shared by otherindigenous communities across Indonesia,who find that their land rights have beenextinguished by the government's landleasing regime.

2. Sawit Watch / SKP Press Release [no date].The release has been translated and postedon the awasMIFEE website - seehttps://awasmifee.potager.org/?p=302.

3. See http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2012/02/2012-cerd-80th-session-ua-update-final.pdf andhttp://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/indonesia-taken-task-over-mifee for more background.

4. AwasMIFEE note: PT Bio Inti Agrindo wasactually bought by Daewoo International in2011, and still belongs to that company asfar as we know.

5. See http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/redd-indonesia-updatefor background.

6. See 'Interview with KuntoroMangkusubroto..', as above athttp://www.redd-monitor.org/2012/09/20/interview-with-kuntoro-mangkusubroto/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Redd-monitor+%28REDD-Monitor%29.

7. UKP4 is the President's Delivery Unit forDevelopment Monitoring and Oversight, ledby Kuntoro Mangkusubroto. It is also leadingthe development of Indonesia's One MapPolicy - see http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/indonesia-s-one-map-policy

8. See DTE 92-93 'Big Plans for Papua' athttp://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/big-plans-papua

9. See, for example, 'Interview with KuntoroMangkusubroto, head of Indonesias REDD+Task Force: We are starting a newprogramme, a new paradigm, a newconcept, a new way of seeing things' ChrisLang, 20th September 2012 athttp://www.redd-monitor.org/2012/09/20/interview-with-kuntoro-mangkusubroto/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3

A+Redd-monitor+%28REDD-Monitor%2910. Forty three years ago a so-called 'Act of

Free Choice' controlled by Indonesiadetermined that Papua should become partof the Indonesian Republic.

11. Deklarasi Kongres II Selamatkan Manusia danSumber-Sumber Penghidupan di Tanah Papua,29th September 2012.

12. See http://www.upr-info.org/IMG/pdf/a_hrc_wg.6_13_l.5_indonesia.pdf.

13. See DTE website for more details athttp://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/ngos-urge-indonesia-heed-mifee-moratorium-call

14. Recommendation 109.15, seehttp://www.upr-info.org/IMG/pdf/a_hrc_21_7_indonesia_e.pdf). For a list of recommendations rejectedand accepted by Indonesia seehttp://www.upr-info.org/IMG/pdf/recommendations_to_indonesia_2012.pdf).

15. See report by the US-based NGO, the WestPapua Advocacy Team, in West Papua MediaAlerts, Press Release, January 13, 2013.

(Photo: DTE)

15


Shareholders from Down to Earth, LondonMining Network and War on Want attendedBumi plc's meeting in London in February toquestion the company about the devastatingimpacts of its coal-mining operations inKalimantan.

Bumi plc was listed on the LondonStock Exchange in 2011 despite criticismabout its operations in Indonesia.The social,environmental, human rights and healthimpacts of massive-scale open-cast mining areblighting the lives of communities inKalimantan as Indonesia's 'coal rush'continues.

Indonesia's coal mega-mine, KaltimPrima, is controlled by PT Bumi Resources,the Indonesian company which in turn is 29%owned by London-listed Bumi plc. It producesover 40 million tonnes of coal per year, whichis exported mainly to markets in China andIndia. Meanwhile, villagers living near the minehave a long experience of forced evictions,livelihood loss, pollution, strikes and companycollusion with State security forces.

Coal, the dirtiest of the fossil fuels,is also contributing to global climate change,bringing a further layer of disruption to thelives of poor communities in Kalimantan aswell as the wider population.

Jointly operated by BP and RioTinto in the past, the mine renewed its UKlinks in 2010 when British financier NatRothschild struck a deal with Indonesia’spowerful Bakrie family to bring large-scaleIndonesian coal mining to the London StockExchange, through a back-door deal avoidingthe scrutiny of normal listing requirementsfor new companies.

The UK government has beenwidely criticised for allowing Bumi plc to liston the London Stock Exchange, despite theinvolvement of the Bakries in corruption,malpractice scandals and a long history ofsocial and environmental impacts on localcommunities. These include a brutal attackagainst striking workers at the KPC mine inMarch last year and association with theSidoarjo mudflow disaster, which killed 14people and forced 30,000 people from theirhomes.

Now the Bumi deal has gone sour.In the run-up to the EGM, it appeared that allsides in this internal conflict were looking todo anything it takes to win control of thecompany, from public relations dirty tricksand hidden shareholder alliances to recruitingnew backers regardless of their ethical andbusiness records.

Inadequate responseAt the February EGM, the Bumi board failedagain to adequately respond to concernsraised about the real impacts of thecompany's coal mining operations inIndonesia.

Patrick Kane of War on Want askedthe board what assurances it could give torespond to the negative impacts of Bumi plc'smining operations in Indonesia, such asenvironmental and social destruction andlabour issues raised at the previous AnnualGeneral Meeting. He commented that giventhe dismissive reception given at the previousmeeting, there was little faith that these issueswould be seriously confronted and resolved.

Scott Merilees, Bumi's chief financialofficer, praised the operations and CSRrecord of Berau coal (84.7% owned by Bumi

plc). In response to this, Andrew Hickman ofDTE questioned the board as to thecontinued lack of transparency in thecompany's reporting and financial affairs.

Sir Julian Horn-Smith, the meeting'schair, attempted to distance the companyfrom these allegations by saying that theyrelated exclusively to PT Bumi Resources,which was only partly owned by Bumi plc.However, Nat Rothschild, the deposedfounding shareholder at the heart of thecompany's internal disputes, interruptedproceedings to point out that Samin Tan, theBumi plc chairman was also the chairman ofBumi Resources Minerals, with an entitlementto appoint four directors to the board of PTBumi Resources. Andrew Hickman restatedthe transparency question, asking when theboard of Bumi plc would provide this clarityand whether shareholders could have anyconfidence that any future board would doany better.

Again Scott Merilees extolled thevirtues of the company's operations: howlabour relations were untarnished, howIndonesian mining regulation was exemplary,how Berau coal has won plaudits for itscorporate social responsibility record. Hewent on to describe examples of the benefitsthat Berau had brought to local communities,mentioning a small business owner fromwhom he bought a pint of milk when hevisited the mine once, who had previouslybeen a mine employee. He mentionedsupport the company had given to localcommunities, such as helping to set up palmoil plantations. In response,Andrew Hickmancommented that the board's ignorance of thelabour dispute at the KPC mine,1 whereIndonesian security forces were used toviolently suppress a strike, was shocking in aLondon-listed mining company. Even by thestandards of other mining companies, Bumi'srecord fell below the line of acceptability.Maybe it was time for UK regulators tointervene, he said.

Bumi board continues to ignoreconcerns about coal impacts in

IndonesiaA report from Bumi plc’s February shareholder meeting in London.

Shareholders gather at the Bumi plc EGM inLondon (Photo: DTE)

mining

(continued next page)


DOWN TO EARTH is the newsletter of the International Campaign for Ecological Justice in Indonesia. If you want to receive the newsletter on a regular basis, please fill out the form provided.We would welcome information about your work in the field of environment and development in Indonesia.

Name.................................................................Organisation...................................................................................................................Address................................................................................................................................................

The subscription is £10 a year for institutions and those organisations or individuals who can afford it. Please add equivalent of £1.50 if paying with non sterling cheque. Please make cheques payable to Down to Earth and send to Down to Earth, Greenside Farmhouse, Hallbankgate, Cumbria CA8 2PX, UK. Email: [email protected] tel/fax: +44 16977 46266

Down to Earth is a private limited company, registered in England and Wales (no. 6241367)registered office: 111 Northwood Road,Thornton Heath, Surrey, CR7 8HW, UK

Nat Rothschild failed in his attempt to replacethe current board of Bumi plc and to rejointhe board himself as executive director. Buthe did succeed in his attempt to remove twoof the directors, including Bakrie ally NalinRathod; and one of his proposed additions,diplomat Richard Gozney (former Britishambassador to Indonesia), will join the Board.

This is evidence of the scale of therevolt against the current leadership of thecompany. As Reuters put it, the vote "movesattention to the next step in ending one ofLondon's messiest corporate battles - thedivorce with the Bakries and separating outpart-owned Bumi Resources, which theBakries had brought into the company."Indonesia's powerful Bakrie family is involvedin a wealth of businesses in Indonesiaincluding mining, oil and gas, property andplantations as well as national politics.

For further background on Bumi see:

‘Drama at Bumi misses the point’, LMN,February 14th, 2013‘In the shadow of the scandalssurrounding Bumi plc, proposed ethicsand human rights amendment toFinancial Services Bill 'blocked'’ Pressrelease by War on Want, London MiningNetwork and Down to Earth, October16, 2012‘Bumi's lesson: FSA light-tough approachdoes not work’ Press release: Down to

Earth, London Mining Network and Waron Want, 2 October 2012.‘Bumi falls at first hurdle’ DTE briefing,14th June, 2012‘Coal giant questioned over deaths,abuse, corruption at first EGM’, PressRelease by DTE, London MiningNetwork and War on Want. 14th June2012.‘An Indonesian company on the LondonStock Exchange’ DTE 91-92, May 2012

For further background on KPC and coal-mining in Indonesia see:‘Indonesia's coal: local impacts - globallinks’ DTE 85-86,August 2010.

All available on DTE’s website atwww.downtoearth-indonesia.org/

Notes:1. Also operated by Bumi Resources - see

http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/bumi-plc-meets-today-london-sort-out-ownership-feud, DTE PressRelease, 21/Feb/2013.

2. See 'Rothschild defeated in Bumishowdown', Reuters, 21/Feb/2103 athttp://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/02/21/uk-bumi-vote-idUKBRE91K0G920130221.

3. See An Indonesian company on the LondonStock Exchange DTE 91-92, May 2012, andHow much land? Snapshots of corporatecontrol over land in Indonesia, DTE 93-94,December 2012 for more background.

DTE calls on UK to stop subsidising oilpalm for electricity generation

DTE has written to the UK government calling for palm oil and other 'bioliquids' to beexcluded from UK's renewable electricity generation incentive scheme.

We reminded the UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey that thedevelopment of oil palm plantations is recognised as the main driver of deforestation andbiodiversity loss in Indonesia and that agrofuels which require vast areas of land to growincrease the risk of food crises and exacerbate land-grabbing conflicts across the world.

Read the full letter at http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/dte-calls-uk-drop-palm-oil-electricity-subsidies.

DTE’s Indonesian language compilation ofarticles on climate justice and sustainabledevelopment, Keadilan Iklim danPenghidupan yang Berkelanjutan,published September 2012, is available now.

To order copies contact [email protected].

The online version is at:http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/id/story/buku-terbaru-dte-keadilan-iklim-dan-penghidupan-yang-berkelanjutan-jilid-ii


office: email: tel: web: bintuni bay communities want ... 95...their living conditions - during the...

Documents