REDD+: Is it sufficient for Forest Solution?
Zulfira Warta (WWF156 Indonesia)
The presentations before already talked a lot about the national mechanism, MRV and the work thathas been done. My presentation is more about the lessons learned that we have now so far fromthe field in Indonesia.

The presentation will be split into three categories. One is the background, and other is what weare doing in the field, and then the lessons learned we have to date.

The President of Indonesia pledged to reduce Indonesia green house gas emissions by 26% ofemissions internally.

And by international support and cooperation, it could be reach 41%.

Meanwhile, the government has set up and would like to maintain the economic growth at the 7%.
We would like to mention that we have state and non-state forests. Non-state forests still cover by
the forests about 8 million 40,000 hectares. That actually is our first target to be converted
because there is a legality for conversions on that forest.

156

World Wildlife Fund: http://www.worldwildlife.org/

177

When we look at the projections of the government in terms of the forestry sectors, we still can see
much of the source of the income expected from the forest sector is still from timber and the forest
plantations. It indicates to us that the challenges to protect the emission from the forests are stillin place based on the current projections of the income from the forestry sectors.

We have four sites of REDD demonstration activities in Indonesia. One is in Central Sumatra,
actually within the Sebangau national park. We choose the project site actually based on ourconservation priority areas. We would like to see REDD could be an additional benefit to support
our conservation priority areas. We would not go for the REDD only for carbon. There is abalance need for us in terms of reducing emissions and improving our management system toprotect our priority conservations area. The two projects in Sumatra and in Central Kalimantan
are within the national park. Two other projects in East Kalimantan and in Papua that is at thedistrict level of the administrations.

We choose this project also based on the local politic

dynamics, socio-economic differences and the ethnicity.

178

At least from our experience, when we see in Sumatra there is high rate of deforestation from 1985
to 2007. Kalimantan is in the middle, and then the Papua, we still have about 78% of our forest
remain.
In Sumatra, for example, the most zooming things in Tesso Nilo National Park, we have 83,000
hectares of the national park. But we still face by the deforestation rate at the alarming rate. We
only have about 45,000, 43,000 hectares out of 83,000 hectares of the national park, so almost 50%of the park has already gone. I think that is the significance of the REDD in trying to stopping
deforestation not only outside the protected areas but also inside the protected areas. We thinkalso we need to have parallel work between stopping deforestation and designing the REDD+
project whether it is at the national level and at the sub-national level especially in Sumatra wheredeforestation already taken place at alarming rate.

This is the scheme of our program in WWF Indonesia.
component of our programs for forest solutions.

We see that our REDD is only one

One of the components that needs to beapproached is the spatial planning. Spatial planning is very crucial for Indonesia because itmaintains the permanence of the REDD itself, especially, for the planned deforestations.

If we aretalking about the environmental service, we know that the forest have very much values, not onlycarbon; carbon is one of the value of the forests itself. Looking at the holistic value of the forests
is very important for us.
Also, influencing the government policy at the sub-national level, in the district level in this case isalso very important. When the economic planning still not friendly with the environment that will179

cause the deforestation or emissions in this case. Also, the transformation of the business attitudesis also one of the things that needs to be looked at in terms of the sustainability practice of thelogging concessions, and also the oil palm companies in this case, and also about the mining
concession as the three main drivers of the deforestation, and then, of course, the REDD. We
would like to have our lesson from the field that contributed to the framework of the nationalREDD. We actually at WWF Indonesia work at the two levels. Generate lessons learned in thefield in terms of the readiness, and then working with the policy within the government at thenational level.

This is what we consider as the REDD main activities and also beyond the REDD activities. We
can divide it because our locations are four sites. The four location can be divided into twocharacteristics. One within the conservation area and the other is outside conservation area. But
beyond that, we also work beyond the REDD on the ground, such as promoting the community
plantation forests and community conservation areas. We also work in the ecotourism, microhydro power, forest certification, RSPO157 and also the land swap. Land swap actually is used tochange the possibility of the land that are still forest, but already legalized under the confession tothe land that already severely degraded.

One of the challenges of Indonesia, I think because Indonesia is new in terms of democracy, wehave so many political parties (30-40 political parties); each party has own interest. When there is157

Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil: http://www.rspo.org/180

election, whether it is a general elections or local elections or village elections, it causes
exploitations to the resources.

How to make political parties or democracy in terms of theelections is more effective and efficient, I think that is also a challenge for us in Indonesia in order
to be more resource to use effectively because all election will need money for that and the much
portion of the money is taken from the exploiting natural resources, including the forest resources.

The land use dynamic in the field is very important. It is not only in terms of the legality, but also
in terms of the real land use dynamics, including the communities land. There is various land use
dynamic differences in Sumatra, Kalimantan and Papua. This costs much the implementation of
the REDD itself.

For example, just at a glance, we can see that shifting cultivation is a source ofthe emissions, but when we see the shift in the system itself, the practice of system itself, because
they need lot of land actually, the emissions is relatively low on that, if we have the historicalbaseline.
The tenurial issues is also and emerging issue in the forest sector. Though our basic law on
agrarian recognizes the tenurial community of the lands, but the detailed regulations on forestry, on
the mining and also agriculture, it is not recognized properly the community tenure over the land,
including forest land, at least in practical, it is least accounted into the legality.

It is not only for

REDD implementation, REDD should account this before the implementation of REDD. Develop
a mechanism for conflict resolution between the community claim over the tenurial and the legalitythat hold by the companies is very important.

I think that is one of the aspect that needs to beaccounted. WWF exercise this on the ground among difference types of the communities.

181

When we have a simulation in the field, the gender differences also have different perceptions on
the managing of the land use.

We think that it is to be taken into consideration as well.

Especially, I think it will be relevant for the benefit sharing mechanism that we develop at the locallevel.

Lessons to date; we have differences about the rate of the deforestation. Sumatra, high rate
deforestation; Kalimantan in the middle, we still have about 60% of forest remain; but in Papua, westill have about 78% forest remaining. In terms of REL158 at the national level, it really needs totake into consideration. It can cause the Papua that have a lot of forest. Based on the discussion
today, incentive and disincentive, the Papuan people will be upset with us because they protect theforest, but incentive will be brought to the other areas, Sumatra for example that have a highdeforestation and degradations.
We think that within the year that we experience the project that the cost for designing the project,
to develop the project is high actually. We do not know how much carbon pattern that can beconsidered as a right price. Whether it is $10 per ton or $5 per ton, but the cost could be morethan that for the design of the project in the field, and to make the stakeholder agree on the designof the project. The other actually because of the value of the land is increased for the oil palm andfor the other purpose. Perhaps the opportunity costs to implement REDD will be high. Becauseof the time, we already have COP13159 2007, and now we are 2012, it is already 5 years for only
to design mechanism and arrangement at the national and sub national level. The carbon brokers
in the field at that beginning already promoting REDD in terms of money.

It is now in the fieldthat stakeholders have lowest confidence of the community and also local government, whether
REDD really going to happen than just spending time designing, workshop and consultation
without real on the ground exercises. I think there is a need to balance between designing andimplementing on stopping deforestation itself. Otherwise, we can have a good design, but theforest almost gone. Especially, that will be the case in Sumatra whereby we only have forests lessabout 28%.
Of course, the sites or the landscapes to develop the REDD need to be compatible to the national
158

Reference Emission Level

159

Conference of Parties

182

design and also international agreement within the negotiation of the UNFCCC; so learning from
that, it needs to be the integrations of the methodology, whether it is a carbon measurement,
baseline, REL or also about the safeguard. Now, the Indonesia is beginning develop the sectors interms of social and the biodiversity. There need to be integrations, and learning to each otherfrom the field, and from the design, and also from the international negotiation agreement as well.
That needs to be combined.
When we are talking about REDD, it is not only talking about the compensation to the forest. Do
not let REDD just do one mechanism on forests protection and sustainable use, because before,
historically, forests have other values such as religious connections, social connections and also
other environmental services that is already spoken by the earlier presenters. We would like to seethat REDD could be added value to the sustainable forest management or protection of the forest
within the conversation area or protected forest.

183