National Case Study on Strengthening National Efforts
In Implementing the IPF Proposals for Action
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document is the draft final report on the Indonesian National Case Study on Implementing the UN/Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) Proposals for Action at National level. The exercise has been undertaken in the framework of a Six-Country-Initiative of Finland, Germany, Honduras, Indonesia, Uganda and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The objectives of the Initiative are :
An indirect objective combined with this Initiative is to launch at national level long-term participatory discussion processes in Strengthening National Forestry Programs.
Under the lead of Germany the individual National Case Studies will be synthesized and discussed in a consultative process by an expert panel. The results of these discussions will be submitted as a background document for further discussions at the 2nd Meeting of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests in August/September 1998.
The Indonesian National Case Study was executed in March and April 1998 following a preparatory meeting of the participants of the Six-country Initiative in Bonn/Germany in February 1998.
The Consultative Group on Indonesian Forests (CGIF) served as the national discussion forum for the execution of the Case Study. About 100 stakeholders from various disciplines: planners, decision makers, scientists, researchers of the Ministry of Forestry and Estates Crops, other sectoral institutions concerned, Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Donors took part in the exercise.
They were organized in six working groups based on organizational structure of CGIF, the themes in the Indonesian Forestry Action Programme (IFAP) and the relevant programs of the Indonesian planning instrument, the National Five-Year Development Plan (Repelita) , i.e. Sustainable Forest Management (SFM), Social Forestry and People’ Participation (SF), Forest Conservation (Cons.), Forest Fire and Forest Protection (FF), Forestry Policy and Institution (P&I) and Forestry Research and Development (R&D).
| The Consultative Group on Indonesia Forest (CGIF) The objective of the CGIF is to strengthen the communication, co-ordination and cooperation among all parties (Goverment, donor community, NGOs, the Private Sector, Universities and Research Institutions etc.) in forest sector development. A Ministerial Decree has formalized the CGIF in 1994 as a multi-stakeholder forum. Gradually, through internalization of CGIF recommendation, the CGIF has developed as a tool for improved strategic planning in the Ministry of Forestry. The CGIF is working in Assembly Meetings, Working Groups and Small Teams according to the National Five-Year-Plan and the Indonesian Forestry Action Program and its approach is based on objective oriented, participatory and transparent discussion processes. The CGIF is one of the few existing examples for a well structured dialogue between the donor community and the recipient party and is fuly in line with the idea of partnership as recommended in the final proposals for action of the Intergovermental Panel on Forest and as approved by UN/ECOSOC 1997. |
As a matter of practicability the IPF Proposals for Action, where checked against the National Five Year Plan in describing actions already taken or envisaged. Repelita is divided into the following main aspects :
With regard to the assessment of all envisaged or not yet implemented IPF Proposals for Action the draft Repelita VII (1999-2003) was analyzed as the guiding document. The Indonesian Forestry Action Program (IFAP) served as an important reference document without, however, being given the same status as the legally binding National Five Year Plans.
The results of the National Case Study are presented in two main volumes :
| Volume 1: | The report for international consultation describes the main results of the National Case Study and the assessment of the IPF Proposals for Action. It contains also an annex comprising detailed and systematic comments for each of the IPF Proposals for Action. |
| Volume 2: | As a further output of the National Case Study, Volume 2 contains a selection of high priority Project Proposals for the forestry development in Indonesia to support the implementation of the IPF Proposals for Action. |
The monetary crisis being now faced by Indonesia has led to severe financial, economic and social implications. For the forestry sector, the crisis has also led to uncertainty and the need for re-orientation in forest resources management. Wood-based and other forest-related industries, for instance, have sharply reduced their activities, due to collapsing markets. As consequence, up to 6 million m3 of unsold timber is on stock and risks to deteriorate in quality rapidly. Indonesia has committed itself to undergo a drastic restructuring program in the context of a Memorandum on Economic and Financial Policies (MEFP) negotiated with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on 17 January 1998. Out of the 50 points for action of the MEFP 6 are of direct relevance for the Indonesian forest sector.
They are besides the already existing national planning frameworks (Repelita etc.) an essential new element to be considered in the framework of the implementation of the IPF Proposals for Action. As they are mainly of economical and financial nature the screening process had to evaluate if they were complementary or contradictory to the IPF Proposals for Action. According to a detailed timetable, as of April 22, 1998 Indonesia has to implement, among others, the following points :
Of high importance for the discussion in the framework of the National Case Study has been Point N° 50 of the MEFP introducing environmental conditions like Reduction of Conversion Rates of natural forests to Sustainable Levels and the Introducing of Performance Bonds by end of December 1998. There is a strong linkage between these adjustments and the IPF Proposals for Action especially category IIA, IV, and V (see p. 4, volume I). To implement the ambitious plans further international assistance and collaboration are needed.
A main result of the National Case Study is that many of the issues highlighted in the IPF Proposals for Action have been addressed already at various levels in Indonesia. The overall assessment shows that the Proposals for Action are of different relevance for Indonesia :
Assesment of the Relevance of the IPF Proposals for Action at National Level can be seen in Table below.
| Cluster of IPF Proposals for Action | Relevance for Indonesia | Justification/Main Aspects Responsible Organization |
|---|---|---|
| I. A Progress through national forest and land-use programs |
Highly relevant | Land-use planning, accuracy of planning documents, lack of co-ordination.
CGIF, Bureau of Planning, Inventory and Land-use Agency, Research |
| I.B Underlying Causes of deforestation |
Highly relevant | Deforestation still high, Population Pressure, Unsustainable logging Several DGs in MOF, Research, Donors and NGO’s |
| I.C Traditional forest-related knowledge (TFRK) |
Highly relevant | High number of indigenous people with TFRK. Local Administration, Research, NGO's and Donors |
| I.D Fragile ecosystems affected by desertification and drought |
Low relevance | Only small part of Indonesia has been classified as dry land area (except some eastern parts of Indonesia). |
| I.E Impact of airborne pollution on forest |
Low relevance | Should be differently formulated : "Impact of airborne Pollution on/from forest. See I.B |
| I.F Needs and requirement of developing and other countries with low forest cover |
Low relevance | Still high forest cover (except some eastern parts of Indonesia). |
| II. A Financial assistance |
Highly Relevant | More funds needed to continue the implementation of new policies. Govt, Financial Organisations, Donors, Research Institutions, NGO's and Private Sector, CGIF |
| II.B Technology transfer and capacity-building and information |
Relevant | Improving significantly technology transfer, capacity-building,
information management. Govt, Local organizations, R&D Institutions, Extension Agencies, NGO's, CGIF |
| III. A Assessment of the multiple benefits of all types of forests |
Relevant | Improvement of the National Forest Assessment procedures;Criteria and
indicators are still not fully developed (community forests, plantation forests and
different forest types etc). Govt., Research, Indonesia Ecolabelling Institute (LEI), Universities |
| III. B Forest research |
Relevant | Improvement of research quality, networking, capacities. Govt, Research institutios, Universities |
| III. C Methodologies for the proper valuation of the multiple benefits of forests |
Relevant | Precondition for Concession Auctioning System etc. Methodology not yet in place. IMF-MEFP conditions on Auctioning system needs Valuation of Forests. |
| III. D Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management |
Highly relevant | Important for Development of Certification Schemes and IMF-MEFP
Performance Bonds. Govt., Research, LEI, Universities, Private Sector, Donors |
| IV. Trade and environment |
Highly relevant | Indonesia’s forestry sector is export oriented , IMF-MEFP point for action, understanding of environmental, social and economic impact of trade-related measures, improving market access for Lesser Known Species, market-based incentives for SFM |
| V. International Organization and Multilateral Institutions and Instruments, Including appropriate Legal Mechanisms |
Relevant | Work in the informal high-level Inter-Agency Task Force on Forest, Inter-Governmental policy dialogue on forests, and Clarifying the Mandates of the relevant international institutions/organisations related to forest issues are among the works to be continued in Repelita VII |
Especially the different National Five Year Plans and the Indonesian Forestry Action Program (IFAP) clearly have internalized many of the discussions at international level. Most of the basic legal and institutional requirements for conservation and sustainable development of forest resources are in place. However, given the fact that the quality and quantity of Indonesian forests are still diminishing at high rate, a clear result of the National Case Study is that some of the policies behind actions still lack effectiveness. Especially in the light of the occurring forest fires the following main problems with regard to effectiveness of implementation of IPF Proposals have been identified :
While, in comparing the respective documents, strong congruence could be observed between the IPF Proposals and the Indonesian NFP, each of them however is highlighting different aspects of forestry development. Both instruments are similar in prioritising aspects like land use mapping, rehabilitation of degraded forests and research and technology transfer although at national level the results of implementation are still weak. The improvement of the contribution of forests to the welfare of people is equally prominent in the draft for Repelita VII and in the IPF Proposals for Action.
An example for an effective implementation of the IPF Proposals for Action is the setting up of the Consultative Group on Indonesian Forests (CGIF). This forum of all stakeholders in the Indonesian forestry sector certainly can serve at international level as a model for a participatory and structured policy dialogue, co-ordination, and information management in implementing National Forestry Programs. This is a strong recommendation to the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF).
On the contrary, learning from the IPF Proposals for Action, the Repelita should be strengthened in the following aspects :
Some detailed observations :
As result of the National Case Study, in a summarized form, the following actions need to be given higher priorities in forest sector development :
The execution of the National Case Study was a very useful and challenging exercise for Indonesia. The issue was found to be complex and difficult in structure.
For the first time in Indonesia, and probably also for many other countries, this exercise is an attempt to translate results of international discussion processes which are no formal legal obligation (soft law) into action at national level. This is rather difficult to achieve since generally those experts and administrators representing the country in international fora are not directly involved in the management and conservation of forests.
A considerably large number of civil servants, NGO's, donor projects and research institutions have been involved in the discussion process in a structured an well organized manner. Decision makers and key players in all Directorates General of the Ministry of Forestry are now informed and aware of the importance of the discussion.
The work in plenary and thematic groups showed very enriching and engaged discussions. The dialogue contributed to more participation and involvement of the different stakeholders in strategic issues in the Indonesian Forestry. There is a general feeling that the process itself is at least of the same importance as the results of the National Case Study. It contributed to building new capacities especially in dialoguing and in increased networking within the forestry sector but also at intersectoral levels.
Another lesson learned is the observation that it is easier to overcome taboos and hesitations in getting aware that other countries of the international community experience similar problems and in sharing them with others.
Indonesia experiences on top of the forest fire catastrophes in 1997 and 1998 its worst economic and financial crisis since more than 30 years. The forestry sector is affected in many ways but has to play at the same time an important role in getting out of the crisis. More than before the multiple functions and benefits forests are providing are demanded to relief the needs of poor people. The challenge is to reconcile these demand with well recognized criteria and indicators for sustainable management.
In this situation the National Case Study serves as a source of inspiration and fulfills an important complementary role in policy development and formulation. It interlinkes directly with three other major discussion processes and the key actors at national level are almost identical :
The IPF proposals for action are highly important in this discussion since they complement and counterbalance especially the IMF points of action and they address the underlying causes of the forest and land fire disasters which occurred in 1997 and 1998. They assure that especially the following points are given higher consideration : Participation and partnership, social issues, demands and aspiration of forest people, community and private forest development, non-wood forest products, land use planning, land tenure, land use rights etc.
The National Case Study, thus, marks an important step towards a holistic National Forestry Program.
The National Case Study made clear that the IPF Proposals for Action are very heterogeneous in their structure and of complex nature. In addition, there is a feeling that through the negotiation process in the IPF some of the Proposals for Action have become difficult to understand and remain rather vague. Thus, different interpretations by the various stakeholders are very likely.
This is one reason why in Indonesia the outcome of the National Case Study can only be the starting point for a broader discussion at different levels :
In all these follow-up processes the Consultative Group on Indonesian Forests (CGIF) will have to play an important role as a multi-stakeholder forum. Its mechanisms needs to be further strengthened through improved access especially of NGO's and the Private Sector but also through improved information management.