Paper Edition | Page: 7

by Rini Astuti, Wellington

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono received the first-ever Valuing Nature Award at the UN in New York. The award was presented by three leading international environment and conservation organizations to acknowledge the Indonesian government’s initiative in protecting marine biodiversity.

The award marks the international community’s recognition of Indonesia’s commitment to protecting the environment.

It also signals mounting international expectation and scrutiny with regards to Indonesia’s efforts to protect one of its other precious resources: the rainforest.

Indeed, it seems that the government does take the rainforest seriously and this can be seen in the implementation of several forest protection and afforestation mechanisms. Lately, one of these mechanisms has been the central focus of Indonesia’s forest stakeholders: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Plus (REDD+).

REDD+ is basically a climate change mitigation mechanism that seeks to reduce the rate of deforestation in developing countries by offering incentives that encourage change in forest land use. The signing of a Letter of Intent (LoI) with Norway in May 2010 had a very significant impact on REDD+’s momentum in Indonesia.

The LoI paved the way for cooperation over REDD+ readiness and implementation between the two countries for the next 10 years. Since the LoI was signed, REDD+ has featured prominently in the
vigorous debate over forest protection that has been going on in the media and through publications emanating from both the public and private sectors.

In an interview with redd-monitor.org, the head of REDD+ Taskforce, Kuntoro Mangkusubroto, described how REDD+ creates new ways of seeing things.

Therefore, as a new paradigm, REDD+ has to struggle to be accepted and mainstreamed among forest stakeholders in Indonesia.

How this struggle takes place, and who might win and lose, underpin the way in which REDD+ will
unfold in Indonesia.

REDD+ has led to the development of new strategies, practices and institutions, which will in turn keep the paradigm in place and sustain it. The development of the REDD+ National Strategy, the implementation of the Forest Moratorium, and the establishment of the REDD+ Taskforce, are all obvious examples of the government’s attempt to mainstream REDD+.

French philosopher Michel Foucault argued that power no longer lies in the hands of the sovereign, but instead can be exercised and found at all levels of society.

This rings true in the context of REDD+, where non-state actors such as private companies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) hold the power to re-shape the REDD+ paradigm through lobbying, advocacy, and influencing public opinion.

An example of a non-state actor striving to re-shape REDD+ was the lobbying conducted by the Indonesian Palm Oil Association during the drafting of the Presidential Instruction on Forest Moratorium in order to protect their interests.

As a result, many have criticized the moratorium as being too weak for only protecting primary natural forestry. Meanwhile, according to Cifor, an international research organization based in Bogor, this leaves 47.6 million hectares of forest that is rich in carbon and biodiversity unprotected.

Another example of the on-going struggle is the involvement of NGOs in drafting social and environmental REDD+ safeguards. Many have praised the participatory nature of the process and the inclusion of principles of justice and fairness, such as with gender and land rights.

The two examples do not necessarily show that the private sector always represents negative interests, while NGOs do the opposite. They merely demonstrate that REDD+ policies are not neutral, but rather the product of competition between many players with various interests.

At the very heart of this contestation, there are risks that the government must pay attention to. First, the risk that those with knowledge and resources will dominate the process of REDD+ policy development while marginalizing the rest. Second, the risk of REDD+ being resisted or even rejected for failure to accommodate certain stakeholders. Finally, the risk of national REDD+ policies failing to meet international standards in the attempt to incorporate diverse domestic interests.

Lots of effort is required to address these risks. With regards to the dominating interest groups, the government needs to reinforce the voices of silent stakeholders by providing space for participation and resources, including information.

It may look second to impossible for the government to cater to the interests of all REDD+ stakeholders. The hardest thing is realizing that economics and ecology can be integrated, which is the idea upon which REDD+ was built.

Following Foucault’s concept of governmentality, as he called it, the government could work indirectly on stakeholders’ beliefs and their sense of responsibility, so that the stakeholders ultimately comply with regulations on their own accord.

However, the degree to which stakeholders see themselves as responsible citizens is a salient point for discussion.

Finally, while it is very important for the government to have REDD+ accepted domestically, it is also
critical for them to meet international standards.

In order to achieve this, it is necessary for the government, with the help of academics, to develop REDD+ policies based on sound technical, economic and political science.

The writer is a PhD candidate in political ecology at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.