in Indonesia

World Bank’s FCPF in Indonesia fails to address civil society concerns

World Bank's FCPF in Indonesia fails to address civil society concerns

On Tuesday, 18 May 2010, the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry held a meeting to discuss the country’s activities under the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. Invitations went out the previous Friday. No documents were available before the meeting. The meeting lasted less than four hours. The Ministry of Forestry calls this “Public Consultation”.

Meanwhile the World Bank and the Ministry of Forestry have so far failed to address civil society’s concerns. In October 2009, Down to Earth wrote an overview of the increasing concerns about the way REDD is developing in Indonesia. Clearly things are not improving.

Indonesian NGOs produced the following statement, sent to the Ministry of Forestry:

Statement on the need for more effective Public Consultation of REDDI-Readiness RPP-FCPF

Minister of Forestry Republic of Indonesia
Jakarta 18 May 2010

On Tuesday 18 May 2010, the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry organized an event called “Socialization and Public Consultation of REDDI-Readiness Through FCPF (Forest Carbon Partnership Facility) program of World Bank’’, to present REDDI, – Readiness and R-PP (Readiness Preparation Proposal) – FCPF, presentation of Consultation Plan, and presentation of Strategic Environment and Social Assessment (SESA). The public consultation was from 1.00 pm to 4.45 pm.

With this statement, we, the invited participants, as well as other organizations involved in forestry issues, put our concerns regarding the substance of the RPP and the SESA as well as the process of preparing for and holding the public consultation.

Concerning the Substance of the RPP and the SESA

We, the invited participants, did not receive any documents, printed or electronic, prior to the public consultation. It was therefore very difficult for us during the consultation to give input or make recommendations on the RPP and SESA. We had tried to find the relevant documents by searching the websites of the FCPF and the Minister of Forestry, but we only found a May 2009 version of the RPP on the FCPF website, which does not incorporate many inputs raised by civil society since May 2009.

We had put our concerns regarding the lack of follow up action by the Minister of Forestry and the FCPF-World Bank in our previous letters about the R-Plan Indonesia (which is now a R-PP). We have yet to see good will from the Ministry of Forestry as well as its close friend, FCPF, to integrate the concerns of civil society into the R-PP. To remind you about our letters: (1) Letter of AMAN and Sawit Watch to the Minister of Forestry cc to FCPF, World Bank and UNPFII, on 15 May 2009; (2) HuMa Association, on 15 June 2009; and (3) Indonesian Civil Society Forum on Climate Justice, on 19 July 2009.

In addition to the issues mentioned above, considering that the FCPF has already set up guidelines for planning and implementing public consultations which detail the steps that should be followed (June 2009), up to now we have not seen any implementation of those steps, and these steps are also not reflected in whole processes of making the RPP document of Indonesia. Therefore, with regards to participation, democratic process and governance issues, we think it is inappropriate to refer to the meeting on 18 May as a public consultation.

Concerning the Procedure of Consultation

Regarding the procedure of consultation, our specific concerns are as follows:

  • The Invitation letter was sent out through fax on Friday, 14 May 2010. We deem this as sufficient in terms of preparation time for a consultation on 18 May 2010.
  • Provision of Documents for the Consultation. The failure to provide the invitees with the documents for the consultation prior to the 18 May meeting made the consultation meaningless. Given that the only time to review the documents was only during the meeting itself, we think it is inappropriate to call this process a consultation forum.
  • Duration of Consultation. By providing less than 4 hours, the consultation forum did not provide enough time to have a two-way dialogue. Moreover, the presentations by the Ministerial Agencies took up most of the consultation time rather than a dialogue process that was crafted through group discussion. Therefore, we think it is inappropriate to call this process a consultation forum.
  • Participants. We note a complete lack of representatives from peoples organizations compared to other sectors (such as experts, bureaucrats, local government, NGOs and business) which were well represented. Therefore, we consider that this consultation process incomplete as it did not have any representation of peoples’ organizations.

Based on our concerns above, we make the following demands:

  1. For future consultations, the Ministry of Forestry and the Government of Indonesia should follow the guidelines for the planning and implementing of public consultation established by the FCFP in June 2009. (Please see the following website:
  2. The Ministry of Forestry must strive to secure the full and effective participation of all stakeholders and rights holders, especially indigenous peoples and local communities, in all processes for planning, discussion and decision-making related to programs on climate change mitigation and adaptation in Indonesia. In particular, the Ministry of Forestry must establish mechanisms to respect the right of indigenous peoples to give or withhold their free, prior, and informed consent to all development processes that may impact their customary territories.
  3. The government of Indonesia should establish a special forum for in-depth discussions with civil society on climate issues as requested in the above-mentioned letters of AMAN and Sawit Watch, HuMa and the Civil Society Forum on Climate Justice.
  4. The principles established in international human rights instruments and international and national environmental laws should be referred to in all Indonesian Government programs to respond to climate change, especially the R-PP of Indonesia.
  5. The Government of Indonesia should use the momentum from policy development and programs on REDD to help restore the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities that have been appropriated in the past in the name of securing forest areas.

The following groups request you to consider and respond to this statement:

1. Perkumpulan HuMa, Asep Yunan Firdaus, Director
2. Kamar Masyarakat DKN, Hedar Laudjeng, Chief
3. CSF, Giorgio Budi Indarto, Coordinator
4. AMAN, Abdon Nababan, Secretary General
5. BIC-Indonesia, Nadia Hadad
6. SAWIT WATCH, Norman Jiwan
7. FKKM, Andri Santosa, Waseknas
8. Yayasan Merah Putih, Nasution Camang, Director
9. Debt Watch, Diana Gultom
10. Borneo Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation Institute, (BEBSiC), Mochammad Syoim, Director
11. Jaringan Komunitas Masyarakat Adat (JKMA) Aceh, Budi Arianto, Executive Secretary
12. CAPPA, Rivani Noor, Director
13. TELAPAK, Mardi Minangsari
14. WALHI, Berry Nahdian Furqon, Executive Director
15. Paguyuban Petani Hutan Jawa (PPHJ), Bambang Suharsono, Coordinator
16. Forest Watch Indonesia, Wirendro Sumargo, Director
17. Lembaga Bela Banua Talino Pontianak, West Kalimantan, Abdias Yas, Director
18. Papua NGOs Forum, Lyndon B. Pangkali
19. Perkumpulan Bantaya-Palu, Dahniar, Director
20. Karsa-Palu, Rahmat Saleh, Director
21. LPA Awam Green-Palu, Budiansyah, Director
22. Down to Earth, Devi Anggraini
23. KpSHK, Mohammad Djauhari, Coordinator

Supported by foreign NGOs:
1. Rainforest Action Network, Rebecca Tarbotton – Acting Executive Director
2. Rainforest Foundation Norway, Anja Lillegraven, Project Coordinator Southeast Asia
3. Forest Peoples Programme, Marcus Colchester, Director
4. Federation of Community Forestry Users, Nepal (FECOFUN), Bhola Bhattarai General Secretary
5. Sustainable Development Institute/ Friends of the Earth Liberia, Jonathan Yiah, Coordinator
6. ClientEarth, Janet Meissner Pritchard, Climate & Forests Programme Lawyer  
7. The Sustainability Watch Network from Central America and Centro Humboldt, Alejandro Aleman
8. Society for New Initiatives and Activies, SONIA, Vanda Altarelli, President

Leave a Reply

  1. Last year, FCPF together with minister of forestry made a public consultation and likely the process is quite the same with what has been done in 18 May. I think a lesson learned of these two processes is FCPF actually needs Indonesia more than vice versa. Why? The fact saying that even FCPF knows very well about the lack of governance in managing forest in Indonesia, but they just back their eyes to as if they don’t know the situation. This is not a readiness process actually but merely as a sort of justification. The legitimacy is less, substance is questionable, I don’t believe FCPF will make the readiness in a proper way in terms of governance, rights, etc