in Australia, Indonesia

Avoiding the issues: How questions about the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership were not answered in Australia’s Parliament

Australia has committed A$30 million to the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (KFCP) in Indonesia. Recently, questions from Senator Christine Milne (of the Green Party) in the Australian Parliament were (sort of) answered by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade.

The project is home to indigenous peoples and the recognition of customary land is one of their key concerns – with or without the KFCP project. The 120,000 hectare KFCP project consists of two parts: an avoided deforestation component to the north of the project area and an area to be rehabilitated in the south.

There is little doubt that something needs to be done, at least in the southern part of the project. The KFCP project covers a small part of former President Suharto’s Mega Rice Project – the “most glaring misuse of tropical peatland in recent times” as Jack Rieley of Nottingham University put it. Suharto’s big idea was to make Indonesia self-sufficient in rice by creating one million hectares of new rice fields. Under the project, during the mid-1990s, Suharto’s business cronies clear-cut more than one million hectares of forest, killed about 5,000 orangutans, built 4,600 kilometres of channels to drain the peat swamps but didn’t produce a single grain of rice. 60,000 settlers moved to the area to work on the project, many of whom are still there.

A film made last year by Gekko Studio provides a fascinating glimpse into the complexities of setting up the KFCP project.

In the film, Muhadi, a village officer at Mantangai Hulu, says:

“I think that KFCP is a good programme, just look at their objectives to rehabilitate the land. On the other hand, our society just wants an assurance that the KFCP programme will change the scheme, from a scheme which is based on state land to one which is based on customary land.”

Abdon Nababan, Secretary General of AMAN (the Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago), comments that,

“I guess that the socialisation programme hasn’t been run well, and it is still incomplete. So people are just responding to the summary. They have said, ‘it is good, it promotes economic development, it earns us some money it is possible to preserve out peatland.’ But it doesn’t explain the programme duties, which are to legitimise and protect indigenous peoples’ territorial rights. Besides, FPIC (free, prior informed consent) is a way to seek the community’s agreement, so how can we say that KFCP will be a good project if they haven’t provided clear maps of their customary territory? If the customary territory is not clear, it will become dangerous because this FPIC could become a source of conflict. One party might agree to the scheme, even though the territory which will be included in the REDD scheme is not even their territory, it might be another community’s customary territory.”

Unfortunately, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (ex-Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd) and the Minister for Trade (Craig Emerson), failed to reflect these realities and concerns in their answers. Instead, they skip over questions about FPIC and whether the KFCP project will become part of the voluntary carbon market. The transcript of the senate session is available here (pdf file 24.8 KB) and below, (reformatted to appear as an interview):

Senator Milne: (1) (a) How have local communities been informed about the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (KFCP);
(b) who was informed; and
(c) what feedback has been received on the proposed project?
Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade: (a) Australia is supporting Indonesia in its efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation, The Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (KFCP) is a key element of the Indonesia Australia Forest Carbon Partnership which is a leading international partnership on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD+). The KFCP was designed, and is being implemented, in close consultation with local communities and is linked with pre-existing initiatives in peatland planning and conservation in Central Kalimantan. Since mid-2009, the KFCP has worked through village facilitators (13 of whom are posted in villages which are home to the great majority of people in the project area) to explain the objectives of KFCP, gather community views about the project, understand the social and economic circumstances of the local communities, and develop options for alternative incomes for the local people (including improved management of smallholder rubber plantations in areas where agriculture is already practiced and on forest conservation activities). Key elements of the implementation will be undertaken by local NGOs (CARE and Borneo Orangutan Survival) who have long-term relationships and knowledge of the area.
(b) The KFCP was designed in partnership with Indonesian officials at national, provincial and local level. Village heads and customary leaders were also consulted in the design phase. The early implementation phase of the KFCP includes a communications component to provide further information on the objectives and approaches of the KFCP.
(c) Community representatives have been receptive to the KFCP on the basis that they retain equitable access to forest resources and to incentive-based payments.
Senator Milne: (2) Has there been a land tenure assessment performed on the land to be covered by the project; if so, what was the result of that assessment; if not, why not?
Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade: An assessment of customary rights and other forms of local land tenure was completed in the design phase in 2009. Land tenure remains a very complex issue and further information about local land tenure and property rights will continue to be collected during the implementation phase.
Senator Milne: (3) Has there been an attempt to gain the free, prior and informed consent of local Indigenous and forest dependent communities in relation to the project?
Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade: The KFCP was designed in partnership with Indonesian officials at national, provincial and local level, as well as village heads and customary leaders. There has been extensive and ongoing consultation with the local communities, and facilitators have been posted in 13 villages which house the majority of people in the project area.
Senator Milne: (4) (a) Has the Government undertaken any contingency planning for KFCP in the event that it is not possible for country parties to agree on the inclusion of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); and
(b) is it anticipated that KFCP will became part of the voluntary carbon market.
Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade: (a) and (b) Australia continues actively to support the inclusion of REDD+ in a future international climate change agreement. As a REDD+ demonstration activity, the priority of the KFCP is to trial how REDD+ can work in practice, and to inform the UNFCCC negotiating process on REDD+. The KFCP will test approaches to meeting possible future UNFCCC requirements for a REDD+ market mechanism. There has been significant progress on REDD+ in the UNFCCC negotiations, including recent agreement in the Copenhagen Accord on the need to immediately establish a mechanism for REDD+.
Senator Milne: (5) (a) Does KFCP propose plantations as reforestation and an alternative source of income for local communities; and
(b) is there anything in the design of KFCP that prevents plantations from being recognised for carbon credits.
Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade: (a) and (b) The KPCP will undertake reforestation as part of efforts to rehabilitate and stabilise existing areas of degraded peat swamp forest to help prevent further forest degradation and deforestation. Reforestation will be undertaken using native species. The KFCP will also support local livelihood activities, such as improved management of smallholder rubber plantations in areas where agriculture is already practiced. The KFCP will not support industrial plantations. As part of trialling approaches to REDD+ the KFCP will estimate and monitor changes in emissions and removals of greenhouse gases.
Senator Milne: (6) Given that in its submissions to the UNFCCC in 2008 on KFCP, the Australian Government discussed the need to restrict forest conversion within Central Kalimantan at a province-wide level, can details be provided of (a) what restrictions are currently in place in relation to forest conversion; and (b) what plans are in place for forest conversion across the province.
Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade: (a) and (b) Australia will continue to work with Indonesia on these issues, however, restrictions and planning relating to forest conversion are the responsibility of the Government of Indonesia, with whom the joint UNFCCC submission on the KFCP was made, through its legislation and decision making processes.


Leave a Reply


  1. This project has been listed on the CCBA website some years ago as a third grade rating, without a methodology.
    It has been through many hands and is now the Australian governments silly idea of an example to ;fast tracking REDD+” module.
    The question asked and not answered on Land Tenure is very interesting , you would have thought the Australian government would have had that at least scripted or prepared.
    Rudd really is a Dudd and allowing these Australian UNFCCC representatives idiots to go into another country to create a supposed fast track Redd+ pilot example of a complete white elephant is far more than pathetic.

    I wonder why the UNFCCC Dudd did not ‘try’ and fast track a Redd+ project in Australia? ha ha.

    The supposed 30 million, how is that invested and what is it for?

    How many carbon credits does Dudd think they will create from part of this 120,000 hectares project? another circus!
    What mechanism will be used.
    How , and on what basis will these so called credits be generated and measured.

  2. As part of research for my master thesis on participation and REDD, I visited a Dayak village in the KFCP project area in January 2011. A man of around 40 said he had lived in this village all his life. From what I understood the village had applied for management rights from the state,Hutan Desa, after having completed participatory mapping in coordination with neighboring villages. They were waiting for a reply from the government.

    Near to the village was one of the KFCP tree-planting sites. The trees were planted in a deforested area (from Mega Rice) next to a canal. I was told by the locals that when the rain comes, the area would be under water, including the trees. Another KFCP activity is canal blocking. The local people I spoke with said that they strongly oppose canal blocking, as they use the canals for fishing and transportation. The natural rivers they used before were almost all drained away during the Mega Rice Project.

    In terms of consultations I was told that there had been only one meeting before KFCP started its projects in this village. The meeting discussed how to increase the economic potential of their area and nothing about REDD.

    From my research so far I am concerned that: (1) indigenous people’s and local communities’ land rights are often not clear, leaving local people vulnerable to all types of projects in their areas. (2) NGOs that facilitate and implement REDD demonstration activities have their own agendas. For example, I was told that the Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation has a history of conservation projects where local people are prohibited from entering. BOSF therefore enjoyed little trust with the people I spoke with. From Dayak people village: “I personally worry that REDD will go like the national park project where they claim our forest”. (They use the forest for non-timber forest products such as rattan, rubber, food and medicine.) (3) My impression is that there is a huge lack of information at the village level about REDD, which raises concerns about effective FPIC. (The fact that FPIC is not recognized in Indonesian law is another concern).

  3. I came twice to KFCP area (Block A and E) in March and November 2009 for data collection to my PhD research. I stayed there with the Dayak people for about a month in November 2009, and had some discussions with local formally and informally. I also made many discussions with the top decision makers in the KFCP (in Palangkaraya) and IAFCP (in Jakarta), including workshop with all KFCP grass root facilitators and technical officers. After having engaged with KFCP and the Dayak People intesively and reading this article and comments made by others, I would like to inform you as follows:

    1. Kevin Rudd’s answers are relevant to the current situation on the field. There is nothing hiden in his answer. Regarding, the issue of Land Tenure, the KFCP is doing participatory mapping in all villages involving all indigenous people in the area. Refer to a KFCP’s trial participatory mapping at Mentangai Hulu, the local facilitators was successfully clarify the land tenure issue with the local people (i have those maps with land ownership explanantion and boundary). I believe the KFCP will be using the same approach throughout all villages. Let’s see what their result in the next few months.

    2. On methodological aspect, when I was there, it was quite right that up to November 2010, KFCP doesn’t have clear methodology to establish the baseline for REDD. However, they are preparing a methodology right now.

    3. As Rudd said, that the replantation tree program will be using the native or endemic species like Bengkirang tree and others. As far as I know, this types of species are strong enough to coop with wet conditions (including small to medium flood). No wonder they can survive as this wet area is their origin habitat.

    4. Canal Blocking issue has been a dillema since a long time ago. Currently there are still debates among community members. The group who opposed usually argue that they can’t get inside to their exploited land (information I’ve got that many of them actually use this canal to transport the “illegal” timber to the main river (Kapuas River). I’ve found the logs floating on the canal during my observation, and the boatman said that the logs cut by their community members).

    5. It’s true that BOSF had some issues with local people. However, as far as I know that BOSF involve in technical part (replantation, hidrolocial measurement, fire mgmt, etc.) of the KFCP. I don’t understand what sort of hidden agenda they have.

    6. I spoke with Some decision makers of IAFCP and KFCP in Ministry of Forestry and Bappenas (National Development Planning Agency). There is no intension to make a National Park in this area. Besides, you need to refer to the Ex-Mega Rice Master Plan (funded by the Dutch) that has been agreed by the Government. In this plan, it is clear that there is nothing mentioned about national park. One thing which must be clarified is the potential new institution so called KPH (Forest Management Unit) which will manage this KFCP area. The concept of KPH is still unclear at the moment for many people.

    7. I have a doubt that FPIC is not recognised in Indonesia. You should check Indonesia’s regulation carefully. As far as I know, for spatial planning law, Environmental laws, EIA regulations, and many other regulations required FPIC. The problem in Indonesia usually is the implementation of FPIC.

    One thing disturbing me when I was in the KFCP area is reduction of traditional values in the community members. For instance, many mature people do not understand their own traditional culture and they value everything with money. There is not much culture value exist in the community. Even if there is, it’s just a ceremonial repetitive activities in the community. The social capital was so poor as there is a poor trust among community members. Water and sanitation is also extremely poor. I raised this issue to few indigenous leaders (so called Mantri Adat) there and they admitted that it is true. This happen due to impact of logging concession in the Suharto’s era. The community had been taught to steal the timber and bribe the officials (even one of them admitted to did those illegal actions too). I think we must be carefully assessed the value of culture and tradition inside of the community members, and not trapped with the issue of Indigenous traditional Romanthism as many people suggested.

  4. So what is the 30 million for? Is Rudd using Australian tax payers money as a proper commercial venture on someone elses land.? (I think not) how could you possibly make a profit from carbon trading such a small area of land.
    what commercial returns could this project bring back to the people of Australia.

  5. That is interesting. I went to block E. Just a few comments to Medrilzam:
    1) BOSF came to the village I visited. So I would say their reputation matters.
    2) The people I spoke with said they reported illegal logging when they came across it. They had pictures of illegal logging and details about what had been done by the government in the different cases.
    3) The people I was with knew the trees used. They still thought they would drown.
    4) Instead of canal blocking they propose making fishing dams in the area, using the traditional Beje system. This would store water for dry periods.

    From what I understand the current situation is that canals are going to be blocked without obtaining the free, prior and informed consent of the relevant parties. Also, the people I spoke with in the Dayak village and two environmental organizations in Palangkaraya, were asking for an environmental assessment of the plans of KFCP.

    I would like to draw attention to a point made in the movie from AMAN and Gekko made by Suryato, the secretary to the village officer. He says that KFCP has only been socialized once in his community, and states: “If the socialization is conducted only once, it does not fully ensure that the people have understood it”. First of all he calls the meeting socialization, not consultation. When you hear things for the first time it is difficult to participate actively in a discussion. Second, the people in the village I visited had suggestions for how to rehabilitate the area and how to prevent forest fires but they never had the opportunity to include these in a planning stage of the KFCP.

    In my opinion REDD is about the issues that arise when a “modern way of thinking” meets a “traditional way of thinking” on a very big scale. The goals of reducing emissions from deforestation is clear, but without making these projects beneficial to the local communities as well, how does REDD become sustainable? I believe the answer lies in working much harder at appreciating and respecting the value of the traditional way of thinking. I heard the following type of statement many times during my month in Indonesia: Local communities and indigenous peoples that have their traditional wisdom know how to take care of the forest. They want to take care of the land, the forest and the water because that is what they pass on to their children.

    Displacement of people to new areas because of projects or transmigration can lead to negative effects on the environment. I would also assume that having all the forest around them, were they have been living for generations, cut down during the Mega Rice Project have had negative social impacts on the Dayak people. And there will be changes to the way traditional people live because of modernity. But I would strongly argue that that doesn’t mean one should discount their knowledge or their rights.

  6. communities and indigenous peoples that have their traditional wisdom know how to take care of the forest. They want to take care of the land, the forest and the water because that is what they pass on to their children.

    Could Rudd’s 30 million be part of a relocation aid package?

    I can not find one commercial reason or logical answer that this supposed project could ever be viable to the Australian tax payer , the people of the project areas or the Environment in reducing emissions.
    It could be on the other hand a Indonesian government pay off for another agenda.

    Displacement of people to new areas because of projects or transmigration can lead to negative effects on the environment. I would also assume that having all the forest around them, were they have been living for generations, cut down during the Mega Rice Project have had negative social impacts on the Dayak people. And there will be changes to the way traditional people live because of modernity. But I would strongly argue that that doesn’t mean one should discount their knowledge or their rights.

  7. For all colleagues, I am not defending the KFCP here but I just want to make the people see the fact and knows what happen on the field. Sometimes, we easily make some comments and create negative perceptions on some good things. Perhaps I also make same mistakes, so let’s create feedback for each other. Just a few comments to Kristine and Greenie Caps:

    1. as far as I know, KFCP uses BOSF based on their technical expertise related to biodiversity and hydrological aspects. BOSF works together with CARE International (or “beyond” CARE Int) as it is still facing difficulties to meet the indigenous people due to past issue.

    2. I cannot say that whatever the people said is true before I investigate it myself. Based on my experience at the KFCP, It is quite often that their words against the reality. For instance about the logging. They said that there is no more timbers cut by the community, but then I found out in Block E that they require 1-1.5 tree/family/month (certain species – I forget the local name) for fuel wood (this is the impact of soaring kerosene price due to subsidy cut recently by the government). Same situation happens in Block A too. I have counted that at least 11 Sawmills (5 are still operating) in both blocks along the river shore. The existence of those sawmills could possibly indicate that there are logging operations inside or around this area. As there are no private logging operations inside of these blocks and I’ve found out many timbers floating on the small rivers inside of the forest, community rubber tree plantations, and canals inside of KFCP area… hmmm… all those fact really makes me aware that I cannot believe 100% on what their saying.

    3. Have you ever looked at the plan made by KFCP? as far as I know there will be no canal blocking built in Block E. The canal blockings will only be applied to the canals made by Mega Rice Project in Block A. KFCP follows the recommendation made by the Ex-Mega Rice Master Plan Rehabilitation and Development. Perhaps what happended during Kristine’s interview was that the community in Block E received information from people in Block A (many of them are relatives) who received “socialization” program earlier. The people in block E assumed that the same activity will be conducted in their area. I also received same response from people in Block E, but then I explained to them what will happen according to KFCP plan.

    4. I fully agree that the “socialization” is not a good thing to do for the whole project activities. My understanding on the word “socialization” (I couldn’t find it Webster’s dictionary) in Bahasa Indonesia is a delivery of preliminary information prior to long process of participatory activities. I am Indonesian, and I did use this word too for my projects related to community participation. When I spoke with KFCP Manager in Palangkaraya, they really understand the steps to get into the community. “Socialization” was just the first activity that will be followed up by series of community participation activities. In the movie, the BOSF man said also the same thing. I also spoke and discussed the KFCP detail plan with the local facilitators which showed a good understanding on what to do with the plan.

    5. In the KFCP case, I don’t believe fully on the romanticism of cultural value. The people are modern as many of them using mobile phone (the mobile signal is strong enough to reach Block A – primarily – and Block E – low signal), Flat TV, and other modern equipments. They have been exposed to information from outside and negative habits from the loggers, which sadly ruin down their cultural value. We cannot simply trust them easily that they will keep the forest, water and land, because they also now receive strong pressure to survive for their live. Due to high inflation which causing community poor static income from old rubber tree (very low productivity) are diminishing, then, how can they survive without cutting the trees, harvesting the fish extensively and now illegaly doing gold minings on the river?. On the other hand, did you notice the water and sanitation condition there? I collected information that high Diarrhea disease persists in this area. In my experience in the water sector, poor water and sanitation indicates a lack of trust among the community member to work together to improve their livelihood. This also indicates a low social capital among the community members. This fact shows that there has to be an intervention to improve the situation before we hand it over the forest management to the community.

    To sum up, to implement REDD+ in a specific circumstances like in the KFCP area requires a careful approach. In REDD+, It’s true that people participation is a must, but they require a thorough understanding on the current situation of community. We must not trap on the cultural romanticism as this could also potentially create negative feedback to REDD+ implementation. It depends on the local context and we cannot make some generalization over all REDD+ project.

  8. Saya Nama : Simpun Sampurna
    kalau di panggil sehari-hari nama saya Dadut
    kalau di lihat dari penunjukan lokasi kerja KFCP yang berada di dua Kecamatan mantangai dan timpah ini sangat lah mengutungkan bagi masayarakat jika melihat niat baik dari pemerintah kita dan luar negeri. akan tetapi bagi masyarakat lokal ( Masyarakat Adat) yang hidup dari generasi ke genderasi adalah:
    1. KFPC adalah Sebuah ancaman atau sebaliknya. karena truma dari kasus yang terdahulu ( PLG)
    2. Masyarakat tidak mengerti dengan apa yang di rencanakan oleh Pemerintah Pusat dan propinsi serta kabupaten. sehingga ini harus di lakukan sosialisasi terus menerus agar masayarakat paham dan mengerti apa yang di lakukan KFCP. pekerjaan yang harus KFCP lakukan adalah terus menerus memberikan informasi untuk lokal (masyarakat adat)sehingga masyarakat bisa tahu tujuan yang akan di capai oleh KFCP.

    3. sampai saat ini kerancuan yang terjadi di masyarakat adalah :
    1. REDD memberikan Uang untuk masyarakat
    2. REDD merampas hak-hak masyarakat.
    3. Luka yang masih berkesan oleh PLG
    4. apa mamfaat REDD untuk masyarakat tidak jelas
    dari 1 sampai 4 harus ada orang-orang yang bisa menjelaskan ini untuk masyarakat entah melalui sosialisasi atau dalam bentuk apa? sehingga informasi yang utuh tentang REDD di ketahui Lokal (masyarakat adat) dapatkan sehingga tidak muncol ada pendugaaan yang salah tapsir. karena kurangnya pengetahuan masyarakat lokal tentang bahasa REDD ini sehingga KFCP selalu di anggap salah terus walaupun apaun yang di perbuat oleh KFCP selalu di anggap salah apapun itu.

    5. konflik masyarakat dengan BOS dari dahulu, dengan masuknya BOS dalam kerja-kerja KFCP ini membuat presiden buruk untuk KFCP dengan masa lalu BOS. ini membuat masyarakat adat semakin menanmbah tapsiran dengan konservasi yang dilakukan adalah memeberi bantuan ujung-ujungnya adalah merampas hak-hak masyarakat adat. seperti yang di lakukan BOS. ini harus ada penjelasan untuk masyarakat adat,agar KFCP tahu keadaan masyarakat. harus tahu terlebih dahulu jika membawa bos kedalam kerja-kerja KFCP tentang BOS troma ini yang membuat masyarakat adat semakin membenci KFCP

    Berbicara tentang sosialisasi adalah : setuju atau tidak setuju wajib kita hukumnya adalah menjelaskan pilot REDD KFCP di Masyarakat Adat

    Kita mengedepankan adalah FPIC dalam melakukan kegiatan appaun

    Melibatkan semua pihak itu harus dilakukan dengan cara apapun

    KFCP harus membuka akses Informasi untuk masyarakat adat

    demikian komentar ku


  9. Selamat pagi dan salam sejahtera untuk semua teman di interaksi redd monitor.

    saya baru mengetahui kalau ada web redd monitor setelah di beritahu seorang teman. dan salah satunya isi surat lembaga lokal kalteng kepada parlement australia. Memang Redd monitor memberikan tempat untuk interaksi – tetapi yang lebih penting adalah untuk memberikan informasi baru.

    Dari iteraksi di redd monitor, dengan kerendahan hati, saya mau berbagi informasi singkat kepada kawan, berdasarkan pengalaman saya bekerja di kalteng khususnya di PLG 1 juta hektar. Saya pertama sekali menginjak kaki di mega proyek PLG awal bulan November 1996 – waktu itu saya mendapat tugas dari Walhi Nasional untuk memimpin tim advokasi mega proyek PLG 1 juta hektar. Waktu itu, siatuasi genting, semua rakyat ketakutan, atas tekanan regime, dan tim di tuduh PKI oleh pemerintah dengan menggunakan serdadu hijau di tingkat desa.

    Ada 77 desa, di 3 Kabupaten dan 1 kota palangkaraya sebanyak 82.000 jiwa rakyat terancam oleh mega proyek ini. Padahal saya dan tim tdk mengetahui seperti apa medan peperangan di tingkat lapang. Singkat cerita, advokasi mega proek berhasil oleh rakyat di batalkan. pas tanggal 18 November 1998, Menteri Pertanian atas nama pemerintah indonesia menyatakan proyek Gagal dan tidak di lanjutkan. Paska mega proyek, mulai lah lembaga2 international berdatangan yang mengklaim untuk merehabilitasi eks PLG 1 juta hektar, seperti Wetland, BOS Mawas, Care Internetional, dan banyak lagi. Saya bertanya juga, dulu waktu pertempuran sengit mega proyek ini mereka pada kemana? atau jangan2 konsfirasi proyek rehablitasi hehehehe dalam benak saya.

    Dari penelusuran sejarah yang saya lakukan, bahwa di wilayah proyek PLG adalah konsesi HPH PT Jayatnti yang membabat habis hutan sejak konsesi di berikan tahun 1978 (1980), sampai 1995 konsesi HPH PT Jayanti habis terus di ganti dengan IPK-IPK untuk mega proyek – hampir semua kayu jenis ramin masuk ke hilir PT Barito Pasifik Tinber Group dan group raja Kayu Bb Hasan.

    Di sisi lain, di wilayah blok E yang saat ini di jadikan areal Konservasi Mawas ada 7 sumur minyak yang pernah di eksplorasi tahun 1920-1930 oleh perusahaan minyak Belanda-INggris (yang sekarang PT Shell), dan ada bahan tambang GAS di wilayah Danau Geritik, ada bahan tambah Sirkon terbaik di dunia, dan ada batu bara terbesar di Kalimantan Tengah di bawah cekungan eks PLG di wilayah Blok E.

    Lantas, ini polirik konservasi seperi apa yang akan di buat, apakah konservasi MONYET BESAR BERWARNA MERAH (ORANG UTAN), REDD..? atau nanti tahun 2040 atau 2050 akan ada PERPU TAMBANG DI HUTAN LINDUNG ATAU REDD..?

    LALU apa hubungannya dengan: 1) BOS MAWAS mendapat dana 3 juta dollar dari PT Shell untuk pembangunan areal Konservasi Mawas periode 2004 – 2007. 2) Proyek Pemerintah + Parlemen Belanda sebesar 5 juta euro priode tahun 2006 – 2008 – 3) proyek KFCP yang REDD — apa hubungannnya dengan BHP Billiton di hulu wilayah eks PLG, dan apa hubungnnya dengan kebijakan australia atas tambang batu bara…semua mesti di ungkap TUNTAS

    Hal lain, bahwa masyarakat sejak paska kemerdekaan RI dari Belanda, Masyarakat lokal sampai saat ini memperjuangkan hak-hak atas wilayah kelola adat gambut – yang sampai saat ini belum diberikan atau di kembalikan. Padahal peperangan kasus PLG 1 juta hektar, Pemerintah Indonesia secara tegas telah memberikan atau mengembalikan tanah adat, hak ulayat milik masyarakat adat Ngaju sejauh pandangan hak-hak masyarakat adat oleh pemerintah Indonesia …dari perundingan kasus PLG 1 juta hektar.

    tetapi dengan gagahnya, lembaga lembaga INternational merasa benar sendiri, coba lihat betapa congkak nya BOS, Care, Wetland, KFCP, sudah merasa menjadi pahlawan bisa menyelamatkan Gambut. Kalau dipikir, siapa yang bertempur habis-habisan perang dengan regime soeharto atas mega proyek — lalu pada kemana tuh lembaga2 tersbut dan orang2 yang sekarang merasa menjadi pahlawan — kalau era 1996 – 1998 – masyarakat adat Ngaju tidak bersatu dan berani melawan Seharto — apakah akan ada proyek2 tabat kanal, konservasi, dlsb..?

    saya mengapresiasi semua pikiran2 kawan2 yang berinteraksi di redd monitor, dan sejak jaman dulu, masyarakat adat Ngaju tidak pernah merusak hutan gambut, dalam pandangan atau ideologinya rang Ngaju. HUTAN GAMBUT ADALAH DARAH, AIR SUSU IBU NYA YANG MENGALIR DALAM NADI KEHIDUPAN sejak lama, AKAN SANGAT BODOH KALAU ORANGNGAJU MERUSAK HUTANNYA. Karena bila itu dilakukan maka ORANG NGAJU AKAN BUNUH DIRI SENDIRI.

    Kalau soal pake kayu bakar, buat rumah tebang pohon — biar bukan orang ngaju juga pake…lihat saja berapa banyak orang di kota buat rumah pake kayu..? dan berapa banyak orang ngaju pake kayu…? ada 05% dari kebutuhan orang kota yang tidak pernah menanam pohon. Suku ngaju kalau tanam rotan 1 hektar, dia akan menanam pohon sebanyak 200 pohon, bahkan lebih, jadi kalau orang ngaju punya 1000 hekar, maka dia akan punya pohon kayu sekitar 200.000 pohon. Lalu PT Jayanti pernah kah menanam pohon? lalu orang kota pernah kah menanam pohon untuk buat rumahnya?
    ini ungkapan rada subyektif – karena ada banyak kita menyalahkan suku Dayak Ngaju atas situasi proyek REDD — di Kalteng. Negara Australia gak usah urus hutan Indonesia deh, wong di negaranya masih banyak ilegal logging – kunjungan staf petak danum ke australia November 2010 – menunjukan laporan kuat, masih ada ilegal logging di hutan2 australia yang dilaukan oleh para cukong2…hahahahah cukong ada dimana mana.

    beresin dulu pengelolaan hutan australia — baru bicara beresin hutan indonesia. Beresin dulu kebijakan pemerintah Indoensia atas pengelolaan sumberdaya alam, baru kita bicara REDD.


    Koesnadi Wirasapoetra
    kontak 081288044608

    silahkan hubungi saya bila mau mendiskusikan secara dalam

  10. dari link web kompasiana

    Mempertanyakan Komitmen KFCP.
    OPINI | 27 February 2011 | 19:30 59 0 Nihil

    Pada 5 november 2010 silam, petugas keamanan PT Restorasi Ekosistem Indonesia ( Reki ) menangkap empat warga kecamatan Bajubang-Jambi. PT Reki merupakan pengelola proyek percontohan REDD plus di Jambi. Upaya tersebut merupakan bentuk intimadasi proyek REDD terhadap hak kelola rakyat.

    Kejadian di Jambi tentunya tidak ingin terulang di Kalimantan Tengah. Terutama di wilayah Mantangai dan Katunjung-Kabupaten Kapuas tempat dilaksanakannya proyek percontohan REDD. Meskipun pihak Kalimantan Forest and Climate Partnhersif (KFCP) sebagai pelaksana proyek REDD kerap mengelak, bahwa proyeknya tidak akan mencaplok lahan milik warga, namun pelaksanaan dilapangan berbuat lain. Contohnya program penanaman pohon di desa Mantangai Hulu seluas 25 hektare saat ini masih sengketa, karena di areal tersebut terdapat lahan warga.

    Program REDD untuk menanggulangi emisi gas rumah kaca dikhawatirkan mengusir warga dari tanah kelolanya, Karena poyek REDD harus steril dari aktivitas warga.

    Selama ini KFCP belum mampu menjelaskan secara menyeluruh terkait REDD kepada warga penerima dampak proyek. Yang di ketahui warga, REDD hanya menanam pohon, menabat kanal dan mendapat upah atas pekerjaannya itu. Dana sebesar 30 juta dolar Australia hanya mampu di terapkan untuk penabatan kanal, penanaman pohon 25 ha di Mantangai Hulu dan 25 ha di Katunjung. Itupun, jika pohonnya tumbuh dengan baik dan bebas dari bahaya kebakaran. Entah, jika tabat ambruk dan tanaman terbakar, uang sebanyak 30 juta dolar Australia untuk program REDD di Katunjung dan Mantangai nyaris tak berbekas. Kecuali dinikmati artis Dangdut yang dibayar untuk mempertontonkan auratnya didepan anak-anak dan dewasa.

    KFCP mengklaim aktivitasnya membantu masyarakat dalam upaya melestarikan hutan. Namun ketika hutan di gusur oleh sawit dan tambang, suara KFCP sama sekali tak terdengar.

  11. Questioning the commitment KFCP.
    February 27, 2011 | 19:30 59 0 Nil

    On 5 November 2010 ago, the security officer of PT Indonesia Ecosystem Restoration (Reki) arrested four citizens Bajubang sub-Jambi. PT Reki is a plus REDD pilot project manager in Jambi. That effort was a form intimadasi REDD project to manage people’s rights.

    Occurrence in Jambi certainly do not want repeated in Central Kalimantan. Especially in the area and Katunjung Mantangai-Kapuas place REDD pilot project implementation. Although the Kalimantan Forest and Climate Partnhersif (KFCP) as the implementing REDD projects often evasive, that his project is not going to annex land owned by residents, but the implementation of the field do otherwise. For example tree planting program in the village of Upper Mantangai large 25 hectares is still disputed, because there is land in the area residents.

    REDD program to tackle greenhouse gas emissions feared to expel people from the land of governance, because poyek REDD should be sterile from the activities of citizens.

    During this KFCP not been able to explain thoroughly the REDD related to the resident receiving the impact of the project. Where known citizens, REDD just plant trees, menabat canal and be rewarded for his work. Funds amounting to 30 million Australian dollars can only be applied to penabatan canals, planting trees on 25 ha and 25 ha Mantangai Hulu on Katunjung. Even then, if the tree is growing well and free from fire hazards. Whether, if the dignity of plants collapsed and burned, the money as much as 30 million Australian dollars for REDD program in Katunjung and Mantangai almost without trace. Unless enjoyed Dangdut artist who paid for exposing his private parts in front of children and adults.

    KFCP claiming their activities help the community in an effort to preserve the forest. But when the forest in Drag by oil and mining, KFCP sound completely inaudible.

  12. It just look like Australia tends to colonize Indonesian forest caused by the fail of its country to support and ratified Kyoto protocol as product of UNFCCC through reducing emission produced by Australian industries. But in this involvement (not cooperation), Australia is seen as the hero that will help Indonesia rather than requiring help as a reality. To be seen that this countries aware on global climate change, Australia meets Indonesia’s effort on mitigation matter with lack financial support, but on the other hand do not want to reduce its national emission. Is it economics principle? It is very ridiculous if you are a developed country.
    And how about annual forest fire in Australia? Is there any positive progress? or does it just wait for another moment to burn in larger forest area?
    Who does really need aid in this situation for rescuing its credibility on the international level?
    Hopefully, Australia can develop cooperation in fairness without stupid arrogance.

  13. Australia has huge problems in its own backyard and Australia is far from being rich or wealthy.
    As mentioned before why has Australia not fast tracked REDD+ in Australia? but choose to waste tax payers money in Indonesia .
    The whole excersise has nothing to do with reducing emissions , but a land tenure aquasition or security and comfort that another country has not the same rainforest area.

    Forest fires in Australia are part of the environment, the Australian bush needs annual fires as a requirement of its bio diversity.
    The only problem is that Australia builds houses and towns in fire areas.

  14. I was appaled by the lack of real acknowledgement and inclusion of indigenous community rights on every REDD proposal so far. The protection to the rights of indigenous community over their territory and livelihoods is very weak though they feel the impacts of REDD activities the most.

    The unclear scheme of KFCP will give benefits only to Australia who get the carbon credit and continue to do its business usual emitting large carbon to the air and to Indonesian officials who receive the money, leaving the indigenous community in a confused state. Only an El Nino year will tell if the rehabilation is a success.

  15. While the FPIC process is ongoing alongside with other activities, where some of them have started already some time ago, is it even realistic to expect that even if participant communities decide to say “no” they would actually do it? The process ineherently implies that this is more of a formality rather than truly bottom-up approach, which would build on PRIOR agreement of stakeholders, and only after their consent.