How Indonesia controls the narrative on deforestation under the new REDD deal with Norway

By Chris Lang

In September 2022, Indonesia and Norway signed another REDD deal. The new agreement comes a year after Indonesia scrapped the previous US$1 billion REDD deal with Norway, signed in May 2010. The new REDD deal is even worse than the previous one.

Indonesia scrapped the previous deal because Norway didn’t hand over the money. In a September 2021 statement, Indonesia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs states that the decision to scrap the deal was based on,

the lack of concrete progress on the implementation of the obligation of the government of Norway to deliver the results-based payment for Indonesia’s achievement in reducing 11,2 million CO₂eq greenhouse gas emissions in 2016/2017 . . .

Obviously, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs didn’t mention the fact that Indonesia’s calculation of 11.2 million tonnes of avoided emissions excludes emissions from peatlands or that if emissions from peatlands were included there may well be no reduction in emissions, and therefore no results-based payments from Norway.

A new REDD deal with Norway

On 12 September 2022, Siti Nurbaya Bakar, Indonesia’s minister of environment and forestry, and Espen Barth Eide, Norway’s minister of climate and environment, signed a memorandum of understanding on a “Partnership in support of Indonesia’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from forestry and other land use.”

Eide told Mongabay that,

It’s good for Indonesia, it’s good for Norway, it’s good for the planet because all of our efforts to reduce our emissions from energy, from the industry, from transport, would all be in vain if we don’t look after the carbon sink we already have.

Norway will be paying for rain and cheap palm oil prices

The Memorandum of Understanding recognises Indonesia’s results in reducing emissions from forestry and other land use, which it states are “as a result of a comprehensive set of policies pursued by the Indonesian government”.

That is an extremely controversial assumption.

Deforestation in Indonesia hit a record high in 2016, since when it has fallen, as data from Global Forest Watch shows:

Indonesia’s forest ministry argues that the deforestation rate is falling because of a ban on new permits to clear primary forests and peatlands, a moratorium on licenses for new oil palm plantations, better control of forest fires, a social forestry programme, and better enforcement of environmental regulations.

But increased rainfall has also played a role. The weather in 2020 was extremely wet. 2021 saw above normal rainfall in many areas of the country. Obviously this means fewer and less intense forest fires.

Commodity prices have also influenced the rate of deforestation. The price of palm oil fell from 2011 to 2020. It increased dramatically in 2021 and hit an all time high in March 2022. Since when it has fallen, equally dramatically. A study published in March 2022 found that,

A price decline of 1% was associated with a 1.08% decrease in new industrial plantations and with a 0.68% decrease of forest loss.

The economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have also led to less logging. Mufthi Fathul Barri, of Forest Watch Indonesia, told Mongabay that,

“The disruption to economic activity can be seen from timber production from natural forests, which declined. In 2019, Indonesia produced timber from 8.4 million hectares of natural forests. In 2020, it was 6.6 million hectares.”

Another problem is that monoculture tree plantations of acacia and eucalyptus for the pulp and paper industry are counted as forest. 2020 saw a drop in harvesting for the pulp and paper industry – and therefore an apparent drop in deforestation. In 2019, logging of industrial tree plantations accounted for 60% of the total deforestation rate.

And then there’s the food estate programme, which is clearing large areas of land, as documented by The Gecko Project and Tempo:

Confidentiality clause

Included in the MoU is a paragraph about confidentiality and another about data management and publication. This is clearly Indonesia’s attempt to control the information that is publicly available about this REDD deal. The two paragraphs also appear to be in contradiction with Norway’s freedom of information laws.

Norway’s 2006 Freedom of Information Act gives access to government documents. Exemptions are included in the Act for information relating to national security and foreign policy. Generally speaking, it’s pretty good. It has a searchable database of documents.

Occasionally, however, documents are withheld. For example in 2018, REDD-Monitor requested a document titled “Rapport fra tjenestereise – Indonesia 2015” (Report from business trip – Indonesia 2015). When I appealed the decision not to release the document, I was told that “The document was prepared for Norad’s internal use,” and would therefore not be released in according with Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act. Section 14 states that

An administrative agency may exempt from access any document which it has drawn up for its internal preparation of a case.

But the MoU with Indonesia goes much further in restricting access to documents:

PARAGRAPH 6
CONFIDENTIALITY

1. Partners observe the confidentiality of the documents, information and other data received from the other Partner during the implementation of this MoU.
2. Partners set forth further arrangements regarding disclosure of confidential information under this MoU in a contribution agreement.
3. The provisions of this Paragraph will continue to apply notwithstanding the termination of this MoU.

In other words, no documents are going to be released relating to this REDD deal. Ever.

The MoU also includes a clause requiring written consent of the other country prior to the publication of books or journal articles relating to the REDD deal:

PARAGRAPH 8
DATA MANAGEMENT AND PUBLICATION

1. Partners exchange and share data and information obtained in the implementation of this MoU.
2. Partners set forth further arrangement regarding the use of data and information obtained through their cooperation, in a contribution agreement. Neither Partner transfer confidential or proprietary data/information obtained in the implementation of this MoU to third parties without the prior written consent of the other Partner.
3. Partners arrange details regarding data management and publication in a contribution agreement. Partners disclose to the other Partner, the content of any proposed publication of books or journal articles based on cooperation under this MoU, prior to their publication, and obtain the Partner’s written consent prior to such publication. Partners will endeavor to coordinate on forms of outreach resulting from their cooperation. This Paragraph does not apply to either Partner’s annual reporting requirements.

This amounts to censorship, by the Indonesian government, with the approval of the Norwegian government.

Indigenous Peoples and civil society excluded

The MoU makes no mention of Indigenous Peoples. The only mention of Indigenous Peoples and local communities whose livelihoods are dependent on the forests, and who are the best protectors of the forest, is a reference to “the important role played by local and adat communities, and other various local stakeholders as active participants in strategies to protect forests and reduce emissions from forestry and other land use”.

There is no mention of land rights in the MoU. Neither is there any mention of illegal logging. Or the destructive impact of the palm oil and pulp and paper industries on Indonesia’s forests.

David Aled Williams, Sofie Arjon Schuette, and Kari Telle are senior researchers at the Chr. Michelsen Institute, a development research organisation in Norway. They recently wrote an article for Development Today highlighting the absence of civil society and independent scientific research in the new REDD deal.

They write that the 2010 REDD deal,

emphasized a multi-stakeholder approach, including the establishment of a National REDD+ Agency, with many members drafted-in from civil society. This was complemented by further Norwegian support to civil society, for example to religious and indigenous peoples’ groups to help them engage with anti-deforestation efforts.

In 2015, the REDD+ Agency was closed down, and its responsibilities moved to the Ministry of Environment and Forestry.

Williams, Schuette, and Telle note that independent researchers and civil society have played an important role in questioning whether reductions in deforestation in recent years are actually linked to measure put in place under the 2010 Letter of Intent. They write that,

[Independent researchers and civil society] also point out that the calculations underestimate Indonesia’s forest carbon emissions by excluding massive CO₂ emissions from peat-soil decomposition and burning, which are typically related to forestland clearance.

Williams, Schuette, and Telle note that Indonesia’s score on an index by Freedom House has fallen from 65 to 59 over the last five years. Indonesia is rated as “partly free”.

“Systemic corruption, discrimination and violence against minority groups, conflicts in resource rich Papua and other regions, and the politicized use of defamation and blasphemy laws, undermine Indonesia’s further development into a free and prosperous nation,” Williams, Shuette, and Telle write.

And they conclude:

That the Indonesian authorities wish to control the narrative on the performance of its environmental policies, including its climate and environment deal with Norway, unfortunately reinforces this autocratic turn. Indeed, both foreign and Indonesian scientists focused on the environment already report major obstacles from Indonesian authorities in publishing their findings.