The Policy of long-term REDD Implementation as an Alternative Solution on Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Indonesia

This article was made as an assignment of public policy analysis lecture at Master Public Administration faculty of University of Gadja Mada-Jogyakarta-Indonesia.

By Emilianus Yakob Sese Tolo



I. Introduction

Between 8 million and 16 million hectares of tropical forest was destroyed yearly in the 1980s and 1990s, sending from 0.8 billion to 2.4 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere. Deforestation causes about 20% of global warming, about as much as the United States, the world’s leading emitter. There are many drivers of deforestation, and they vary a great deal by region. Major causes of deforestation include cattle pasture, industrial agriculture (soy, oil palm), and logging of tropical timbers for export, largely in South America, South East Asia and Central Africa. Global greenhouse gas emissions from developed and developing country fossil fuels and tropical deforestation must start to come down in the next decade if warming is to remain below 2°C by 2050. Global warming will have major effects on the world’s forests, and will very likely accelerate the destruction of tropical forests. Forest fires and dying trees can double carbon emissions in El Nino and other dry years. In the 1998 El Nino event, peat and forest fires in Indonesia released 0.8 – 2.6 billion extra tons of carbon into the atmosphere. Many climate models predict a warmer, dryer climate in tropical regions under business-as-usual scenarios, and some project that large part of the Amazon forest could become savanna. Unchecked, climate change will devastate the forests’ immense species diversity and the resource base on which indigenous and forest people depend.

Because of above fact, REDD efforts to tackle the worse coming impacts of global warming. REDD is a project on how to reduce emission of Green House Gases (GHGs). The impact of GHGs is global climate changes. For this negative impact, REDD, in this case, by its project, promotes every country, notably tropical forest countries, to take care and to improve its own forest so that the climate change can be prevented as soon as possible. For the countries that are successful in reducing their rates of emission by taking care and improving their forest would be eligible to receive benefit through incentives.

Indonesia as a country that has a big tropical forest could take part on this project so as to get benefit on carbon quote trade. Indonesian forest land is about 60 % of the country area. It is really important not only for national economy development and livelihood of local people, but also for global environment. Indonesia is the home of mega diversity and one of the custodians of the world tropical peat land. Peat land alone, recorded as the highest carbon storage as well as source of emission, covers about 10 percent of the country area, and plays important role not only for environment, but also economic and social functions. But now Indonesian forest has been jeopardized by high rate of deforestation. Most of the forests have been logged both by legal and illegal logging. Therefore, Indonesia should take part on REDD project so as to overcome the threat of high rate of deforestation either in the present or in future time. Taking part in this project means that Indonesian must support REDD project and REDD itself should be implemented as a national policy. By implementing REDD as a national policy, sustainable forest management, rehabilitation of degraded forest and non-forest land and better protected area management could come true in Indonesia. Thereafter, it could contribute positively in reducing global emission and restoration of other global environmental function. This paper will outline, prove and justify that REDD implementation in Indonesia is urgent and evitable.

II. REED and the Depict of Indonesian Forest

2.1. What is REDD?

REDD is mostly known as an abbreviation of Reduction Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. But, actually, REDD is a project of developed countries for reduction emission of GHGs by improving forest and its sustainable forest management. For this end, REDD needs tropical forest countries to take part on this project so as to get benefit from this project. For countries that are successful in reducing their rate of emission through improved forest protection and sustainable protection methods would eligible to receive benefits on the basis of carbon credits saved. Many scientists say that by REDD the emission of GHGs and global warming could be slowed. Dr. William Laurance, one of the scientists, says that conserving tropical forests could ultimately be one of the cheapest ways we have available to slow global warming.

For preventing climate change by REDD project, some industrialized countries have prepared some funds. These funds will be given for some tropical countries that could establish sustainable forest. At U.N. climate talks in Bali, the World Bank officially unveiled its $300 million Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, a scheme that will offer tropical countries carbon offset credits to preserve forests. The bank said that nine industrialized countries have pledged US$155 million to kick-start the 10-year initiative, including Germany (US$59 million), the United Kingdom ($30 million), the Netherlands ($22 million), Australia and Japan ($10 million each), France and Switzerland ($7 million each), and Denmark and Finland ($5 million each). But, the United States, which has contributed the highest emission in the world, has contributed $0.

Nowadays, the participation of developed countries in this project is getting more and more. The urbanized countries realize that the causes of global warming are various. The most cause of global warming is industrialized activities. Deforestation and forest degradation can lead to emission of carbon dioxide from carbon store in trees when they are burnt or decay or from soil when they erode or dry out. For reducing global warming is impossible by reducing industrialized activities. The only and cheap way to mitigate global warming is by revitalizing the function of forest as a carbon store. That is why, many industrialized countries want to take part in REDD project by giving some funds for this project. And, approximately, 30 tropical countries in Africa, Latin America and the Asia-Pacific will receive REDD funds.

2.2. How REDD Works?

REDD is based on the simple theory that financial incentives are offered to developing countries to put in place new policies and measures to reduce emissions from deforestation or forest degradation. The size of emissions reductions is determined by comparing achieved deforestation rates against a reference scenario (commonly called a ‘baseline’) (Figure 1). The reference scenario is a scenario of what would have happened in the absence of the policy or measure. This can be established by looking at historical trends in deforestation and extrapolating these into the future; by modeling future trends using knowledge of drivers of deforestation; or by a combination of these methods. As time progresses, payments (likely to be made per tone of emissions reduced) are made, usually once emissions reductions have been verified.


Figure 1: REDD baseline and credit theory.
But it is important to note that this kind of REDD baseline and credit theory is not good if it is implemented for countries with a very low rate of deforestation and forest degradation. That is why; an alternative to a modeled baseline is one that is set up according to the carbon stock existing at the commencement of the REDD commitment. The payment will be made based on the total carbon stock that will be retained in the forest future. For instance, in Indonesia, the two highest are Sumatra which contributes 60% of the total 257 million tone CO2 per year, and Kalimantan which contributes 23%. So regions with lower deforestation rates may not benefit from REDD payment to the same degree as the ‘smoking province’.

In theory, in order to reduce deforestation the payments have to cover the enforcement and/or opportunity costs associated with the change in behavior away from deforestation related activities. These drivers of deforestation may include activities such as logging, agricultural expansion etc. Rules for the types of potential emission reduction Policies and Measures (PAMs) have not yet been defined either internationally or in national schemes and could include any activity that reduces deforestation in both pristine and managed forests. They could also include a complete halt to deforestation in a given area (e.g. through fully enforced protected areas) or a reduced rate (e.g. through more sustainable logging practices). In practice, it may not be the case that all opportunity costs are covered. Strengthened policing, for example, may well reduce deforestation but this does not mean that those losing out have to be compensated. In such cases, REDD might result in welfare losses for certain stakeholders, and possibly the poor, or alternatively stakeholders will choose to ignore PAMs. It is also important to note that the evaluation of opportunity costs has tended to dominate debates about REDD mechanisms. They may be an important tool for analysis of different REDD options, but they may be more applicable for certain stakeholders (e.g. logging companies) than to the poor where issues such as the timing and distribution of benefits may have more important implications. These issues are explored in later sections.

PAMs can also have either a reward or compensation function. A reward incentives a positive change in behavior (e.g. through changed land management practices such as implementation of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM)) and compensation would cover foregone opportunity costs (e.g. loss of access to forest products). It is likely that in any REDD scheme, a combination of positive incentives, compensation and stronger enforcement will be required. For example, if REDD is achieved through strengthened policing of forest areas the incentive would be going towards those implementing the policing and the compensation going towards those that have to change their behavior as a result of policing. In some PAMs, incentives and compensation will align. For example, if policies on agricultural intensification are used to ‘draw people away from forest margins’ REDD would both be incentivising this change and providing an alternative income source. As mentioned above, in theory for REDD to work, all opportunity costs would need to be covered through compensation, to ensure that behavior change occurs.

The important point is that the choice of PAMs will effect the whole structure of the REDD mechanism by determining who is being incentives to do what and who needs to be compensated. Crucially, REDD PAMs will also determine the success or failure of REDD to result in deforestation in many instances. For example, improved law enforcement or a local Payments for Environmental Service (PES) schemes in a given area may have similar effects on deforestation in that area but the REDD mechanism and the stakeholders involved will be very different. It follows that the implications for the poor will also vary.

2.3. The Picture of Indonesian Forest and Its Problem

Indonesia is a country in Southeast Asia which has big tropical forest. For all over the world, Indonesia is a third biggest tropical forest after Brazil. It has made Indonesia a green country and will be “a heart of the world”. Economically, Indonesia would benefit a lot from its broad forest. In the forest, there are so many potentialities that could be useful for increasing human welfare. Besides logs, there are other potentialities like rattan, flowers, honey, medicine, fruits, wild animal and so on that could be an alternative livelihood for both locals living around the forest and people living far away for the forest. Even Indonesia is only 1.3 percent of the total wide of land as whole from all over the world, it has 11 percent of flora species in the world. Besides, it has 10 percent of mammal species of total mammals in the world, and it has 16 percent of bird species in the world.
If Indonesia could administer well its forest, the welfare of whole people would be reached. The richness of potentiality of Indonesia forest has been realized by Indonesia people since long time ago. That is why; they go inside the forest for taking what they could be living with. But, they take it in a proper way. They do not demolish the forest. It happened not because of no modern facilities like chain saw or something else, but because they respect the forest. They consider the forest as something valuable and need to be appreciated.

If it is taken a look to some of local traditions regarding the forest continuance, it will be found that those traditions give good reason clearly that Indonesian people from long time ago have respected forest like human being. For Flores people as a whole regard and realize that forest as a “mother”. As a “mother”, forest has given food, shelter and protection for human being. Therefore, there is a local rite called Barong Wae, especially for Manggaraian people, which aims to give thanks for forest as a “mother” who has loved her children. In Maluku-seram, there has been a local ritual of protecting the forest. This ritual is called Pantahari. In this ritual, the local leader will chose a forest guard that is called Kewang. The Kewang has a main duty to protect the forest from the deforestation done by local people or outsider. Mostly, Kewang is a man who is physically strong. If Kewang catch a person who is logging the forest, she or he will be punished locally by hitting with a stick in front of public eye. These rites, Barong Wae and Pantahari, are still surviving up to now.

These rites justify that Indonesia people have realized that forest has an important role for human life. But now, the awareness of respecting the forest is fading away. Many forests have been on fire and logged for the need of a few people only. The deforestation rate is getting higher and higher every year. And it has brought catastrophe for Indonesian people. Drought, aridity, floods, landslide, erosion, climate change have caused agony for Indonesian people.

In the year of 1950, the large of Indonesia forest is 162,290,000 hectares. Out of 162,290,000 hectares, Kalimantan has 51,400,000 hectares. Sumatra has 37,370,000 hectares. Maluku has 7,300,000 hectares. Java has 5,070,000 hectares. Bali, Nusa Tenggara Barat and Nusa Tenggara Timur have 3,400,000 hectares. But, now, because of high rate of deforestation, it is approximately 64 hectares have lost. Therefore, Indonesia forest, in the year of 2006, is only 98 million hectares. This fact will surely lead Indonesia into great negative impacts of deforestation.

Historically, deforestation in Indonesia has happened since the occupation of Dutch. In the year of 1939, Dutch government opened a big scale of estate. For this end, it is around 2.5 million hectares of forest was cleared. But it was only 1.2 hectares was used for the estates. But during Japan occupation up to the year of 1950, there was no deforestation. Between 1950 and 1960, mostly the aim of deforestation was for opening rice field. It could reach 4.6 million hectares.

In the era of 1970, rate of deforestation was getting higher and became a serious problem. Timber industries were mounting up. The forests were logged with the economic proposes for enhancing national economic income. Some forests were conversed for non-forest area. Concessions of forest were given for some businessmen. This was the start point of high deforestation in Indonesia.

In the year of 1985, the wide of Indonesian forest was 119 million hectares. It means that Indonesia forest has lost for 27 percent compare to the year of 1950. And between 1970 and 1990, the rapid of deforestation was estimated more or less 0.6 – 1.2 per year. But, this estimation was at once corrected by a survey done by Indonesian Government and World Bank in the year of 1999. This survey said that between 1984 and 1997 the quick of deforestation in Indonesia was 1.7 million per year. Further, this survey said that during this period (1985 and 1997) the highest deforestation was happened notably in the three islands Kalimantan, Sulawesi and Sumatra. And this survey, it was concluded that Indonesia has lost 72 percent of its origin forest.

On the contrary, according to Prof. Dr. Soekotjo, a professor at forestry faculty of University of Gadja Mada, the rapid of deforestation of last 20 years is able to reach up to 2 hectares per year. And, between 1985 and 1997, the deforestation of Indonesian forest is 22.46 million hectares. It means that the average of deforestation is 1, 6 million hectare per year. Further, Soekotjo said that there are four drivers of deforestation. They are over logging, illegal logging, forest firing and conversion from forest to non-forest. These causes should be banned immediately if Indonesia wants to build its sustainable forest management.

But, in period of 1997 and 2000, it was discovered new fact that the rapid of deforestation in Indonesia is getting higher. It was 3.8 million hectares per year. This fact made Indonesia was categorized as a country with a highest deforestation rate in the world. An article on New Scientist (2002) predicted that the rapid of deforestation in the year of 2002 was 3.6 million hectares per year which is according to Unite Nations as a highest rapid of deforestation in the world. If the deforestation is counted as 2.5 million per year, it means that every minute there are 5 hectares of deforestation. Or every second, the wide of deforestation is 12 times of a football field.

Based on the exposed data, the rate of deforestation in Indonesia is quite high. In the year of 2003/2004, deforestation has been 101.73 million hectares. Out of 101.73 million hectares, 44.2 million was on production forest, 10.52 million hectares was inside the protected forest, 4.69 million hectares was on the conservation forest, and the rest was outside of forest area. Tempo Interaktif on March 2004 expounded that in the span of 10 last years, the rate of deforestation can reach up to 2 million hectares per year. And on March 2007, it exposed that the rapid of deforestation is 300 times of a football field per hour.

In Indonesia, the highest rate of deforestation happened in Sumatra, Sulawesi and Kalimantan. That is why; World Bank forecasted that the forest in the downstream land, except in the swamp area, of Sumatra and Kalimantan will be gone in the span of 5-10 years more. Further, it predicted that in the year of 2010 Sumatra and Kalimantan will only have forest in the upstream land. Most of Sumatra's lowland rainforest has been cleared by loggers and for oil palm plantations. Because of high rate of deforestation, Sumatra and Kalimantan is categorized as “smoking provinces”. Out of 257 million tones of total CO2 emission from Indonesia per year, Sumatra and Kalimantan contributes 60% and 23%. The rest of 17% is from other parts of Indonesia.

The facts above justify that Indonesian Forest is really threatened now. Therefore, if the high rate of deforestation is not mitigated as soon as possible, Indonesia forest would be gone in the span of few years later. This proposition is affirmed by Director of Forestry Department on Controlling and Monitoring, Ir. Noor Hidayat, MSc, on 30th August 2006. He said that if Indonesia could not mitigate the deforestation rate and reforest existing forestless area, the wide of Indonesia forest would be only 10 percent in the year of 2020. Therefore, Indonesia government should look for a better problem solving of the high rate of deforestation in Indonesia so far.

If Indonesia could not tone down the rate of deforestation as soon as possible, Indonesia in particular and world in general could face some remarkable problem in the future. Now, Indonesia is categorized as a country which has contributed 7 % of emission of GHG’s in the world only from deforestation. In this case, Indonesia is in the third place after USA and China. USA and China contribute GHG’s most from industrialized activities, but Indonesia is from deforestation only. This has caused global worming. The impact of global warming is various. According to the research of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that in the year of 2070 the world temperature will be increasing between 1.5 and 6 degree Celsius compared to now.

Whilst based on the prediction of Canadian Climate Change Model and United Kingdom Meteorological Office, the temperature will be increasing between 1.6 and 3.0 in the year of 2050-2070. And, the increasing temperature will raise the sea level. In the upcoming year of 2070, sea level will raise up to 60 centimeters. That is why; the impact is that Indonesia will lose its 2000 islands. Drought season will be longer and it will cause some dangerous disease like malaria and dengue fever which afflict Indonesian people. In addition, the drought and aridity will also cause hunger because farmers could not cultivate their field without rain. The debit of water will be decreasing significantly every year. For example, in Java, recently the debit of water was getting lower because of aridity and deforestation. The debit of water in Java has been decreasing up to 32. 4 milliard meter cubic. Further, the deforestation has caused natural disasters. The facts have showed that the natural disasters will be getting higher year by year. Nationally, between 1998 and 2003, there were more than 650 natural disasters. Out of 650 more natural disasters, 85% were land slides and floods caused by deforestation.

2.4. The Causing Factors of Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Indonesia

Deforestation in Indonesia is caused by both legal and illegal logging. Illegal legal logging has led Indonesia to high rate of deforestation. The actors of illegal logging are various. Some are from local people living around the forest area, and the others are from businessmen who have big assets to run illegal business on log trading. Locals do illegal logging mostly for opening new farming land, for building their house, for getting fire wood and also for selling the log. Whilst business people do illegal logging for enrich them self without caring with the negative impacts of deforestation.

Most of locals living around the forest are poor. Therefore, they really rely on their life on forest and do illegal logging. But, based on the existing facts, locals do illegal logging in small scale only. For instance, in Seram-Maluku, Illegal logging done by locals is only for self consuming like to build a house. That is why, they log the timber in the forest based on their need. But, some of them also log the timber in the forest for selling to their own people. It is simply done in small scale. Moreover, the tools that they use for logging are traditionally. Therefore, the possibility of doing vast deforestation is unworkable. In Manggarai, one of regencies in NTT province, illegal logging done by locals is in small scale only. It is quite dissimilar from Seram-Maluku, in Manggarai mostly locals doing illegal logging for opening farming land. But it is happened because of no clear of forest border. Locals tend to follow the Netherlands forest border then the revision forest border made by local government. Local government does not socialize this new forest border seriously. Therefore, the modification of Netherlands forest border is mostly not known by locals yet. It caused a problem of preventing illegal logging in Manggarai.

However, in Seram-Maluku, there are some illegal businessmen in log trading who use local for doing logging. Most of them are militaries and polices. This kind of businessmen becomes like an intellectual actor of logging. The locals will earn money from logging. Mostly locals are not fearful of going and of logging inside the government forest because they realize that they would be save. People who command them to do illegal logging are polices and militaries. And even locals living around the forest are afraid to forbid their people who work for the illegal logging business because the illegal businessmen are polices and militaries that have power and weapon. One of local people of Sawai-Seram whom I interviewed said like this:

“To be a chain saw man is a choice of my life. I am poor; therefore I will defense our life by logging the trees. I log our own forest and also I am paid by other people to log their timber. Whoever asks me to log their timber even inside the forest of national park of Manuela, I will do it. I do like that because I need money, and without money my family will eat nothing. I ever went inside the national park more then 20 times for logging the forest there. I did that because I was asked by the business man or by local people. And I thought if I will not be caught by the police because I am sold by other people to log the trees. The police will be caught people paying me. But, mostly the businessmen are polices, militaries or national park employees. I will not be caught even logging in side the National Park.”

These facts have made the existence of Indonesian forest to be jeopardized. People who have duty to protect the existence of forest do illegal logging by using locals for logging inside the government forest. But the cases like this were happened also in the other parts of Indonesia. The police sometimes accept bribes from illegal logger businessmen. These facts make government program on preventing illegal logging does not work. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has issued a president instruction (Inpres) No. 4, 2005 on preventing illegal logging. But this Inpres does not work well. This happens because the employees in the field still accept bribes from businessmen. Or the employees itself became an illegal logging businessmen.

For example, in the year of 2006, Adelin Lis known as King of Sumatra Timber was arrested because of doing illegal logging of 16,000 hectares of National Park in North Sumatra. In this case of illegal logging, Adelin had employed locals living around the forest. That is way; it would look as if locals were doing the logging. But, the police could find out Adelin as an intellectual actor of doing illegal logging. He was arrested when visiting Indonesian embassy in Beijing. On this case, Adelin Lis was charged with causing the state to lose Rp. 227.02 trillion -from illegal logging, unpaid taxes and untold ecological damage. In this case, some polices were suspected working together with Adelin.

Besides, deforestation is also caused by legal logging. Legal logging could be like forest concession rights (HPH) and mining exploration inside the forest area. Forest concession rights are usually given to businessmen. For the sake of national development, Indonesia government has been giving chance for national and foreigner investment on forest. Based on government regulation No. 21, 1970 on concession right (HPH) and UU No. 1, 1967, many investors on forest competed to invest on forest by getting concession rights. In the year of 1972, forest has become a big industrial investment. It was showed by many foreigner investors who got concession rights on forest. The foreigner investors were from Japan, South Chorea, Taiwan, USA, Malaysia and even Philippines. Even though, there were domestic investors on forest.

For example, In Tapian Nauli-Sumatra, PT Keang Nam Development Indonesia owns 58.7 hectares of legal logging. Whilst, PT Inanta Timber has 40.6 hectares and PT Gunung Raya Timber owns 100.000 hectares. PT Mutiara Warna has 70 hectares. These are only the small part of the companies in Sumatra that have concession rights on forest. There are still many other companies which get concession rights in Sumatra in particular and in Indonesia in general. But, sometimes the companies, both domestic company and foreigner companies, that have concession on a certain forest do logging exceeding the concession that they have. For instance, in Tapian Nuli, Sumatra, according to Darul Chaniago, head of in investigation at the Environment Department, said that companies that have had concession rights are being used to log beyond the concession area. Adelin Lis is one of the timber businessmen that do this thing. He has caused deforestation of 16,000 hectares by logging the forest outside the concession area.

But, in Manggarai-Flores, the deforestation is caused not because of concession rights on forest. In Manggarai, there is no concession forest area. But, there are some legal mining explorations on forest areas. This has caused deforestation at least 1.000-1.5000 hectares per year. In Manggarai in this last two years there have been 22 permissions of mining operation. Out of 22 permissions, 4-5 permissions have already been operating. For example, PT Surya, a copper mining company, has caused vast deforestation on Galak Rego protected forest. It is predicted that the deforestation will be vaster because up to now the company is still operating.


Figure 2: Forest cleared for a palm oil plantation in Indonesia

One of driving forces of deforestation is forest conversions to land use area. Mostly the conversions are for agriculture and plantations. Forests were cleared for opening rice fields, palm oil plantations, and timber estates. In Indonesia, most of forests were clear for palm oil plantations. Economically, it could generate incomes for Indonesia government. But, the incomes that Indonesia government is nothing compared to untold negative impacts of deforestation for the plantation. One of impacts land conversion for oil palm plantation is emission of GHGs. According to the data of Wetlands International, the destruction and degradation of forest is estimated to release 2 billion tons of carbon -about 8 percent of global emissions- each year. Much of this destruction is caused by conversion for oil palm plantations which produce palm oil, increasingly used as a biofuel. Nevertheless, oil palm plantations are the presently the best option for much of rural Indonesia.

III. How to Mitigate the Rate of Deforestation in Indonesia?

To mitigate the rate of deforestation in Indonesia is not a trouble-free task. Indonesia government and its people should team up to look for a better solution. If government neglects the role of civil society in diminishing the rate of deforestation, the deforestation will not be solved forever. Therefore, government and civil society should construct a good relation. Government should also listen to civil society aspiration and conversely civil society also should obey, follow the government programs that are essential for the common goodness.

For alleviate the high rate in Indonesia, there are more and less three alternative solutions. Firstly, government should put a stop to illegal logging cases which are done by locals living around the forest. Because of the poverty, locals living just about the forest do illegal logging. To overcome this problem, therefore, government should use welfare approach. Government should look for the means to empower local people so as to raise them from scarcity.

In Indonesia, Based on the data, the amount of people living close to the forest is 48.8 million people or 20 percent of the entire of Indonesia people. And out of 48.8 people, there are approximately 10.2 million people (20%) are categorized as poor people. Differently, based on document of Revitalization of Forest of Kadin Indonesia 2005 says that there are 38.5 million people (78.9%) livings around the forests are categorized as poor people. That is why; many sides say that to overcome illegal logging, government should use welfare approach. It means that government should look for the problem solving on how to empower locals living surrounding the forest. It is hoped that by those empowerments locals could be freed from being poor.
For this end, government should allocate many funds. These funds will be used for empowerment agenda for more less 38.5 people who are poor and living near by the forests. If each people need Rp. 5000000 for empowerment programs, it means that government should allocate Rp. 192,500,000,000,000. It is really high cost. And it is very difficult to be implemented by Indonesia government. If some of budgets will go for this project, the other important things should be neglected.

Nevertheless, based on above explanation, the deforestation is not caused by poor locals only. It is also caused by illegal businessmen, legal industries which run business on timber and forest conversion to agriculture sector. And in the some cases, the businessmen used locals to log the timber inside the government forests without concession. These businessmen became the intellectual actor of illegal logging which causes deforestation. Whilst there are so many oil palm plantations, timber estates and so on in Indonesia. Therefore, if government only spends many funds for empowering poor locals living near by the forests, the rate of deforestation could not decrease significantly. Actually, there are some drivers of deforestation in Indonesia. It is not only cause by poverty. It is more complex then poverty which exist in local societies living around the forests. Based on the research in Manggarai, the deforestation caused by legal logging and mining exploration is around 1000 up to 1500 hectares per year. But, locals do logging not more than 100 hectares per year.

This first problem solving also needs too much cost. And this high cost will be unproductive if the rate of deforestation does not decrease. Government will lose much money for an unproductive policy. That is why; this first solution is not so appropriate for slowing and preventing the high rate of deforestation in Indonesia.

Secondly, government should reform the forestry approach on forest management. Government should change old approach, top down approach, with new approach, bottom up approach. Top down approach in forest management regards that forest management belong to government. Civil society just becomes the viewers of what government does with their forest. This has caused that civil society has no power and chance to manage their forest. Further, civil society does not care with forests and with what is going on with their forest. Therefore, top down approach of forest management should be changed as soon as possible with bottom up approach. In bottom up approach of forest management, civil society will be the core of forest management. That is why; civil society no longer becomes object of forest management. They will become subject of forest management.

If civil society is kicked out from forest management, the management of forest will not fruitful. It has been happened in Lombok notably for locals living around the Rinjani National Park. People living around the park are not involved in forest management. That is why; they do not care with the Park, even they become illegal loggers. Interesting to be noticed is that the illegal loggers are not only locals living around the park but also locals coming from the south of Lombok. They come to the north of Lombok and log the forest within the Park. But, it is a little bit strange because people living around the forest do not prohibit south logger. It possibly happens because of the ownership of the forest land is local government not local people living around the forest. It means that people living there perceive that they have no privilege of the Park. That is why; they let the south logger to cut down the trees at National Park of Rinjani. Or, there is another possibility; they do not prohibit the south illegal logger because they are illegal loggers too.

Above and beyond, locals living around the National Park of Rinjani do not support the government programs on forest management because they, so far, have not involved in forest management. This was confirmed by the head of WWF in Lombok. The head of WWF said that people just keep quiet if the forest police or the government asks them about deforestation or about who the illegal loggers are. Or, they will inform to illegal loggers in advance by mobile phone or other means about the coming of forest polices doing monitoring of forest area. Therefore, it is difficult to catch illegal loggers because the day of forest police monitoring is a day off for illegal loggers.

Based on the above fact, top down approach of forest management should be changed with bottom up approach at once. Civil society should be the pioneer of the forest management. Government, in this case, will be like a facilitator or a motivator. By this kind of approach, civil society living around the forest would have more sense of belonging of their forest. This will raise sense of responsibility to protect their forests. The further impact of bottom up approach is that government should acknowledge and admit the customary land or customary forest of locals living around the forest. Government no longer takes a deep interference on forest management. This approach is more knowable as civil society management of forest.

In point of fact, it is a status quo alternative solution on forest management. Government has made a new law No. 41, 1999 on forest management to replace old law No. 5, 1967. The old law neglects the role of civil society to take part on forest management. The case of forest management becomes affairs of government only. In addition, customary lands and customary forests are not acknowledged by government. Government says that all the forests are state forests. There is no customary land or customary forest. This has made civil society do not care with the forest management. They tend to have apathetic attitude regarding the forest management.

On the contrary, the new law, No. 41, 1999, has changed the old paradigm of forest management. Civil society should be the backbone of the forest management so as to create a sustainable forest. This law accommodates participation of civil society on forest management. In this law, it is showed that government begins to acknowledge customary right of locals of forest. It means that government does not refuse the ownership of forests as customary forest. According to the new law, the participation of civil society on forest management can be done on numerous ways. Civil society could participate on forest management, on rehabilitation and reforestation, and on forest monitoring. Besides, civil society could harvest what is produced by forest according to the local laws or customary laws. This new law shows that government is more moderate in managing the forest compared to before.

However what is written on the laws is not an assurance that it will be put into practice. Regarding the law, there is a juridical gap. The laws No. 41, 1999 is marvelous on the paper, but it is very tricky to be implemented. This law could not elaborate on daily life. Government tends to act like what was written on the old laws. Because of this, the efforts to mitigate high deforestation rate done and initiated by government is failed. Even it is cheap. Government does not need to spend much money for changing the laws and the paradigm on forest management. The attestation that this law unsuccessful is that the rate of deforestation is getting higher and higher in the year of 1999 up to 2006.

Further, Government, so far, let the timber industries, palm oil plantation and other agriculture activities to operate in the forest. That is why; government has made contradictive solution. On one hand, government asks people not to do deforestation, but on other government allows businessmen to run their business on forest potentiality. Government does that for the sake of state development. However, government, in this case, only utilizes economic approach in coping with forest. The other approaches like social, ecologic and cultural are neglected by government. Therefore, what is done by government has destroyed the forests and its potentialities which are really essential for state in general and locals living close to the forest in particular.

Based on what has been explained above, it could be taken an inference that the second solution is not a best way for overcoming high rate of deforestation. That is why, it is required another problem solving which is more capable to surmount the high deforestation rate in Indonesia. The novel solution should be more effective, efficient and easy to be done inexpensively.

Third, government should execute the long-term implementation of REDD. REDD is a new-fangled project for overcoming global warming through which is focused on forest. As said before, REDD is an international program sponsored by developed countries on forest. The goal of this project is to mitigate and to slow the global warming which slaps the world and all the creatures in the earth. For reaching this goal, the only best way is by building a sustainable forest management and by preventing deforestation because forests could absorb and restore CO2. Certainly, in this case, the developed countries should approach tropical forest countries so as to ask them to reduce rate of deforestation. For countries that could slow the rate of deforestation are eligible to receive incentives based on the determined mechanisms.

Indonesia as one of the tropical forest countries in South Asia could take part on this project. Playing a part in this project means that Indonesia willingly decreases its rate of deforestation. In this case, Indonesia government has to guards its forests against deforestation which is caused by any means. Of course, Indonesia will benefit from the provided incentives.

REDD implementation in Indonesia is a best solution for decreasing deforestation rate in Indonesia. There are more and less four theses that support this expression. Firstly, economically, Indonesia would generate some money from REDD project just by lowing and preventing deforestation. Indonesia. That money could be used for improving something useful for the nation. For instance, Indonesia government could use that money for improving the welfare of all Indonesian people. By that money also Indonesia could build more schools from elementary level up to university both in urban area and rural area, both in Jawa and outside of Jawa. Education is very important for boosting the welfare of people. The data shows that many areas in Indonesia that have high rate of education could escape from poverty and conversely.

Secondly, REDD could offer to Indonesian government a sustainable forest development. Indonesia government so far has done unsustainable development on forest. In managing the forests, government simply use economic approach. On the contrary, other approaches like cultural approach, ecology approach and social approach are neglected by government. They are also very important and should be accommodated in development process. REDD will accommodate all of these approaches in proposing to create a sustainable forest development.












Figure 3: Three Objectives of Sustainable Development [Mohan Munasinghe (1993)]

So far, for the sake of nation development, Indonesia government has destroyed the forest by giving concession rights to some businessmen to open oil plantation, to run business on timber and to open mining exploration. This has caused unsustainable forest development. In this case, for the sake of nation development, Indonesia government could take part on REDD.
Land use activities that result in deforestation include large and small plantation of oil palm, rubber, cocoa, and coffee, as well as small land clearing for other smallholder activities, including swidden agriculture. Logging in forest concessions results in forest degradation, and often it precedes plantation development. Each of these activities bear their own opportunity cost, which carbon prices need to match and ideally outweigh if REDD is to provide a viable alternative.

By taking part on REDD, Indonesia government could establish sustainable forest development and the aim of REDD itself is so. Indonesia government could earn some money without destroying the forest. Even, Indonesia will outweigh the money that has been generated from both large and small plantations. Based on the data, economically, Indonesia government could earn advantage 3 up to 6 times from the forest sector by involving on REDD project instead of doing logging.

Thirdly, REDD will actively accommodate the role of locals living close to forests to protect and manage the forest. REDD will establish civil society forest management. Civil society would be the core of forest management. However, to implement civil society forest management could not be successful if locals living around the forest who really rely on their life on forest are poor. Or, they have no alternative livelihood instead of doing logging for certain propose. REDD has thought about it and has anticipated. That is why; REDD will concern on poverty. At the genesis of REDD, it has been raised a question of “how to make REDD work for the poor”. The REDD fund will go not only for central government up to local government, but also for the locals living surrounding the forest area.




Fourthly, what will be done by REDD is not against the Indonesia laws but rather totally supports Indonesia laws. Indonesian government has made some rules on forest management which really suitable with the ideal and the spirit of REDD. These are the meant laws: a) UU No 5/1967 which is replaced by UU No. 41/1999. b) Regulation PP6/2006 on forest management and utilization. c) Ministerial Decree SK. 159/ Menhut-II/2004 related to the restoration of degraded ecosystem in production forest areas. d) Presidential Instruction Inpres 2/2007 on rehabilitation on the ex-Mega Rice Project in Central Kalimantan. e) Ministerial Decree KepmenEkuin 14/2001 on Integrated Water Resources. f) Regulation PP 4/2001 on forbidding the use of fire. g) Ministerial Decree KepMenHut 260/1995 on guidelines for fire control and prevention. h) Presidential Instruction Inpres 4/2005 on illegal logging. i) Presidential Decree Keppres 32/1990 prohibiting development on peat>3 m deep.

IV. The Policy of long-term REDD Implementation as an Alternative Solution
on Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Indonesia

4.1. The Proposing Goal of the Policy

Figure 5: The Possible Targets of Deforestation Mitigation that could be reached by REDD.
There are three possibilities of mitigating deforestation rate in Indonesia. Firstly, the present rate of deforestation is 3.8 hectares per year. In the span of 10 years, the rate of deforestation would be 2.6 hectares per year. And 5 years after, the rate of deforestation would be only 2 hectares per year. It means that every 5 years the rate of deforestation would be decreasing 600000 hectares. Or in other words, every year the rate of deforestation would be decreasing 120000 hectares.

Secondly, the present rate of deforestation is 3.8 million hectares per year. It is planed that in the span of 10 years, the rate of deforestation would be 1.4 million hectares per year. And in the span of 15 years, the rate of deforestation would be only 0.2 million hectares. It means that every year the rate of deforestation would be getting lower 240000 hectares.

Thirdly, the present rate of deforestation is 3.8 hectares per year. In the span of 10 years, the rate of deforestation would be 1.2 million hectares per year. And in the span of 15 years, it would be no deforestation.

Out of three possibilities, the second possibility is more reasonable. There are some reason why it more reasonable. First, if the rate of deforestation is only 200000 hectares per year, it would be good. It is enough with 200000 hectares per year for domestic consuming only. In this case, there is no timber import anymore. Indonesia will get money not from timber export but from forest conversion to REDD project. Based on the data as said before, Indonesia could earn money 3 up to 6 times from REDD compared to log the forests and sell or export the timbers.

In this case, government should prohibit the deforestation inside the protected areas at all. Indonesia has set aside over 22.6 million hectares for the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem and a further 30.1 million hectares for the protection of environmental service including carbon. These protected areas comprise 28% of the total land area of the country. But unfortunately, in 2003 of protected areas were forested 7%. By implementing REDD, government should stabilize protected areas, reducing forest cover loss to zero over first 5 years. Based on IFCA studies, the deforestation on protected forest between 2000 and 2005 was quite high.


N 2000/
2001 2001/
2002 2002/
2003 2003/
2004 2004/
2005 Total Forest Loss Loss Per Year
21 National Park 2,398 4,591 12,151 3,647 4,819 27,606 5,521
74 Other Cons Areas 926 4,003 4,472 5,751 3,955 19,071 3,814
27 Protection Forest 4,751 8,856 11,097 16,105 39,995 80,804 16,161
8,075 17,720 27,720 25,496 48,769 127,481 25,496
Figure 6: the loss of protected forest between 2000 and 2005.

If government could reduce protected forest cover to zero over 5 years, Indonesia government will be eligible to receive $701 million assuming a price of $10/ton CO2, and $2,383 million at a price of $34/ton CO2. By this money, government could use for maintaining its forest and for enhancing the welfare of all Indonesian people.

Second, if 200000 hectares per year is not enough for domestic consuming, Indonesia government could enhance it based on the need. The 200000 hectares per year would be standard deforestation in Indonesia. Indonesia government also needs timber for establish people and government buildings. For doing this, Indonesia government should prevent illegal logging. Indonesia government should decrease the chance for investors who want to invest on forest sector. Palm oil plantation and forest concession which has been given to some investors should be reissued. Government also should speak against mining explorations that are done inside the forest.

Why should the first and third possibility be eliminated? On the first possibility, the rate of deforestation could not be mitigated significantly after 15 years. It takes too long time for reaching the ideal rate of deforestation. Besides, the third possibility is not reasonable because in the span of 15 years there is no deforestation. If there is no deforestation, Indonesia government and Indonesia people could not build any houses and any buildings. That is why, the second possibility is better for two others. The proposing goal of the policy is that how government could mitigate the rate of deforestation becoming 0.2 million hectares per year by joining on REDD project. It surely needs the good mechanism and cooperation so that Indonesia government could get simultaneously both decreasing deforestation rate and funds to enhance the welfare of all Indonesian people.

4.2. How Should Indonesia Government Do for Mitigating 0.2 Million per Year
by Involving in REDD Project?

4.2.1. Reissued and Renegotiated the Forest Concession for Agriculture and Mining exploration in Indonesia

Nowadays, in Indonesia, some forest areas have been converted for agriculture. Government gives concession for businessmen to run commerce on forest because they firmly believe that by giving such concession Indonesia could generate economic benefit. But, the problem is that government does not think that the economic benefit is simultaneously followed by environmental degradation. If it is counted, the economic benefit from concession agriculture sector is nothing compared to the negative impacts that are caused by environmental degradation.

In this regard, conversion of forest for agriculture has released amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Based on the research of World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and their Indonesian partners, in 3 provinces in Indonesia, says that every year these provinces emit 400 Mega-tons carbon dioxide (CO2). But, government does not get significant benefit from the forest concession for agriculture.

Further, Dr. Meine van Noordwijk, Regional Coordinator for the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), said that we found that less than two percent of these emissions resulted in clear economic benefits generating more than US$15 per ton of CO2 emitted. Besides, we found that six percent of the emissions generated benefits between US$5 and US$15 per ton of CO2, slightly over half of emissions generated between $1 and $5 of benefits, and about 40 percent between 0 and $1 per ton of CO2.

Figure 7: Economic benefit per ton of CO2 from various types of land use in Indonesia.
This data shows that Indonesia government only benefits little income from conversion of forests for agriculture. But if Indonesia government take part on REDD project, Indonesia government will generate more money. In this case, Indonesia has a very real opportunity to benefit from a carbon market which compensates for Reducing Emissions from REDD. Moreover, the price of carbon credit is quite high. Carbon credits in European markets are currently trading at more than $34 per ton of CO2. So far, Overall, Indonesia could only generate 0.23 Euro ($0.34) per ton of CO2 from land-use sector. But, if Indonesia government take part on REDD project, Indonesia could earn more income. It is more and less100 times benefit from carbon credit trading compared to conversion of forest for agriculture. Based on the research, a hectare of undisturbed rainforest or natural forest contains more and less 254-390 ton. Therefore, if Indonesian government could give concession for REDD on some of its natural forest, Indonesia could benefit a lot.


Figure 8: Indonesia’s current economic benefits per ton of CO2 versus present EU carbon prices per ton.
In Indonesia, there are many concessions of forest for palm oil plantations. The rapid of the palm oil plantation concession is getting higher and higher when oil palm plantations which produce palm oil, increasingly used as a biofuel. But the existence of palm oil plantations does not give significant profit for the welfare of Indonesian people. Besides, it has caused the damage of environment and released amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The process of clearing forest in order to establish a plantation releases more carbon than will be sequestered by the growing oil palms. Available data suggests that 70 percent of Indonesia oil palm have replaced and directly resulted in above ground emissions of around 588 million tones of carbon between the period 1982-2005. Even some people said that palm oil plantation could also restore carbon but it is lower than undisturbed natural forest. One hectare of palm oil palm plantation only restores 31-101 ton of carbon dioxide. But, one natural forest restores 254-390 ton of carbon dioxide.


Figure 9: Natural forest stores more carbon than oil palm plantation in Indonesia.
Another problem is dealing with mining exploration inside the forest both protected forest and productive forest. Government should stop giving concession for mining exploration in the forest areas. And then, government should also renegotiate those given concessions for the mining investors. Economically, so far, Indonesia did not get proportional benefit from mining sector. The sharing of mining benefit between government and investor is 10: 90. Government is only eligible receiving 10 percent of mining profit. But, investors, mostly foreign investors, get 90 percent of the total benefit. This, of course, brings disadvantage for Indonesian government.
For instance, the copper mining exploration doing by PT Surya which belongs to Japanese investor inside protected forest Galak-Rego Manggarai-Flores did not contributed significant financial benefit for local government of Manggarai. But, the existence of this mining company has been harmful for the environment and locals living around the mining exploration activities. The temperature has been getting hotter and some of the springs for locals consume have been no water. Besides, economically, in the last 3 year, local government only generated Rp. 321,000,000 But, Investor and the company got benefit Rp. 5,000,0000,000 per year. This shows that there is no proportional benefit sharing between government and investors regarding the total benefit of mining exploration. In this case, government and notably people living near by the exploration area were lost by the mining company. Moreover, the company did not care with the locals leaving. There was no any compensation for locals who were suffering because of the mining exploration.

Based on above explanation, government should reissue and renegotiate the concessions that have been given for palm oil plantation and mining exploration. After renegotiating, those areas would be reforested. Besides, the other undisturbed natural forest areas may not be given for palm oil plantation and mining exploration anymore. Indonesia’s oil palm sector is poised for further for rapid growth and is predicted to expand by another 6-8 million hectares by 2020. This already implies that approximately 400,000-500,000 hectares will be planted in Indonesia per year. And an average of 300,000-400,000 hectares of oil palm has been planted per year between 2000 and 2006. Therefore, Indonesian government should prevent the possibility of deforestation of 6-8 million hectares by 2020. Those forest areas should be provided not for palm oil plantation but for REDD concession. By giving those forest areas for REDD concession, Indonesia would generate more financial benefit and its forest existence could be maintained well. The rate of deforestation would be slowed every year. But, government, in this case, should be really committed in protecting and maintaining its forest for REDD.
4.2.2. Enhancing the Forest Controlling and Monitoring

One of the causes that cause the illegal logging cases is the weakness of forest monitoring. This is because of lack of forest guardian personnel and lack of monitoring facilities. It is common that the forest guardian or forest police is limited. Of course, with limited forest police and poor forest monitoring facilities, the monitoring and controlling of forest area are not effective and efficient. Therefore, government should pay attention on this problem at once.

For example, Maluku Tengah district has quite wide forest area. It is 746,471 ha. According to the head of district forestry department in Masohi-Seram, his district has wide forest. But, the employees for controlling the forest are limited. The employees working at the forestry department are only 85 people. Out of 85 employees, 55 employees are working at the central office in Masohi and the rest, 30, are working in the field. The activities of 30 employees working in the field, exactly in 10 sub-districts except 1 sub-district, are to monitor and to keep the forest from the exploitation. The other one is to handle the project on reforestation. But, the amounts of field employees are limited. One sub-district only has 1-3 employees. In addition, the field employees working in the field have limited forest monitoring facilities.

The same case also happened in Manggarai-Flores. Local government has 121,192.05 Ha or 29.28% of Manggarai land. But, for monitoring this forest area, local government only provides 12 forest police. Of course, the amount of forest is limited compared to wide of forest areas that should be protected. Moreover, the 12 forest police do not do monitoring rottenly.

In Maluku Tengah district, the illegal logging is quite high. This is because of lack of forest guardian for monitoring the forest. Illegal loggers are freely going inside the government forest without being afraid of being caught by forests polices. A local who used to do illegal logging said that forest is wide. That is why; if forest polices are doing monitoring in one part of forest, we will do illegal logging in the other part. He said:

“The national park of Manusela is really big. Therefore, if the polices are in one side of the forest, we will log in the other side. We know that the forest polices are limited, and it is impossible, they could take care the whole national park. There are more than 20 chain saw men in national park per day. Most of chain saw men who still operating in the government forest never caught by the police. That is why; they are not discouraged yet. That is why; It is difficult to reduce forest degradation in Seram even the forest police are really strict in monitoring the forest. Illegal loggers are cleverer than the police.”

These are the facts of illegal logging which are happened because of lack forest police and poor forest monitoring facilities. To employ more forest guardian, of course, needs much money. It could be a problem. But, by involving in REDD project, Indonesia could solve this problem with the money from carbon quota trading. This is a good chance to protected Indonesian forests. Indonesia government could do the get two things in the same time. Firstly, government will get some funds for enhancing national income. Secondly, Indonesia government could mitigate the high rate of deforestation.

4.2.3. Paradigm Shift on Forest Management

For implementing REDD, Indonesian government should change its old paradigm, top-down paradigm, with newly paradigm, bottom-up paradigm on forest management. Top-down paradigm insists that the core of forest management is government. Civil society just becomes watchers of what government is doing. Civil societies in general and local living around the forest in particular are not involved in the process of forest management. Government does dominate the forest management.

The impact of this kind of paradigm is that civil society notably locals living around the forest tend to be apathetic with the government program on forest management. Even locals themselves do illegal logging breaking the rules of government on forest. Or, locals living around the forest just keep quiet and do nothing to the illegal loggers who do deforestation in the forest. This is because locals perceive that they have no privilege in guarding their forest. It is not locals’ affair, but government’s affair.

In Lombok, locals living around the Rinjani National Park behave apathetic regarding the forest management. They do nothing for prohibiting illegal loggers do deforestation inside the park. Or, they just keep quiet when forest polices ask them about who the illegal loggers are. Even, the locals living around the park send an SMS (Short Massage Service) to illegal loggers in advance if the forest polices are doing monitoring. That is why; it is very hard to catch illegal loggers doing logging inside the park. This make government and forest police fail in protecting the forest from illegal loggers.

Whilst in Manggarai-Flores, locals living around the forest are not involved in forest management at all. The management of forest is totally given to government. Police and forest police, on behalf of government, implemented the government programs on forest so far. But, unfortunately, most of the program failed. For example, the program of making a revision forest border from old forest border made by Dutch to newly forest border did not involved locals. The impact was local did not follow the revision forest border. They preferred to Dutch forest border. And this has been causing vertical conflict between locals and local government. Actually, local government should involved locals at least the head of local, tua adat, tua teno and tua golo, in making a new forest border because Maggaraian people more obey to local leader than to local government. A local have ever said that:

“If government wants to save and to maintain the forest better in the future, Government should invite tua adat and tua golo before making a new forest border. Tua golo and tua teno has authority to forbid his people not to cut down the forest. So far, local government has not ever invited tua golo, tua teno and local people to discuss about revision forest border or new forest border. That is why; most of locals refused the government decision on new forest border. And therefore, locals are still opening new fields inside the government forest.”

Besides, in bottom-up paradigm, government could accommodate local wisdoms on forest management. Local wisdoms could be very good instrument to protected the forest. But, so far, most of local wisdoms tend to be faded away from the societies. That is why; government should rediscovery some local wisdoms that are fading away. For example, there is a local wisdom of Sasi in Maluku Tengah. Sasi is one form of local wisdom practiced by the community but many has been discarded. The term sasi literally means seal. The main idea of sasi is closing certain forest (tree) in a certain period of time for anyone to access/utilizing the area (anything that is affected by sasi). Sasi can be in a forest area, ocean, community owned plantation or certain tree. Sasi over forest has been discarded by many communities. But in Saka Village, the tree sasi still prevail but sasi over forest not implemented anymore. At this time there are two types of sasi, customary and church sasi. The difference is in the symbol. Church sasi is indicated by written announcement stating that there’s sasi over a certain tree in an area and for certain period of time. The customary sasi sign is using a crossed wood on the tree being sasi-ed. specifically for coconut tree the cross sign is using coconut leaves.

The local wisdom like Sasi exists in many societies in Indonesia. That is why; this local wisdom could be a very good instrument on forest management. These local wisdoms could support government programs on reducing deforestation. But first of all, government should recovery and reestablish the local wisdoms that have been fading away.

Of course, by doing paradigm shift on forest management, REDD could be implemented well. If REDD has been implemented well, the high rate of deforestation could easily be slowed every year. Besides that Indonesia government could establish welfare of all Indonesian people with REDD funds.

4.3. Carbon Market and Long-Term Implementation of REDD in Indonesia

Indonesia as a tropical country could take part on REDD project. If Indonesia has been joined with REDD, Indonesia could capture benefit on it. It has been predicted that Indonesia will get much money by giving concession its forest for REDD project. Indonesia forest will be freed from high deforestation rate. But before implementing REDD, Indonesia government should convince the buyers and donors about the governance transparency. It is very important so as to avoid corruption on REDD funds. Besides, the problem of forest ownership should be clarified by government because in the new forest law No. 41, 1999 it is said that government also admits the existence of customary forests. This is important for knowing who will be eligible receiving REDD funds.

By the way, REDD does not give fund only. But, REDD also thinks about alternative livelihood for locals living around the forest who really rely on their life on forest potentiality. It is important that locals could have a job while receiving REDD funds. It is because to have a job is a need for every human being to actualize their existence. Job is a basic necessity of all human beings. It means that without having a job personality cannot develop. Besides, by an alternative job, they will not tend to destroy the forest and it will make a viable REDD implementation

Regarding the carbon quote trading, it is not determined yet the price of a ton of CO2. But, money transfer will go not only for central government but also for local leaving around the forest. And the money transfer will more and less follow the Kecamatan Development System. In this case, the fund will be received for locals living around the forest. REDD is still looking for a best strategy to make REDD works for the poor. As said that most of people living around the forest in Indonesia are poor. The amount of the poor living around the forest is 38, 5 million. Of course, if the REDD strategy is good, the existence of REDD in Indonesia will overcome poverty, at least poverty over locals leaving around the forest.

Figure 10: Kecamatan Development Programme as an example of a funding system
independent of national budgets


Because the REDD project promises advantages for Indonesia government, so REDD project should become a national policy. Long-term implementation of REDD should be done by Indonesian government. Indonesia could overcome some national problem by only joining with REDD. Of course, the deforestation problem will be overcome and be solve by REDD. By overcoming deforestation problem Indonesia could help Indonesia people in general and local living around the forest. Besides, Indonesia also will get some funds from REDD. These funds could be used for enhancing the welfare of Indonesian people. Because of this reason, REDD project should be a national policy and should be implemented in long-term period.


V. Conclusion

The rate of deforestation is quite high in Indonesia. When the rate of deforestation reached 3,8 million, Indonesia was categorized by United Nations as highest deforestation country. It will be a problem not only over Indonesian people but also over international society. The deforestation will release emission to the atmosphere and it could cause global warming.

The impacts of deforestation in Indonesia are varied. One of the current impacts that have been in Indonesia is the symptom of El Nino. In Indonesia the regions that have been facing El Nino are NTT, NTP, South of Papua, Maluku, South Sulawesi, costal areas of north Java and Lampung. These facts were caused by global warming, and global warming was caused by industrialized activities and deforestation. The high rate of deforestation in Indonesia has caused this El Nino problem.

To prevent the continuance of negative impacts of deforestation, Indonesia should mitigate the high rate of deforestation. But, in this case, it is not easy for Indonesian government to reduce the high rate of deforestation because forest itself is a source of national income. For solving this ambiguity, Indonesia government could take part on REDD project. REDD project will assure the forest degradation reduction. Besides, REDD will provide some funds as compensation of forest concessions. Therefore, Indonesian government should make REDD as national policy. The implementation of REDD as a national policy should be done in long-term period.