Presentation by Wahjudi Wardojo, Ministry of Forestry Republic of Indonesia. Social impacts of REDD initiatives, Forest Day 3. Sunday, December 13th, 2009 Copenhagen, Denmark

1. Berau Forest Carbon Program
Community Livelihoods
December 13, 2009

2. Phases of the program
•Program will seek funding for a 5-year
demonstration phase. It is expected that during
that time, international finance mechanisms will be Full
agreed to by countries enabling strategies to be Implementation??
scaled up and sustainable financing to be (2013- )
achieved.
Berau Forest Carbon Program
Demonstration Phase
(2010-2015)
Development (Oct 08-
Jun 10) • Pilot site-based strategies • Strategies implemented
– Improved forest across Berau
Scoping management • Monitoring and verification
• Baseline scenario and – Forest restoration • Expansion to additional
(Jan-Sept 08)
monitoring approach – Oil palm swap districts and provinces
• Refine strategies for – Land-use planning,
• Political support reducing deforestation and policies, enforcement
degradation
• Situational analysis/drivers • Monitoring and verification
• Legal issues
• Adaptive management
• Rough program design • Stakeholder support
hypothesis • Funding sources
• Identification of partners/ • Business plan
contractors

3. Overview of BFCP
Production Forest:
•Spatial planning
RIL, HCVF / Planta-
certification tions:
•Capacity building,
better siting,
•Policy and legal land swaps,
framework HCVF, best
practices
•Community
Protected areas:
empowerment and REL
engagement
•better management,
•Strategy 1
•Strategy 2
sustainable financing •Strategy 3
•Performance
•Historic
•Period 1

4. Challenges for Communities in Indonesia
• 350+ ethnic groups in
Indonesia Berau
• 40-50 million people living in
national forest area without
recognized rights
• Decentralization process
resulting in many unclear
roles and responsibilities,
including related to
communities
• Highly mobile population
4

5. TNC Experiences in Berau
• Conflict resolution
• Community protected
areas
• Collaborative management
PROTEST
COMMUNITIES HELP
PLAN AND MONITOR
AGREEMENT
OPERATIONS OF TIMBER NEGOTIATION
5
CONCESSIONS

6. Villages in UPPER KELAY
Villages in
Villages in the the area of the are UPPER SEGAH Transmigrant
•of Most traditional Daya
Villages in
area of forest Plantation LOWER coastal Punan and
the KELAY
Mining Punan people villages
• Ambitious plans for
Mixture Daya
concessions concessions •
LOWER SEGAH
concessions
Gaai dependence on
High villages
• agricultural conversion
COASTAL Dayak groups,
Long Duhung, • Various
Long Pai • Ethnic diversity and on
• forestsdependence Java,
Lower communities;
Fishing
transmigrants from
(Pu-nan forests; inter-group
Mah-kam),
mostly better
• conflict,recognize village
20-30 families per
Lombok
competition
Traditional Merabu, Lesan • transportation mangroves
Semanting,
importance of
Samburakat All within timber
• Diverse employment:
Agriculture important;
Dayak, Long
• Shifting agriculture, gold
Matarintib
• concessions
• Oil palm expansion
Heterogeneous-various
• plantations, logging, bird
Boy, Long mininggroups from
Lanm-cin, Long
ethnic primary economic
• nest collection rotational
Destruction of burial
communities divided;
activities sago palms, fruit
agricultureIsland (Bone,
Sulawesi
grounds,
Sului many conflicts
• Opportunistic trees Banjar,
• Stronger village institution
Makassar, Toraja,
trees, honey and by
Transitional Long Ayan,
Merasak, • excessive land claims
Tepian Buah, Ineffective community
as a result of previous
Kasai Melati Jaya
Merapun Bugis)
Long Lanuk companies program led
development
• conflict resolution process
by oil palm infrastructure
Significant companies
Recent road openings
Labanan
“Modern” Sido Bangen Bena Baru changing transportation
Tanjung Batu plans
development
• Land speculationMakarti
• access immigrants will
Expected
increasing
likely put more pressure
on mangroves
6

7. 7

8. Community-company relations
• Institutions at village
level are weak
• Lack of rights makes
relations with companies
conflict-prone
• Unequal power results in
low compensation
• Local people often
outcompeted by
outsiders
8

9. CURRENT SITUATION:
1) Weak village institutions;
2) Low funding from government and companies
3) Elite capture within villages
4) Investments not strategic
Companies Local Other gov.
budget funds
$
$
$
Project 1 Project 2 Project 3

10. Overview of the strategy
GOVERNANCE
of BFCP
VILLAGES
PRIVATE
• JOINT WORKING
VILLAGE
Com-
SECTOR
GOVERNMENT
DEVELOPMENT
GROUP
Govern-
munity PLANNING
ment • NEGOTIATION,
• ADVISORY
• ACCESS RIGHTS/
• COLLABORATION
INTER-VILLAGE
GROUP
LAND TENURE
NETWORKS
• REDD INCENTIVE
• SUPERVISORY
• AGRICULTURAL
• LIVELIHOODS
COUNCIL
AGREEMENTS
• EXTENSION
INCENTIVE
AGREEMENTS TO
Private
• POLICY SLASH
• OUTGROWER
REDUCE
Sector • SPATIAL PLAN
AND BURN
10

11. OBJECTIVES FOR BFCP WORKING WITH VILLAGES
• Strong village institutions, decision-
making processes, and plans
• Increased flow of funding to villages from
multiple sources
• Funds used for implementing high-
leverage projects
• Transparency and community monitoring
of financial management

12. Desired outcome
Companies Local Other REDD
government gov. payments
budget funds
$ $ $
$
Village development
fund
Village
planning Village development
process plan
Village implementation
mechanisms
Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5

13. OVERALL LESSONS
• Need to present “no
regrets” strategies to
communities—they
should not bear risk of
uncertainties of REDD
policy
PICTURE • Many mechanisms exist
but need to be
operationalized
• Bundling of carbon rights
can help avoid problems
• Need to be realistic about
what can be achieved in a
short time
13

14. Thank you
14