TROPICAL FOREST FOUNDATION I N D O N E S I A “In Support of Sustainability & Certi5ication for Natural Forest Concessions in Indonesia” The Borneo Initiative, Jakarta, November 24, 2016
. . . contents Indonesia’s forests, concessions: a history of change Current situation: opportunities and challenges RIL . . . Connecting the dots The rise of independent forest certi5ication Challenges and recommendations – the TFF perspective
Indonesia’s forests: a history of change . . . 20+ years ago: Concessions occupied 33% of Indonesia’s land (585 concessions = 62.5 mil. ha) Now (2014): Concessions occupy 13% of Indonesia’s land with 273 concession licenses = 24.5 mil.ha. of natural forest . . . However, only +/-167 concessions are active = 13 mil ha. Of natural forest
“…. state of permanent (?) forest land ….” (2014) +/-130 mil. ha. (state forest land) 20 mil 110 mil (cons. or prod.) (no longer forest) 60 mil 50 mil (prod) (parks/cons) 24.5 mil 10 mil 25.5 mil (HPH) (Pulp wood) (unlicensed) 13 mil (HPH) actively managed and of these, about 2 mil . ha. have now been FSC certiBied
A history of change . . . 1967/68: “Domestic & Foreign Investment Act 1985/86: Log export tax; 1989 ban on raw lumber 1989/90: 585 concessions harvesting 27 mil.cu.m/yr. 1997/98: Asian currency crisis; fall of Soeharto; decentralization; peak of illegal logging in early 2000’s; deforestation rate over 2 mil.ha.yr. 2005: Gov’t reduced annual cutting target to 5.7 mil/yr. And launched campaign against illegal logging; AAC now back up to 9.1 mil. Currently only +/-167 active concessions on 13 mil.ha of forest land with an annual cutting target of 9.1 mil.cu m. . . . . .but achievement is between 5-6 million Why the decline??
Current situation . . . Key challenges Questions: Why are only 61% of licensed concessions active? Why are the active concessions not even coming close to meeting their annual allowable production targets? What is happening to the inactive concessions? Changing land use priorities in an era of decentralization (palm oil, mining, pulpwood, illegal occupation: all are supported by Government at the expense of natural forest concessions) Over/inappropriate regulation; excessive cost of doing business = the loss of international competitiveness for primary wood processing industries = reluctance to invest Regulations do not ensure sustainability; over-regulation kills sustainability.
A Question of Sustainability Security of tenure, clarity on land use policy, and inability of people to acquire land ownership; the greatest challenges to “sustainability” of the forest. Maintaining natural forests is often the last priority choice
de5ining RIL . . . Ø Identify what we would like to see changed: What is essential . . .and what is ‘wishful thinking’ ? Ø RIL: rooted in a global, generic de5inition developed by TFF-international; grounded in the national regulatory framework. Ø The Goal: to fundamentally change the way companies manage the forest Ø How we de5ine RIL determines how it is perceived . . . and ultimately, whether a company chooses to implement it.
de#ining RIL . . Connecting the dots. Scope: RIL covers the entire spectrum of forest management activities from inventory through to post-harvesting monitoring and evaluation (including management systems). Context: Detailed de5inition of RIL must be couched within policy and legislative framework (the dots) and technical forest management considerations. RIL connects the dots; something that regulations cannot do. 9
Reduced Impact Logging: Training Program Ø Training strategy aimed at getting concession companies to change their behavior by adopting RIL management practices Ø RIL: training consolidated under 3 core modules covering all activities (inventory, mapping, planning, operations, post harvesting, and management systems). Ø This framework provides the platform for customizing and adding in special interests.
Reduced Impact Logging: Training Program Ø TFF’s Indonesia standard consisting of 13 criteria and 33 indicators de5ining RIL; built on TFF’s international generic standard and the national regulatory framework. Ø Training delivered as an extension service and delivered in a working environment Ø Auditing and evaluation tool; weighted scoring system.
How we Developed the Auditing and Evaluation tool Threshold or benchmark values? ie. Square meters of soil disturbance, % canopy opening, etc. Auditing goals: evaluation must be practical and easy to implement; results must be consistent Proxy indicators. If ‘ a ’ is not in place, you cannot achieve ‘ b ’ ; ( ‘ a ’ must be easy to evaluate) Assigned a score of 0-5 for each indicator Not all indicators have equal weight …. But all are necessary Develop a weighting scale 0-5; weighted score expressed as a percent achievement of the total possible score.
How we Use the Auditing & Evaluation Tool Training request followed by initial “ base line ” audit to set the benchmark and identify speci5ic training needs Monitoring progress in adoption of RIL practices Donner reporting requirements to evaluate success of funded training program Basis for awarding recognition mark / certi5icate
What have we have learned about RIL ? þ More systematic; more ef5icient; saves m oney þ Reduces overall physical impact: - less erosion - much less soil disturbance - forest hydrology better protected - risk of social con5lict mitigated, etc. þ Better condition of residual stand (next rotation trees, poles, saplings, regeneration, etc.) þ Enhanced carbon retention is implicit in “ reduced impact ” . . . 14
Connection between TFF’s RIL training program and FSC Certi5ication RIL audits are not routinely done by TFF, hence a quanti5ication of this relationship is not possible. However, of 22 FSC certi5ied natural ‘ dryland ’ forest concessions, only 4 did not receive prior training in RIL.
Certi5ication & TFF First 2 concessions assisted by TFF certi5ied in 2005 and 2007 under a Dutch Gov ’ t grant. TFF 5irst NGO to join the TBI certi5ication support program in January 2010 Under TBI, certi5ication coach for 10 concessions with full FSC certi5ication managing 1,308,625 ha (including one concession in PNG), plus three CW certi5ied concessions (259,615 ha).
Indonesian Certi5ication Initiatives LEI certi5ication: originally in joint certi5ication protocol with FSC. No market traction. Future role uncertain. PHPL: governments ‘mandatory certi5ication’ required for all concessions. Scored as “poor”, “average”, or “good”. No market traction. Credibility issues likely to grow. PEFC: IFCC National organization established Aug 2014; (2010 cut off date for conversion) already 1,346.952 ha of pulpwood plantations certi5ied. FSC: Credible, veri5iable, market incentives for sustainable forest management
Sustainability Issues Considerations: Over regulation does very little to ensure SFM and encourages ‘ evasive ’ behavior to avoid excessive cost. Excessive cost undermines international competitiveness and the willingness to reinvest. Security of concession tenure often receives the lowest priority and support. The inability to acquire a certi5icate of land ownership will continue to force people to grab land where ever least resistance is met
Sustainability Issues Considerations: Credible, independent certi5ication provides a market incentive and a motivation to manage forests sustainably. Independent certi5ication should be seen as a boost to Government intentions, not a competition.
Sustainability Issues If managed well (implement RIL), Dipterocarp forests could be managed sustainably under 30 year felling cycles periodic ‘mast’ of the Dipterocarp forest. New Meranti regeneration following a Dense regeneration of Meranti sp. showing A 19 year old stand of white and red Meranti in the SBK concession, Central Kalimantan. >1.5 meters of growth four months after logging in the Belayan River Timber concession, E. Kalimantan
The RIL/FSC “tag team” . . . n RIL saves money and provides assurances of sustainability . . . the entry point! n Engagement in RIL training builds con5idence and promotes an interest in certi5ication n Certi5ication provides a market incentive for practicing SFM
A Few Recommendations . . . From the TFF Perspective . . . Or, how could TBI expand and strengthen its certi5ication support? n Strengthen the relationship between RIL and certi5ication support n Support training of CB auditors to better understand the concept of RIL and how it relates to FSC certi5ication n Some of FSC weaknesses relate to auditor evaluation of growth (fundamental sustainability). This aspect needs to be strengthened.
www.tff-indonesia.org tff@cbn.net.id
Recommend
More recommend
