Deforestation debates: A little progress is in progress

by Silvia Irawan, Alue Dohong and Guntur Prabowo

Published at the Jakarta Post | Opinion | Wed, January 15 2014, 11:48 AM

A recent global analysis of forest loss published in Science magazine found that deforestation in Indonesia had doubled between the 2000-2003 period and the 2011-2012 period. 
This study contradicted official Indonesian data released by the Forestry Ministry, which said that the rate of deforestation had been cut in half during the same period. 

An article published in The Jakarta Post on Nov. 19, 2013 entitled “Google maps should be used to challenge official” accused the Forestry Ministry of not being transparent about its methods used to calculate deforestation. 
This article failed to report on the progress that the Forestry Ministry has achieved in making information on deforestation available to the public and sharing its methodology.

For the past three years, deforestation has received considerable national press coverage in Indonesia. According to Forestry Ministry data, the year 2013 began with encouraging news about the deforestation rate in Indonesia, which declined from over 1 million hectares per year between 2000 and 2003 to around 0.45 million hectares between 2011 and 2012. 

In early November, a paper published by Hansen et al. (2013) in Science included a global deforestation map. The paper stated that deforestation in Indonesia had doubled from around 1 million hectares per year between 2000 and 2003 to around 2 million hectares per year between 2011 and 2012. 

The methodology applied by the Forestry Ministry is available to the public. One can find it in most publications or statistic books published by the ministry. 

It conducts a deforestation assessment every three years in which the annual deforestation data is the average of the three-year changes. Deforestation maps are then released by the ministry based on the interpretation of medium spatial resolution (30-m pixel) Landsat 5 and 7 imagery. 

The deforestation maps are also published online and updated from time to time on webgis.dephut.go.id. When this article was being written, however, the website was inaccessible. But we previously accessed this website on numerous occasions. 

The Forestry Ministry can also release raw data on land cover changes upon request. This shows that the government has taken some very important steps to achieve greater transparency. Therefore, one should not dismiss these positive efforts initiated by the ministry. 

Regarding the difference between the rate of deforestation presented by Hansen et al. (2013) and the official data from the Forestry Ministry, it occurred mainly because the two studies adopted different definitions of forest and forest change. 

A quick visual comparison between the maps produced by the Forestry Ministry and Hansen et al. (2003) show a significant underestimation of forest cover extent in the Forestry Ministry’s map. 

Many forest covers included in the map of Hansen et al. (2013) are not captured as forests in the Forestry Ministry’s map. 
Additionally, most areas where forest change (both gain and loss) occur are in areas classified as non-forests, therefore, they are not under the authority of the Forestry Ministry. 

Non-forest areas, known as areas for other use (APL) are currently under the authority of local governments and the Land Agency. 

These are some preliminary observations that can be enhanced when Hansen et al. develop their raw data available for further detailed spatial analysis. 

Certainly, the accuracy and robustness of the methodology adopted by the Forestry Ministry can be improved. It could provide an enormous service to Indonesia by making its deforestation monitoring annual, by providing data for all forest areas and making digital deforestation maps available online in a timely manner. 

We disagree with suggestion that Indonesia should rely on Google for its forest monitoring (the Hansen et al. data is available through Google Maps). 
Indonesia should not depend on a private sector tool to map its forest resources and customary land rights. These tasks are too important to be “outsourced” to a company. 

Instead, the Forestry Ministry should improve its forest monitoring as we have recommended. 
We should, however, recognize the important role of independent assessments to quality-check Indonesia’s official data. Robust and transparent official deforestation data is a powerful tool for good forest management. 

In Brazil, where deforestation in the Amazon region has declined 70 percent, deforestation data is made available to the public every year, a strong example of good governance of vast forest frontiers. 

Indonesia is on track to robust and transparent deforestation monitoring. Let’s hope that it continues to progress toward the goal of reduced deforestation.

The writers work for the Earth Innovation Institute.

Conversation between Apple and Samsung Lovers

While I was having my breakfast at once morning,  I was reading a ebook with my mini iPad when suddenly my housemate a Ghanaian girl shown up..What,'s that she asked..before I gave my answer she came with her another question...is that mini IPad? Yes, it is..I answered. Then she continued talking...Oh no..you know what? I start don't like Apple devices..I've just ordered my Samsung mini tab few days ago and can't patiently receive that, and like it very much she added. Why you don't like apple devices? I replied.. You know there are at least two reasons she replied..first, to me iPhone, iPad, iPod are the same...for example between iPhone 4, 5 and now iPhone 6 are remain the same in term of their functionalities just for telephoning, texting, emailing, picturing...nothing else she stressed. This is totally different from Samsung devices such as mobile phone and mini tab ..you can do everything from cropping, copying, texting, picturing and etc...she added...secondly, if you want to use new apps in the Apple devices you have to buy nothing is free she explained...

I think your opinion is not totally true I replied to her...you can do many things with your iPhone, iPad, iPhone, MacBook and iMac..I convinced her...with iPad you can do telephoning, texting, picturing, reading, writing, drawing...etc..while talking I shown her how I opening my ebook pages by flipping one page to another page easily...and while I was playing with my iBook apps, she curiously asking...how can you do that flipping with your iPad just like flipping a real book???...she added... That one reason I really like iPad I replied to her...I can't do a reading like this with my samsung mobile I added...but! we have to buy these books right? She said while positing to the list of tens books at my iBook library....Not at all, I replied..there are many free books at the Apple store, you can download everything you want range from novel, fiction and science books I convinced her...similarly with Apple Apps ..I continued..apart from some non-free apps, there are many free apps too where you can download easily without paying single penny...just click, open and run I assured here...
Apart from shown her how to read an ebook with my Mini iPad I also shown here how to organise easily thoughts and ideas with my MindNode apps in my Mini iPad.....oh that's really gorgeous way of summarising things..I really like that and I do need that kinds of apps for the next semester she excitedly said to me...

By the way, can you help me how to find free ebooks and download one of these to my iPhone she asked....ok let me show you how to do that, I replied and then I typed free books with her iPhone search engine and run it..hundred of free books appeared and I downloaded one of those...and I opened the ebook with her iBook app..and hand over her iPhone to her to play with this ebook by herself...Wow..look I really like this ...this is awesome she was laughing and so exciting...I will download as many as free books later on to my iPhone she added..

Anyway, ..I am having and using both Apple and Samsung devices I continued...to my understanding both Apple and Samsung devices have their own advantages and drawbacks..that all depend on us how to maximise the advantages and minimise the limitations so as to help us in our daily activities..I love both Apple and Samsung devices I finished the conversation...

This article does not intended to judge and exploit a certain company's technology limitations and also there is no intention to promote a company product either..I just want to draw a lesson learnt to us that sophisticated technology is meant nothing if we can't use them in proper and efficient ways.

Your letters: Managing peatland

Source: 
The Jakarta Post | Readers Forum | Wed, October 09 2013, 11:54 AM

I refer to an article titled “Peatland management could prevent forest fires,” (The Jakarta Post, Oct. 1, p4).

This expert in the article seemed not lack understanding and practical experience about the issue. He suggests local farmers to employ a water management system on peatlands by creating artificial water canals aimed at surrounding farmlands and preserve water so as to minimize fires.

He needs to understand that building or digging new massive canals within a peatland ecosystem will disrupt the natural hydrological regime that may lead to over drainage and the lowering of ground and surface water levels that may see peat become drier and more susceptible to fire.

To restore degraded peatlands and to minimize the occurrence of fire resulted from over drainage, therefore, water management intervention that has to be implemented is to reduce the over-drainage by blocking or closing down the existing open canals so as to retain and maintain the ground and surface water levels as high as possible notably during the dry season.

As a result, peat humidity and moisture can be retained so that peat oxidation and subsidence can be effectively avoided.

I urge the expert to learn the negative impacts of massive canal networks in the ex-1 million hectare mega price project on peatland degradation and fires, prior to suggesting misleading advice to local farmers.

Alternatively it would be better for this expert to learn more from local farmers in Central Kalimantan on how to manage peatlands in sustainable and wise ways to enhance his knowledge and experience.

Alue Dohong
Central Kalimantan

Can REDD+ Save Central Kalimantan’s Peatlands?

By Alue Dohong

Since the emergence of REDD+ scheme in the climate change mitigation discourse, there is a high hope that this new climate mechanism will do a lot to tackle deforestation and forest degradation issues including peatlands. REDD+ scheme is often perceived as an effective and cheaper market-based mechanism to halt current deforestation and forest degradation rates in tropical forest states. In addition, the presence of REDD+ is desirable to provide co-benefits to boost local economic as well as promoting the protection of endemic and rare biodiversity from extinction threat.

Despite unresolved political and technical issues that currently surroundings REDD+ scheme development, however, many stakeholders still put their high expectation that this new scheme can be shortly put in place and prove its effectiveness in resolving deforestation and forest degradation issues.

About more than 50% out of 3.01 million hectares peatlands in Central Kalimantan is under degradation state. This degradation rate is driven by peat forest conversion, drainage and repeated fires. Conversion of peat forest to oil palm plantation, agriculture and tree plantation and so forth is often seen as major responsible for peatlands destruction and degradation in the province. In addition, construction of drainage along with peat forest conversion activities has scaled up the degradation magnitude, which in turn puts peatlands under continuous and steady depletion. The rate of Central Kalimantan’s peatlands degradation is predicted upsurge in coming years if there is no viable and effective measures put in place to stall the above major drivers.

The presence of REDD+ and the selection of Central Kalimantan as a REDD+ pilot province by national government provide a good chance for answering peatland deforestation and degradation challenges in the province. The next question is whether or not REDD+ scheme is capable and be an effective means to ease current peatlands degradation trend? The answer upon above question is relatively difficult, but REDD+ could be proper answer if it satisfies the following conditions, criteria and indicators.

Firstly, REDD+ manages to promote the protection of remnant peat forest from further conversion, drainage and fires. There are about 1.5 million hectares of peat forest is still in good and pristine conditions and around 40% out of this figure, by law is under protection and conservation status. Although their protection status is clear, however, there is no guarantee that this protected peat swamp forest is free from encroachment and degradation threats. Hence, REDD+ can be judged as an effective means if succeeded to ensure current peat forest is free from new perturbations.

Secondly, REDD+ enables to rehabilitate and to restore at a minimum 50% of existing degraded peatlands. As aforementioned, more than 1.5 million hectares peatlands in Central Kalimantan under degradation state and REDD+ will be appreciated as an effective method in saving Central Kalimantan peatland if managed to rehabilitate and to restore a minimum 750,000 hectares of current Central Kalimantan’s degraded peatlands.

Thirdly, REDD+ facilitates the provision of alternative livelihoods and create better income for about 300,000 poor people that are currently relied their source of livelihoods and incomes from peatland resources (timber, NTFPs, fishery, etc.). REDD+ will be seen as an effective means if it could compensate the potential lost of local communities opportunity costs result from shifting their current business as usual activities into protection, conservation and restoration of peatlands under REDD+ scheme.

Fourthly, REDD+ facilitates the resolution of current tenurial conflicts as well as strengthening land ownership status of local communities upon their lands. Unclear tenurial system and unfavourable ownership scheme toward local people are often seen as a major source of land use conflicts in the peatlands areas in Central Kalimantan, and those issues have directly and indirectly contribute to the degradation of existing peatlands. REDD+ will be perceived as an effective model if it could relief the current tenurial and land ownership issues.

Fifthly, REDD+ will not undermine the rights of landowners and local communities upon their natural assets and other ecosystem services attach to it. Legacy of a REDD+ activity within community land is not automatically the transfer of whole natural physical asset and its ecosystem services rights from landowner or/and local communities to the REDD+ buyers/funders.   REDD+ credits buyers are just eligible to own or trade the financial asset (Certified Emission Reductions) that generates only from regulation service (carbon for climate regulation), while the other peatland services such water, timbers, NTFPs, tourism and socio-culture are still belong to and under ownership as well as jurisdiction of land owners and local communities. This condition is also applied to the physical/land asset where REDD+ activities taken place. If REDD+ scheme is guaranteed the protection of landowners and/or local people rights upon their natural assets and its ecosystem services, then, REDD+ scheme will receive positive welcome as means to save peatland in Central Kalimantan.  

Sixthly, REDD+ is capable to influence and redirect stakeholders' exploitative mind-set into sustainable and wise use ways ones when managing peatlands resources. One of the root causes of peatlands destruction in Central Kalimantan is stemmed from exploitative attitude of related stakeholders toward peatlands resources. This mistaken attitude results from stakeholders’ lack of knowledge and understanding upon other peatlands ecosystem services functions and values apart from just timber production function. As a result, there is a tendency and attempts to convert peat swamp and peatlands areas into other land uses if such standing timbers getting less on the ground, while on the other hand, they disregarding the existence of other use and non-use values. Hence, if REDD+ is able to change existing stakeholders’ productive mindset into more adaptive and sustainable ones, then, REDD+ will be a successful approach to save Central Kalimantan’s Peatlands.

Seventhly, REDD+ is proven effective in facilitating and improving local policy changing toward peatland conservation, protection and sustainable management and practice. Many sectoral and local policies are currently less favourable toward conservation, protection and sustainable use of peatlands. These policies are signified peatlands destruction in Central Kalimantan and if there is no viable policy improvement put in place, the future of peatlands resource in the region will be under great pressure. REDD+ scheme can play a leading role in changing and redirect current policies into new direction that favour toward conservation, protection and sustainable use of peatlands, and if such preceding aspiration is captured accurately by REDD+, then the future of peatlands in Central Kalimantan will be good chance to save.

Eighthly, REDD+ scheme succeeds in promoting and mainstreaming the value of endemic and rare biodiversity (both flora and fauna) that exists in peatlands areas into protection and conservation policy measures. Many endemic, charismatic and rare peatlands biodiversity are only found and exist in peatlands ecosystem, however, they are under extinction threats owing to improper peatlands management policy and practises.  Therefore, if REDD+ scheme is able to apprehend the issue of biodiversity protection and channel it into peatlands protection policy measures then, this scheme will be appreciated for its role in protecting and conserving peatlands biodiversity in Central Kalimantan. 

Finally, REDD+ is ample to explore economic benefits and attach financial values onto other indirect use and non-use values of peatlands. Out of timber and other NTFPs, there are huge potential economic and financial values that peatlands ecosystem services offered and served for humanity needs, however, most values of these services are not captured and reflected adequately in the human utility basket due to market failure and information gaps. Consequently, both economic and financial values of those indirect and non-use peatlands ecosystem services are often undervalued, which further leads to the disregards of these services values in the economic and financial decision making processes.  Hence, if REDD+ scheme to be champion of Central Kalimantan peatlands protection, it should able to boost other indirect use and non-use peatlands values into stakeholders economic and financial decisions.

To sum up, it is probably too earlier to say that REDD+ scheme is an effective and proper answer for saving Central Kalimantan’ peatlands from destruction and depletion threats. But it is also a naïve presumption to conclude that REDD+ has no opportunity and room for improving peatlands management practise in the province. Therefore, prior a conclusion is made, there is necessary to develop successful criteria and indictor by including aforementioned nine aspects and apply this evaluation tool when assessing the magnitude REDD+ successful.

My Name Is Peatlands

Please allow me to introduce myself my name is tropical peatlands. People call me peatlands since I normally cover land (mineral, clay or sand) with my peat soil and I usually occur in the waterlogged situation. In tropical climate regime, I mostly contain organic matters that come from death stems, tree branches, tree roots, leaves and etc and is usually accumulated gradually, but very slow for hundred and even thousand years result from very slow decomposition processes due to my water is very acid and oxygen is limited or even absent. High acidity and limited oxygen result in just very few composer bacterials can survive in my system. My peat soil is commonly existed and accumulated in between two rivers systems and trapping behind these two rivers's levee. When move further away from behind the river bank I gradually become deeper and thicker and establish a peat dome in the centre part of the system. My dome is generally characterized by very poor nutrients as its mostly receives nutrient supply only from rainfalls and the vegetation species is become fewer and their diameters are getting smaller? Why these vegetations  are become fewer and smaller? The answer is because nutrient competition is high and each species receive less nutrient uptake and therefore their growths are slower. It should be noted, however, my dome is played extremely important as hydrological unit that control and regulate hydrological of my whole system. My dome keeps excess water during the rainy season and release back this excess slowly to my system during the dry season. That why if my ecosystem is in pristine condition and no viable perturbations, there would be less floods and drought issues. Although, I recognize as marginal and infertile land, however, many endemic and rare plants species are used my ecosystem as their lovely homes and those plants relied their survive and sustainability with my existence and sustainability too. Hence, if my ecosystem is under threat, thus, endemic and rare plants will also facing blur future. In addition, my ecosystem is also favourbake and sweet homes for many endemic and charismatic fauna, avifauna and mammals such Orang Utan (Pongopygmous), Proboscys monkey, long-tail monkey, sun bear, wild board, king fisher fish, eagle, duck, etc. My plants and other materials provide foods and materials for those to survive and sustain their life. Hence, if my ecosystem is under threat, those precious biodiversity will also under jeopardy. My ecosystem provides range of values and services to both human and non-human creatures in terms ecological, socio-economic and socio-cultural. My service to regulate water and climate, for example, is played important role to control floods and drought as well as to mitigate climate change issue through my role in sequester and sink carbon dioxide in my peat soil and vegetation. As most (60-80%) of my soil structure is contained organic matters (carbon), I play important function to sink and hold carbon from released to the atmosphere, thus, I provide service to ease climate change impacts at local up to global. In addition, I also provide services to satisfy human needs such as through supplying water, lumber, meat protein, medical plants etc that are very important for human to sustain their life in this universe. Without my services above, I assume that both human and non-human livings will also facing problems to survive and sustain their existence. Finally, I also serve services in terms of socio-culture to human such as my ecosystem can be ecotourism object that satisfies human enjoyment and pleasure. My ecosystem also can act as source for pursuing and invention of new knowledge and science that benefited both for human, non-human and scientific development itself. Considering my vital and strategic values and services as aforementioned, hence, it is sensibly enough for human to protect and maintain my ecosystem not only for the seek of to sustain my values and services, but also to sustain human existence too. These days, however, my ecosystem is under threat and destruction result from unsustainable and unwise economic development policies and anthropogenic activities. In Indonesia, for instance, as a home for about 80% tropical peatlands, I experience destruction overtime due to conversion to other land uses, drainage and fires. More than 1.5 million hectares of my ecosystem have been converted for agriculture fields and oil plan plantations in Central Kalimantan itself, and this figure is not included similar conversion in other region such as in Sumatera and Papua.  Removal of my valuable vegetations such as Ramin (Gonystylus), Meranti (Shorea), Belangiran (Shorea belangiran),etc for log production has created devastated negative impacts and changed my vegetation structure and composition, and at the end created disruption over whole my ecosystem. Construction of massive drainage networks in association with logging activities has disturbed my hydrological functions and services that leads to further degradation result from subsidence and irreversible drying of my peat soil. This disturbance at the end will severe the local, regional and global climate change due to substantial CO2 emissions released as consequences of this subsidence and peat drying.  Conversion to oil palm plantation and other tree plantation subsequent to logging activities has even devastated negative impacts to my ecosystem. Removal of whole vegetations  and replace this with completely single and invasive species such as oil palm or eucalyptus has disturbed and disrupted properties of my hydro-ecological and vegetation structure, hence, this will lead to the disturbance and degradation of my ecosystem. As to establish an oil palm plantation on my peat soil, there is a necessary to lower my water table to certain level that enable palm oil to growth and produce good yield. So as to achieve this goal, therefore, drainage network is required in order to control and manage my water at desired levels. Lowering my water table,  thus, will facilitate the subsidence and drying out my peat soil that at the end will destroy my whole ecosystem.  Following the removal and drainage activities, my ecosystem is normally susceptible to repeated fires as degraded peat is commonly acted as source of fire fuels notably during the dry season. Peat fires have major impacts to the climate change as it releases substantial CO2 emission result from peat combustion and burning vegetation. And thus, peat fires are absolutely one of the major contributors of the climate change issues. In addition, peat fires are very difficult to deal with as it commonly occurs beneath the peat surface (underground fire), thus, huge water source is required to put it out, whereas water source availability is major problem during the dry periods. Considering my future and treats that I am facing overtime, I call for the implementation of wise use and responsible peatland management needs to put in place. Without, adequate wise use and responsible measures, I do believe that my ecosystem will be come part of bad story side of human existence in this universe. Policy and regulation, market-based and voluntary measures that are favorable toward my protection, conservation and wise use are now needed to be discussed thoroughly by stakeholders to ensure both existence myself and human & non-human in the planet. Save me now or lost your humanity story.

What do Carbon Opportunists Tell Us About REDD+

Since the emergence of REDD+ scheme as a new alternative for climate change mitigation effort on the land use, land use and forestry (LULUCF) sector, there are contentious discussions and debates about how the scheme should be implemented on the real situation. Up to present day, the concept and modalities of REDD+ are still being developed and not yet ready to be implemented on the ground.

In addition, understanding and perspective upon REDD+ concept in Indonesia are currently varied from one stakeholder to the other, hence, everyone seems come up with his or her own perspective and conclusion, which is sometimes not fit in with each others.
The situation above is utilised and caught by I called as Carbon Opportunists (or other referred as Carbon Cowboys) by spreading their sweet promises and words to the government (national and subnational) and local communities about REDD+ opportunities based on their misleading illusion and expectations. Carbon opportunists try to convince and setting up mind-set of both government officers and communities as if the REDD+ activity is golden opportunity to reap huge amount of money by doing less or nothing on the ground.

The following section tries to synthesize and sketch out misleading illusions and expectations that have been often spread out by carbon opportunities to win support from both government and communities upon their ideas on REDD+.

First illusion and expectation: REDD+ is simply just protecting forest and huge money will flow in into the pocket. This misleading simplification is often raised by Carbon Opportunists to illustrate that the REDD+ activities are just simply protect forest from logging, fires and conversion to other uses, then huge money will flow in from the developed countries (Annex-1) to the forest protectors (government and communities) in the developing forest countries where REDD+ activities are taken place. On the contrary, the REDD+ activities are not as simplest as protect forest and money will flow in to the pocket of the implementers, but rather it involves series of architecture elements and a bit take time in term of process. REDD+ activities entail procedures and activities such as setting up baseline; implementing emission reduction and sequestration activities; conducting MRV; registering the certified emission reduction unit (CERs) produced; delivering the CERS to buyer; and distribution of CERs payment to the REDD+ actors. Those above architecture elements and activities will of course have big implications in terms of resources (financial, human and technology) and time (lengthy process) needed.

Second illusion and expectation: REDD+ is simply selling a carbon stock. This conclusion is very illusory, as carbon buyers from developed countries including their corporates will not going to pay any carbon stock that have been previously deposited or sequestered in the standing forests including carbon sank in the peat soil through the REDD+ scheme. Carbon credit in REDD+ is valued on the basis of performance-based approach, meaning that payment is only be made upon positive reduction and sequestration. In simplest way the tons of carbon to be paid is the net carbon gain by calculating  the difference between the present carbon stock (Yt) compared to previous stock (Yt-1) after leakage is deducted. Hence, for example, if the current deposited stock is smaller then previous deposited stock, the positive emission is occurred, so no incentive payment will be made.

Third illusion and expectation: Cost of REDD+ is cheap and the profit is huge. The cost of REDD+ activities normally entails three types of costs namely opportunity, transaction and implementation. These three cost components are not trivial, but rather substantial amount of initial investment costs are required to establish the REDD+ project. The REDD+ is a market-based approach, meaning that the activities are taken on profit manner. Profit is calculated in accordance to total differences between revenue generated and outlays spent for the REDD+ activities. Cost calculation includes the repayment of initial investment disbursed to start up the REDD+ project. Hence, a conclusion which states that the REDD+ cost is cheap and profit is enormous considered as illogic and misleading.

Fourth illusion and expectation: REDD+ will provide widespread job opportunities to locals. These illusion and expectation are somewhat make sense, however, the job opportunity will mostly depend upon the nature and type of jobs that REDD+ activities will offer to the local communities. If as a field labour, again the numbers of job opportunity required will depend upon the scale and types on emission reduction activities on the ground. My prediction, if REDD+ activities to be implemented in the very good primary and secondary forests conditions, the demand for field labour would not big enough, as the ground activities would be very limited. In the meantime, it is understandable that the REDD+ activities will involve strong technical and scientific manners where these kinds of expertise and type of job are rarely available locally. From existing REDD+ initiatives happening in Indonesia, for instance, REDD+ initiators are mostly preferred using international and national experts rather than using local experts to expediting their activities on the ground. The situation is often exacerbated by the lack of transparency and lack of involvement of the local communities in the process of worker recruitment. Unless there is a viable mechanism developed as well as principles of transparency, participation and accountability are put in place by REDD+ initiators; the promise of great job opportunities for the locals is just another illusion.

Fifth illusion and expectation: REDD+ will improve the local economy. The positive impact that REDD+ activities can contribute to the local economy is depending upon the scale of its financial investment and field activities on the ground. If the scale of investment is very small and the field activities are very limited, thus, the impacts of those investment and activities are less meaningful to the local economy. Moreover, the financial benefit that local economy will accrue from REDD+ activity is very much depends upon the design of payment allocation and distribution mechanisms being developed. If the principles of effective, efficient and equity are not well reflected towards the main emission reduction actors, the impact ofd REDD+ on local economy will not strong enough. The situation is even worse if the distribution chains are very long, the trickle down effects of REDD+ financial benefit to the local economy will shrinkage.

Sixth illusion and expectation: REDD+ will facilitate transfer of knowledge, experience and technology to the locals. Carbon opportunists often spread sweet promises stated the REDD+ activities will viably transfer  the knowledge, experience and technology to the local communities. This jargon might happen in a very limited number and scale, but, generally, there is often lacking of strategy and method on how transfering these expertise, knowledge and experience to the locals on the ground. to some extent, however, it often happen where local knowledge and experience confiscated by those carbon opportunists for their own benefits. Unless a transparent and firm means of transferring knowledge, experience and technology available to the local, there would be just an illusion that REDD+ supports local knowledge, expertise and experience.

By developing a better understanding upon those illusions and expectations often raised by those carbon opportunists,  local stakeholders (local government and communities) may differentiate whether or not someone approach them is categorized as a Carbon Opportunist and  thus they can distance themselves from those kind of opportunists.

Hembusan Angin Sorga REDD+ para Oportunis Karbon

Istilah REDD+ menjadi terminologi yang jamak didengar dan hampir menjadi topik pembicaraan harian khususnya di Kalimantan Tengah. Kendatipun istilah tersebut telah menjadi lumrah untuk diperbincangkan, namun pemahaman terhadap makna, hakekat dan tujuan REDD+ itu sendiri menjadi wilayah pemahaman yang sangat abu-abu (grey area) bagi kebanyakan para pihak yang terlibat langsung maupun tidak langsung dengan isu dan kegiatan REDD+ itu sendiri.

Situasi kemudian semakin diperumit dan diperkeruh oleh kehadiran para oportunis karbon yang mencoba menabur angin sorga seolah-olah REDD+ merupakan harapan dan kesempatan emas baru bagi masyarakat Kalimantan Tengah guna menggapai kehidupan dan kesejahteraan ekonomi yang lebih baik dari kondisi yang dialami saat ini. Hembusan angin sorga tersebut terasa semakin kencang melalui pemberian berbagai ilusi dan ekspektasi menyesatkan, seperti yang penulis coba sintesis dan uraikan berikut ini.

Ilusi dan ekspektasi pertama: REDD+ adalah cukup dengan menjaga hutan dan uang melimpah akan masuk. Simplifikasi menyesatkan ini sering dilontarkan para oportunis karbon yang menggambarkan kegiatan REDD+ cukup hanya dengan menjaga hutan supaya tidak ditebang, tidak terbakar dan tidak dikonversi untuk kegiatan lain, kemudian uang akan mengalir masuk begitu besar dari negara-negara maju termasuk didalamnya perusahaan-perusahaan mereka kepada para menjaga hutan (Pemerintah dan masyarakat) dimana lokasi REDD+ dilaksanakan. Padahal kegiatan REDD+ tidak sesederhana itu, melainkan memiliki elemen arsitektur kegiatan yang membutuhkan proses panjang dan relatif rumit mulai dari penetapan emisi referensi (baseline); intervensi reduksi emisi & sekuestrasi karbon termasuk perlindungan biodiversitas; kegiatan Monitoring, Pelaporan dan Verifikasi (MRV); registrasi kredit karbon tersertifikasi, penyaluran kredit karbon tersertifkasi kepada pembeli; dan distribusi uang karbon kepada para pelaku kegiatan. Kesemua proses dan kegiatan tersebut diatas berimplikasi besar terhadap waktu dan sumberdaya (finansial , SDM dan teknologi).

Ilusi dan ekspektasi kedua: REDD+ menjual stok karbon hutan. Konklusi ini menjadi sangat menyesatkan karena para pembeli karbon (negara maju dan perusahaan mereka) tidak akan pernah mau untuk membayar stok karbon yang saat ini sudah tersimpan di kawasan hutan termasuk karbon di dalam tanah gambut melalui kegiatan REDD+. Sistem pembayaran nilai karbon dalam skema REDD+ berbasis pada kinerja yang dicapai (performance-based), yang artinya pembayaran hanya akan dilakukan kepada unit emisi dan sekuestrasi karbon yang benar-benar berhasil direduksi atau disekuestrasi. Kalkulasi sederhananya adalah selisih bersih antara stok karbon tahun sekarang (T1) dengan stok karbon tahun sebelumnya (T-1) setelah dikurangi kebocoran (leakage). Jadi kalau stok karbon tersimpan tahun sekarang lebih kecil dari tahun sebelumnya, itu artinya emisi positif atau sekuestrasi negatif, jadi tidak ada nilai karbon yang akan dibayar.

Ilusi dan ekspektasi ketiga: REDD+ biaya murah dan untungnya besar. Pelaksanaan kegiatan REDD+ berimplikasi pada tiga jenis biaya yaitu biaya oportunitas (opportunity cost), biaya transaksi (transaction cost) dan biaya implementasi (implementation cost). Biaya oportunitas merupakan kehilangan kesempatan memperoleh pendapatan dari kegiatan memanfaatkan nilai hasil hutan (kayu dan non-kayu) dan lahan karena kawasan hutan dan lahan tersebut dijadikan kegiatan REDD+. Sementara biaya transaksi merupakan seluruh biaya yang terkait dengan tata niaga dan dukungan kebijakan sehingga karbon kredit tersertifikasi dapat diproduksi dan terjual kepada pihak yang membutuhkan. Komponen yang termasuk dalam ketegori biaya transaksi diantaranya biaya MRV, biaya makelar karbon, biaya pembentukan institusi dan biaya registrasi karbon tersertifikasi. Sedangkan biaya implementasi adalah keseluruhan biaya yang dikeluarkan untuk intervensi kegiatan reduksi emisi maupun sekuestrasi karbon. Ketiga komponen biaya REDD+ tersebut diatas bukanlah biaya kecil melainkan membutuhkan dana dan investasi yang sangat besar. Pendekatan REDD+ adalah pendekatan pasar, yang artinya didalam kalkulasi keuntungan bisnis karbon merupakan silisih antara total penerimaan dan total biaya yang telah dikeluarkan, termasuk penggunaan sebagian keuntungan yang diperoleh untuk pengembalian nilai investasi yang sudah dikeluarkan sebelumnya. Jadi kesimpulan bahwa REDD+ berbiaya murah dan memberikan keuntungan besar merupakan suatu logika yang terbalik dan menyesatkan.

Ilusi dan ekspektasi keempat: REDD+ membuka kesempatan kerja luas. Ilusi dan ekspektasi ini memang sedikit masuk logika, akan tetapi sangat tergantung pada jenis dan tipe kesempatan kerja yang bagaimana yang akan disediakan oleh kegiatan REDD+ kepada masyarakat lokal. Kalau posisi tenaga kerja lapangan, kesempatan kerja yang ditawarkan ke masyarakat lokal akan sangat ditentukan oleh jenis dan besarnya skala kegiatan intervensi reduksi emisi dan sekuestrasi karbon yang akan di implementasikan di lapangan. Saya menduga-duga bahwa apabila kegiatan REDD+ dilakukan di kawasan hutan primer dan sekunder yang kondisinya relatif masih baik, maka tentu permintaan akan tenaga lapangan akan sangat minim, karena intervensi yang akan dilakukan juga sangat minim dan terbatas. Sementara itu, kegiatan REDD+ sejatinya akan banyak terkait berbagai aspek teknis dan ketrampilan teknologi, yang ketersediaan sumberdaya lokal dibidang tersebut masih relatif terbatas, sehingga jamak kita saksikan para inisiator kegiatan REDD+ yang sekarang ada di Kalimantan Tengah justru banyak melibatkan dan mendatangkan keahlian asing dan dari luar daerah. Lebih-lebih secara kasat mata para inisiator REDD+ ini tidak membuka kran kesempatan secara transparan dan berkeadilan kepada masyarakat lokal. Jadi kesempatan kerja yang luas dalam kegiatan REDD+ hanya akan menjadi suatu ilusi semata apabila tidak ada asas transparansi, partisipasi dan akuntabilitas dari para pelaku atau inisiator REDD+ di lapangan.

Ilusi dan ekspektasi kelima: REDD+ meningkatkan perekonomian lokal. Kehadiran program REDD+ akan berdampak nyata pada peningkatan perekonomian lokal sangat ditentukan oleh skala kegiatan dilapangan dan model alokasi serta distribusi manfaat finansial REDD+ yang akan diberikan kepada pelaku kegiatan pengurangan emisi dan sekuestrasi karbon di tingkat lokal. Apabila formulasi model alokasi dan distribusi manfaat kurang mencerminkan asas keadilan dan pemerataan berdasarkan kinerja nyata tentu daya dampaknya terhadap perekonomian lokal tentu akan sangat kecil, lebih-lebih apabila jenjang dan rantai distribusi semakin panjang tentu daya trickle down effect kegiatan REDD+ akan semakin mengerucut ke daerah.

Ilusi dan ekspektasi keenam: REDD+ mendukung transfer pengetahuan, pengalaman dan teknologi untuk masyarakat lokal. Para oportunis karbon umumnya selalu mengumbar janji manis tentang akan terjadi alih pengetahuan, pengalaman dan teknologi untuk aparat dan masyarakat dengan adanya kegiatan REDD+ di daerah. Realitas dilapangan justru banyak membuktikan sangat sedikit skema yang jelas dan tegas tentang bagaimana hal tersebut akan dilakukan. Justru sebaliknya terjadi transfer pengetahuan, pengalaman dan teknologi dari masyarakat lokal kepada para opurtunis karbon tersebut, yang kemudian dengan kepiawaiannya memainkan kata dan kalimat seolah-olah semuanya bersumber dari mereka. Sepanjang skema dan metode alih pengetahuan, pengalaman dan teknologi tidak tersedia secara transparan dan tegas, semuanya akan menjadi ilusi semata.
Dengan memperhatikan berbagai ciri-ciri ilusi dan ekspektasi yang dihembuskan para oportunis karbon seperti yang telah diuraikan diatas, tentu sangat diharapkan para pihak di Kalimantan Tengah akan semakin jeli dan membentengi diri dari serangan ilusi dan ekspektasi menyesatkan dari para oportunis tersebut.

Letter: Don’t blame locals, Mr. Minister!

Published at The Jakarta Post

| Wed, 07/20/2011 10:29 PM

Forestry Minister Zulkifli Hasan concluded: “Rampant illegal logging involving local communities” (www.thejakartapost.com, July 17).
Again the minister tries to blame local communities for his incapability to manage forests, which is the main responsibility of his ministry.
Here’s a flash back: In Central Kalimantan, prior to the introduction of the forest concession system in the early 1970s, transmigration program and private plantation estate in 1980s, we did not have any problems with illegal logging and forest destruction.
Local communities were living in harmony with the forest although local farmers opened small forest areas for limited
agricultural activities. But, following the activity, those farmers replanted opened land with commercial trees or products such as rubber, rattan, fruit trees, etc... for future cash saving, which also all amounts to forest rehabilitation.
One amazing thing done by local people is that they have engaged in forest rehabilitation without receiving a single rupiah in assistance from the government budget. From this perspective, we can conclude that local people have a high capability to rehabilitate forests with their own efforts and resources as well as without support from global-sponsored schemes like REDD+.
But on the other hand, since the introduction of forest concessions, and transmigration and plantation estates, forests in Central Kalimantan have experienced massive deforestation and degradation problems.
The government has also generated lucrative sources of money from those activities such as reforestation funds, export taxes, land tax, etc., and all those funds and taxes are managed by the central government and supposed to be partly used for forest rehabilitation activities, but it is hardly heard that government-led reforestation activities have succeeded on the ground, and they then try to find scapegoats for their failures by saying that deforestation, forest destruction and fires are all carried out by local communities.
I think it would be better for the minister to send preachers to his own department to preach instead of sending those preachers to local communities. I think his staff need this kind of preaching the most so that their morals and behavior improve.

Alue Dohong
Palangkaraya, Central Kalimantan

Lokakarya Teknis Praktek Terbaik Pengelolaan Lahan Gambut Berkelanjutan Tingkat ASEAN Berakhir Sukses

Press Release (21062011) – telah dimuat pada Harian Umum Tabengan tanggal 22/06/2011)

Lembaga Pengkajian, Pendidikan dan Pelatihan Lingkungan Hidup (LP3LH) berkerjasama dengan Global Environment Center (GEC) selaku Executing Agency ASEAN Peatland and Forests Programme (APFP) baru-baru ini menyelenggarakan kegiatan lokakarya teknis bertajuk: “Technical Workshop on Best Management Practices for Sustainable Peatland Management”, yang dilaksanakan pada tanggal 15-18 Juni 2011 di Palangka Raya, Kalimantan Tengah, kata Alue Dohong, Direktur LP3LH dalam press release-nya yang disampaikan pada harian ini.

Kegiatan lokakarya teknis diikuti oleh 31 orang peserta yang berasal dari 8 negara Asia Tenggara yakni Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philipina, Thailand dan Vietnam. Kegiatan lokakarya teknis meliputi penyajian tentang teknik pengelolaan lahan gambut secara berkelanjutan dari nara sumber ahli, kegiatan kunjungan lapangan dan presentasi studi kasus pengelolaan terbaik lahan gambut berkelanjutan oleh masing-masing negara, imbuh Alue Dohong.

Selanjutnya tambah Alue Dohong, nara sumber kegiatan lokakarya teknis terdiri dari tiga orang yaitu Dr. Suwido Limin, Alue Dohong dan Dr. Darmae Nasir yang kesemuanya merupakan ahli dan praktisi gambut dari Universitas Palangka Raya (UNPAR). Materi yang disampaikan nara sumber meliputi antara lain: Overview of Peatland Management, Introduction of Peatland Water Management, Fire Prevention and Control, Rehabilitation of Degraded Peatland, Community Livelihoods, dan Multiple Use of Peatland.

Untuk memperkenalkan kepada seluruh peserta tentang isu-isu nyata pengelolaan lahan gambut dan bagaimana cara penanganan isu tersebut secara bijaksana dan berkelanjutan, maka seluruh peserta diajak kunjungan lapangan ke Laboratorium Alam Hutan Rawa Gambut (LAHG) dan Kalampangan Zone, Blok C eks PLG, yang kesemuanya dikelola oleh CIMTROP UNPAR. Selanjutnya, pada hari terakhir lokakarya teknis, setiap negara mempresentasikan studi kasus pengelolaan terbaik lahan gambut berkelanjutan di negara masing-masing.

Dari lembar evaluasi pelaksanaan kegiatan lokakarya yang didistribusi dan dibagikan kepada seluruh peserta untuk diisi, hampir 95% peserta menyatakan bahwa penyelenggaraan, pelayanan logistik dan kunjungan lapangan oleh panitia lokakarya sangat baik dan sangat memuaskan. Sekitar 90% peserta menyatakan memperoleh pengetahuan baru tentang bagaimana mengelola lahan gambut secara berkelanjutan dan bijaksana dari para nara sumber dan berjanji untuk mereplikasi dan menerapkan pengetahuan yang didapat selama kegiatan lokakarya teknis di negara masing-masing, imbuh Alue Dohong mengakhiri press release-nya.

Peserta Technical Workshop on Best Management Practices for Sustaiable Peatland Management Tingkat ASEAN (Photo: Alue Dohong) 

Pemerintah Daerah Seharusnya Dukung BK

30-06-2011 00:00

Harian Umum Tabengan,

Polemik keinginan Pemko Palangka Raya untuk menempatkan dana pemerintah daerah (pemda) ke Bank lain di luar Bank Kalteng (BK) mendapat respons kalangan akademisi. Pemerintah Provinsi dan Kabupaten/Kota harus mendukung pengembangan lembaga keuangan perbankan daerah seperti BK, karena didasari alasan dan pertimbangan ekonomis dan etika-moral.

Alue Dohong, dosen Jurusan Studi Pembangunan Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Palangka Raya (Unpar) dalam rilis yang diterima Tabengan, Rabu (29/6), mengatakan, pertimbangan ekonomis berupa return (bunga) tinggi atas imbal penempatan investasi hendaknya bukan menjadi satu-satunya determinan yang menjadi perhitungan pemda, melainkan pertimbangan etika-moral.

Pertimbangan ekonomis dan etika moral itu, antara lain, BK merupakan aset daerah untuk mendukung dan memperkuat struktur perekonomian di daerah. Melalui pengembangan jaringan dan jangkauan layanan di seluruh Kalteng, menunjukkan BK telah berkontribusi cukup signifkan terhadap pembentukan PDRB (Produk Domestik Regional Bruto) Kalteng dan kabupaten/kota.

Karena itu, perlu dipupuk rasa memiliki serta dukungan nyata terhadap keberadaan dan perkembangan aset daerah itu. Kemudian, sebagai pemegang saham di BK, selain memperoleh return berupa bunga atas penempatan fresh money di rekening giro daerah, pemda selaku pemegang saham juga memperoleh penghasilan lain berupa dividen yang dibagikan kepada para pemegang saham yang didistribusikan setiap akhir tahun buku.

Kemudian, ada kemungkinan penempatan dana daerah di lembaga perbankan atau keuangan non-BK akan mendorong terjadinya capital outflow keluar Kalteng, karena bank korporasi nasional umumnya mendiversifikasi asetnya ke berbagai aktiva derivatif (obligasi, asuransi, SUN, dan lain-lain) yang umumnya tidak tersedia di Kalteng.

“Dengan demikian, dana pemda justru dinikmati oleh daerah lain sehingga secara etika dapat dikategorikan sebagai kebijakan yang kurang mendukung terhadap pembangunan daerah,” kata Alue.

Menurutnya, dana pemda merupakan dana publik dan bukan milik pribadi pemimpin daerah. Penempatan dana publik itu ke bank lain atau lembaga keuangan non-bank di luar BK seharusnya mendapatkan persetujuan dari DPRD selaku representasi dari publik.

Memerhatikan berbagai pertimbangan ekonomis dan etika-moral itu, Alue mengingatkan kepala daerah agar mempertimbangkan kembali niat untuk tidak menempatkan dana daerah di BK. Prinsip investasi do not put all eggs in one basket (‘jangan menaruh semua telur dalam keranjang’), nampaknya tidak relevan untuk pemda. “Sebab, posisinya memang bukan sebagai investor atau fund manager dari dana publik yang dipercayakan kepadanya untuk dikelola demi terwujudnya kemakmuran dan kesejahteraan rakyat,” pungkas Alue.str

IMPLEMENTASI REDD, MASYARAKAT HARUS DILIBATKAN

LAST_UPDATED2 Selasa, 28 Desember 2010

Jika implementasi Program Reducing Emissions from Deforestation andDegradation (REDD) yang digagas pemerintah RI bisa tercapai, maka masyarakat sekitar harus dilibatkan secara maksimal.  Pelibatan masyarakat harus dari perencanaan, monitoring, dan evaluasi.

Demikian benang merah yang

bisa di tarik dari hasil Dialog dan Lokakarya kebijakan Program Perubahan Iklim, REDD dan Hak Masyarakat Adat, yang diselenggarakan Pemprov Kalimantan Tengah bekerja sama dengan Aliansi masyarakat Adat Nasional (AMAN) Kalteng, LSM HUMA, dan LSM Petak Danum di Aula Eka Hapakat, Kantor Gubernur Kalteng, Kamis-Jumat (16-17/12/2010).

Alue Dohong, dari Dewan Daerah perubahan Iklim (DDPI) Kalteng mengatakan, Peran Masyarakat Adat (MA) dalam konteks REDD agak sulit bila dalam bentuk tertulis, namun adanya pengakuan tanpa adanya normative dinilai akan berdampak positif.  “Salah satu solusinya adalah MA dilibatkan secara maksimal,” tegasnya.

Sementara ketua Centre for International Co-operation in Sustainable Management of Tropical Peatlands (CIMTROP) Universitas Palangka Raya Suwido H. Limin berpandangan, melihat dari tujuan program REDD secara teoritik sangat baik dan mulia, karena mempertimbangkan kepentingan dan kelangsungan hidup manusia dan stabilitas daya dukung alam.

Namun dia meragukan implementasi di lapangan bisa berjalan dengan baik.  Berdasarkan pengalaman selama ini berkaitan dengan masyarakat dan lingkungan alam, teori kerap tidak dapat diimplementasikan sehingga tujuan pun tidak tercapai.

“Ini disebabkan adanya perbedaan konsep tentang kepentingan, keinginan, dan kebutuhan antar dunia internasional, nasional, dan regional,” katanya.

Sacara Nasional ada PERMENHUT No.30/ 2009 yang tidak menjamin masyarakat adat di daerah tanah Dayak dapat berperan dan terlibat dan berperan aktif dalam pengelolaan sumber daya alam berbasis jasa lingkungan tersebut.  Walaupun pelaku REDD boleh masyarakat pengelola hutan hak adat, tetapi status hutan adat harus memiliki salinan SK menteri dan adat yang dapat diajukan untuk program REDD harus mendapat persetujuan menteri kehutanan.

PLT sekretariat daerah Kalteng Siun Jarias memiliki pandangan sama.  Dia menekankan agar kelembagaan adat harus diperkuat, di samping memperkuat kualitas sumber daya manusia.  Siun yang juga Sekretaris Majelis Adat Dayak nasional (MADN) ini mengungkapkan rasa keprihatinannya terkait persoalan tanah-tanah adat, yang menurutnya apakah menjadi milik perorangan atau status kepemilikan bersama.  “Ini terkait dengan pemanfaatan oleh warga kita,” katanya.

Mumu dari HUMA menyampaikan pandangan berbeda.  Menurutnya dalam program REDD, Masyarakat adat sangat rentan sebagai objek, ini karena belum adanya mekanisme pemberian dana itu secara langsung kepada masyarakat adat.  “Saat ini kementerian keuangan akan membuat rancangan mengenai hal ini, REDD akan masuk dalam keuangan atau administrasi Negara, bagaimana masyarakat lokal bisa mengakses ini, “katanya dengan nada Tanya.

Dia juga mengkritik program REDD yang menurutnya justru ada kebijakan lain yang bersifat deforestrasi.  Dia mencontohkan kebijakan pemberian izin untuk perkebunan besar swasta sawit.

Sumber : Tabengan. Sabtu, 18 Desember 2010. Halaman 4.

UNPAR’s Peat Scientists and Practitioners Reject KFCP’s Plan to Use Heavy Equipment in Implementing Hydrological Rehabilitation in the Ex Mega Rice Project

Press Release

The plan of Kalimantan Forests and Climate Project (KFCP) a project funded by AusAID Australia to implement a hydrological rehabilitation (canal blocking) through deployment of heavy equipment such excavators in the Block A and E of the ex Mega Rice Project (ex-MRP) in Central Kalimantan receive opposition and rejection from peat scientists and practitioners of the University of Palangka Raya (UNPAR) and those local experts demand the plan should be abandoned as well as argue the district, provincial and central governments to cancel the KFCP as a REDD demonstration activity if the project sticks with their plan to do so.

Rejection is based upon scientific and technical considerations as well as potential negative impacts in terms of ecological, economic and social aspects that may occur if the plan is still implemented on the ground.

From scientific point of view, hydrological rehabilitation activity using excavators to close or blocking open canals through excavating or using peat or organic matters that are currently available on the existing canals embankments as well as other wood debris is considered as less scientific justification and lack of experience methods. It is acknowledged that a similar technique has been tested limitedly by a private sector in Sumatera, but it’s successful and effectiveness has not been scientifically proven. In addition, the peat ecosystem as well as its physical characteristics in Sumatera is different from peat in the ex-MRP of Central Kalimantan, hence, similar hydrological rehabilitation method may not yield same outcomes.

From engineering perspective, blocking and filling up of open canals by utilizing existing peat organic matters volume available on the canal banks will no longer enough to refill or close entirely the existing open canals as the availability of peat matters on the canal levee is currently very minimum due to subsidence, decomposition and depletion result from previous repeated fires in the area. As consequences, new peat refill needs to be excavated from other sites so as to fulfill the refill shortage which means closing old canals, by digging new canals. Apart from that, existing peat organic matters on canal banks have experienced irreversible shrinking due to repeated dry seasons and hence, it has lost its water absorption capacity. In addition, a plan to use existing wood debris and dead wood is also seen as ineffective means and wasting efforts as the existing debris and dead wood volumes are very limited.

Deployment of excavators in the hydrological rehabilitation (canal blocking) activity in the block A and E of the ex-MRP is predicted to impose negative impacts in terms of ecological, economic and social.

In terms of ecological, utilization of excavators in the hydrological rehabilitation will possibly create negative impacts as follows:

Firstly, excavator’s track and pathway will accelerate the process of peat subsidence and peat compaction leading to increasing of GHGs emission release and will hinder natural regeneration, which at the end, could slow down the carbon sequestration rate in the area;

Secondly, mobilization and movement of the excavators will destroy existing vegetation species and natural regeneration that already established in the areas, both along the canal levees and canal courses;

Thirdly, mobilization and movement of the excavators will disturb aquatic biota and vegetation that are already naturally regenerated and established both within the Blok A and E of the ex-MRP;

Fourthly, utilization of wood debris and dead wood to refill the open canals is potentially accelerated the release of GHGs emissions or loss of standing dead biomass due to do later on use for other purposes such as firewood, charcoal, building material or loss due to fire incidence;

Fifthly, the excavation of peat organic matters from canal embankment in order to refill the open canals is potentially led to increase sedimentation rate at both Mantangai and Kapuas Rivers as mostly both block A and B areas are routinely inundated during peak rainy season so that it is worried that peat matters will flow out to the downstream rivers. This situation will increase sedimentation rate of both rivers and at the end will exacerbate river pollution, which is potentially disturbed the aquatic ecosystem.

From economic and social perspectives, utilization of excavators in hydrological rehabilitation will contra-productive and will potentially raise negative impacts, such as:

Firstly, activity of hydrological rehabilitation that uses heavy equipment (capital incentive) will reduce opportunity of the local labors involvement in the KFCP program. This situation is not suitable and contradictory with the 3Es (effective, efficient & equity) principle as core objective of REDD activity; and

Secondly, mobilization and movement of excavator will potentially create social tensions between project and local landowners. Many villagers have planted crops and other commercial trees in their respective lands as well as in the adjacent canals, thus, the excavator pathway and movement within such areas will potentially destroy existing crops and trees.

Lack of Respect Upon Traditional Wisdom Technology

Implementation of hydrological rehabilitation through operating of heavy equipment such as excavator is seen as less effective and inefficient ways compared to the traditional dam (traditional called TABAT) system ones. CIMTROP’s UNPAR as well as other NGOs have practiced the traditional dam system in restoring peat hydrology for years in Central Kalimantan and this traditional dam technology is proven very effective and efficient ways as well as gains successful in restoring peat hydrology.

Therefore, current proposed KFCP’s hydrological rehabilitation method could be seen as lack of respect and acknowledgement upon the traditional knowledge and technology that have been traditionally practiced in the region. KFCP’s reliance on the capital-intensive method is not only considered as ineffective and inefficient as well as a way of wasting money, but also could possibly create negative impacts to the existing peatland ecosystem.

Considering those aforementioned factors as well as its potential negative impacts that is likely to emerge, hence, UNPAR’s peat scientists and practitioners recommend the following points:

1. KFCP’s plan to do hydrological rehabilitation by using excavator in the Block A and E of the ex-Mega Rice Project much be cancelled;

2. Urge the governments of Kapuas District and Central Kalimantan Province as well as Central Government to re-examine whether or not the Project has conducted appropriate and deep Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study upon its hydrological rehabilitation plan. If EIA study has been completed, it is highly recommended to do re-examination and re-evaluation upon the study result; and

3. If the project is stick with its original plan to implement the hydrological rehabilitation through the deployment of heavy equipment (excavator), hence, it is recommended that both provincial and central governments need to carry out overall evaluation upon the implementation of KFCP as REDD demonstration activity in the ex Mega Rice Project, as it is seen that their hydrological rehabilitation interventions against the efforts of protecting peatland and curbing emissions released from this fragile ecosystem.

Palangka Raya, 20 June 2011.

Representatives of UNPAR’s Peat Scientist and Practitioners:

Dr. Ir. Suwido Limin, MS

Mr. Alue Dohong

Dr.Ir. Uras Tantulo, M.Sc

Dr. Darmae Nasir, M.Si, MA

Dr. Yanetri Asi, SP, MP

Dr. Ir. Adi Jaya, M.Si

Para Ahli dan Praktisi Gambut Universitas Palangka Raya Menolak Rencana KFCP untuk Menutup Kanal di Eks PLG Menggunakan Alat Berat (Excavator)

Press Release:

Rencana Kalimantan Forests and Climate Project (KFCP) yang didanai Pemerintah Australia (AusAID) untuk melakukan kegiatan rehabilitasi hidrologi (penutupan kanal) di kawasan Blok E dan Blok A Utara eks Proyek Lahan Gambut 1 Juta Hektar (PLG) dengan menggunakan alat berat excavator (Pengumuman Lelang, Tabengan, 20/06/11) mendapat penolakan dari para ahli dan praktisi Gambut Universitas Palangka Raya (UNPAR) dan mereka meminta rencana tersebut agar dibatalkan serta meminta pihak Pemerintah Kabupaten, Pemerintah Provinsi dan Pemerintah Pusat untuk menghentikan kegiatan proyek KFCP yang merupakan kegiatan demonstrasi REDD apabila intervensi rehabilitasi hidrologi menggunakan alat berat (excavator) tetap dilaksanakan oleh pihak proyek.

Penolakan didasari atas pertimbangan ilmiah, teknis dan potensi dampak negatif secara ekologis, ekonomis dan sosial yang akan timbul, apabila rencana tersebut tetap dilaksanakankan oleh KFCP.

Secara ilmiah kegiatan rehabilitasi hidrologi dengan menutup kanal-kanal terbuka dengan memindahkan/menggunakan sisa materi bekas galian gambut yang tersedia pada tanggul kanal yang ada saat ini serta pemanfaatan bekas serasah kayu/pohon mati dengan menggunakan excavator, tidak didasari atas kajian dan pengalaman ilmiah yang cukup. Penerapan metode rehabilitasi hidrologi serupa memang pernah dilaksanakan oleh perusahaan swasta di Sumatera, namun tingkat keberhasilan dan kesuksesannya secara ilmiah belum dapat dibuktikan, lagi pula kondisi fisik dan ekosistem gambutnya relatif agak berbeda dengan yang ada di wilayah eks PLG.

Secara teknis penutupan kanal terbuka dengan menggunakan sisa volume materi gambut yang terdapat pada tanggul kanal, tidak akan mampu menutupi ruang kanal terbuka yang ada, karena ketersediaan materi gambut pada tanggul sudah sangat minimum, karena telah mengalami proses deplesi, dekomposisi dan hilangnya lapisan gambut akibat peristiwa kebakaran yang berulang di wilayah tersebut. Konsekwensinya, harus dilakukan penggalian materi gambut baru guna menutupi kekurangan materi tersebut, yang berarti kembali menerapkan gali kanal tutup kanal dengan excavator. Disamping itu, materi gambut yang tersisa pada tanggul kanal saat ini sudah mengalami proses pengeringan tak balik (irreversible shrinking), karena musim kemarau yang berulang, sehingga tidak akan efektif untuk menutup kanal terbuka yang ada, karena materi gambut yang demikian fungsi penyimpanan airnya sudah hilang. Selain itu, penggunaan sisa serasah dan kayu mati yang terdapat dilokasi, diperkirakan tidak akan banyak membantu karena ketersediaan volume juga sangat terbatas.

Penggunaan excavator di dalam kegiatan rehabilitasi hidrologi (penutupan kanal) di wilayah blok A Utara dan Blok E, diprediksi akan berdampak negatif secara ekologis, ekonomis dan sosial.

Secara ekologis, kemungkinan dampak negatif yang akan timbul antara lain:

Pertama, penggunaan excavator akan menyebabkan akserelasi pengamblesan (subsidence) dan pemadatan (peat compaction) tanah gambut yang menjadi jalur mobilisasi dan pergerakan excavator. Subsidensi dan pemadatan gambut akan berdampak negatif terhadap laju pelepasan carbon dan berpotensi mengganggu/menghambat proses regenerasi alami yang berarti menghambat sekuestrasi karbon;

Kedua, mobilisasi dan pergerakan alat berat (excavator) akan merusak vegetasi atau regenerasi alami species tumbuhan yang sudah tumbuh di wilayah blok A dan dan Blok E, baik yang sudah tumbuh diatas dan di sepanjang tanggul kanal maupun yang terdapat pada jalur kanal;

Ketiga, mobilisasi dan pergerakan excavator diperkirakan akan mengganggu keberadaan biota dan vegetasi perairan yang sudah mulai mengalami regenerasi dan pemulihan di kawasan blok E dan Blok A Utara.

Keempat, penggunaan materi bekas seresah dan kayu mati sebagai bahan timbunan untuk menutup kanal diperkirakan berpotensi untuk melepas karbon/biomasa yang tersimpan pada kayu mati (dead biomass) karena berpotensi untuk diambil/dimanfaatkan untuk kepentingan lain seperti kayu bakar atau kemudiaan terbakar;

Kelima, pemindahan sisa materi gambut dari tanggul kanal untuk menutup kanal diperkirakan berpotensi untuk meningkatkan laju sedimentasi sungai Mantangai dan sungai Kapuas karena pada wilayah yang akan dilakukan rehabilitasi hidrologi secara rutin mengalami banjir/genangan yang tinggi pada puncak musim hujan, sehingga diperkirakan materi gambut dan kayu mati akan banyak terbawa arus keluar ke wilayah hilir. Kondisi ini akan ikut memperparah kerusakan/polusi sungai Mantangai dan Kapuas yang pada gilirannya akan mengganggu ekosistem perairan pada kedua sistem DAS tersebut.

Secara ekonomis dan sosial, penggunaan alat berat seperti excavator di dalam kegiatan rehabilitasi hidrologi justru kontraproduktif dan berpotensi menimbulkan dampak negatif antara lain:

Pertama, pendekatan rehabilitasi hidrologi yang bersifat capital intensive justru menegasi peluang dan kesempatan kerja bagi masyarakat lokal untuk terlibat dalam kegiatan KFCP. Hal ini tidak sesuai dengan prinsip 3Es (effective, efficient & Equity) yang menjadi roh dalam implementasi kegiatan REDD; dan

Kedua, mobilisasi dan pergerakan alat berat excavator akan berpotensi menimbulkan gesekan dan konflik dengan masyarakat pemilik lahan setempat, karena mobilisasi alat berat akan berpontensi merusak tanaman/tumbuhan milik masyarakat lokal yang sudah tumbuh baik.

Tidak Menghargai Kearifan Teknologi Lokal

Penerapan teknologi rehabilitasi hidrologi dengan menggunakan alat berat seperti Excavator, justru dianggap tidak efektif dan efisien, sementara teknologi rehabilitasi hidrologi melalui sistem penabatan tradisional sudah dipraktekan baik oleh CIMTROP Universitas Palangka Raya maupun kelompok masyarakat di Kalimantan Tengah, dimana menunjukkan tingkat keberhasilan yang relatif tinggi dalam artian lebih efektif dan efisien.

Dengan demikian program rehabilitasi hidrologi yang dijalankan dianggap tidak menghargai pengetahuan dan kearifan teknologi lokal yang sudah dipraktekan selama bertahun-tahun oleh tenaga ahli dan masyarakat lokal. KFCP justru mengandalkan teknologi asing dan padat modal yang belum tentu efektif dan efisien serta berpontensi berdampak negatif terhadap kawasan gambut.

Memperhatikan berbagai potensi dampak negatif yang akan ditimbulkannya, maka para ahli dan praktisi gambut Universitas Palangka Raya (UNPAR), merekomendaskan:

1. Agar rencana kegiatan rehabilitasi hidrologi dengan menggunakan excavator di wilayah blok A dan Blok E eks PLG dihentikan;

2. Agar Pemerintah Kabupaten Kapuas, Pemerintah Provinsi Kalimantan Tengah dan Pemerintah Pusat meneliti kembali apakah rencana kegiatan rehabilitasi hidrologi tersebut sudah ada rencana AMDAL atau tidak. Apabila sudah ada kajian AMDAL, maka kajian tersebut harus dilakukan penilaian kembali (reassessment);

3. Apabila rencana rehabilitasi hidrologis dengan menggunakan alat berat terus dilakukan, diminta agar Pemerintah Provinsi Kalimantan Tengah dan Pemerintah Pusat melakukan evaluasi menyeluruh terhadap implementasi kegiatan demontrasi REDD yang justru diperkirakan kontra produktif terhadap perlindungan gambut serta bertentangan dengann tujuan pengurangan dan pencegahan emisi karbon secara umum.

Palangka Raya, 21 Juni 2011.

Ttd,

Para Ahli dan Praktisi Gambut UNPAR

Dr. Ir. Suwido Limin, MS

Alue Dohong, M.Sc

Ir. Uras Tantulo, M.Sc

Dr. Darmae Nasir, MA

Dr. Yanetri Asi, SP,MP

Dr.Ir. Adi Jaya, MS