Climate Finance For Indonesia Forests

Culture of Italia Instituto Jakarta has hosting a half day of Climate Finance  for Indonesia Forests by Mr. Michael Bucki, European Union Delegation. 

As Mr Robert Nasi, Director General of CIFOR has remarked the conclusion of Reduction Emission Deforestation Degradation where the talk of Climate Finance Global Forests  has not been prioritizing to near distance supply chain logistic where energy emission reduction for example King Crab is imported to Thailand from Norway that contribute to excessive long burn of fuel emission on supply chain and  investment not priority to energy consumption to increase chemical air garbage for example CO2 that effecting climate change Nor the research CIFOR has impacting indirectly of reduction energy emission to the level of financing. Our Consumer need to  ask  question if climate change is becoming the forgotten supply chain risk? The figures would certainly suggest that it's not prioritized that high up on the list of priorities for companies. The 'Global 500 climate change report 2013' from the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) and written by PwC found that 50 of the 500 biggest listed companies in the world account for emissions of 3.6 billion metric tonnes, or 73 per cent of total greenhouse gases. According to Ms. Ann Jeannete Glauber, Worl Bank IFC that Indonesia that has trillion Economy has contributed half of climate emission globally and only contribute 0.5% to allocation fund committed and has contributed to fire and haze of 11% power mitigation of forest risk management. According to Asean  German Embassy that Forest Management need a new structure that driven from emission economy development by targeting number for example 6000 KPH (Kesatuan Pengelolah Hutan) or Forest Management Unit. Indonesia has selected 10 KPH on Forest Investment Program Phase II to 10 KPH and need more to be driven by emission economy development. Amongst 120,3 Million Ha Indonesia government forest, about 46.5% or 55.93 Million HA not able to manage to intensify capacity. 30 Million HA of local provincial government about were managed with forestry production for wood  (IUPHHK with 324 Unit  of 26.2 HA permit. and about 28.2 Millions HA  for conservation forestry.

With policy endorsement of Ministry Forestry II NO 6 2009 for the organization of KPH

and Norm , Standard and Procedure and Criteria Management Forestry Conservaton (KPHL) and Production Forestry (KPHP) and Ministry Internal Affair No 61 2010 the guiding principle Organization and Structure Work Orgnaization KPHL an KPHK. This organization Forestry is to objectivity the benefit to people starting from Planning Forestry, Management of Forestry, Research and Development, Training and Education as well as counseling and supervising. KPH organization has function as
1. providing and  organizing management forestry
   a. Planning and Road map management of Forestry
   b. Beneficiaries Forestry Production  and Controllers of Owner of Permit
   c. Utilize Forest area and monitor and control of Owner of Permit.
  d. Rehabilitate Forest and Reclamation
  e. Protect Forest on Specific Demand Area.
  f. Provide and Protect Conservation Forestry

2. Derive the policy National Policy to Provincial and County/City in application implementation
3.To Drive all activities Forest Management in area of sub national down level from planning, organization and implementation and supervision and controlling
4. Implementing and controlling and assessing activities Forest Management in each sub national

Currently CIFOR has assessing Society Forest in Vietnam and Indonesia Forest Society Volume 1-20 November 2017 has concluded: 

Society Forestry CIFOR was adopted by the government of Indonesia as a government program to achieve the multiple objectives of improving livelihoods, empowering communities and improving forest governance. The governments regulate Society Forestry by legislating multiple policies and regulations that have had at times contradictory effects to their stated objectives. As Indonesia policy is under Internal Affair Ministry that not participate in this responsibility from Planning, funding but guarding on hierarchical sub national only to guarding  the implementation issues of internal affair highlighted Forestry Sector. This meeting for Clarification and Organization UPTD Provincial level based on policy Ministry Internal Affair no 12 2017 and language nomenclature unit branch based on policy Ministry Environment and Forestry No 74 2016 to synchronizing with Governor policy. and providing strength national organization of UPTD KPH (personal, facility and infrastructure) that may dream of effectiveness of organization function of KPH. It seems that KPH policy was created by non involving forestry policy maker for example  waiting for Governor policy if nullifying and the waiting for conflicting national policy and sub national policy has been hard to do because the policy within policy of sub national. With approaching encapsulating policy within policy that Indonesia KPH has not been able to apply for driven forestry communities as a target driver for Forest Management. 

Lesson to learn from the author of  book Understories of Political Forestry shows these contentious natures are integral both to environmental politics and the formation of racialized citizens, politicized landscapes, and modern regimes of rule. Kosek traces the histories of forest extraction and labor exploitation in northern New Mexico, where Hispano residents have forged passionate attachments to place. He describes how their sentiments of dispossession emerged through land tenure systems and federal management programs that remade forest landscapes as exclusionary sites of national and racial purity

The Society Forestry has concluding  as quoted on the article below as failing to meet up to these requirements as Society Forestry for Indonesia.

"a literature review and data from the field, we find that conflicts over resources, incomplete allocation of rights, misalignment between formal SF rules and local governance systems, and actors involved have rendered SF ineffective in general. Several interpretations can be identified. First is that the government itself has no serious interest in the implementation of SF as it not only would lose control over the resources, but also must undergo transformation change. Old habits die hard and institutional stickiness and vested interests is a common problem (Brockhaus et al., 2014). Secondly, either there is a lack of trust, or communities are indeed unwilling to manage forests on these terms. Local people do not hesitate to change their livelihood system if they see economic opportunities (Feintrenie et al., 2010) but incentives need to be clear. Thirdly, empowerment needs more than SF, it would need respect for the local people and structural reform to provide clear rights and responsibilities allowing local people autonomy to exercise power. It requires providing understanding and skills that allows local people to govern resources. Equally important, it also requires an understanding that the inter linkages between the community and forest are not static, but an adaptive and dynamic practice of governance to changing development, movements of people, market, policy and environmental processes. As the experience from Indonesia suggest, SF in its current forms fail to meet up to these requirements. In line with other authors (Adiwibowo, 2016; Maryudi, 2012) it may be that SF is indeed not fully serving the interests of the people, but perhaps that."

About 17.6 to 24.4 Million HA are in conflict claiming from government Forestry and was claimed as if indigenous people or other local people that develop villages Without management forestry more potential conflict will arise as the result  the loss of amount incentive of Climate Forestry and rehabilitation Forestry. Indonesia National scale, the government responsibility in securing forest asset and its production are weak.

Indonesia recently has strengthening Rights and Economy of Adat and Local Communities Project (DGMI). The project development objective is to improve participating indigenous people and local communities’ (IPLCs) capacity to engage in tenure security processes and livelihood opportunities from sustainable management of forest and land. This project is grant to public at 6.325 Million U.S Dollar and contact person is Cristi Nozawa, The Samdhana Institute, Jalan Guntur No. 32, Babakan, Bogor Tengah, Babakan, Bogor Tengah, Kota Bogor, Jawa Barat 16128, Indonesia. Email: cristi@samdhana.org

How is the struggle against climate change financed? Climate Finance: Theory and Practice gives an overview of the key debates that have emerged in the field of climate finance, including those concerned with efficiency, equity, justice, and contribution to the public good between developed and developing countries. With the collaboration of internationally renowned experts in the field of climate finance, the authors of this book highlight the importance of climate finance, showing the theoretical aspects that influence it, and some practices that are currently being implemented or have been proposed to finance mitigation and adaptation policies in the developed and developing world.

Since 2010, a significant quantity of international climate change finance has begun to reach developing countries. However, the transfer of finance under the international climate change regime – the legal and ethical obligations that underpin it, the constraints on its use, its intended outcomes, and its successes, failures, and future potential – constitutes a poorly understood topic.

Climate Change Finance and International Law fills this gap in the legal scholarship. The book analyses the legal obligations of developed countries to financially support qualifying developing countries to pursue globally significant mitigation and adaptation outcomes, as well as the obligations of the latter under the international regime of financial support. Through case studies of climate finance mechanisms and a multitude of other sources, this book delivers a rich legal and empirical understanding of the implementation of states’ climate finance obligations to date.

The book will be of interest to scholars and students of international law and policy, international relations, and the maturing field of climate change law.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is investing $7.3 million in the Indonesia Forestry and Climate Support program, which works with the Indonesian government, the private sector, and communities to improve forest governance and planning at the district level; promote sustainable forest management in target landscapes; and increase sustainable development of local economies by engaging private sector partners who can provide financing and technical expertise. The program supports key Indonesian climate change initiatives, including the objectives of the Norway-Indonesia Letter of Intent on Climate Change, the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) National Strategy, Low Emissions Development Strategies (LEDS), and systems for monitoring, reporting, and verifying greenhouse gas emissions.