Korean Journal of Agricultural Science (농업과학연구)

Institute of Agricultural Science, CNU (충남대학교 농업과학연구소)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Hutan Kemasyarakatan (Community Forestry Programme) and REDD+

하까엠(Community Forestry Programme)과 REDD+(인도네시아에서 하까엠이 REDD+의 이행주체가 될 수 있는가?)

  • Yoon, Jun-Young (Department of Environment Forestry Resources, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Park, Gwan-Soo (Department of Environment Forestry Resources, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Kang, Ho-Duck (Department of Biological and Environmental Science, College of Life Science and Biotechnology) ;
  • Kim, Se-Bin (Department of Environment Forestry Resources, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Lee, Jun-Woo (Department of Environment Forestry Resources, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Sung, Yong-Joo (Department of Biobased Materials, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Lee, Seung-Woo (Korea Forest Research Institute) ;
  • Lee, Sang-Jin (Department of Environment Forestry Resources, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Park, Beom-Hwan (Department of Environment Forestry Resources, Chungnam National University)
  • Received : 2011.11.28
  • Accepted : 2011.12.18
  • Published : 2011.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate if an community forestry programme (HKm) could be one of the main tool for REDD+ in Indonesia. Recently, considerable numbers of countries including Norway, England, Korea and etc. have invested 69 million US$ in total to Indonesia for implementation of REDD+. However, forest dependent people without a communal right are subject to poor forest governance during a stream of REDD+ in Indonesia. This study suggest that HKm are needed to be a tool for REDD+ in order to achieve the objects of REDD+ in terms of Equity, Efficiency, and Effectiveness (3Es) by stimulating local and Indigenous peoples to participate in REDD+. As a result of our study, Indonesia government have designated only 200,000 ha for HKm area by 2007. Indonesia government have a week political will to extend its area to give a communal right to those peoples who dwell in state forests and HKm application process is complicated and slow. HKm has a potential to be main tool for REDD+ in Indonesia. However HKm will be difficult to be main tool for REDD+ without resolving current obstacles.

Keywords

References

  1. Akiefnawati R, Villamor GB, Zulfikar F, Budisetiawan I, Mulyoutami E, Ayat A, Noordwijk MV. 2010. Stewardship agreement to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD): Lubuk Beringin's hutan desa as the first village forest in Indonesia. 3 pp.
  2. Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Kanninen M, Sills E, Sunderlin WD, Kanounnikoff SW(eds). 2009. Realising REDD: national strategy and policy options. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor. pp. 201-211.
  3. Barr C, Dermawan A, Purnomo H, Komarudin H. 2010. Financial governance and Indonesia Reforestation Fund during the Soeharto and post-Soeharto periods, 1989-2009: A political economic analysis of lessons for REDD+. Occasional paper 52. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.
  4. Boccucci M, Holopainen J, Wit M. 2008. RED and investment. Financing sustainable forest management. European Tropical Forest Research Network (ETFRN) News Issue No. 49, September 2008. Wageningen: Tropenbos International.
  5. Chhatte A, Agrawal A. 2009. Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Vol 106(42): 17667-17670. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0905308106
  6. CIFOR. 2010. Table of Subnational REDD+ projects in Indonesia accessed n http://www.forestsclimate change.org /global-comparative-study-on-redd/redd-project-sites/redd-projectsites- in-indonesia.html#detail on 5 December 2011.
  7. Cotula L, Mayers J. 2009. Tenure in REDD - Start-point or afterthought? Natural Resources Issues No. 15. London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).
  8. Ekadinata A, Dewi S, Hadi DP, Nugroho DK. 2007. Can secure tenure help reduce deforestation? Lessons learnt from Sumberiaya watershed, Lampung, Indonesia. World Agroforestry Centre.
  9. Elliott V, Lambert F, Phalla T, Sothea H. 2011. Biodiversity Assesment of the REDD Community forest project in Oddar Meanchey Cambodia, Elliott International in Indochina. 8 pp.
  10. FAO. 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment. FAO Forestry Paper 163. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
  11. Fey C. 2007. Review of Legal Frameworks for Community based Natural Resource Management in Selected Asian Countries. Bogor(Draft): World Agroforestry Centre.
  12. FCPF. 2010. Charter Establishing the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. World Bank, Washington DC, USA.
  13. GACF. 2009. Community-based forest management: a key element of effective REDD methodologies A submission in response to Draft SBSTA 29 agenda item 5: Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries: Paragraph 11: issues relating to indigenous people and local communities for the development and application of methodologies.
  14. Hoare AL. 2010. Community-based forest management in the democratic republic of congo: A fairy tale of a viable REDD strategy?. Forest monitor. 6 pp.
  15. Holck MH. 2008. Participatory forest monitoring: an assessment of the accuracy of simple cost-effective methods. Biodivers Conserv. 17: 2023-2036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-007-9273-4
  16. IPCC. 2007. IPCC fouth asessment report. Report by Working Group I: The physical science basis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  17. KFRI(Korea forest research institute). 2010. Forest and forestry in Indonesia. [in Korean]
  18. Khususiyah N, Rahayu S, Buana Y, Asmawan T, Suyanto. 2010. Carbon and watershed functions as conditionality for community forest.
  19. Lawrence A, Paudel K, Barnes R, Malla Y. 2006. Adaptive value of participatory biodiversity monitoring in community forestry, Nepal. Environmental Conservation. Vol 33(4): 325-334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892906003432
  20. Luttrell C, Schreckenberg K, Peskett L. 2007. The implications of carbon financing for pro-poor community forestry, ODI Forestry Briefing 14. London. ODI.
  21. Masterarbeit AAD. 2010. Possible implications of REDD on land and forest tenure-exemplified by the Indonesian case. pp. 14-35
  22. Ministry of Forestry. 2001. Forestry ministerial decree (HKm) Number: 31/Kpts-II/2001.
  23. Ministry of Forestry. 2007. Forestry ministerial decree (HKm) Number: P.37/Menhut-II/2007.
  24. Ministry of Forestry. 2009. (Draft) National Strategy: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Indonesia. August 2009. MoF, Jakarta. 55 pp.
  25. Norad. 2010. Real-time Evaluation of Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative: Contributions to National REDD+ Processes 2007-2010 Country Report: Indonesia. 22 pp.
  26. Pender J, Suyanto, Kerr J, Kato A. 2008. Impacts of the Hutan Kamasyarakatan Social Forestry Program in the Sumberjaya Watershed, West Lampung District of Sumatra, Indonesia. International Food Policy Research Institute. 1 pp.
  27. Peter C, David BB, Gabriel M. 2011. Community Forest Management and the Emergence of Multi-scale Governance Institutions: Lessons for REDD+ Development from Mexico, Brazil and Bolivia. Forests. pp. 451-453.
  28. Phelps, J, Webb EL, Agrawal A. 2010. Does REDD+ threaten to recentralize forest governance, Science. Vol. (328): 313-312.
  29. Poffenberger M. 2006. People in the forest: community forestry experiences from Southeast Asia. Int. J. Environment and Sustainable Development 5(1): 1-66. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESD.2006.008678
  30. Rain forest foundation Norway(RFN). 2010. Recommendations regarding a bilateral cooperation between Norway and Indonesia on REDD. 02/16/2010, Oslo, Norway. 4 pp.
  31. Readiness-plan(R-PLAN) FOREST CARBON PARTNERSHIP FACILITY (FCPF). 2009. Forestry Research and Development Agency (FORDA). Ministry of Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia. 4 pp.
  32. Republic of Indonesia. 2009. Reducing Carbon Emissions from Indonesia''s Peat Lands Interim Report of a Multi‐disciplinary Study. 4 pp.
  33. Skutsch M. 2004. Reducing carbon transaction costs in community based forest management.
  34. Skutsch M, Solis S. 2010. How much carbon does community forest management save? The results of K:TGAL's field measurements. 3 pp.