News reports about rampant deforestation in Indonesia often refer to alleged corruption, poor law enforcement and the greed of logging and palm oil interests. But sometimes, the reviled companies are also victims.
Take Singapore-listed Golden Agri-Resources (GAR), a palm oil plantation company in the Sinar Mas group which has recently been working hard to shed its negative image among environmentalists. In June, when environmental watchdog Greenomics Indonesia issued a press statement denouncing a sustainability report issued by GAR, it seemed that the company had been caught red-handed.
The report asserted that none of GAR’s concessions involved forest land. Greenomics disagreed. To prove its point the organisation referred to a map of Central Kalimantan province issued by the minister of forestry on May 31. By this measure, it said, almost all of the company’s concessions in the province involved protected forests. It said GAR was thus in clear violation of Indonesian law and should withdraw its report in order to avoid being accused of misleading the public.
A GAR spokesman told The Straits Times recently that the report was ‘not based on complete information’.
A brief look at the history of palm oil regulation in the province is certainly enlightening. What Greenomics did not say was that the company had become the victim of a power struggle between the central and provincial governments over the conversion of forest land for other uses.
The story begins in 1993, when the provincial government issued a land use decree based on its interpretation of a 1982 decree by the ministry of agriculture.
In September 2000, a letter from the planning department in Jakarta’s ministry of forestry and plantations appeared to legitimise the process. The letter, a copy of which has been obtained by The Straits Times, seemed to accept forest land use maps issued by the provincial government the previous year. Crucially, it noted that land set aside for development, residential and other purposes as determined by the provincial authorities could be used without the need to obtain forestry relinquishment permits from the ministry that would enable the land to be used for other purposes.
In subsequent years, the provincial government encountered little opposition from the forestry ministry when using these maps in the process of awarding important plantation concessions to companies such as GAR.
At the time, Indonesia was still struggling to come to terms with decentralisation laws passed by Parliament in 1999. Repeated Cabinet reshuffles in Jakarta left forestry officials in Jakarta with no strong leadership. In later years, the forestry ministry also experienced a reorganisation after it lost its authority over plantations.
However, the situation changed dramatically in September 2006, when Forestry Minister Malam Sambat Kaban informed the provincial governor that his ministry did not recognise the province’s decisions, and he was revoking the 2000 letter. Mr Kaban also insisted that companies that had acquired concessions on what the ministry regarded as forest land between 2000 and 2006 must obtain permits from Jakarta.
The provincial government has put up a stout defence of its rights, and the status quo has so far remained unchanged. The latest maps referred to by Greenomics nevertheless show that the dispute is ongoing, and that the forestry ministry remains determined to assert its authority.
Unlike Greenomics, most environmentalists I spoke to in Jakarta last month expressed sympathy with GAR. Even Greenpeace, which published a major report in July last year denouncing the company’s environmental track record, conceded that the confusing legal situation in Central Kalimantan is primarily the result of bad governance.
Greenpeace spokesman Joko Arif believes that the saga is a good illustration of why the national moratorium on forest conversion announced in May this year does not go far enough. ‘There should be a review of all concessions given on forest and peat land,’ he said. ‘The aim should be to determine which have been obtained legally and which illegally, and what the circumstances are’.
Lauded by many environmental groups for its positive response to criticism of its environmental record, GAR now boasts one of the most comprehensive forest conservation policies in the industry. ‘If they implement it properly, it will be very good indeed,’ one environmental activist told me.
