M

ore than 190 nations are preparing to assemble in Paris for their 21st annual conference on climate change in December. Wealthy nations have pledged US$100 billion in financial assistance towards this cause; and this pledge will expire in 2020. Now, these nations will meet in Paris to reach a new global agreement on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Reducing deforestation and forest degradation are key parts of the global negotiations on climate change and this is particularly salient for forest-rich Indonesia. Despite the moratorium on new logging concessions Indonesia loses vast areas of forestland every year. The government appears incapable of defending national forests.

When the moratorium fails to work, it needs to encourage people to protect the forests themselves. This requires reforms in forest ownership and forest management systems. Such reforms have proved to work in many countries, as shown in a recent study by the Center for Indonesian Policy Studies (CIPS).

Reforms must differentiate between each of the three categories of forests. Conservation forests have high ecological value and rich biodiversity. They matter most but suffer serious encroachment by illegal loggers and poachers. Almost every day we hear stories about the dramatic decay of pristine forests, like the Gunung Leuser National Park in Sumatra.

In contrast, the Malaysian Kinabalu Park remains excellently conserved. What is the difference? In Indonesia, conservation areas are treated like museums and efforts for their conservation do not take into consideration the welfare of local people.

In Malaysia, conversely, tourism services in and around the park provide business and employment opportunities and reduce human encroachment in the forests. This requires the government to act as a facilitator between businesses and the park administration. It should not only police illegal loggers and poachers. Conservation forests need a modern management system, like the public-private partnership in Kinabalu Park.

The second category is protection forests which serve the purpose of reducing risks caused by floods, erosion, soil degradation etc. Nevertheless, floods and landslides are still being exacerbated by deforestation. As with conservation forests, policing the forests does not suffice because people need to be persuaded to look beyond the immediate profit and to protect the forests. International experiences point to a better alternative: granting limited property rights to local communities.

They are required to maintain and cannot sell the forests but they have the right to use forest resources and to own the proceeds, such as wood, fruits, honey, spices, resin, etc. Practiced in Nepal, this has made a third of the population manage about a quarter of Nepal'€™s state forests and has achieved impressive reforestation as well as increased household incomes.

The African nation of Niger provides another example where similar rights led to 200 million new trees on 5 million hectares of farmland, and a significant increase in household income.

Finally, the third category of production forests is meant for economic benefits and can be cut down, even in their entirety. Currently, these forests are being managed by the state-owned Perum Perhutani or by private concessionaries. The CIPS study argues that revenues generated from these forests should support local economic growth instead of flowing into central government'€™s coffers.

Thus production forests need to be privatized or the ownership be transferred to local communities. The recent Ministerial Regulation No. 12 / 2015 by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry is a first step in that direction. According to recent reports, about 6 million hectares of production forests are supposed to be managed as community or customary forests.

Some might argue against ownership reforms because forests, like other natural resources, must remain under the powers of the state. Others worry that communal authority over forests may accelerate deforestation. Yet partial property rights actually keep resources under the state control whilst turning forests into sources of local livelihood, and thereby motivating people to maintain and protect their local forests.

Already, many local governments in Gunung Kidul, Lampung and elsewhere have acted responsibly by promoting reforestation through community forestry.

Indonesia'€™s constitutional and legal frameworks allow the reform of forest ownership and the introduction of modern forest management. Thus the focus of the Environment and Forestry Ministry should not be on policing the forests anymore; rather it needs to facilitate modern forest management by local communities.

This would constitute a significant Indonesian contribution to international efforts and would be a strong signal to international leaders when they meet in France in December to reach a new global deal on climate change.
_________________________

The writer is executive director of the Center for Indonesian Policy Studies (CIPS).