Indonesian NGOs Calling for An immediate halt in scoping, assessments and issuing of certificates to HPHs/KPHs *) April 21, 2001 Dear colleagues: As it still seems that LEI and FSC accredited certifiers are going ahead with scoping and assessment activities with concessionaires (HPHs), despite the clear call from WALHI on the 10th of March to halt these activities, all the undersigning organisations hereby, in the strongest possible way, reiterate the call to LEI and FSC for a halt in all scoping-, pre-assessment- and assessment activities with concessionaires (HPHs), as well as an immediate moratorium on the issuing of any certificates, until core issues related to adat rights are agreed and settled among stakeholders. The undersigning organisations believe that further scopings, assessments or issuing of certificates to conventional HPHs, serves to legitimise the existing concession system, a system that is the root of the problem in Indonesia�s forestry sector, and urgently needs reforms. Certification must secure indigenous rights in order to be credible In order to follow the amanded Constitution of 1945, that recognises indigenous peoples right�s, relevant laws and regulations related to land tenure issues are urgently in need of reforms. The undersigning organisations also strongly believe that certification of HPHs in the current situation, will work counter productive to securing indigenous and community rights, as long as no independent analysis have been undertaken of FSC�s principle 2 and 3 relative to Indonesian laws. Principle 2 reads: PRINCIPLE #2: TENURE AND USE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES Long-term tenure and use rights to the land and forest resources shall be clearly defined, documented and legally established. 2.1 Clear evidence of long-term forest use rights to the land (e.g. land title, customary rights, or lease agreements) shall be demonstrated. 2.2 Local communities with legal or customary tenure or use rights shall maintain control, to the extent necessary to protect their rights or resources, over forest operations unless they delegate control with free and informed consent to other agencies. 2.3 Appropriate mechanisms shall be employed to resolve disputes over tenure claims and use rights. The circumstances and status of any outstanding disputes will be explicitly considered in the certification evaluation. Disputes of substantial magnitude involving a significant number of interests will normally disqualify an operation from being certified. Principle 3 reads: PRINCIPLE #3: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' RIGHTS The legal and customary rights of indigenous peoples to own, use and manage their lands, territories, and resources shall be recognized and respected. 3.1 Indigenous peoples shall control forest management on their lands and territories unless they delegate control with free and informed consent to other agencies. 3.2 Forest management shall not threaten or diminish, either directly or indirectly, the resources or tenure rights of indigenous peoples. 3.3 Sites of special cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance to indigenous peoples shall be clearly identified in cooperation with such peoples, and recognized and protected by forest managers. 3.4 Indigenous peoples shall be compensated for the application of their traditional knowledge regarding the use of forest species or management systems in forest operations. This compensation shall be formally agreed upon with their free and informed consent before forest operations commence. While there is a halt in certification activities, as called for above, an analysis of principle 2 and 3 of FSC relative to Indonesian laws, should define what steps that needs to be taken by the Indonesian government to create possibilities for logging operations to comply with these Principles so as to enable credible certification to take place. If certification goes ahead now, without any such analysis, there is no clear basis for agreements on tenure thresholds, and no possibility to legally establish these thresholds. This will seriously undermine indigenous peoples and local communities rights in Indonesia, and the undersigning organisations will not accept it. Without such an analysis there will neither be any clear guidence to certifiers on land tenure thresholds, which we believe to be urgently needed, so that the certifiers can know how to actually implement FSC�s Principle 2 and 3 in Indonesia. And as we have already seen examples by certification bodies such as SGS in the Diamond Raya case, and SmartWood in the case of several certifications at Perum Perhutani, we believe the consultation methodologies to be rather random and inadequate in terms of assuring that local communities concerns and demands are taken seriously and treated with due respect, so as to enable implementation of the above mentioned principles. It seems like fundamental things such as definitions of �representativness� and �informed consent� is not even something the certification bodies are able to explain, so how can then these consultation procedures be considered valid, and how can they be monitored? If our demand is not met by a sudden halt in all activities with concessionaires, and a formal statement confirming that by first of May, we will communicate actively to: 1) national and international media, 2) international campaigns and advocates for indigenous rights and sustainable forestry, 3) FSC�s donors and funders, why we have asked the questions we have asked (below), and why we have demanded the analysis we have demanded (below), and why we think it is of outmost importance to create a framework in which credible certification can take place in Indonesia. Doing this we will focus on exactly what questions FSC and LEI refuse to answer in the Indonesian context, and what analysis that FSC and LEI has so far refused to accept as necessary. Questions that needs to be answered and analysis that needs to be undertaken While the halt/moratorium on certification activities with concessionaires is in place, we demand in order to lay the foundation that could open for credible certification in Indonesia that the following is carried out: � An independent analysis of LEI and FSC Principles relative to Indonesian national law; � An independent analysis of LEI and FSC�s policies relative to the over-capacity of the wood product industry and the sector�s dependence on illegal logs being laundered into �legal� chains of custody; � An independent analysis of relevant Indonesian laws, especially the Indonesian Forestry Act No. 41/1999, relative to FSC�s Principles 2 and 3 in particular. Such an analysis should review the ongoing deliberations on implementation of the Forestry Act�s Operating Regulation RPP Hutan Adat, and outline how the outcome of these deliberations are relevant to certification efforts in Indonesia; � An independent analysis of barriers for the certification of indigenous and community-managed forests >From capacity building initiatives (GTZ and TNC), we demand: � Clarification of criteria that will be used to determine whether concessionaires will receive capacity building assistance (see Concern 3, Past Performance and Criminal Histories); and � Clarification on your institutional involvement with capacity building regarding social aspects of forest management (see Concern 4, Politically marginalized stakeholders in the letter of Sept. 13). >From certification bodies (SGS, SmartWood/LATIN, and LEI- accredited certifiers), we demand: � Clarification of certification policies relative to Indonesian national laws; � Clarification of fatal flaws that could prevent concessionaires from moving from scoping/pre-assessment to full assessment; and � Clarification of stakeholder consultation methodologies and timelines We, the undersigning organisations, believe, as was also stressed by the workshop on Indigenous issues in Oaxaca 9th of November 2000, that FSC certifiers when endorsing logging operations should make sure they comply with the Principles and Criteria of FSC, otherwise the system has no credibility. We believe the Principles and Criteria should also be adhered to when working in Indonesia with LEI under the JCP. If FSC continues to ignore the call for an analysis of Principle 2 and Principle 3 relative to Indonesian laws, we will have to: - Communicate to the international media, and to the donors of the FSC, that FSC does not take indigenous rights seriously in Indonesia. - Challenge all certificates issued to HPHs. LEI should continue their work to develop credible certification in Indonesia: We, the undersigning organisations, wish to stress that we appreciate the effort LEI has carried out over the years, ever since the start in 1994 to increase civil society�s participation in Indonesia�s forestry sector, and encourage debates and open forums for discussion. During the halt in scopings, assessments and issuing of certificates in Indonesia � while the required analysis are made -, we encourage LEI to continue to work closely with NGOs and local community groups to set up FKDs in all provinces, and to finalize the standards for community forestry certification. We encourage LEI to further contribute to capacity development so that communities can engage as stakeholders in a meaningful way both on local, regional and national levels, and take the time needed to ensure that both LEI and NGOs help out with building capacity for the communities to truly engage, so that their aspirations and demands can be accomodated at all levels. We also strongly encourage LEI to integrate FSC�s Principle 3 in LEI�s National Standard. We also encourage LEI to finalize their plantation Criteria and Indicators in close cooperation with NGOs and communities, and to assess all the KPHs already certified by FSC accreditated bodies. This in order to assess whether or not the KPHs can be credibly certified and comply with both FSC�s P and C�s and LEIs C and I�s, or if a total reform of Perum Perhutani is needed before certification can go ahead. With the current level of illegal activities and tenure disputes in several areas we are concerned about 1) whether or not the certified areas actually comply with FSC�s P and C�s and LEI�s C and I�s, 2) Whether or not KPHs should be certified when major decisions are taken at higher levels, 3) If the COC system developed by SmartWood is watertight in terms of assuring that uncertified and illegal wood does not come into the production lines, (especially seen in light of the fact that there are about 40 factories COC certified while the supply of certified wood can only feed a small percentage of these factories production). We therefore also call for a halt in assessment activities in Perum Perhutani�s teak plantations until the FSC certified KPHs have been assessed by LEI, and can be evaluated under the JCP, to check if there is actual compliance with FSC P and C�s as well as with LEI�s C and I�s (when finalised). We also believe a halt in certification activites to be further justified now as Perum Perhutani is being privatised and the impact of this must be seriously assessed before certification activites of individual KPHs can go ahead. Please understand the crucial junction we have reached, and accept our pledge for a halt at this stage, so as to enable us to assess and analyse the situation and work together to create a platform for informed discussions between different stakeholder groups on the future direction of certification in Indonesia that will truly accommodate community rights, and help secure a better future for Indonesia�s forests, and a truly credible certification system. Yours sincerely: 1. Longgena Ginting, Eksekutif Nasional (Eknas) WALHI - Jakarta 2. Bagus Andrianto, ULAYAT � Bengkulu (Bengkulu) 3. Berry N Forqan, Yayasan Cakrawala Hijau Indonesia (YCHI) � Banjarmasin (West Kalimantan) 4. Harris Palisuri, Sekpel Aliansi Masyarakat Adat (AMA) Sultra � Kendari (Southeast Sulawesi) 5. Yusuf Tallamma, SULUH Indonesia - Kendari, (Southeast Sulawesi) 6. Nordin, WALHI Kalimantan Tengah � Palangkaraya (Central Kalimantan) 7. Nasution Camang, Yayasan Merah Putih Putih � Palu (Central Sulawesi) 8. Masyhuri Abdullah, WALHI Lampung - Bandar Lampung (Lampung) 9. Muslim Abdilla, Yayasan Madani Jombang (YAMAJO) � Jombang (East Java) 10. Indro Surono, ELSPPAT � Bogor (West Java) 11. Rohadji Trie, Mitra Simpang Tilu � Bandung (Jawa Barat) 12. Sariadi, Yayasan Betang Borneo � Palangkaraya (Central Kalimantan) 13. Restu Achmaliadi, Jaringan Kerja Pemetaan Partisipatif (JKPP), Bogor (West Java) 14. Ikrar Idrus, Wallace Forest Ecological Protection (WfEP) � Makassar (South Sulawesi) 15. Aryadi, Yayasan Bumi Hijau (YBH) � Bulukumba (South Sulawesi) 16. Muhammad Fadli, Yayasan BUMI � Samarinda (East Kalimantan) 17. Rully Syumanda, KALIPTRA � Pekanbaru (Riau) 18. Tanty Thamrin, YPR Bulukumba � Bulukumba (South Sulawesi) 19. Rudy Lumuru, Sawit-Watch, Bogor (West Java) 20. Mahir Takaka, Yayasan Bumi Sawerigading (YBS) � Palopo (Central Sulawesi) 21. Rasdi Wangsa, Jaringan Kearifan Tradisional Indonesia (JKTI), Palu (Central Sulawesi) 22. Ronald M Ferdaus, Aliansi Relawan untuk Penyelamatan Alam (ARuPA) - Yogyakarta 23. Abdul Wahib Situmorang, WALHI Sumatera Selatan � Palembang (South Sumatera) 24. Anto Sangaji, Yayasan Tanah Merdeka (YTM) � Palu (Central Sulawesi) 25. Harley, WALHI Sulawesi Tengah � Palu (Central Sulawesi) 26. Fazrin Rahmadani, Borneo Ecological & Biodeversity Science Club (BEBSiC) � Samarinda (East Kalimantan) 27. Yohannes Halawa, Yayasan PENTAS � Medan (North Sumatera) 28. Saut Christianus Manalu, Labour Education Center � Bandung (West Java) 29. Tejo Wahyu Jatmiko, KONPHALINDO - Jakarta 30. A. H. Simendawai, Jaringan Advokasi Pembela Aktifis Lingkungan (TAPAL) - Jakarta 31. Yohanes RJ, WALHI Kalimantan Barat � Pontianak (West Kalimantan) 32. Tri Agus S Siswowiharjo, SOLIDAMOR - Jakarta 33. Tantyo Bangun, Yayasan JELAJAH - Jakarta 34. Djuni Pristiyanto, HAMIM � Jember (East Java) 35. Chalid Muhammad, Jaringan Advokasi Tambang (JATAM) - Jakarta 36. Rudy Ranaq, LBB Puti Jaji � Samarinda (East Kalimantan) 37. Titi Suntoro, BIOFORUM � Bogor/Jakarta 38. Avi Mahaningtyas, Yayasan NADI - Jakarta 39. Susianto, WALHI Jawa Timur � Surabaya (East Java) 40. Efendi Panjaitan, WALHI Sumatera Utara � Medan (North Sumatatera) 41. Firdaus, Fasilitator Regional Sumatera Kp-SHK, Padang (West Sumatera) 42. Rakhmat WARSI � Jambi (Jambi) 43. Taufan, WALHI Jawa Barat � Bandung (West Java) 44. Iis Sabahudin, SYLVA UNTAN � Pontianak (West Kalimantan) 45. Yosep Yusdiana, Gerakan Anti Hutang (GERAH) � (West Java) 46. Jansen H Sinamo, Yayasan Perhimpunan Pencinta Danau Toba - Jakarta 47. Maman, CESDA-LP3ES, Jakarta 48. Riza V Tjahjadi, Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Indonesia - Jakarta 49. Ferry Irawan, WALHI Jambi � Jambi (Jambi) 50. John Bamba, Institute of Dayakology (ID) � Pontianak (West Kalimantan) 51. Mina Susana Seta, Sekpel AMA Regional Kalimantan Barat � Pontianak (West Kalimantan) 52. Munaldus, PEK-Pancur Kasih � Pontianak (West Kalimantan) 53. Mathius Pilin, Sistem Hutan Kerakyatan (SHKKalbar) � Pontianak (West Kalimantan) 54. A.W. Boyce, WALHI Sumatera Barat � Padang (West Sumatera) 55. Irham, POKLAN � Bandung (West Java) 56. Mimin Dwi Hartono, Wana Mandhira Foundation - Yogyakarta 57. M. Asikin, WALHI Kalimantan Selatan � Banjarmasin (South Kalimantan) 58. Masiun, Lembaga Bela Banua Talino (LBBT) � Pontianak (West Kalimantan) 59. Farid, WALHI Yogyakarta - Yogyakarta 60. Aswan Acsha, Lembaga Advokasi & Pendidikan Anak Rakyat � Makassar (South Sulawesi) 61. Anto, WALHI Jawa Ten gah � Semarang (Central Java) 62. Yamin, Yayasan Katopasa Indonesia � Palu (Central Sulawesi) 63. Denny Rismansah, Iqbal Abieza Mahardika Foundation (IAMF) � Bandung (West Java) 64. Ahmad Syafruddin, WALHI DKI Jakarta - Jakarta 65. Silvester, WALHI Papua � Jayapura (Papua) 66. Boedhi Wijardjo, Yayasan Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Indonesia (YLBHI) - Jakarta 67. Sofyan, KAPPALA, Yogyakarta - Yogyakarta 68. Rusman Medjang, Yayasan Tumbuh Mandiri Indonesia (YTMI) � Makassar (South Sulawesi) 69. Sandra Moniaga, Lembaga Studi dan Advokasi Masyarakat (ELSAM) - Jakarta 70. Yohannes Joko Purwanto, Yayasan MAINAKHA � Bandar Lampung (Lampung) 71. T. Wijaya, Aliansi Jurnalis Independen (AJI) Palembang � Palembang (South Sumatera) 72. Ahmad Imam Ghozali, SH, KBH Lampung � Bandar Lampung (Lampung) 73. Purnomo Subagyo, Serikat Petani Lampung, Bandar Lampung (Lampung) 74. Rudi Sugih Arto, Lembaga Studi dan Gerakan Sosial � Bandar Lampung (Lampung) 75. Nanang Wahyudi, Yayasan HAKIKI � Pekanbaru (Riau) 76. Ramadhana Lubis, WALHI Aceh � Banda Aceh (Aceh) 77. Eri Lubis, KOPMABA - Bandung (West Java) 78. Rahim Atjo, Fakultas Hukum Universitas Tadulako � Palu (Central Sulawesi) 79. Yanti, LPS-HAM Sulteng, Palu � (Central Sulawesi) 80. Indar, MAPALA-Fak. Hukum Univ. Tadulako � Palu (Central Sulawesi) 81. R. Herlambang Perdana, LBH Surabaya - Surabaya (East Java) 82. Halim Bahril, Yayasan Rimung Lam Kaluet � Tapak Tuan (Aceh) 83. Bambang Mei, WALHI NTB � Mataram (West Nusa Tenggara) 84. Affab Fahruddin, Bina Lestari Sejahtera � Mojokerto (East Java) 85. Slamet, Yayasan Peduli Indonesia � Mojekerto (East Java) 86. Agus Yulianto, LBH Pos Malang � Malang (East Java) 87. Indah, Impa Akasia � Jember (East Java) 88. Made Nurbhana, WALHI Bali � Denpasar (Bali) 89. Andi Rikhardi, Bina Mitra Warga - Bandung (West Java) 90. Bowo Tuntalistyo, WALHI Bengkulu � Bengkulu (Bengkulu) 91. Bambang A, Yayasan Katur Nagari - Bandung (West Java) 92. Faisal Kairupan, Yayasan PADI Indonesia � Balikpapan (East Kalimantan) 93. Yuyun Ilham, Yayasan BALI Fokus - Denpasar (Bali) 94. Muchlis L. Usman, YASCITA - Kendari (Southeast Sulawesi) 95. Lelek, Yayasan KELOPAK � Bengkulu (Bengkulu) 96. Deni Winadi, Mitra Bentala � Bandar Lampung (Lampung) 97. Usep Djanarwi, SBB Bandung � Bandung (West Java) 98. Bestari Raden, Jaringan Kerja Masyarakat Adat Aceh (JKMA) Aceh � Banda Aceh (Aceh) 99. Syafruddin Ngulma S, LPLI � Mojokerto (East Java) 100. Sugeng Bahagijo, International NGO Forum on Indonesia Development (INFID) - Jakarta 101. Herwin Nasution, Kelompok Pelita Sejahtera (KPS) � Medan (North Sumatera) 102. Ir. Agus Marpaung, Bina Insani � Pematang Siantar (North Sumatera) 103. Johana A. Pattisiana, Suara Insani � Pematang Siantar (North Sumatera) 104. Nur Kholis, LBH Palembang - Palembang (South Sumatera) 105. Mimin, Yayasan Wana Mandhira (YAWAMA) 106. Amran Tambaru, Remappala � Palu (Central Sulawesi) 107. K. Selle, YPTA-UMI � Makassar (Central Sulawesi) 108. Rasid, Yayasan JATI � Makassar (Central Sulawesi) 109. Zohra Andi Baso, Yayasan Lembaga Konsumen Sulsel � Makassar (South Sulawesi) 110. Husaemah Husen, Forum Pemerhati Masalah Perempuan � Makassar (South Sulawesi) 111. Ramli, Jaringan Advokasi Tambang (JATAM) Kaltim � Samarinda (East Kalimantan) 112. Alwy Rahman, Yayasan Masagena � Makassar (South Sulawesi) 113. Dwia Aristina, Yayasan Permata � Makassar (South Sulawesi) 114. Mulyadi, YKPM � Makassar (South Sulawesi) 115. R. Agustini, LEPSEM � Makassar (South Sulawesi) Individual 1. Nabiha Zain Muhamad, Researcher - Jakarta 2. Eddy Mangopo Angi, Forester - Samarinda (East Kalimantan) 3. Abrianto Amin, Environmentalist � Samarinda (East Kalimantan) 4. Hok An, Researcher, Jerman 5. Agus Faisal, Community Organiser - Palu (Central Sulawesi) 6. Budi Kurniawan, Community Organiser, Padang (West Sumatera) 7. Liston P. Siregar, Journalist - London *) The statement is still open for endorsement ---- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
