In early 2008, TNC in partnership with the Government of Berau began discussions on a low-emission program in the district, and the Berau REDD+ Task Force was established. In June 2009, the Berau Forest Carbon Program (BFCP) or Program Karbon Hutan Berau (PKHB) was officially declared as a district-level REDD+ program. The program serves as a model of low-emission development based on sustainable natural resource (including forest) management and as an example of the jurisdictional REDD+ approach in Indonesia. In January 2010, the Government of Indonesia recognized Berau as one of the official REDD+ demonstration activities in Indonesia, along with KFCP (Chapter 17). In its implementation, BFCP engages with various partner institutions, including TNC, which is the focus of this chapter.

21.1 Basic facts: Where, who, why and when

21.1.1 Geography

The population of Berau is 193,831 people (BPS Berau 2013), with 68,717 people living in the capital city of Tanjung Redeb. The population is growing by 1.06% annually (as of 2012), partly due to migrants from other districts and towns seeking employment opportunities in Berau. Coal mining, agriculture and other activities based on natural resources contribute significantly to the district’s economy (BPS Berau 2013). Rice is an important agricultural product, used mostly for subsistence. Oil palm is an important commodity, currently attracting a flurry of investors into the district. The forestry sector is significant for Berau. There are 14 active timber concessions and three timber plantations operating in the district (Berau REDD+ Task Force 2011). Forestry sector revenue in 2010 was approximately USD 5.83 million equivalent (BPS Berau 2011).

BFCP encompasses the entire land area of Berau (Figure 21.1), including the 1.7 million ha forest zone (kawasan hutan), which includes production and protection forests under the jurisdiction of MoFor, as well as lands outside of the forest zone (i.e. lands designated for non-forest uses – 0.5 million ha) under the jurisdiction of the district government (Berau REDD+ Task Force 2011). Because of its vastness, TNC focuses on the forest zones in 2 of the 13 subdistricts, Kelay and Segah, which are situated within production and protection forests.

Rivers and roads are the main means of transportation in Berau. Two major rivers (Segah and Kelay) and their tributaries are the primary river transportation routes in Berau. Roads are mostly paved and can be accessed by motorcycle and four-wheel vehicles. However, the road networks are not evenly distributed and are mostly found in the eastern part of the district. TNC’s intervention areas of Kelay and Segah are accessed through poorly maintained logging roads since its forest zone status prevents the development of paved roads. Only 4WD vehicles can reach the villages, in addition to small boats via the rivers and their tributaries. Because of the poor infrastructure, it is at least 1.5 hours by car or motorcycle to the nearest market from four of the five villages included in the CIFOR-GCS sample. In the fifth village the nearest market is less than 1 hour away by motorized boat.

21.1.2 Stakeholders and funding

The status of BFCP as a REDD+ pilot district was affirmed in January 2010 by a MoFor decree designating Berau as a REDD+ demonstration area. Due to the vastness of the targeted area, the district government of Berau, in its role as key proponent in implementing BFCP, works with numerous other institutions, including entities at other levels of government, and international and local civil society organizations.

In March 2011, a steering committee for BFCP was established. This committee consists of senior district government officials. The bupati (district head) serves as the advisor to the steering committee, the vice bupati as the head and the secretary of the district as the deputy head. The steering committee is responsible for (among other responsibilities) ensuring the integration of BFCP into the district’s development plan, and into provincial and national policies in the context of reduction of emissions from deforestation and degradation, coordination of stakeholders, and monitoring and overseeing BFCP activities.

Two international organizations, among others, are currently active in REDD+ interventions in BFCP: TNC and GIZ (the German International Cooperation Agency/Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit).1 Each of these major proponents work in partnership with other organizations. For example, TNC has worked with, among others, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), World Education and local NGOs. Both TNC and GIZ – the latter through its Forests and Climate Change Program (FORCLIME) Financial Cooperation and its FORCLIME Technical Cooperation – are also working with district government units.

BFCP is financially supported by several governments (Australia, Germany, Indonesia, Norway and United States), as well as civil society organizations and charitable institutions (i.e. TNC, Ann Ray Charitable Trust and Grantham Foundation) (BFCP 2014). BFCP is also funded by a Debt-for-Nature Swap financing scheme between the Government of Indonesia and the United States under the Tropical Forest Conservation Act. Support from Germany is coordinated via a bilateral agreement and managed by KfW (Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau – German’s Reconstruction Credit Institute) and GIZ. The Government of Norway has also supported TNC’s activities in Berau (Hovani 2013). TNC supported the establishment and the early operations of the REDD+ Task Force.

BFCP continues to be fully supported by donor funds. No funds have yet been raised through sales of carbon credits. The current level of funding is adequate to meet the high cost of preparation for and implementation of REDD+. BFCP expects to fund future activities through the sale of carbon offsets, through either the voluntary or compliance markets. However, some key informants are pessimistic about its future given the uncertainty of the REDD+ carbon markets.

21.1.3 Motivation

TNC began working in Berau district in 2002, emphasizing forest and marine management. Although Berau’s forests are extensive, they are threatened by logging, mining and oil palm plantation expansion. TNC seeks to improve forest conservation, enhance forest cover and forest management, protect biodiversity, build capacity of the district and village administration, and support the local economy through the introduction of alternative livelihoods. Of 20 villages initially identified as needing support for improved forest management and conservation (personal communication from a senior TNC official, 2014), TNC decided to focus its interventions in three pilot villages. These interventions are intended to reduce GHG emissions by shifting local production to permanent agriculture, limiting land clearing, and forest monitoring by communities as an element of community-based forest management.

Early assessment of deforestation and degradation within the intervention area was done in 2010 during the preparatory stage. In collaboration with ICRAF, the assessment used remote sensing and ground truthing to verify the actual forest condition on the ground. A historical average deforestation rate between 1990 and 2008 was used to determine the REL in Berau.

21.1.4 Timeline

In 2008, the district government began to consider implementing a low GHG emission program, partly as a means to improve forest management (Figure 21.2). TNC saw this development as an opportunity to align low emission goals with conservation objectives and helped design BFCP. The REDD+ Task Force was formed later that same year, and data collection to establish the site’s REL began. In June 2009, BFCP was established.

As part of REDD+ preparatory activities, in partnership with World Education, TNC conducted a socioeconomic study of communities in 18 villages living within the forest zone in the second quarter of 2009 (Moeliono et al. 2010). In December 2009, the governor of East Kalimantan declared the province a green province.

In January 2010, Berau district was designated as a demonstration activity district by MoFor, leading to the establishment of the BFCP Steering Committee in 2011. In November 2010, the Production Forest Management Unit (FMU) (Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Produksi) of West Berau was established. The area under this FMU encompasses the main forest areas of Kelay and Segah subdistricts. The FMU is a landscape-level entity with decentralized authority to manage forests. In this case, the FMU of West Berau coordinates stakeholders within its area, including TNC, GIZ, timber concessions, mining and local communities. TNC began its early REDD+-related activities (i.e. information dissemination on climate change, the role of forests in reducing emissions and BFCP; and provision of rubber seedlings and budwood grafts) in several villages in December 2010 (personal communication from TNC official, 2013). Later, three of these villages were selected as TNC’s pilot villages.

21.2 Strategy for the initiative

TNC is engaged with stakeholders at two levels. First, it is active in national and district REDD+ policy-making processes. The second strategy is to engage directly with stakeholders on the ground, including the district government of Berau, local communities, the FMU and local NGOs. For example, TNC and the district government are working with timber concessionaires to fulfill the terms of Indonesia’s Timber Legality Assurance System (Sistem Verifikasi Legalitas Kayu, SVLK) and the FSC standards. SVLK certification is a positive incentive for timber concessionaires because this allows them to get premium prices for their products (personal communication from a concession’s official, 2012). Moreover, TNC plans to expand its work to engage oil palm companies in sustainable natural resource management. Oil palm plantations are found in both Kelay and Segah subdistricts.

TNC’s pre-REDD+ activities in Berau included mediating a tenure conflict between villagers and a logging company. TNC helped facilitate the partnership (kemitraan) between timber concessions and villages. This partnership resulted in mutual benefits. Villagers get support (e.g. electricity, cash) from timber concessions while timber concession areas are protected (through community patrol and monitoring) by villagers. TNC also facilitated the submission of a village’s proposal to assign local forests as protection forests. As a result of these activities, TNC has become familiar to communities. This carefully nurtured relationship serves as social capital that assists TNC in implementing their subsequent REDD+ interventions in these areas. However, our findings in 2012 suggest that only about one-third of sampled households have heard about the carbon program.

FPIC processes are an important element of REDD+. Early findings based on research in 2012 suggested that people in TNC’s intervention villages had some concerns about the initiative. Their concerns mostly stem from lack of a clear understanding and varied perceptions of the purpose and activities of REDD+. They include worries about how REDD+ will affect their agricultural activities, income, access to forests and village development; whether the initiative could successfully prevent undesirable actors from taking their land; and whether the initiative would simply become an empty promise.

TNC developed an approach called SIGAP REDD+ (Communities Inspiring Action for Change in REDD+/Aksi Inspiratif warga untuk perubahan dalam REDD+) (Hartanto et al. 2014). This approach rests on the premise of engaging local communities from the start to ensure their commitment in forest and natural resource management while simultaneously improving their livelihoods. SIGAP’s action points consist of (i) communicating a long-term vision of village land protection and village development; (ii) formulating a socially, environmentally and economically integrated ‘green’ village development plan; (iii) establishing collaborative forest arrangements with companies; (iv) securing forest management rights; and (v) accessing financial support.2 SIGAP’s actions on the ground have included communicating BFCP’s low-emission program and TNC’s community engagement approach, village mapping and capacity building.

The SIGAP approach involves a survey in the community to inquire about their needs, preferences and desires. The results of the survey are taken into account in determining types of low emission intervention activities that will be implemented in the village. Villagers then submit a resolution stating their willingness to engage in the program. This is followed by the signing of a cooperation agreement between the community and TNC that describes the terms and conditions of the planned low-emission program interventions. Interventions that reflect communities’ desires are expected to boost people’s support for and commitment to the interventions. The village agreement documents that commitment and the ‘rules of the game’ that need to be followed.

In keeping with the SIGAP approach, two villages have signed a community resolution (commitment) and an agreement with TNC for conditional livelihood enhancement support. This commitment is evaluated each year based on the performance of the villages, assessed against an agreed scoring system. The community resolution sets out the activities or targets that the villagers have committed to accomplish, for instance, limiting household clearing of forest lands for swidden to a maximum of 1 ha/year, and clearing only on lands that have been fallowed. The goal is to prevent a net increase in the area of forest cleared. The evaluation is used to determine whether the community will continue to receive the same or a reduced level of funding in the following year. TNC has budgeted at least IDR 200 million or about USD 20,000 per village per year to implement this program.

Another set of activities within the SIGAP approach is increasing the capacity of village officials in determining future village development. This involves supporting village officials in preparing a five-year medium-term village development plan (RPJMK) and funding proposal for submission to the subdistrict government annually. The subdistrict’s endorsement of the RJPMK determines activities that will be funded at the village level. The endorsement of the village’s annual proposal determines the level of funding the village gets for proposed activities, including how much for forest and natural resource management, if any. Funding earmarked for forest and natural resource management has so far been nonexistent. TNC’s incentive agreement aims to provide money for villages to do that.

TNC has also introduced alternative livelihoods, such as community-based rubber gardens, mixed gardens (agroforests) and empowerment of women in agricultural activities. Another major activity is facilitating village land-use planning that integrates forest and natural resource management into annual village development plans. Elements of this SIGAP approach will be replicated in another 20 villages beyond the pilot villages that TNC is currently working in, using Tropical Forest Conservation Act funds and implemented by seven local NGOs.

21.3 Smallholders in the initiative

CIFOR-GCS field research in Berau before REDD+ implementation was conducted between early March and end of May 2012. Data on smallholders was obtained through a household survey of 5 of the potential 20 target villages (‘intervention villages’) identified by TNC: BER1, BER2, BER3, BER4 and BER5.3 All of our intervention villages are located in Kelay and Segah subdistricts. Of these villages, at the time of writing, TNC only works in three villages (BER2, BER3 and BER5). GIZ implements REDD+ interventions in one of these three villages and in one of the two remaining villages.

Of the 338 households in the five CIFOR-GCS study villages, we interviewed 163 households. In three villages we used random sampling to select surveyed households. The other two villages were very small, so we interviewed all households that were available at the time of the survey.

Indonesian villages typically have their own budget and governance system. A village is led by a village head (kepala desa) and assisted by village secretary (sekdes) and head of village affairs (kepala urusan). The village head is elected through a five-year election cycle, while the village secretary usually holds a permanent position and is a civil servant. Village officials are supported by a number of other institutions that represent the community in the village: the village representative body (badan perwakilan desa), youth groups, customary leaders (tetua adat) and women empowerment groups (pembinaan kesejahteraan keluarga). In all five villages, the head of the village appears to be the most important decision maker, although all village officials and representatives of village institutions participate in village decision-making processes. We find that women are involved in village decisions although about two-thirds express their opinion through their husbands.

Although much of the forest area in Berau is designated as forest zone where timber concessions operate, indigenous Dayak communities inhabit these areas. Our study villages are indigenous communities of Dayak Punan, Dayak Kenyah and Dayak Lebo. In contrast to the more sedentary Dayak Kenyah and Dayak Lebo counterparts, Punan are nomadic Dayak who settled in these villages before the timber concessions came to the area. All of these communities practice traditional agriculture and other forest activities based on customary tenure and laws in pockets of these forests. Following their Dayak rules, people are allowed to clear lands outside the village as long as the land does not belong to or is actively managed by anyone else.

Timber concessions operate in all study village territories. The existence of timber concessions has resulted in some arrangements that benefit both sides, including support for surrounding communities. This support includes scholarships for students, electricity, employment in the timber company and timber fees. Following East Kalimantan governor’s policy, affected communities in concession areas are compensated with a predetermined volume-based fee. In addition, ‘dust’ money (uang debu) is a fee charged by communities to compensate them for the inconvenience (e.g. dust) produced by trucks transporting logs through their villages.

In our study villages, land conflicts among community members were rare. Villagers perceived that they have the right to control and prevent outsiders encroaching on their land, forest or village. They usually apply traditional sanctions, which have been passed on through generations (e.g. fines), when an issue with trespassers cannot be resolved through discussion. Communities in general still allow outsiders to use their lands with their consent or for an agreed-upon fee. Issues emerge when outsiders do not understand local customs and clear lands without permission within the area of these indigenous communities that by de facto belong to someone based on customary rules.

All five study villages have road access, but they are mostly non-paved logging roads in poor condition. Our findings show that the education attainment among adults is generally low, and mostly limited to primary school. Secondary schools are either situated in the neighboring village or in the subdistrict capital. In 2012, most of the study villages had poor sanitation. In three study villages, two of which where TNC works, there was no access to piped water. All villages had only limited electricity, powered by a generator, which is turned on for five hours in the evenings. Despite these limitations, most of the respondents in all villages perceived that their income was adequate to support their well-being.

Agriculture is important for all villages (Figure 21.3). Villagers produce their own rice as their staple and at least half the adults in the households are engaged in agriculture. Despite its importance, agricultural income from local production is low and is only significant in BER1 and BER4 (Figure 21.4). Income from rice and cocoa is high in BER1, while income in BER4 comes mainly from rubber. The share of income from wage labor is substantial in all of the study villages (Figure 21.3). Villagers usually work in timber concessions as a security guard or logger (felling trees) or as an agricultural laborer, mining laborer or house builder. Income from forest products was observed in all five villages and comprised a considerable share of household income in BER2 and BER3, which are both situated in heavily forested areas.

Both men and women from most of the villages enter the forests frequently. Men and women access the forest for different reasons. Women tend to go there primarily to collect fuelwood, wild fruits and honey, thatch (for traditional hats), rattan, and medicines. In one village, they cook for gold miners who mine inside the forests. Men typically enter the forests for heavier types of work, including cutting timber, hunting, gold mining, and collecting wild honey and fuelwood. Communities’ need for timber is high in most villages, mostly for housing materials.

In the last two years preceding our survey, only one village (BER5) showed a high percentage of households with increased consumption of forest products (40%) (Table 21.1). In this village, production of honey was high. In general, forest products are important in fulfilling people’s daily needs as forests are ‘free’ and are more accessible compared to markets and therefore serve as the local ‘supermarket.’ Distance to forests vary among the five villages. In three villages (BER1, BER2 and BER4), forests can be reached within 1 to 2.5 hours. The forest is very close to BER5. In BER3, old secondary forests are within easy reach of villagers. Our respondents in this village, however, refer to old, untouched forests when we asked them about the distance to forests, which would take 10 hours on foot to get to (Table 21.1).

Almost all of our respondents plant rice (harvested once a year) by practicing swidden agriculture. In the study area, swidden involves fallow periods of at least two years. This pattern has determined natural forest clearing in three study villages. One household manages 1.5 to 2 ha of land on average.

In these three villages, the concession companies have thus far allowed villagers to clear forestland for agriculture of up to 2 ha per household. Thus, these households become the users of the land although it is owned by the State and is being leased out to timber concessionaires. However, about one-fifth of respondents in two villages stated that the opportunity to clear forests in the last two years prior to the survey had decreased. This is probably due to the imposition of restrictions by the timber concessions. In one village, the district government advocated that farmers shift from swidden to permanent agriculture and made this a requirement for the village to obtain formal village status. Our findings show that in 2012, the area of swidden agriculture in this village has stayed the same since 2010. The area of swidden agriculture in one study village decreased over the last two years of the survey. The presence of other land managers, formal classification of surrounding forest as protection forest, or settlements nearby – (inactive) timber plantation companies, oil palm plantations, protection forest and neighboring villages – is likely to influence villagers’ ability to practice swidden.

Since 2008, TNC has been facilitating boundary demarcation of one intervention village and three adjacent villages. One adjacent village has warned the community in the study village not to clear new land in that village. As is common in Kalimantan, village boundaries are often unclear and can easily lead to conflict, particularly when it affects the level of compensation from timber concessions or other large-scale investors. For example, unclear boundaries of another study village with its adjacent village have affected the level of compensation received from a swallow bird’s nest company operating in the village area.

Average total income of households in BER5 is highest among the five study villages (Table 21.2). A large share has been income outside of agriculture, livestock, forests, household business or wage labor. This high income appears to be associated with PNPM. During the period of fieldwork, some households received housing support to enable them to relocate from the banks of the village river that at the time had begun to erode. Our key informant suggested that the value of each house was about USD 4500 (IDR 45 million); compare this with the average annual household income of USD 6800.

Forests are important to villagers but their existence is being threatened. In addition to directly affecting deforestation, mining and large-scale oil palm plantations indirectly promote deforestation. The existence of mining and oil palm plantations has affected the motivation of forest clearing in some of our study villages. In these villages, communities clear forest for two reasons: to get compensation from potential investors or because of concerns of losing their tenure rights over a particular area. Tenureship is marked by stakes, planted trees or vegetation, proof of activity or management, or simply on the basis of word of mouth. People clear forest as proof of land ownership because large-scale developments often usurp community-claimed lands. Locals practice swidden agriculture, collect fuel wood and NTFPs for daily needs, and collect timber for building material. Nonetheless, smallholder use of forest areas for agricultural purposes and daily necessities is limited due to limited manpower and associated costs. On average, at any given time, a household’s agricultural land averages about 2 ha, and likewise there is a tendency to clear, at most, about 2 ha of forest when new land is needed. With these limitations, villagers’ contribution to forest pressures may not be as significant as large-scale activities.

Among the five study villages, only one village community perceived that forest cover in their village had increased during the two years prior to our 2012 survey. This positive change in forest cover is probably associated with the location of the village, which is adjacent to a protection forest.

Eyeing a potential synergy and opportunity from the national policy of awarding hutan desa (village forest)4 management rights to communities, TNC has focused on facilitating hutan desa status for a portion of the forests in two villages (also see Chapter 19 on KCCP). One village – which is located within an active timber concession site – was granted hutan desa working area status in January 2014 by MoFor. The designation of the hutan desa working area is an interim step before obtaining community management rights from the governor. Thus, obtaining hutan desa management rights will allow the community to manage their village forests and to avoid conversion of their forests for other uses, including, in this particular case, coal mining (Myers-Madeira 2014).

Other than TNC’s livelihood enhancement support distributed using the SIGAP approach, villages also receive other livelihood enhancement support in the form of government development projects. For example, villages received fish hatchlings, cocoa and rubber seedlings, and support for honey production.

21.4 Challenges facing the initiative

BFCP is a district-scale jurisdictional REDD+ approach in Indonesia. The vastness of the area, the multitude of actors and activities that may not necessarily be aligned with each other, and lingering tenure and boundary issues present a challenge for its implementation.

The planning, management and implementation of a program over an entire district requires not only a commensurate level of resources and capacity, but also coordination and commitment of all relevant stakeholders operating within that jurisdiction. The district relies on extractive mining industries and large-scale agriculture, which both result in conversion of forests. These sectors ‘compete’ with REDD+ for use of forest lands and for community interest and support. Thus, revenues and employment generated from the two sectors test local governments’ commitment to its own low-emission development program.

These issues are also evident in the area where TNC is working. In Segah, the bupati has issued oil palm licenses in areas with good forest cover. By doing so, although these areas are officially outside the forest zone and therefore can be converted to non-forest uses, the bupati undermines the district’s BFCP emission reduction target. When available, areas without forest cover should be used for oil palm development. This shows some inconsistencies between Berau’s vision as a ‘green’ district and its actual policies.

The prospect of mining and oil palm plantations taking place near villages promotes local land clearing. Active management of land strengthens tenure claims, improving the chances of protecting an existing property claim and ensuring compensation if land must be ceded to incoming projects. Thus, tenure uncertainty, evident in the three study villages, has implications for the management of forests and REDD+.

We find that perception of fairness over who is targeted in REDD+, and who is not, can pose a challenge in convincing communities to support REDD+. For example, some community members perceive that restrictions on forest access and conversion only apply to communities, and not to timber concessionaires. In reality, however, owners of timber concessions sometimes find it difficult to prevent communities from clearing forests within their concession if the clearing is for subsistence agriculture (personal communication from a timber operator, 2012). Concessions claim that they tolerate such clearing to avoid conflict.

The large area covered under BFCP requires division of responsibilities among the multiple stakeholders to avoid unnecessary redundancies. Furthermore, as new partners join and support BFCP, their activities should be aligned and integrated into BFCP’s overall program and that of earlier partners. In practice, coordination among the various REDD+ proponents (e.g. district government, TNC, GIZ/FORCLIME), each taking different approaches and offering their own interventions, has presented another challenge to BFCP. Ineffective coordination can affect communities’ perceptions of the interventions. During our visit in 2013, key informant interviews suggested that people in one village were concerned because programs were introduced by three different proponents. This affirms the importance of a concerted effort among proponents to carry out coordinated FPICs in REDD+ implementation.

21.5 Lessons from the initiative

TNC’s presence as a key actor in the national REDD+ arena and in BFCP presents both a challenge and an opportunity. The vastness of BFCP means that TNC can only work in a limited number of specific target villages and expand as resources are available. TNC’s experience and network has enabled it to contribute to national and district policies. Previous work in Berau has equipped TNC with the social capital and knowledge to engage effectively with communities. For example, TNC’s SIGAP approach, which rests on the premise of close engagement with the community, is now replicated in other areas beyond TNC’s intervention villages. The alignment of TNC’s strategy with government policies appears to be effective in making progress on the ground. For example, facilitating hutan desa has enhanced tenure clarity over village forests, which, although not sufficient, is a prerequisite for effective implementation of REDD+ (also see Chapter 19 on KCCP).

The formal designation of Berau district as a REDD+ Demonstration Activity and its alignment with higher level policies have helped advance REDD+ in BFCP. The program is endorsed and fully supported by the national government and is consistent with the green vision of East Kalimantan province. This has helped the district and TNC attract funding from various sources to implement BFCP.

21.6 Acknowledgments

We are indebted to all of the communities and leaders of the study villages for their support, participation and friendship, without whom this research would not have been possible. We convey our appreciation to the government of Berau and Kutai Timur districts for their support and participation in the research. We thank our enumerators and encoders: Iriani Lamuha, Amir Mahmudi, Fatly Detlis, Supriadi and Mella Komalasari, for their meticulous work. We are grateful for the generous insights and time provided by informants, including TNC, GIZ (FORCLIME), Yayasan Berau Lestari, Kanopi, Yayasan Penyu Berau, West Berau FMU officials, BFCP REDD+ Task Force and other stakeholders. We would like to thank Claudio de Sassi for providing the graphs and tables, and Stibniati Atmadja, Herlina Hartanto and Agus Djoko Ismanto for reviewing the draft of this chapter.