html5-img
1 / 20

Certified Land Grabbing

Certified Land Grabbing. The case of oil palm expansion in West Kalimantan, Indonesia Eric Wakker Aidenvironment Asia. Session: EU Ecological Footprint in SEA 4 th SEA-EU-NET Stakeholders Conference Hanoi, 16-17 November 2011. Independent not-for-profit consultancy in Amsterdam

tuan
Download Presentation

Certified Land Grabbing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Certified Land Grabbing The case of oil palm expansion in West Kalimantan, Indonesia Eric Wakker Aidenvironment Asia Session: EU Ecological Footprint in SEA 4th SEA-EU-NET Stakeholders Conference Hanoi, 16-17 November 2011

  2. Independent not-for-profit consultancy in Amsterdam Asia office focuses on commodity trade, land use, legal frameworks and voluntary certification Clients: NGOs, private sector, donor agencies

  3. Issues covered Does Voluntary Certification address the EU Footprint in SEA? Focus on Ketapang District

  4. Ketapang district, West Kalimantan • Land area 3.580,000 ha • Population 500,000

  5. Forest cover (2008) Source: SarvisionPeat lands and oil palm up to 2004 (7% of territory) Background to Ketapang District

  6. The Biofuel Boom • Crude oil prices October 1996 – present • Palm oil prices • Source: Index Mundi • 2005-2008 “Biofuel boom”

  7. Surge in issuance of oil palm permits, Ketapang 1990s-2010 Permits extendable up to 160 years

  8. Before 2005After 2005-2008 The palm oil land grab

  9. All land claimed by the State and private sectorLand left unclaimed: 5.9% of the district (0.4 ha p.p.). No recognition of indigenous peoples land rights Claimed and unclaimed land

  10. Major direct and indirect impacts

  11. RSPO in Ketapang • Operational since: 2008 • Area certified world-wide: 1,000,000 ha • Area certified in Ketapang: 0 ha

  12. RSPO or not: no discernable difference • E.g. in one case, over 10,000 ha of land was opened up: • Without valid permits (EIA, IUP, SPKH, IPK) • Worked with irregular permit, and exceeded quota • Encroached into forest reserve, outside concession boundaries • Misled authorities, RSPO and the public • Despite a formal grievance procedure, RSPO will allow the land grab in future be certified as sustainable • Permits were secured afterthe land grab • Company promised “not to do it again” There are numerous similar cases

  13. December 2009IUP Permit boundaries PT SKS and PT BNS and FR Dana Manis Mata FR Dana Manis Mata PT SKS PT BNS

  14. Enforcement agencies Indonesia has good laws and enforcement agencies with strong mandates Unfortunately, oil palm is both “too big” as well as “too small” The sector enjoys soft law enforcement through RSPO and IPOC, etc. RED does not require legal compliance Meanwhile, communities face the toughest legal retaliations for protesting against the land grab

  15. Conclusions • VC: better practices in some plantation estates • Satisfies the needs of committed consumers in the EU • Some good publicity for the sector A worthwhile effort, but: • Voluntary Certification isan island approach to sustainability • EU trade policies have much broader indirect effects on the ground, positive but also potentially negative

  16. Research needs • Assessing footprints and impact of certification: • Transparency in trade and capital flows • Understanding certification in the context of poor governance • Linking work on certification and Good Governance • Robustness certification indicators: • Focus on certification systems, rather than indicators • Strengthening of existing legal frameworks

  17. Research needs (1) • Comparing science & conservationist approaches in Footprint research • NGOs have ample experience with Footprint linkages • e.g. RETRAC research

  18. Research needs (2) • Comparing science & conservationist approaches • Science is underrepresented in multistakeholder dialogue • Research into scope of the challenges • Forecasting impacts of policies • Science can be made more easily accessible to stakeholders • Some good examples exist (CIFOR, ICRAF, HoB) • More outreach to local decision makers recommended • …

  19. Thank you

More Related