kumpulan submisi solidaritas perempuan februari … · solidaritas perempuan/sp (women’s...

KUMPULAN SUBMISI

SOLIDARITAS PEREMPUAN

FEBRUARI 2012-FEBRUARI 2015

Divisi Perempuan dan Konflik Sumber Daya Alam

Sekretariat Nasional

Solidaritas Perempuan

Mei 2015

ii

Kumpulan Submisi Solidaritas Perempuan

Februari 2012-Februari 2015

Solidaritas Perempuan © Mei 2015

Tim Penyusun:

Divisi Perempuan dan Konflik Sumber Daya Alam

Solidaritas Perempuan Tahun 2012-2015

Editor:

Puspa Dewy

Catatan Penerbit:

Penggunaan materi/kutipan dari Kumpulan Submisi ini diharapkan sesuai aslinya dan dengan

mencantumkan referensinya.

Solidaritas Perempuan (Women's Solidarity for Human Rights) merupakan organisasi feminis yang didirikan pada 10 Desember 1990 dengan tujuan untuk mewujudkan tatanan sosial yang demokratis, berlandaskan prinsip-prinsip keadilan, kesadaran ekologis, menghargai pluralisme dan anti kekerasan yang didasarkan pada sistem hubungan laki-laki dan perempuan yang setara dimana keduanya dapat berbagi akses dan kontrol atas sumber daya alam, sosial, budaya, ekonomi dan politik secara adil.

Sebagai organisasi yang konsisten memperjuangkan hak-hak perempuan dan keadilan gender, Solidaritas Perempuan bekerja pada 4 fokus isu, yaitu (1) Konflik Sumber Daya Alam, (2) Kedaulatan Pangan, (3) Migrasi, Trafficking & HIV/AIDS, (4) Seksualitas dan Pluralisme. SP merupakan organisasi yang berbasiskan keanggotaan individu, dengan anggota hingga 2012 berjumlah 774 orang, perempuan dan laki-laki, yang tersebar di 10 Komunitas/Cabang, di antaranya SP Bungoeng Jeumpa Aceh, SP Palembang, SP Jabotabek, SP Kinasih Yogyakarta, SP Anging Mammiri Makassar, SP Palu, SP Kendari, SP Mataram, SP Sumbawa, dan SP Sintuwu Raya Poso

iii

Kata Pengantar

Upaya mendorong perubahan kebijakan publik baik yang berupa kebijakan maupun

peraturan perundangan dilakukan Solidaritas Perempuan (SP) untuk mendukung dan memastikan

perlindungan, penghormatan dan pemenuhan hak perempuan marjinal yang terlanggar perlu

dilakukan melalui berbagai strategi, antara lain dengan mengintervensi proses

pembuatan/penyusunan kebijakan dan mempengaruhi aktor-aktor pembuat kebijakan. Strategi ini

perlu juga didorong melalui proses menggalang dukungan publik atas upaya perubahan kebijakan,

dengan mengajak berbagai pihak untuk mendukung dan terlibat terhadap upaya tersebut, termasuk

dengan membangun jaringan untuk mendapat dukungan terhadap tujuan yang ingin dicapai. Hal ini

dilakukan Solidaritas Perempuan, baik secara organisasi maupun melalui anggota-anggota SP

dengan bersama-sama mengintervensi berbagai forum pengambilan keputusan di berbagai ranah,

baik di tingkat lokal, nasional, regional dan internasional. Salah satu upaya yang dilakukan

Solidaritas Perempuan adalah dengan mengkritisi dan menyampaikan pandangan, serta

rekomendasi SP kepada aktor-aktor pembuat kebijakan tersebut, baik negara maupun non negara.

Sepanjang periode Februari 2012-Februari 2015, Solidaritas Perempuan secara konsisten

mendorong perubahan kebijakan dalam berbagai forum nasional dan internasional, antara lain

Rio+20 untuk pembangunan berkelanjutan berbasis hak, Conference of Party (COP) of United Nation

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) untuk keadilan iklim yang berkeadilan gender,

Green Climate Fund (GCF) untuk Pendanaan Iklim Global yang berkeadilan iklim dan berkeadilan

gender, serta Forest Investment Program (FIP) untuk Pengelolaan Hutan yang Partisipatif dan

Berkeadilan. Intervensi dilakukan dengan mengirimkan Submisi kepada pihak-pihak pembuat

kebijakan dan pemberi dana.

Submisi ini dikompilasi untuk tujuan mendokumentasikan pengetahuan dan pengalaman

SP, serta diharapkan dapat menjadi referensi dan pembelajaran dalam membangun kebijakan yang

berbasis hak dan berkeadilan serta inklusif, sensitif dan responsif gender, bagi setiap pemangku

kepentingan, baik dari kalangan Pemerintah, masyarakat sipil, pemberi dana, maupun badan PBB.

Jakarta, 8 Mei 2015

Wahidah Rustam

Ketua Badan Eksekutif Nasional


iv

Daftar Isi

Kata Pengantar iii

Daftar Isi iv

PEMBANGUNAN BERKELANJUTAN RIO + 20 1

Sustainable Development Based On Ecological, Social And Gender Justice

A proposal to the Zero Draft of the Rio Summit in 2012………………………………………………

2

Solidaritas Perempuan’s Post Rio+20 Statement

Demanding The Implementation of Sustainable Development in the context of Economic,

Social, Ecological and Gender Justice………………………………………………………………………

4

KEBIJAKAN PERUBAHAN IKLIM 12

Komentar dan Rekomendasi Atas Konsep PRISAI Versi 001 11-10-12………………………………… 13

Submission of Solidaritas Perempuan to the COP 20 in Lima…………………………………………. 16

Submission for Gender Responsive Climate Policy………………………………………………………. 18

PENDANAAN IKLIM GLOBAL 20

Submission to the Green Climate Fund Board, Indonesian CSOs, February 2014………………… 21

Submission to The Green Climate Fund Board, Indonesia CSO, May 2014…………………………… 26

Rekomendasi Masyarakat Sipil Indonesia kepada Dewan Dana Iklim Hijau Untuk Akses Lokal

Langsung ke Dana Iklim Hijau, Oktober 2014……………………………………………………………

30

PROGRAM INVESTASI KEHUTANAN 33

Pandangan terhadap Usulan Forest Investment Program (FIP) Indonesia, 17 September 2012 34

Pandangan dan Rekomendasi Terhadap Dokumen Forest Investment Plan (FIP) Versi 26

September 2012, 10 Oktober 2012…………………………………………………………………………..

41

Civil Society Concerns on Indonesian Forest Investment Plan, November 4th 2014………………… 45

Protest of Civil Society to WB-IFC about the FIP Development Process in Indonesia……………… 50


1


2

Sustainable Development Based On Ecological, Social And Gender Justice

A proposal to the Zero Draft of the Rio Summit in 2012

Submitted by Solidaritas Perempuan (Women’s Solidarity for Human Rights)

Indonesia

Though the Rio Declaration will soon celebrate its 20th

Anniversary but the world right now doesn’t reflect

its success in achieving sustainable development goals. The existing development model continuously ignores

the pillars of social justice and of ecological justice. Hence, it strengthened the exploitation of natural

resources and people; and on the other hand it strengthened the impoverishment and injustices to

environment, social lives and women.

The Rio Summit, therefore, has to reaffirm the principles of Rio Declaration of 1992, to foster consistent implementation based on principles of ecological, social and gender justice.

Social And Gender Justice Based Green Economy

Sustainable development based Green Economy will only achieve welfare for people –women and men-

whilst nurturing the environment and its natural resources if the principles of ecological, social and gender

justice are integrated. The Green Economy concept should be provided in manner and languages accessible for

local and indigenous peoples including the women. Those principles are as follows:

1. Principles of Ecological Justice:

· Acknowledgement that natural resources are not trade or conservation commodities but an integral

aspect of human’s lives.

· Integration of local wisdom including local and indigenous women’s wisdom into the development of

Green Economy

· The utilization of natural resources have to take into account the sustaining relation between human kind

and environment and impacts of the utilization to lives of women and men.

2. Principles of Social Justice:

· Acknowledge and ensure the integration of principles of ecological and gender justice; democracy;

accountability; transparency; welfare of peoples; respect and protect human rights including women’s

human rights and rights of indigenous peoples.

· Any utilization of natural resources has to go through processes of Free, Prior and Informed Consent

(FPIC) particularly from peoples –women and men- whose lives directly depending from those natural

resources.

3. Principles of Gender Justice:

· Protect women’s human rights and particularly develop measures to involve women in decision makings

in any development in their places

· Set-up objectives and measures to eradicate gender injustices such as discrimination, double burden,

stereotype, violence, sub-ordination and marginalization against women

· Technology development for improvement of environment and fostering sustainable development

should be people’s driven and accessible to people, including the women.

Governance of Sustainable Development

The good governance of sustainable development can only be carried out by implementing principles and

measures as follows:

Consistent implementation of Agenda 21 based on principles of Rio Declaration, acknowledgement of

the rights of indigenous peoples, precautionary principles, common but differentiated responsibility,

polluter-pays principle and to include objectives of gender justice, and furthermore, strengthen access

of people to information and for public participation.

Involvement of peoples, including women, at all levels of decision-makings at local, national, regional

and international level to implement sustainable development. Military is not allowed to intervene in


3

the implementation of sustainable development and not allowed to be executor of sustainable

development.

Development of instruments and mechanism to protect rights of peoples including rights of indigenous

peoples and women’s human rights. These will include accountability mechanism for any policy,

program and project of Green Economy that affect lives of peoples, their livelihood and living

environment.

Ensure that financing from International Financial Institutions such as the World Bank, IMF and the

regional banks (ADB, AfDB et al) is excluded from the financing of sustainable development, nor the

private sector financing.

Ensure that organizations like World Trade Organization and the kind are not involved in the

development of sustainable development of the countries.

Contact Person:

Risma Umar, Chair of Solidaritas Perempuan

Email: [email protected]

Indonesia, November 1st

, 2011

National Secretariat of Solidaritas Perempuan

Solidaritas Perempuan Bungoeng Jeumpa Aceh

Solidaritas Perempuan Palembang, Sumatera Selatan

Solidaritas Perempuan Kinasih Jogjakarta, Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta

Solidaritas Perempuan Kahyangan Api Bojonegoro, Jawa Timur

Solidaritas Perempuan Jabotabek, DKI Jakarta

Solidaritas Perempuan Mataram, Nusa Tenggara Barat

Solidaritas Perempuan Sumbawa, Nusa Tenggara Barat

Solidaritas Perempuan Anging Mammiri Makassar, Sulawesi Selatan

Solidaritas Perempuan Kendari, Sulawesi Tenggara

Solidaritas Perempuan Palu, Sulawesi Tengah

mailto:[email protected]


4

Solidaritas Perempuan’s Post Rio+20 Statement

Demanding The Implementation of Sustainable Development in the context of Economic,

Social, Ecological and Gender Justice

Solidaritas Perempuan/SP (Women’s Solidarity of Human Rights) is a feminist organization established

in 1990 based in Jakarta, Indonesia. SP is an individual based membership organization, with 777 members

spread all over Indonesia, and 11 different communities/branches located in Aceh, Palembang, Yogyakarta,

Jabotabek, Bojonegoro, Sumbawa, Mataram, Makassar, Palu, Poso and Kendari. SP works on the

promotion of women’s rights in the context of women migration, conflict over natural resources, food

sovereignty and religion politicization.

Context

The Rio Declaration has celebrating its’ 20th Anniversary and countries has renewing their commitments

for Sustainable Development. but the world right now doesn’t reflect its’ success in achieving sustainable

development goals. The existing development model continuously ignores the pillar of economic, social

and ecological justice. Hence, it strengthened the exploitation of natural resources and people, including

women; and on the other hand strengthened the impoverishment and injustices to environment, social

lives and women.

The Rio Summit, therefore, has to reaffirm to fully committed to the implementation of the principles

of Rio Declaration of 1992, to foster consistent implementation based on principles of ecological, social,

economy and gender justice.

The Future We Want: Economic, Social, Ecological and Gender Justice based Sustainable Development

The new concept and model of the economy should be able to answer the current problem of

disparities, inequities and injustices that had systematically impoverished women and men in the last

century. Sustainable development will only bring the quality of life’s improvement for people – women and

men – whilst nurturing the environment and natural resources, if, the principles of economic, social,

ecological, and gender justice are integrated.

Those principles are elaborated as follows:

1. Principles of Economic Justice

Acknowledge Women’s vital role in the sustainable development in order to exercise Women’s

equal right to work, including legal capacity with the same opportunities to exercise that capacity,

and the entitlement to equal access to education, skills, healthcare, social security, fundamental

rights at work, social and legal protections, including occupational safety and health, and

opportunities.

Acknowledge Women’s equal rights in respect of the ownership, acquisition, management,

administration, enjoyment and disposition of property, in particularly on land and natural

resources.

2. Principles of Ecological Justice

Acknowledgment that natural resources are not trade or conservation commodities but an

integrated aspect of human’s lives, particularly for women in development countries that mostly

living in rural areas.

Acknowledgement of the holistic approach in seeing the relation of human kind and environment;

and their vital role in the management of natural resources.

Acknowledge the local wisdom – including local and indigenous women’s wisdom that should be

integrated into the development of economy model.


5

The utilization of natural resources have to take into account the sustaining relation between human

kind and environment; and impacts of the utilization to lives of women and men.

3. Principles of Social Justice

Acknowledge and ensure the integration of principles of economic, ecological and gender justice;

democracy; accountability; transparency; welfare of peoples; respect and protect human rights –

including women’s human rights and rights of indigenous people.

Promotes equity, sovereignty of the people, non-violence, mutual respect among people and

nations regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, culture, capabilities and class.

Any utilization of natural resources has to go through process of Free, Prior and Informed Consent

(FPIC) particularly from peoples – women and men – whose lives directly depending from the

natural resources.

Rights to development

4. Principles of Gender Justice

Acknowledge that problems faced by women are not merely about disparity and inequality, but are

also triggered by discrimination and race, caste, beliefs, religions, culturally based-violence, and

other forms of violence. Therefore, objectives and measures need to be set up to eradicate any

form of gender injustices manifest in discrimination, double burden, stereotype, violence, sub-

ordination and marginalization against women.

Acknowledge that a woman is not an exclusive entity, but is a part of community; and play a major

role of social fabric and cultural continuation. Genuine sustainable development should protect

women’s human rights and particularly develop measures to involve women in any decision-

making in any development in their places.

Technology development for improvement of environment and fostering sustainable

development should be people’s driven and accessible to people, including women.

1. Reaffirming the Political Commitments to the Sustainable Development

We call the governments to:

Reaffirm the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and all its principles – in particular the

principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, equity, polluters pays principle,

precautionary principle, access to information and participation, Inter-generational principles, full

participation of women due to their vital role in the sustainable development, and

acknowledgement of indigenous people rights – will continue to guide the international community

in the achievement of sustainable development and the future we want and will serve as the basis

cooperation, coherence, implementation of agreed commitments, including in this outcome” (para.

15)

Reaffirm the commitment to fully implement the Rio Declaration on Environment and

Development, Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21; including

the international agreed declaration promoting women’s rights such as Beijing Declaration and

Platform for Action. (para 16)

Reiterate the deleted para 22 on the notion of concern that: “despite efforts by Governments and

other stakeholders in all countries, there remain major challenges to sustainable development and

greater efforts are essential to achieve sustainable development, including the need for greater

coherence among social, environmental and economic policies and implementation modalities in

support of sustainable development. Therefore, we resolve to proactively address the remaining

barriers and gaps in the implementation of internationally agreed commitments”

Opposing the call to strengthen the international cooperation in the area of debt and trade. The

continued need of enabling environment in the area of finance, technology transfer, and

innovation and entrepreneurship, capacity building, transparency and accountability should not be


6

voluntary – particularly for developed countries in accordance with principles of common but

differentiated responsibilities (para 19)

Opposing the promotion of Public Private Partnership that evidently limiting the access and control

of the people on basic services such water, health, education, food, etc. Government should ensure

that corporations deliver sustainability reporting and take social and ecological responsibilities –

including reparations and rehabilitation to the impacts of their industrial activities to the

ecosystems and affected people. (para 46)

Opposing the call to emphasize the role of International Financial Institutions in advancing the

sustainable development agenda – due to their un-democratic system and historical records in their

intervention to national deregulations, financing the exploitative and destructive projects which

further impoverished men, women and children in developing countries (para 54)

2. Green Economy:

We are equally convinced that the economic logic of green economy being pursued in the Rio plus

20 will prolong the situation of impoverishment and marginalization, particularly for women, for the

following reason:

Green Economy still follows the same patriarchal development paradigm axed on economic

growth, market-based approach and commoditization of natural resources. The agenda of

sustainable development will only be achieved with a change of mindset, and a fundamental

change of social and economy system.

Green Economy will further legitimized and strengthen the commoditization and privatization of

nature. In this regard, green economy fails to take an holistic approach in seeing the relation of

human kind and environment, and not acknowledging the common ownership of natural

resources.

Green Economy proposed in the negotiation still heavily relies on scientific technology and data;

without acknowledge, protect and integrate communities’ – including women – local wisdom in

utilizing and preserving natural resources.

Green Economy will further prolong and re-legitimized the current domination and intervention of

big corporations, international financial institutions (such as WB, IMF, ADB), and trade

organizations (WTO) - which policies and projects have proven bring poverty and destruction of

social and cultural values of local communities.

Green Economy concept was not consulted through an inclusive process – particularly to women

living in rural and urban poor areas. The zero draft outcome documents fails to regulate measures

related to information disclosure in a manner that is accessible and understandable for the most

vulnerable people and communities. ICT could not be taken as the only tools for information

disclosure and further engagement with relevant stakeholders.

Green Economy proposed in the text has weak language on rights. The mindset to avoid previous

internationally agreed convention, agreement and declaration on human rights and women rights

– has shown impure intention of several elites to use the negotiation not for respecting, protecting

and fulfilling human and women’s rights, but merely to gain capital benefits.

We call the governments to:

Reframe the “green economy” as just and sustainable economy in the context of sustainable

development, poverty eradication and gender justice1 which based on viable practices of peoples

and communities that enable gender justice and long-term social well-being outcomes for present

and future generations, especially marginalized groups such as indigenous, ethnic and sexual

minority groups.2

1 Feminist Regional Consultation on Just and Sustainable Development, May, Bangkok 2012 2 (Women’s Major Group Statement, Asia Pacific Regional Preparatory Meeting for Rio+20, 19-20 October 2011,

Seoul, South Korea)


7

Ensure the involvement and engagement of people – including women – at all levels of decision

making at local, national, regional and international level to implement sustainable development;

and to ensure accurate and timely information disclosure in a manner that is accessible and in a

language that is understandable by stakeholders – including local women.

Ensure that military is not allowed to intervene in the implementation of sustainable development

and not allowed to be executor of sustainable development.

Ensure that financing from Financial Institutions such as the World Bank, IMF and the regional

banks (ADB, AfDB) is excluded from the financing of sustainable development, nor the private

sector financing. Ensure that World Trade Organization and the kind are not involved or take part

of the agenda of sustainable development of the countries; as these institutions have proven

deliver suffering – particularly for women in developing countries.

Ensure the development of instruments and mechanism to protect rights of people including rights

of indigenous peoples and women’s human rights. These will include accountability mechanism for

any policy, program and project of sustainable development that affect lives of people – including

women -, their livelihood and living environment.

Reiterate strong language on rights in the negotiation text; Each country should respect and fulfill

internationally agreed goals and internationally agreed human rights and women rights standards,

creating mechanisms according to national circumstances, objectives and priorities as well as their

policy space with regards to the three dimensions of sustainable development.

Respect the right to development of women and peoples especially in countries of the South and

promote just and sustainable economy that ensures gender justice and women’s empowerment,

strengthen fair international cooperation, empower all individuals including women and youth and

advance the well being of all, especially the most marginalized and vulnerable in society.

Ensuring that the economy model use in sustainable development are not within the market based

mechanism and/or in accordance with the public-private partnership scheme.

3. Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development:

Recognize that an improved and more effective institutional framework for sustainable

development at the international level should be consistent with Rio Principles, in particular

common but differentiated responsibilities, access to information and participation and women’s

role and participation in management of natural resources and development. (para 76)

Undermine and dismantle any role, participation, effectivity of governance structure of IFI and

trade organization in the institutional framework for sustainable development (para 78, 85f, 91)

Enhance the participation, effective engagement of civil society and other relevant stakeholders –

particularly the most vulnerable and marginalized. Promote transparency and broad public

participation to implement and monitor the implementation of sustainable development (para

76h)

Defend the multilateral system of United Nation, while acknowledge the importance to strengthen

the voice and full participation of developing countries in the decision making process as long as in

accordance with internationally agreed civil political, economic, social and cultural rights – with the

emphasize to promote and fulfill women human rights.

Governance of sustainable development should be placed at the highest level of the UN, reporting

directly to the UN General Assembly, with accountability mechanisms that include specific gender

indicators

The entire sustainable development governance structure should be gender sensitive, inclusive and

responsive based on the CEDAW, the Beijing Platform for Action, Agenda 21 and other

internationally agreed goals , including: collection and use of gender analysis and sex-

disaggregated data; improved institutional gender capacity; consultation with networks of gender


8

experts; partnering with women’s organizations; and user-friendly involvement mechanisms that

will enable grassroots women to participate in global, national and local dialogues

Safeguarding environmental, social conditions for the benefit of present and future generations

through national and international ombudspersons for future generations as independent

institutions with legal powers3 and funds for future generations

4. Thematic areas and Cross Sectoral Issues

a. Poverty Eradication:

We start with the notion that:

Poverty came from a systemic exploitation and degradation of natural resources, and continuingly

ignorance to the integrity of human and women’s rights. Therefore, eradicate poverty needs a

systemic change on the current development paradigm that axed only on economic growth and

market-based approach. A genuine sustainable development should combat the current state of

impoverishment experienced by people – women and men – from developing countries.

Poverty is not merely about the lack of income, but also about the lack of access to basic human

rights, including women’s human rights. Hence, efforts to eradicate poverty must consider

political, social, economic and cultural implications for people – women and men – living in areas

targeted by development activities. Ignorance of these aspects will trigger more problems,

particularly for women, who are already under patriarchal oppression and experience gender

injustice.

We are highly doubtful that Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) repeatedly referred in the text

negotiation able to answer the ongoing situation of extreme poverty. In previous experiences,

MDGs becomes one part of the problem – as it’s only address the symptoms of poverty and

underdevelopment, but ignore the deeper causes – such as failings of the current economic

development model, foreign debt, subsidies cut, and privatization of basic services.

We call the government to:

Acknowledge the importance of transition from current development paradigm to a more just and

sustainable economic, social and cultural development. Development should be measured beyond

GDP or any economic indicators, but also be measured from the fulfillment of social and cultural

indicators.

Ensuring the access to basic human rights, and taking adequate measures to ensure the fulfillment

of human and women rights.

Acknowledge the deeper cause of poverty, and take drastic measures to address the situation of

foreign debt, returning basic services to common ownership facilitated by public sector, and

increase basic services subsidies.

Modify or alternate MDGs to address social environmental failings of the current model of

economic development. The new goals need to more emphasize on the promotion, protection and

fulfillment of human and women human rights.

b. Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security:


Promote the concept of food sovereignty; which emphasizes the ownership of, and control over

production, marketing and fair distribution of wealth and management of natural resources by the

local producers

Reaffirm the right to food and call upon all States to prioritize food sovereignty, land reform and

environmentally and socially sustainable production of food through increased public investment in

local food production, improved access to local food markets for the local food producers with

special attention to women, smallholders, youth and indigenous farmers

3 As supported by the Major Groups: Workers and Trade Unions, and Youth


9

Protect and promote the small-scale fisheries and regulate unsustainable commercial fisheries

which negatively affect the local fishing practices and the marine ecosystem; also protect and

promote the system of fishing in and management of conservation areas by small-scale fishers.

Not supporting the following targets: (1) By 2020, increase public and private investment in

sustainable agriculture and agri-food chains and ensure that sustainable agriculture and agro-

forestry systems are fully integrated into relevant national and sectoral strategies; (2) By 2030,

significantly reduce post-harvest losses and the amount of edible food waste throughout the food

cycle.” (from the negotiating text)

Not supporting the “pilot use of Principles of Responsible Agriculture Investment, which was

drafted by International Organizations to achieve broad-based agreement on responsible

agriculture investment in CFS and the Committee on World Food Security process on Principles for

Responsible Agriculture Investment and ongoing work to field test and operationalize the PRAI and

their implementation by investors, governments, international organizations and civil society.”

(from the negotiating text)

Comment:

There is danger in relying on donor support, specifically ODA, and in openly endorsing the

Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investments (RAI) by the World Bank and others, which has

served as the license for the continuation of the massive, global foreign land acquisitions that are

happening all over.

Refer to FAO’s Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries

and Forests in the Context of National Food Security:

12.4 Responsible investments should do no harm, safeguard against dispossession of legitimate

tenure right holders and environmental damage, and should respect human rights. Such investments

should be made working in partnership with relevant levels of government and local holders of

tenure rights to land, fisheries and forests, respecting their legitimate tenure rights. They should

strive to further contribute to policy objectives, such as poverty eradication; food security and

sustainable use of land, fisheries and forests; support local communities; contribute to rural

development; promote and secure local food production systems; enhance social and economic

sustainable development; create employment; diversify livelihoods; provide benefits to the country

and its people, including the poor and most vulnerable; and comply with national laws and

international core labour standards as well as, when applicable, obligations related to standards of

the International Labour Organization.

Not supporting “the work of the Committee on Food Security as the international and

intergovernmental platform for supporting country-led processes and strengthening policy

convergence among the different stakeholders on the main food security and nutrition issues, and

the FAO, IFAD, WFP and other relevant multilateral organizations as well as to continue to conduct,

through the regular, intergovernmental, participatory, cross-sectoral and multi-stakeholder

assessments of user knowledge, science and technology as basis for a coordinated and coherent

UN system-wide approach to sustainable food production, food security and nutrition.” (from the

negotiating text)

Not supporting the “initiatives to improve market efficiencies, including accurate and timely

market information, and welcome the agriculture market information system.” (from the

negotiating text)

Not supporting States and the World Trade Organization to promote trade policies that would be

capable of promoting further trade in agriculture products, including through eliminating barriers

and policies that distort production and trade in agriculture products, which impede the

achievement of food security and act as particularly the obstacles to trade which have the most

serious impact on the world’s poor.” (from the negotiating text)


10

Not supporting “rapid implementation of Doha Agriculture Mandate while recognizing the rights of

countries to fully utilize their policy space and flexibilities, consistent with their WTO commitments.”

(from the negotiating text)

c. Jobs – Missing issues

Considering that domestic work continues to be unrecognized and remain among the most

marginalized, performed mostly by women, many whom are migrants or member of

disadvantaged communities, and particularly vulnerable to discrimination, abuse, harassment and

violence, while constitute a significant and substantial contribution to the sustainable economic

development.

We call the governments, of countries in which the work to be performed, countries of origin,

transit and destination, to acknowledge domestic work as work, in the national law and regulation,

for the full enjoyment of worker's rights and decent work for all, in particular for women migrant

domestic workers, by providing effective protections against all form of discrimination, abuse,

harassment, and violence, despite of their legal status (undocumented or documented migrant

workers), in regards of their specific situation and condition by nature that may lead them to

vulnerabilities.

d. Climate Change:

Commit fully to implement Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and all its principles – in

particular the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, equity, polluters pays principle,

precautionary principle, access to information and participation, Inter-generational principles, full

participation of women due to their vital role in the sustainable development, and acknowledgement

of indigenous people rights - including the international agreed declaration promoting women’s

rights such as Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. In this regards, resolve to proactively

address the remaining barriers and gaps in the implementation of internationally agreed

commitments.

Opposing on any call that may lead to the private sector and international financial institution

involvement in the climate financing, in particular on the Green Climate Fund.

Opposing the call to forest management that may lead to the limitation and violation of people’s

right, in particularly women’s, on access and control over land and natural resources, including on

benefiting the forest.

e. Mining

Considering that mining industries has been substantially resulted in negative impacts through

water, air and land pollution, land conflicts, and the lost of people’s livelihood, not to mentioned the

impact to health, including reproductive health, which lead to impoverishment and increasing gender

injustices. Therefore mining in the sustainable development agenda should not be seen only in the

context of economic value, but also considering the social, cultural and environmental value and

gender justice.

We call the goverment to:

Ensuring the activities of mining industries will not give damages to the environment (water,

air and land pollution) and/or violate human rights, include land grabbing

Ensuring the mining activities will not involve any military force.

Ensuring the mining activities will not increase the gender injustice in the society.


11

f. Gender Equality and Women Empowerment:


• Ensure that policies and programme of the Sustainable Development is in accordance to the

Principle 20 of the Rio Principles, Agenda 21, CEDAW, Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action

and the Millennium Declaration.

• Opposing the involvement of International Financial Institution, regional development bank, and

private sector in the women’s empowerment. In the regards, the IFI and multidevelopment bank

has more and more creating debt for developing contries and historically shown that their

projects impoverishing and increasing violation on women’s human rights due to land conflict

and deprivation of livelihoods.

• Ensuring the integration of gender justice principles (as mentioned above) into the planning,

implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the sustainable development.

• Acknowledge the needs of gender justice and women’s participation and involvement in all

aspect of sustainable development

• Ensuring that women have access and control in natural and food resources management as part

of sustainable development

Submitted by:



12


13

Komentar dan Rekomendasi Atas Konsep PRISAI Versi 001 11-10-12


19 Desember 2012

Komentar dan Rekomendasi ini merupakan tanggapan kritis atas substansi dari dokumen konsep PRISAI

versi 001 11-10-12 yang dibagikan bersamaan dengan undangan Konsultasi Publik SESA – PRISAI pada 8

Desember 2012.

A. Komentar Umum

Mengingat bahwa PRISAI adalah kerangka pengaman minimum REDD+ dan dibentuk dengan tujuan utama

untuk mencegah pelaksanaan REDD+ dari resiko-resiko sosial dan lingkungan yang bisa mencederai semangat

REDD+ sebagai mekanisme yang potensial menyelamatkan lingkungan hidup dan manusia; dan mendorong

terwujudnya perubahan kebijakan sumber daya alam, terutama hutan dan lahan gambut yang merealisasikan

prinsip dan cara kerja tata kelola yang baik, prinsip hak-hak asasi manusia dan semangat demokrasi, maka Kami

melihat adanya ketidaksesuaian konsep PRISAI dengan tujuan tersebut, yaitu sebagai berikut:

PRISAI belum ditempatkan sebagai perangkat yang menjamin perlindungan hak-hak masyarakat dan hak

perempuan. Seharusnya PRISAI menjadi perangkat untuk memastikan bahwa hak-hak masyarakat

terkena dampak dan keselamatan lingkungan terlindungi dan terpenuhi/terlaksana dalam pelaksanaan

proyek REDD+, sebagai orientasi utama dan PRISAI tidak menjadi perangkat untuk

menjawab/mendorong capaian penurunan emisi sesuai dengan stranas REDD+, atau bahkan mendorong

REDD+. Hal ini dilihat dari, antara lain, adanya prinsip, kriteria dan indikator untuk melengkapi atau

konsisten dengan target pengurangan emisi serta aksi untuk mengurangi pengalihan emisi. Artinya,

masih ada kerancuan antara tujuan PRISAI dengan apa yang diatur di dalam PRISAI.

PRISAI menjadi prinsip, kriteria dan indikator yang bersifat terbuka. PRISAI tidak memberikan indikator

yang jelas terkait berbagai mekanisme atau SOP yang diminta untuk disusun oleh pelaksana proyek.

Pengaturan mengenai mekanisme atau SOP tersebut diserahkan kepada pelaksana proyek. PRISAI

membuka ruang untuk terjadinya pelemahan terhadap persyaratan pelaksanaan proyek, dengan

membuka perumusan, pelaksanaan, hingga pelaporan untuk diusulkan oleh pelaksana proyek, dengan

membedakan mekanisme pelaksanaannya berdasarkan subyek yang mampu dan kurang mampu dalam

4 kategori, yaitu komunitas di dalam dan sekitar hutan, pemerintah, swasta, LSM. Artinya, PRISAI tidak

menjadi kerangka pengaman minimum dari pelaksanaan REDD+.

PRISAI tidak menerapkan prinsip inklusif, sensitif, dan responsif gender dalam setiap tahapan proyek

pada perencanaan dan pelaksanaan PRISAI, salah satunya dalam proses PADIATAPA, di mana PRISAI

tidak secara eksplisit memastikan perempuan sebagai pemangku kepentingan utama, tidak

mempertimbangkan pengalaman perempuan dan bentuk-bentuk ketidakadilan gender di dalam

konstruksi sosial yang berlaku di masyarakat, dan tidak memastikan perlindungan hak perempuan dalam

seluruh aspek PRISAI. Tidak ada penegasan secara eksplisit dalam konsep PRISAI terkait kewajiban

pelaksana proyek REDD+ untuk melakukan gender assesment terkait situasi sosial, ekonomi, politik dan

budaya masyarakat, laki-laki dan perempuan, di dalam atau di sekitar wilayah yang diusulkan menjadi

lokasi proyek.

PRISAI tidak mengatur sanksi bagi pelaksana proyek REDD+ yang terbukti melakukan pelanggaran hak-

hak masyarakat, hak perempuan dan hak masyarakat adat, ataupun konsekuensi bagi pelaksana proyek

yang tidak menjalankan PRISAI. Tidak ada pernyataan eksplisit yang menyatakan bahwa apabila PRISAI

tidak dipenuhi, maka proyek tidak dapat dilaksanakan atau mendapat persetujuan.)

Terdapat beberapa bahasa yang melemahkan ketentuan PRISAI yang seharusnya menjadi prasyarat

minimum (misalnya: kata “dapat” dalam konsep mekanisme pelaksanaan PRISAI untuk proyek *hlm. 7+;

kalimat “adanya upaya-upaya agar...tidak mengurangi hak..” dalam indikator prinsip pertama poin 1.3.6

[hlm. 14]).


14

B. Komentar Khusus

Secara khusus, pandangan umum terhadap konsep PRISAI tersebut kemudian dijabarkan dalam beberapa

aspek, yaitu sebagai berikut:

Muatan PRISAI tidak memastikan prinsip keadilan gender dan kaum rentan dalam proses pengambilan

keputusan terkait penetapan wilayah, perencanaan dan persiapan, namun hanya pada tahapan

pelaksanaan proyek saja. (Hlm. 4: Bagian STRANAS REDD+ dan PRISAI huruf e)

Mekanisme penyelesaian konflik tidak dibangun secara komprehensif. Walaupun dalam Indikator

ditegaskan bahwa sebelum kegiatan REDD+ dilaksanakan dipastikan, terdapat suatu mekanisme

penyelesaian konflik. Namun, mekanisme tersebut hanya berlaku apabila terdapat konflik dan untuk

mengatasi apabila terjadi konflik di masa yang akan datang, tanpa mempertimbangkan konflik-konflik

sebelumnya atau yang sedang berlangsung di masyarakat. Tidak hanya itu, seharusnya Mekanisme

yangdibangun, tidak hanya sebatas pada mekanisme penyelesaian konflik, namun juga mekanisme

pengaduan, penanganan dan penyelesaian masalah. (Hlm. 4: STRANAS REDD+ dan PRISAI, huruf f)

Kriteria atas segala kemungkinan dampak maupun keuntungan yang akan ditimbulkan dari penerapan

REDD+ termasuk jaminan atas penentuan pembagian manfaat yang akan timbul sebagai konsekuensi

REDD+, seharusnya tidak terbatas pada masyarakat yang terlibat secara langsung dalam pelaksanaan

proyek, namun dampak dan manfaat bagi seluruh masyarakat terkena dampak atau berpotensi terkena

dampak, laki-laki dan perempuan. (Hlm. 4: STRANAS REDD+ dan PRISAI, huruf g)

Tidak ada kriteria jaminan yang memastikan REDD+ tidak bertentangan atau tidak boleh meminggirkan

kearifan lokal masyarakat setempat. Hanya memunculkan kriteria jaminan yang memastikan REDD+

tidak bertentangan dengan upaya penyelamatan keanekaragaman hayati dan standar lingkungan hidup

yang berkelanjutan (Hlm. 4: STRANAS REDD+ dan PRISAI, huruf h)

PRISAI seharusnya memasukkan indikator yang menjamin, tidak hanya, adanya tindakan pemulihan bila

terjadi pelanggaran atau pengabaian terhadap hak maupun standar lingkungan hidup yang

berkelanjutan, namun juga ganti kerugian materiil dan immateriil bagi masyarakat terkena dampak yang

mengalami kerugian akibat tindakan pelanggaran atau pengabaian hak maupun standar lingkungan

hidup yang berkelanjutan. (Hlm. 4: STRANAS REDD+ dan PRISAI, huruf i)

PRISAI membedakan pemilahan pelaksana PRISAI berdasarkan subyek mampu dan kurang mampu

dalam 4 kategori, tanpa memberikan kriteria, indikator atau basis penilaian kemampuan atau

ketidakmampuan dari masing-masing pelaksana proyek tersebut. (Hlm. 5: Pelaksana PRISAI)

Mekanisme komplain seharusnya menjadi ruang bagi komunitas untuk mengadukan permasalahan

terkait pelaksanaan proyek secara keseluruhan dan tidak terbatas hanya pada pelaksanaan PRISAI. (Hlm.

5: Struktur PRISAI)

Ketidakseriusan dalam melibatkan masyarakat, khususnya perempuan dalam setiap tahapan PRISAI

terlihat dalam konsep PRISAI. Dalam konsep PRISAI disebutkan bahwa dalam melakukan studi

pelaksanaan proyek REDD+ “dapat” melibatkan masyarakat (Hlm. 7: Mekanisme pelaksanaan PRISAI).

Hal ini dapat diinterpretasikan bahwa keterlibatan masyarakat, laki-laki dan perempuan, bukan

merupakan sebuah kewajiban bagi pelaksana proyek REDD+. Oleh karena itu, seharusnya dalam konsep

PRISAI harus dipastikan bagaimana keterlibatan masyarakat, khususnya perempuan, merupakan hal

yang prinsip dan mutlak dilakukan oleh pemerintah maupun pelaksana proyek REDD+

Hasil Pemantauan Komite Pengaman hanya disampaikan kepada pelaksana REDD+ sebagai masukan

untuk perbaikan, namun tidak berfungsi sebagai dasar untuk merekomendasikan pembatalan proyek,

jika hasilnya menunjukkan terjadi pelanggaran hak masyarakat dan/atau bahaya kerusakan lingkungan

(Hlm. 10: Pemantauan Pelaksanaan PRISAI).

Laporan Pelaksanaan PRISAI hanya menjadi rujukan bagi pemerintah dalam menilai sejauh mana

perubahan telah terjadi dan dikembangkan lebih lanjut untuk kepentingan pengembangan data sistem

informasi safeguard (Hlm. 10). Hasil pelaksanaan PRISAI tidak menjadi basis penilaian untuk suatu

proyek dapat dilaksanakan atau tidak, namun hanya menjadi basis rekomendasi dalam memutuskan

pembayaran ke pelaksana REDD+ (hanya berorientasi pada nilai ekonomi) (Hlm. 11).


15

C. REKOMENDASI

Rekomendasi terhadap konsep PRISAI secara keseluruhan, dengan mengacu pada komentar umum

dan komentar khusus kami, adalah sebagai berikut:

1. Mengembalikan fungsi PRISAI pada tujuan utama untuk menjamin dan memastikan penghormatan,

perlindungan dan pemenuhan hak-hak masyarakat terkena dampak, laki-laki dan perempuan, serta

menyelamatkan lingkungan dari segala potensi resiko yang membahayakan keberlanjutan ekosistem

lingkungan hidup dari pelaksanaan proyek REDD+.

2. Mengembalikan fungsi PRISAI sebagai kerangka pengaman minimum, dengan tidak membuka ruang

pelemahan terhadap persyaratan-persyaratan yang harus dipenuhi, baik oleh pelaksana proyek

maupun pemerintah, sebelum suatu proyek disetujui atau diimplementasikan.

3. Mengintegrasikan prinsip inklusif, sensitif dan responsif gender ke dalam persyaratan pengamanan

sosial dan lingkungan di setiap tahapan proyek, dengan indikator yang jelas sebagai persyaratan

minimum dan memperhatikan situasi sosial, ekonomi, politik dan budaya perempuan setempat di

masing-masing wilayah yang diusulkan sebagai wilayah proyek.

4. PRISAI harus bisa memastikan keterlibatan penuh, masyarakat terkena dampak, laki-laki dan

perempuan, termasuk pada proses konsultasi dan partisipasi ataupun proses persetujuan atau

penolakan proyek, dengan berdasarkan informasi yang jelas, lengkap, menyeluruh yang dipahami,

antara lain dengan menggunakan bahasa, media dan kemasan yang dapat dipahami, oleh masyarakat

terkena dampak, laki-laki dan perempuan.

Kontak Person: Puspa Dewy ([email protected])


16

Solidaritas Perempuan/SP (Women’s Solidarity of Human Rights) is a feminist organization established in 1990 based in Jakarta, Indonesia, which consistently fighting for gender justice and defending women’s rights of the grassroots women on the issues of conflict over natural resources and climate change, food sovereignty, migration and trafficking, and pluralism and religion politicization. SP is an individual based membership organization, with 720 members spread all over Indonesia in 10 communities/branches in

Aceh, Palembang (South Sumatera), Yogyakarta, Jabotabek, Sumbawa and Mataram (West Nusa Tenggara), Makassar (South Sulawesi), Palu and Poso (Central Sulawesi) and Kendari (South East

Sulawesi).

Submission of Solidaritas Perempuan to the COP 20 in Lima

Contact Person: Puspa Dewy ([email protected])

Climate change has prolonged the burden of the people in the south due to the global injustices and

impoverishment of the people caused by expropriation of livelihood and violation of human rights. The

exploitation of natural resources and industrialization by the developed countries for centuries has resulted

to the historically unequal economic structures and forces between developed countries and the

developing countries. Those situations is now being perpetuated through the practices and policies at

international, regional, national and local level promoted by the developed countries, international

institution and transnational corporation in favors of the developed countries, even in response to the

climate crisis.

While the needs is to have drastic emissions cut from the developed countries, changing their system

of production and consumption and reducing their industries, the developed countries continue to have

business as usual and encourage the developing countries to contribute more in the effort to respond the

climate crisis. The climate finance to support those efforts comes with all the conditionalities and some in

the form of loan, giving more burdens to the developing countries to take step and reduce emission while

they still have to deal with climate change impact and their need to development.

Indonesia as an islands country is becoming one of the most vulnerable countries to the impact of

climate change. Climate change has divergent impact to all region in Indonesia as each region has their own

characteristics. The largest threats of climate change in Indonesia are the increase of sea surface level and

temperature and changes in the intensity and patterns of rainfalls that have and will have impacts of

extended dry season, floods, increased frequency of extreme climate occurrences that affect community

health and sources of living, degrade biodiversity and instability of the economy.4 Therefore, with all the

vulnerability and risk faced by Indonesia, Indonesia should prioritized more on the effort of adaptation for

the interest and needs of the people of Indonesia. But, in addition to that, Indonesia as the third largest

forest country in the world, invited a number of climate financing to Indonesia for mitigation and being

targeted to be the pilot country for REDD+ which are a market based approach to forests, which some has

been proven as false solution due to the impacts of those projects to community5. The community people

who already suffer from the impacts of climate change, has to deal and suffer more impacts from the

climate “false solution” projects, such as REDD+.

While the impacts of climate change are not gender neutral, the women within the community suffers

more impacts than men, because of women’s vital role in the natural resources management and the

unequal power relation between men and women in the society which excluded women from access and

control over decision making. Therefore, it is crucial to settle gender policies and safeguard, in order to

4 Ministry of National Development Planning, Indonesia’s National Action Plan for Climate Change Adaptation,

2012. 5 Solidaritas Perempuan, FPAR Report: The Impact of Climate Project (REDD+) on the Protection of Women’s

Rights Who Lives Around Forest in Central Kalimantan, 2014.



17

target gender equality, women’s empowerment and the protection of women’s rights in the fight to

climate change.

And therefore, our demands are as follow:

1. Gender policies and action plan, as well as gender safeguard with gender inclusive, sensitive and

responsive principles must be applied to target gender equality, women empowerment and the

protection of women’s rights in the fights of climate change

2. Access to information and meaningful participation of women in the decision making from

planning, preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation process of any climate policy,

program and project must be guaranteed and fulfilled in all climate policies and action. Information

should be disclosed publicly in a simple

3. Gender disaggregated data and gender differentiated analysis should be applied, as well as Gender

budget should be allocated, in all climate program, project, and initiatives to address the

vulnerabilities of women from climate change impact which has been exacerbated by the gender

injustices that occurs due the unequal power relation between men and women within the society.

4. Women’s access and control over natural resources management and the environment as their

space and source of livelihood must be guaranteed and applied, as well as to encourage and

strengthen initiatives based on local wisdom and traditional knowledge of women, in response to

the climate crisis.

5. In response to climate crisis, new, additional and unconditional finance, capacity building and

technology transfer without intellectual property barrier from developed countries to developing

countries should be applied within a legally binding agreement by prioritizing adaptation for

community people, women and men, as part of their obligation and historical responsibilities.

6. Drastic emission cuts must be done by the developed countries with domestic measures by

changing their system of production and consumption which is suitable with the capacity and

capability of Mother Earth, as well as to stop further expansion of the transnational fossil fuel

industries elsewhere.

7. The global fund for climate change should provide direct, simple and accessible financing for

community people which are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and should not be

addressed to finance Private Corporation who has record of violation of human rights, women’s

rights, caused environmental degradation, and triggered social and environmental conflict.

8. The global effort to address climate change should be prioritized for the the people of the South in

the fight to climate change instead of targeting the private sector activities for “green”

investment.

9. Stop any false solution, such as market based approaches to forests, harmful energy and mega

project, such as nuclear energy, mega hydro dam, biomass, monoculture agroindustry, mega

infrastructures, carbon offset and carbon trading. No to financialization and commodification of

Nature and nature’s functions.

10. Any initiatives and effort of developing countries in dealing with climate change and climate

change impacts within their countries has to be accounted as part of their contribution in the fight

to climate change.

11. The Government of Indonesia should stop taking commitments and action in favor of the

developed countries and start to take step for the interest and needs of the people of Indonesia,

particularly women and the people of the South, in the International climate negotiations.

Solidaritas Perempuan, November 2014.


18

Solidaritas Perempuan/SP (Women’s Solidarity of Human Rights) is a feminist organization established in 1990 based in Jakarta, Indonesia, which consistently fighting for gender justice and defending women’s rights of the grassroots women on the issues of conflict over natural resources and climate change, food sovereignty, migration and trafficking, and pluralism and religion politicization. SP is an individual based membership organization, with 720 members spread all over Indonesia in 10 communities/branches in

Aceh, Palembang (South Sumatera), Yogyakarta, Jabotabek, Sumbawa and Mataram (West Nusa Tenggara), Makassar (South Sulawesi), Palu and Poso (Central Sulawesi) and Kendari (South East Sulawesi).

Submission for Gender Responsive Climate Policy


18 Februari 2015

Contact Person: Puspa Dewy ([email protected])

Preface

Women in Indonesia, like women in most developing countries are facing social, economic, political and

cultural barriers that limit their access to and control over resources, capacities and decision making. That

barriers that comes from the existing `patriarchal system and cultural that form a gender construction that

domesticate women and placed women in the reproductive and domestic sphere that considered to have

not economic role and therefore are not taken into account. Their gender role that created an unequal

relation between men and women then also excludes women from information and decision making

processes. Their situation, problems, and particular needs and interests are hidden. These situations make

women to be marginalized, more vulnerable to be rights violated, and become victims of gender injustices.

The climate crisis then prolonged the gender injustices faced by women. Although, in general, the

impact of climate change are felt equally by the society - men and women. However, the greatest impact is

certainly felt by women where women are not only thinking about agricultural issues with inconsistent

income, resulting from climate changes. Women also have to think hard to get the economy for family

needs. Climate changes had affected agriculture is the number of women who must leave the village to

look for additional work with uncertain time, if the rainy season come. Some of the women also work as

labor in the oil palm plantation, domestic worker, or migrant worker. Not only in terms of economy. Health

problems became the greatest impact felt by women.

Their gender role as well as their relation and dependency to nature make women more vulnerable to

the effects of climate change. The responsibility to secure water, food, and other family needs, then

unequal access to resources and to decision-making processes, limited mobility places women in rural areas

in a position where they are disproportionately affected by climate change. On the other hand, women are

not only vulnerable to climate change but they are also effective actors or agents of change in relation to

both mitigation and adaptation. Women often have a strong body of knowledge and expertise that can be

used in climate change mitigation, disaster reduction and adaptation strategies. Women continue to

develop initiatives to respond to and prevent climate change situation, individually and collectively. Various

initiatives were made by women in the community in responding to and preventing climate change

situation, ranging from finding new ways to farm, manage and utilize forest products without destroying

their habitat. Furthermore, women’s responsibilities in households and communities, as stewards of natural

and household resources, positions them well to contribute to livelihood strategies adapted. It is thus

important to identify gender-sensitive strategies to respond to the environmental and humanitarian crises

caused by climate change.(52nd session of the Commission on the Status of Women (2008) “Gender

perspectives on climate change” - UN Women Factsheet on Women, Gender Equality and Climate Change,

2009)

Unfortunately, women's initiatives in response to the situation has not been fully recognized by the

government, even there is no allocation of funds specifically for women in response to climate change.

Governments are developing policies and mitigation projects that threaten and restrict women's access to

and control over their natural resources. Government policies and mitigation projects are not ensure the

protection of women's rights in the management of natural resources.



19

Protection of women's rights have not become a principle in policy development and climate projects.

Though the facts have shown that women are vulnerable to climate change situation, but the fact also

indicates that women have had the initiative to respond to the climate change situation. As an effort to

maintain and protect the initiatives, it is necessary to build a mechanism for the protection of women's

rights both in adaptation, mitigation and climate finance to ensure the protection of women's rights.

COP 20 in Lima, Peru has agreed on Lima Work Program on Gender that gives mandates to set gender-

responsive climate policies on all focus within climate change and request secretariat of UNFCCC prepare

material for consideration as mention in the para 11-12 of the Lima Work Program on Gender, therefore

Solidaritas Perempuan find it importance to submit our submission related to the principles and

requirement for Gender responsive climate policy, both on mitigation and adaptation, as well as on capacity

building and technology development and transfer.

Gender Responsive Climate Policy should apply and integrate the gender justice perspectives, which

are integrating the gender inclusive, sensitive and responsive principles, defines as follows:

Inclusiveness defines as a principle that women are represented not only physically but include

their particular needs and interest, and that women’s views, knowledge, and experiences are

included and take into account in all processes, in particularly decision-making process

Sensitive defines as a principle that predicate the awareness of particular needs and interest of

women based on their social, political, economic and cultural situation of women in the existing

gender construction and in regards of their views, knowledge and experiences.

Responsive defines as a principle that predicate the need to be responsive to the gender

construction that differentiates social roles and responsibilities amongst women and men in the

community, by taking special measures to ensure that women are the subjects of each and every

process of decision-making and that women’s views, knowledge, and experiences become the

basis of decision-making with the full involvement and participation of women.

Gender Responsive Climate Policy should sets:

12. Gender safeguard for all climate action as requirements for approval, which based on the principles

of inclusiveness, sensitive and responsive regarding information, consultation and participation,

consent, grievance, safety and security in all stages from planning, preparation, implementation,

monitoring and evaluation, in order to protect and guarantee women’s access and control over

natural resources management and the environment as their space and source of livelihood.

13. Gender disaggregated data and gender differentiated analysis (situation, risks and impacts) in and

as basis of all climate actions and initiatives, taking into account the social, political, economic and

cultural situation of women and their particularities

14. Proactive approach and mechanism to ensure meaningful participation and involvement of women

in decision-making, inter alia provide and facilitate a safe space for women to discuss and have

meetings prior to a decision-making process, by ensuring that women have equal understanding of

information; as well as integrate the views, knowledge and experiences of women as

considerations in making decision.

15. An allocation of Gender budget within all climate action and initiatives to address the

vulnerabilities of women from climate change impact which has been exacerbated by the gender

injustices and marginalization of women that occurs due the unequal power relation between men

and women within the society, among others for capacity building, women’s empowerment for

participation and control over public decision making, including to provide a safe space for women.

16. A Priority funding portfolio for local/indigenous community women initiatives to encourage and

strengthen initiatives based on local wisdom and traditional knowledge of women, in response to

the climate crisis, including in climate mitigation action, that can be access directly by women, with

a simplification of requirements, including requirements in regards to administration, and by

providing allocation/grant for capacity building on planning and preparation phase.

Submited by Solidaritas Perempuan (Women’s Solidarity for Human Rights)


20


21

Submission to the Green Climate Fund Board

Indonesian CSOs, February 2014

After scrutinizing the documents published by GCF for its sixth Director meeting, we found that principles

and mechanisms offered by the Fund created many loopholes. We identified that those loopholes maybe

subject to the violation of: The “do not harm” principle, maximum transparency, democratic process and

accountability mechanisms to the citizens and the public, equity, inclusiveness and non-discrimination, country

ownership, sovereignty and self-determination as well as consistency with international human rights,

environmental, gender, labor and other principles and standards.

We see the points that must be highlighted which are related to the aforementioned principles are based

on these arguments:

The involvement of private sector and IFIs (International Finance Institution) in the GCF will harm the

recipients of the Fund in a way that loans will create more debts. The loans that will be disbursed by

the Fund will eventually stipulate prerequisite that have to be met. Those prerequisites from the GCF

documents are tending to cost more in long term than the benefits.

The stakeholders must be involved in the whole process of GCF mechanism. The democratic process

and accountability mechanism to the citizens and public only can be done when the stakeholders

having maximum transparent access

GCF-regulation mechanisms must be mandatory for the NDA/focal point, Intermediaries or

Implementing Entities (IEs), and Executing Entities (EEs). The strategic framework that is developed by

project proponent must comply with the existing policy, budget, economic and social condition. Thus,

the strategic framework will bound the state to conduct its crucial role in project implementation and

the use of fund

The details of aforementioned arguments are based on the analysis of GCF’s documents which are further

explained below:

1. Initial Modalities for the operation of the Fund’s Mitigation and Adaptation Windows and the

Private Sector Facility, (GCF/B.06/02);

Bagian 3.2 para 11 (b) “....The Fund would accredit implementing entities (IEs) and

intermediaries that would be responsible for the GCF/B.06/02 implementation of specific

projects and programmes supported by the Fund(see document GCF/B.06/09). In particular,

the IES andintermediaries would undertakefirst‐level due diligence on behalf of the

Fundoftheproposed project or programme; conclude grantor loan agreements with executing

entities (EEs); disburs funds to, and, in case of loans, receive debt servicefrom, EEs;

and ensure that the EE adheres to the Fund’ssocialand environmental safeguards, fiduciary

standards and otherrequirements...”.

It is crucial to add a statement ensuring EE is assessing the social, environmental and

gender risk. The statement needs to emphasize that the fund distributed is a grant, instead of

a loan.

Section 3.2 para 11 (c). There should be an advance explanation with regards to the

Investment Committee, i.e. who are involved, the selection process, the task and authorities.

Section 3.2 para 11 (d). Proposed line: Preparation and consent for the project/programme

proposed must undergo a series of processes of information disclosure, public consultation,

and approval by local community, women’s group, and civil society.

Section 3.2 para 11(e) . Proposed addition line. (a) “...with the Fund’s enviromental, social

and gender safeguard..” , (b) Prior to be approved by The Board, GCF must inform public on

the proposed proposal, (c) The IE or intermediary, the NDAor focal pointand the Trustee

wouldbe informedof theprocess and outcome.


22

Section 3.2 para 11 (h). Added word: Trustee will report to the public regularly with regards

to the fund.

Annex 1. The capital to operate with PSF will be developed based on the inputs and

recommendation from various stakeholders, including CSO, not only Private Sector Advisory

Group.

2. Policies and Procedures for the initial allocation of fund resources (GCF B.06/05)

Allocation for fund sources are prioritize for the efforts to adapt and mitigate in vulnerable

countries against the impacts of climate change. allocation for funds should not be prioritize

for the private sector.

Section II, para 9 (b). Proposed added line: The fund allocation, beside those for public and

private sector, should also enable communities to access through a mechanism developed by

each country.

Section II, para 14 (d). There needs to be an explanation with regards to individual project,

the way the mechanism of the project is able to be submitted to the GCF Board.

Section III, para 16. Private sector facility. Line: “..... For the shorter term, the Board may wish

to GCF/B.06/05 approve an initial start‐up allocationtargetof 20 per cent for the PSF...”

should be diminish. 20% of the fund allocation for private sector is irrelevant, taking into

account that private sector are often the parties who play important roles in environmental

damages which contribute to the increase of global warming by releasing large amount of

emissions. No allocation for private sector means reducing the negative of private sector's

practices which contribute to the impacts of climate change. This is also a form of climate

change mitigation effort.

Section III, para 17. Fund allocation, especially for vulnerable countries, needs to be

increased. Taking into account the increase of these vulnerabilities due to the impacts of

climate change highly needed a rapid resolution.

Section III, para 21. Addition for article, which stated that the report submitted to the GCF

Secretariat each year should also be publishedto the public.

3. Country Ownership ( GCF B.06/07) .

There has not been any paragraph which explain the condition of countries who are facing

problems with regards to the country's mechanism and system. It is crucial to push for the

establishment of a mechanism within the CGF which explains and regulates countries that are

facing problems with governance. I.e. Indonesia havebeen facing problems with law

enforcement, then the GCF should be the party that is able to intervene. Thus it is important

to establish a periodic mechanism review and not merely distributing climate change funds.

Section V, para 40 (a). It is crucial to add points on the involvement of the stakeholders

(community, women, government), not merely on project/programme monitoring phase.

The stakeholders' involvement should also at be at, but not limited to,planing, implementing,

and evaluation phases.

4. Readiness and Support (GCF B.01415,16)

This document explains the main function of the secretariat which the second article mentioned

that initial strategic framework is voluntary (Doc 14, para 3.2): “The initial strategic framework is

neither mandatory nor does it have to comprehensive for a country to engage with the fund.”. Initial

strategic framework must consists of climate change, economy, and financial state, NAMAs, etc. The

weakness in Indonesia at the moment that there is no 'umbrella'policy related to climate change.


23

5. On the involvement of private entities (GCF B.015)

Paragraph 34: “The Guidance provided by the Board as discussed in Section 3.2 put the concept

of intermediaries in a broader context. Intermediaries therefore can be understood as the

current tool as referring to sub-nationals, national, regional, or international public and private

entities with accredited capacity for intermedation.”

Paragraph 42: “Intermediaries may be public or private sub-national, national, regional or

international entities able to channel grant and concessional loan from the fund.”

Paragraph 34 and 42 stated that intermediaries from accredited public and private sector.

Nonetheless with the private sector involvement, it is highly concerned that there will the

commodities will be commercialized and will likely focus on profit and underrating social and

environmental impacts of the project.

Paragraph 37, it is mentioned that the function of the intermediaries is broader than IE:

“According to this understanding, the scope of the role of intermediaries refer to a broader range

of responsibilities than those of IEs, scheming from their capacities of intermediation, which

might include on or more of the following:”

o grant award mechanism

o on lending and capacity to undertake due diligence

o financial blending

o financial structuring

o including for guarantee insurance mechanism relevant for climate change

o origination of financial structure product for financial engineering

o other to be define as they become relevant and appropriate.”

The intermediaries' function is too broad. Moreover on the last point which stated that

intermediaries also have other function to be define as they become relevant and appropriate. The

last point can easily be a loop hole to broaden the intermediaries' function. Hence, this article should

be deleted.

On the power of intermediaries. Paragraf 40 (“Under this operational understanding funding

proposal relating to programs effectively devolve the decision-making authority over individual

funding decisions for project or activities that are comprise within the approved program to the

accredited entity acting as an intermediaries (sub-national, national, regional or international.”) It is

mentioned that in order for the project/programme could be implemented effectively, the authority

of the decision makers, i.e. Board, is able to distribute the authority on the funding for the projects

approved to intermediaries

6. Dokumen Financial Terms and Condition of Grants and Concessional Loans

On the grants and loans.

Doc 16, para 8. The following financial instrument will be deployed by the fund in its initial

state of operation: a) grantsb) concessional loans: concessional loans 1 (deeply concessional

loans) , concessional loans 2 (moderately concessional loans)

It is mentioned that the financial instrument which will be used is in forms of loan and grant.

Lon will directly add burden to the developing countries. Climate change funding should not

burden the funded countries, therefore it should not be a load.

On the corruption of grants

Doc 16, para 17 ("Grants provided in the initial phase of the Fund's operations are traditional

grants without repayment obligation, except in the event that disbursements were obtained due

to corruption of fraudulent action.").

It is mentioned that when corruption occur with regards to the grant, then the grant should

be returned. This important point is merely explained in one sentence. There is no further


24

explanation for this point. The point should be elaborated with regards to the mechanism and

control, mainly on the party who should be responsible.

1. Initial Proposal Approval Process, Including the Criteria for Programme and Project Funding

(Progress Report) (GCF B.06/08)

Bagian 3.1 para 20, terkait debt service. Usulannya pasal tersebut harus dihilangkan.

Bagian III, perlu ada penambahan para terkait memastikan keterlibatan stakeholder,

terutama masyarakat terkena dampak, kelompok perempuan, dalam project atau program

approval cycle.

Bagian 3.4, perlu adanya penambahan paragraph yang menegaskan bahwa keputusan proses

harus berdasarkan hasil konsultasi dan assesment dampak dan resiko sosial, lingkungan dan

gender di masyarakat dan kelompok perempuan.

Bagian IV, para 29. Usulan penambahan point. Salah satu yang dilihat dalam kriteria tidak

hanya dari aspek ekonomi, tetapi juga dilihat dari aspek sosial, lingkungan dan gender.

Tambahan para, bahwa proposal yang masuk ke GCF, berkewajiban untuk dipublikasi

sehingga publik dapat memberikan masukan sebagai pertimbangan bagi board untuk

menyetujui atau tidak proposal yang diajukan tersebut.

Additional: Monitoring from CSO and blacklisting mechanism for parties with social and

environmental conflicts (relates to Doc B.06.08)

2. B.06.09 Guiding Framework and Procedures for Accrediting National, Regional and International

Implementing Entities and Intermediaries, Including the Fund's Fiduciary Principles and

Environmental and Social Safeguards

There should be a standards for the private sector who are able to access the grant.

Where is the community’s position within the project approval cycle? Solution: project approval

cycle should provide a stakeholder’s (community, women, etc) engagement process

Annex 1: stakeholder’s (i.e. affected communities) added as Actor

Section 3.3, para 6 . Verification towards private sector to access the GCF funds

Safeguards 4.2. (e) Includes a stakeholder monitoring and review of the effectiveness of the

EMMS , (f) Provides a grievance and conflict resolution mechanism for affected communities.

The mechanism must be gender sensitive.

Addition

- Ensuring a free from conflicts, fair, transparent and impartial conflict resolution mechanism

- Ensuring the affected communities, especially women, with capacities to be involved in all forms

of stakeholder engagements within the overall project cycle

4.4. Human Rights

- Projects/programmes will respect? Internationally accepted human rights?

4.5. Gender equity and women’s empowerment

- Change the word ‘equity’ to ‘justice’ to make a stronger remark. The word ‘justice’ is more

empowering in comparison to ‘equity’ .

4.6 Labor and working conditions

- Should come up with its own sectoral labor standards, rather than complying to other

instruments, but could be adapted from these instruments.

4.7. Indigenous peoples

- Must also comply with the local indigenous law in the area of the project

Section 4.8. Involuntary Resettlement

- No resettlement

Section 4.10. Conservation of biological diversity

- Projects/programmes will be designed and ensured that it will not threat community’s food

production , no land conversion d other basic resources (e.g. clean water resources)


25

4.12 Pollution prevention and resource efficiency

- Projects/programmes will be designed, ensured and implemented in a way that meets the

applicable international standards for maximizing energy efficiency and minimizing material

resource use (including water), the production of wastes, and the release of pollutants.

- Note: How to minimize? Instead of minimizing resource use, i.e. water, project should not be

using local community’s water resources.

4.15. Land and soil conservation.

- Zero land conversion.

3. Dokumen Financial Termsand Condition of Grants and Concessional Loans

5.1. Question: does GCF have boundaries, with regards to the financial risk? Is the same with

financial risk of other banks?

4. Investment Framework

Para 18(b). 5.2

Financial class of project/programme funded: revenue‐generating (such as a renewable energy

project/public transport system), or non‐ revenue generating, (such as a climate change strategy);

Note: Project/programme should be free from social and environmental conflict.

E.g. Biofuel project from the production of CPO often causes social & environmental conflict,

between companies & community/NGO

Para 18 point C :

Verification towards private sector to access the GCF funds

Indonesian CSOs in Bali:

1. Aminah Failisa, Samdhana Institute

2. Anang Setiawan, NTFP-EP

3. Arlita Rachmawati Rahman, Warsi

4. Dewy Puspa, Solidaritas Perempuan

5. Dedy Ratih, Walhi

6. Jeffry Saragih, Sawit Watch

7. Marhaini Nasution, Aksi!,

8. Oslan Purba, Walhi

9. Risma Umar, Aksi!

10. Sarli Zulhendra, LBH Yogyakarta

11. Sri Ranti, Kruha

12. Tawangratri Kusumohartono, Sawit Watch


26

Submission to The Green Climate Fund Board

Indonesia CSO, May 2014

This Submission is expressing the point of views and concerns of Indonesia Civil Society Group regarding

the Green Climate Fund (GCF), in particular on it Board’s decisions to be made in the Seventh Board Meeting in

Songdo on 18-21 May 2014. Our concerns are in regards of the potential violations of the “do not harm”

principle, maximum transparency, democratic process and accountability mechanisms to the citizens and the

public, equity, inclusiveness and non-discrimination, country ownership, sovereignty and self-determination as

well as consistency with international human rights, environmental, gender, labor and other principles and

standards.

Points that must be highlighted which are related to the aforementioned principles are based on these

arguments:

• The involvement of private sector and IFIs (International Finance Institution) in the GCF will harm the

recipients of the Fund in a way that loans will create more debts. The loans that will be disbursed by

the Fund will eventually stipulate prerequisite that have to be met. Those prerequisites from the GCF

documents are tending to cost more in long term than the benefits.

• The stakeholders must be involved in the whole process of GCF mechanism. The democratic process

and accountability mechanism to the citizens and public only can be done when the stakeholders

having maximum transparent access

• GCF-regulation mechanisms must be mandatory for the NDA/focal point, Intermediaries or

Implementing Entities (IEs), and Executing Entities (EEs). The strategic framework that is developed by

project proponent must comply with the existing policy, budget, economic and social condition. Thus,

the strategic framework will bound the state to conduct its crucial role in project implementation and

the use of fund

The well‐documented fact that climate change impacts women and men differently, to the detriment

of women, and that existing gender injustices are likely to be exacerbated by the impacts of climate

change. Women’s limited access to information and decision making due to the gender construction in

the society can be resulted to the exclusion of women’s experiences and knowledge in the

operationalization of the Funds.

The details of aforementioned arguments are based on the analysis of GCF’s documents which are further

explained below:

1. Guiding Framework and Procedures for Accrediting National, Regional and International Implementing

Entities and Intermediaries, Including the Fund's Fiduciary Principles and Environmental and Social

Safeguards (Board document GCF/B.07/02)

• The Performance Standards (PS) of the International Finance Corporation (IFC) should not serve as

interim basis nor serve as a basis for the development of the Fund’s own ESS, as mentioned in the para

7 on the Scope of the Document, “On ESS, the initial guiding framework for the Fund’s accreditation

process (see Annex II) proposes the adoption, on an interim basis, of the Performance Standards (PS) of

the International Finance Corporation (IFC), which will also serve as a basis for the development of the

Fund’s own ESS.”. The IFC has a long track record of aggressively promoting projects and programs

which resulted on the exacerbate of climate change and harm the environment. An institution which

actively promotes the causes of global warming should not be the base of the Fund’s safeguard. The

highest standards should be applied in regards of safeguards for projects and program finance by the

Funds.

• The gender policy should not limited to gender mainstreaming objective, but also in the context of

setting requirements to be met to protect the rights of women and avoid potential risk and impact of

the project/activities or program’s to the increase of gender injustices. A side of Environmental and

Social Safeguard, a gender safeguard consist of gender inclusive, sensitive and responsive principles


27

and standards must be applied to avoid further exacerbated of gender injustices, potential risks and

impacts, and the violation of women’s rights. In particular, requirements in regards of information

disclosure, consultation and meaningful participation, consent, complain mechanism and safety and

security for women which in line with above principles.

• In regards to safeguard, the following points should be expressed in the policy document:

o In reviewing the effectiveness of EMMS stakeholders' monitoring and review should also be

included;

o Provides a grievance and conflict resolution mechanism for affected communities;

o Ensure the affected communities and particularly the women with capacities to be involved

in the monitoring and all forms of stakeholder engagements within the overall project cycle;

o Ensuring a free from conflicts, fair, transparent and impartial conflict resolution mechanism.

The mechanism must be gender sensitive and responsive;

o A clear statement should be included which human right instruments will be respected and

accepted by GCF programs and projects, and in what forms; The applying safeguard should

not only based scaled risk-based approach, but should be rights based approach, as

mentioned in the poin 5.1 para 37.

o The notion of gender justice and women's empowerment has to be included;

o The labor and working condition should come up with its own sectoral labor standards, rather

than complying to other instruments, but could be adapted from these instruments;

o Programs and projects must also comply with indigenous law within the area of the project;

o There should not be any involuntary resettlement triggered by GCF financed programs and

projects;

o the assurance that programs and projects be implemented in a way that meets the

applicable international standards for maximizing energy efficiency and minimizing

material resource use (including water), the production of wastes, and the release of

pollutants, has to be an assurance that the programs and projects will not use local

community's water resources;

o With regards to food security/sovereignty, programs and projects should not threat the

community's food security, i.e. project should not be established by converting community's

food production lands;

o Ensure that there is no involuntary resettlement and no land conversion caused or triggered

by the programs or projects.

2. Initial Proposal Approval Process, Including the Criteria for Programme and Project Funding (Board

document GCF/B.07/03)

It is expected that GCF fund is not in form of loans;

Ensure involvement of stakeholders particularly affected communities, the women in the whole stages

of program or project cycle;

Decision made has to be based on consultation and based on environmental, social and gender

impacts and risks assessment with communities including the women on the program or project sites;

Criteria to fund specific activities should not limited to only economic criteria, but to include

environment, social and gender aspects;

Proposals submitted to GCF have to be published in timely manner and public can give comments for a

deliberation by the Board to approve or reject the proposals;

Ensure monitoring by CSOs and provide a track-record and blacklisting mechanism for parties with

social and environmental conflicts history.

3. Initial Result Management Framework (Board document GCF/B.07/04)

The details associated with the reporting options, best practices and guidance should not be limitedly

made available on the Fund’s website, as mentioned in the document para 4, “The details associated


28

with the reporting options, best practices and guidance would be made available on the Fund website”,

but should also be made accessible to wider public, in particular the affected communities, both men

and women. There is a limitation for people to have internet access, in particularly the affected

women.

The Mitigation project/program level outcome should not limit the access and control of the affected

communities, both men and women, on the natural resources management, should not lead to

violation of human rights and environmental degradation, but actually strengthening the access and

control of the affected communities, both men and women, in natural resources management and

increase the quality of life of those affected communities. The benefit of the project and program

should not be limited in the economic aspect.

4. Investment Framework (Board document GCF/B.07/06)

Verification process to private to access GCF particularly in regard to its track-record. Relevant CSOs

can be obtained advice on this;

Black-listing companies that have caused and/or trigger environmental and social problems;

Ensure that programs and projects supported are free of social and environmental conflicts and

problems. For example, bio-fuel project from the production of CPO often causes social and

environmental conflicts between companies and communities.

There is no clarity of space/mechanism for the involvement of civil society or other relevant

stakeholder, in particular affected communities, both in formulating strategy investment as well as in

their views and recommendations to the Investment Committee for consideration of the agreement

will be submitted to the Board.

The criteria for program and project funded in the investment guideline should also consider the

gender justice aspect, in particular in the sustainable development sub criteria, not only consider

social, economy, and environmental aspect.

In the investment framework should be stated clearly projects or activities that can not be funded by

the GCF. In particular:

o Projects or activities which commonly will lead to human rights violations and environmental

degradation and/or trigger social or land conflict in the project areas, such as agro-industry,

monoculture, mega infrastructure project, nuclear, underground mining and other large scale

industries.

o Projects or activities developed and/or implemented by project developer and/or implementer

which has history of had been or had been alleged committed or involved in human rights

violations, women human rights violations, and/or environmental destructions.

o Projects or activities which not applying gender safeguard or does not provide protection for

women from and/or potentially reinforce gender injustices.

5. Initial Modalities for the operation of the Fund’s Mitigation and Adaptation Windows and the Private

Sector Facility (Board document GCF/B.07/08):

It is important to add and ensure that the Executing Entity (EE) also carries out environment, social

and gender impacts and risks assessment;

Ensure that allocated modalities is in form of grants and not loans;

Clear information about who are in the Investment Committee, its member selection, its job

description;

Project proposal, approval and preparation should undergo the process of information disclosure,

public consultation and consent from local and indigenous communities including their women, and in

knowledge of civil societies;

GCF Secretariat has to make public proposals submitted to the Board before its approval; moreover,

implementing entities (EI), intermediary, NDA or focal point and the Trustee should be informed

about process and outcomes;


29

The trustee has to report publicly regularly about the finance;

Funds for investment and operation of PSF have to be based on recommendations from stakeholders,

including CSOs, not only from the PSAG

Civil Society Organizations:

1. Puspa Dewy, Solidaritas Perempuan

2. Titi Soentoro, Aksi!

3. Aminah Failisa, Samdhana Institute

4. Anang Setiawan, NTFP-EP

5. Arlita Rachmawati Rahman, Warsi

6. Dedy Ratih, Walhi

7. Jeffry Saragih, Sawit Watch

8. Sarli Zulhendra, LBH Yogyakarta

9. Sri Ranti, Kruha

10. Telly Kurniasari, Wetlands Indonesia


30

Rekomendasi Masyarakat Sipil Indonesia kepada Dewan Dana Iklim Hijau

Untuk Akses Lokal Langsung ke Dana Iklim Hijau

Oktober 2014

Kelompok masyarakat sipil kmenyerukan akses langsung lokal ke pendanaan GCF, di mana lokal yang

dimaksud di sini adalah komunitas, organisasi masyarakat sipil maupun perusahaan yang beroperasi pada

tingkat lokal yang secara langsung mengalami dampak perubahan iklim. Seruan ini didasari realitas bahwa

meskipun entitas-entitas lokal telah mengembangkan berbagai inisiatif sesuai kebutuhan lokal untuk

menghadapi dampak perubahan iklim, namun peran aktor-aktor lokal tersebut dalam pengambilan keputusan

berkaitan dengan perubahan iklim, sangatlah terbatas. Selain itu dana-dana iklim sering tidak menggapai aktor-

aktor lokal tersebut.

Sebuah lokakarya pada pada tanggal 29-30 September di Jakarta yang dihadiri oleh sejumlah CSOs,

intermediaries maupun anggota masyarakat yang memiliki pengalaman dalam mengakses dana untuk

mengembangkan inisiatif-inisiatif lokal membahas kepentingan akses langsung ke dana-dana GCF. Lokakarya

tersebut menghasilkan rekomendasi untuk mekanisme pendanaan yang dapat meningkatkan peluang

masyarakat dan entitas lokal untuk memperoleh akses yang lebih besar ke pendanaan GCF. Rekomendasi ini

disusun berdasarkan pengalaman-pengalaman terbaik dari berbagai entitas lokal dan nasional yang relevan

dengan mekanisme pendanaan.

Rekomendasi terdiri dari (1) prinsip-prinsip yang perlu dianut dalam pengelolaan dana GCF di Indonesia;

(2) pendekatan yang perlu dilakukan; (3) kondisi untuk pengelolaan; (4) peran yang diharapkan dari GCF dan

NDA Indonesia, dan pihak terkait lainnya, antara lain Kemenkeu, Bappenas, Kemendagri.

Berkaitan dengan (1) prinsip-prinsip yang perlu dianut:

Transparan, inklusif dan akuntabel dalam arti bahwa (i) proses-proses yang dilakukan dalam

pengambilan keputusan untuk tindakan-tindakan yang berkaitan dengan alokasi, penyaluran,

pengelolaan, monitoring dan evaluasi harus terbuka kepada publik melalui berbagai cara antara lain

tetapi tidak terbatas pada keterbukaan informasi lewat situs NDA; (ii) pro-aktif dalam melibatkan

organisasi-organisasi masyarakat sipil, lokal dan adat, perempuan dan anak, dan kelompok marjinal di

daerah terutama di wilayah alokasi dan tindakan GCF dalam proses-proses pengambilan keputusan;

(iii) bertanggung jawab kepada publik mengenai keputusan-keputusan yang sifatnya kebijakan

maupun operasionalisasi dana-dana GCF.

Masyarakat berpotensi terkena dampak, perempuan dan laki-laki, diakui sebagai pemangku

kepentingan utama dan dilibatkan dalam pengambilan keputusan di wilayah mereka.

Free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) merupakan prinsip yang harus diaplikasi dalam meminta

persetujuan kepada masyarakat yang di wilayahnya akan dibiayai oleh GCF. Aplikasi prinsip FPIC harus

memenuhi kondisi (i) masyarakat adat/lokal/ kelompok marjinal dilibatkan sejak dini dan di semua

tahapan proyek yang dibiayai GCF; (ii) menyediakan informasi yang berkaitan dengan proyek yang

didanai GCF secara komprehensif, termasuk dampak positif dan negatif proyek, dan dalam bahasa

yang mereka mengerti dan dalam waktu yang cukup untuk masyarakat adat/lokal/kelompok marjinal

mempelajarinya; (iv) konsultasi dan proses pengambilan keputusan tidak dilakukan dalam situasi yang

intimidatif maupun dipenuhi iming-iming (janji-janji); (v) responsif dan inklusif gender, status social,

dan usia dengan menyesuaikan kepada situasi perempuan maupun masyarakat terkena dampak yang

termarjinalisasi; dan (vi) memberikan peluang untuk integrasi semua pandangan masyarakat

adat/lokal terkena dampak maupun pemangku kepentingan lainnya dalam proses pengambilan

keputusan di seluruh tahapan proyek yang dibiayai GCF. Prinsip Inklusif, sensitif dan responsif gender

dengan mempertimbangan situasi perempuan dan kaum muda yang termarjinalisir dan melakukan


31

tindakan-tindakan pro-aktif untuk melibatkan perempuan dan kaum muda dalam semua proses

pengambilan keputusan sehingga pandangan dan kebutuhan mereka menjadi acuan.

Berkaitan dengan (2) pendekatan yang perlu dilakukan:

Peyediaan informasi secara komprehensif tanpa pemilahan dengan tujuan masyarakat adat/lokal/

masyarakat marjinal mengerti dan dapat mengambil keputusan. Dengan demikian penyediaan

informasi bersifat transformatif yang mampu menjadikan masyarakat yang selama ini merupakan

obyek pengambilan keputusan, menjadi subyek dalam pengambilan keputusan;

Penyediaan informasi dapat diwujudkan dalam bentuk yang dapat dimiliki dan menjadi pegangan

masyarakat (buku, modul, dll); dan yang bersifat pengumuman melalui media yang dapat diakses

secara luas (website, surat kabar, dll)

Dalam menerapkan FPIC harus berbasis pada sebuah pengakuan bahwa masyarakat adat/lokal./

marjinal mempunyai hak untuk memberikan persetujuan atau menolak, memastikan terjadinya

dialog/diskusi. Dengan demikian penyediaan informasi mengenai pembiayaan GCF mampu

membangun kesadaran terhadap persoalan yang dihadapi sehingga dapat mengambil keputusan

berdasarkan pandangan dan kepentingan mereka dalam melihat persoalan-persoalan yang mereka

hadapi;

Memperhatikan dan memperkuat kearifan lokal dan pengetahuan tradisional komunitas, termasuk

dalam pengembangan teknologi yang mendorong teknologi tradisional berbasis kearifan lokal.

Pendekatan konsultatif dengan komunitas dalam menggali kebutuhan local/wilayah dan peningkatan

komunitas untuk memperkuat kearifan local untuk solusi dalam mengatasi dampak perubahan iklim.

Bila dirasa perlu, menyediakan pendamping awal bagi masyarakat untuk menguatkan posisi

masyarakat dan mendorong proses di tingkat lokal

Menghormati struktur dan mekanisme lokal dalam pengambilan keputusan, dengan tetap memastikan

partisipasi penuh perempuan, kaum muda, masyarakat marjinal, dan adat

Melakukan tindakan-tindakan pro-aktif untuk menggali unsur lokal, membangun kepemimpinan lokal

dan menjaga agar berlangsung kepemimpinan kolektif (distributed leadership), serta memperkuat

basis kelompok dan mendorong kemandirian komunitas;

Membangun mekanisme partisipatif (penerimaan proposal, seleksi proposal, evaluasi kapasitas

intermediaries)

Berkaitan dengan (3) Kondisi pengelolaan:

Informasi harus disediakan dalam bahasa yang mudah dipahami, mudah diakses dan dapat

menjangkau komunitas masyarakat berpotensi terkena dampak –baik perempuan maupun laki-laki;

Memastikan bahwa konsultasi dan keterlibatan pemangku kepentingan, terutama masyarakat

adat/lokal/ marjinal berpotensi terkena dampak, baik perempuan maupun laki-laki, terjadi dalam

setiap tahapan kebijakan, program dan proyek, mulai dari perencanaan, persiapan, pelaksanaan,

monitoring hingga evaluasi;

Pemilihan perantara (intermediaries) berdasarkan kesepakatan dengan masyarakat target proyek, juga

konsultasi dengan organisasi masyarakat sipil;Perantara (intermediaries) yang bekerja sama dengan

masyarakat adat/lokal haruslah entitas lokal yang memiliki pengalaman bekerja melakukan

pendampingan, peningkatan kapasitas dan penguatan komunitas, dengan fungsi memfasilitasi dan

bukan sebagai pelaksana proyek. Perantara harus memiliki kemampuan untuk menjembatani standar

internasional dengan mekanisme, situasi dan budaya lokal, demikian juga menggali dan

mengembangkan potensi dan kapasitas lokal. Pendamping harus memiliki kapasitas keberlanjutan

(track record criteria).

Untuk membangun akuntabilitas masyarakat madani, maka sebaiknya perantara mampu

menunjukkan komitmen dan keterwakilan. Komitmen dapat di ukur berdasarkan kinerja terdahulu

(testimonial dari para pihak masyarakat setempat). Keterwakilan dapat di ukut berdasar survey

kepuasan masyarakat di lokasi intervensi (jadi sebaiknya ada data kepuasan sebeum dan sesudah


32

intervensi). Dengan cara demikian penghargaan dan pengakuan yang layak di berikan kepada

masyarakat setempat sebagai penerima manfaat (beneficiaris)

Berkaitan dengan (4) peran yang diharapkan dari GCF dan NDA Indonesia:

Memastikan kebijakan GCF menjamin dan melaksanakan prinsip, pendekatan dan kondisi

(persyaratan) tersebut

Menerapkan gender, social dan environmental safeguards dalam setiap kebijakan, program dan

proyek yang didanai oleh GCF

Menetapkan prioritas pendanaan yang mampu untuk diakses langsung oleh komunitas masyarakat,

baik yang berpotensi dan sudah terkena dampak, baik masyarakat adat maupun masyarakat lokal,

dengan penetapan alokasi pendanaan yang setara dengan gabungan semua pemangku kepentingan

lainnya (Set priority funding portfolio for local/indigenous community initiatives), dan masyarakat

marjinal

Memastikan penyederhanaan persyaratan dalam mengakses pendanaan, termasuk persyaratan

administrasi bagi komunitas

Menyediakan mekanisme penguatan kapasitas untuk masyarakat yang terlibat proyek, sebelum

proyek dimulai

Menyediakan dana perencanaan dan/atau persiapan bagi komunitas (Planning/preparation grant)

untuk peningkatan kapasitas

Menyediakan gender budgeting atau dana alokasi khusus bagi perempuan dalam mengatasi

kerentanan perempuan atas dampak perubahan iklim yang berbeda (lebih berdampak bagi

perempuan) dan untuk peningakatan perempuan untuk mengatasi kerentanan perempuan dalam

kehidupan masyarakat, khususnya dalam memperkuat partisipasi dan kontrol perempuan dalam

pengambilan keputusan di masyarakat

Menyediakan institusi, anggaran dan mekanisme pengaduan bagi masyarakat untuk kebijakan,

program dan proyek yang didanai oleh GCF

Green Climate Fund (GCF) adalah sebuah mekanisme untuk menyalurkan dana dari negara industri ke

negara berkembang dengan tujuan untuk membantu negara berkembang melakukan adaptasi dan mitigasi

untuk menghadapi dampak perubahan iklim. Karenanya, penting bahwa dana GCF benar-benar dialokasikan

dan dapat diakses secara langsung oleh negara berkembang dan dimanfaatkan untuk kepentingan masyarakat

yang langsung terkena dampak dari perubahan iklim dengan menganut prinsip-prinsip tersebut di atas,

melakukan pendapatan yang transformatif dengan memenuhi kondisi (prasyarat) yang kami jabarkan.

Jakarta, 6 Oktober 2014

Pendukung rekomendasi:

1. Aksi! for gender, social and ecological justice

2. Solidaritas Perempuan

3. Sawit Watch

4. LPSM "YABINKAS"

5. CDKN


33


34

Pandangan terhadap Usulan Forest Investment Program (FIP) Indonesia

Aksi, Solidaritas Perempuan, ‘Ulu Foundation

17 September 2012

Pandangan ini ditujukan terhadap usulan Forest Investment Program (FIP) Indonesia, draft

dokumen tertanggal 2 Maret 2012 (versi Inggris dan Bahasa Indonesia) dan sebuah revisi Bab 6 (versi

Inggris) tertanggal 9 September 2012.

Meskipun draft dokumen usulan FIP Indonesia dalam bahasa Inggris telah tersedia bagi publik

dalam situs Departemen Kehutanan pada tanggal 2 Maret 2012 dan versi Bahasa Indonesia tersedia

beberapa minggu setelahnya sesuai desakan CSOs Indonesia, namun draft revisi Bab 6 yang

disirkulasi tanggal 9 September 2012 belum tersedia versi Bahasa Indonesia dan belum tersedia di

situs Departemen Kehutanan. Bab 6 merupakan bagian penting dalam draft dokumen usulan FIP

Indonesia karena di situlah letak usulan rencananya, sementara bagian-bagian lain merupakan latar

belakang dan lain-lainnya. Sudah seharusnya Bab 6 tersebut diterjemahkan secepatnya ke Bahasa

Indonesia dan dipublikasikan.

Mempelajari usulan FIP Indonesia berdasarkan dokumen-dokumen tersebut, kami melihat bahwa

ada 6 persoalan besar yang terkandung dalam usulan FIP Indonesia tersebut , yang justru akan

mengakibatkan FIP Indonesia menjadi kontra-produktif terhadap usaha-usaha menghadapi

deforestasi dan degradasi hutan di Indonesia secara khusus maupun persoalan perubahan iklim

secara umum, serta meningkatkan persoalan-persoalan akut yang selalu mendamping masalah di

sektor kehutanan Indonesia, yaitu korupsi, kekerasan terhadap warga dan pelanggaran Hak Azasi

Manusia dan Hak Azasi Perempuan.

Enam (6) point keprihatian kami terhadap dokumen usulan FIP Indonesia yaitu sebagai berikut:

1. Tidak cukup strategis untuk menangani persoalan deforestasi dan degradasi hutan

2. Menyediakan „jalur bebas hambatan untuk penetrasi sektor swasta terutama penyebab utama

deforestasi dan degradasi hutan

3. Tidak berdasarkan pendekatan hak-hak masyarakat

4. Tidak dibangun sesuai dengan ketentuan safeguards MDBs

5. Tidak memenuhi persyaratan konsiderasi gender MDBs

6. Terdapat ketidakakuratan penerjemahan dokumen FIP

Penjelasan butir-butir di atas adalah sebagai berikut:

1. Usulan FIP Indonesia tidak cukup strategis untuk menangani persoalan deforestasi dan

degradasi hutan

1.1. Mengacu pada Stranas REDD+ yang masih bermasalah:

Usulan FIP Indonesia dibuat berdasarkan dokumen Stranas REDD+ yang masih mempunyai

permasalahan tersendiri karena tidak cukup akurat dalam mengadopsi hasil-hasil konsultasi public di

7 regional. Dokumen Stranas REDD+ memberikan gambaran situasi kehutanan yang berbeda jauh,

bahkan cenderung menyederhanakan masalah deforestasi dan degradasi hutan yang sebenarnya

terjadi di berbagai tempat di Indonesia.

Beberapa dari kami terlibat dan memantau proses penysusunan Stranas REDD di 7 region dan

menemukan bahwa dokumen Stranas telah mereduksi sejumlah “drivers factors” deforestasi dan

degradasi hutan, dari apa yang sudah disepakati didalam konsultasi publik di tujuh region selang

September-Oktober 2010. Beberapa contoh:


35

Didalam dokumen Stranas REDD+ 23 September 2010, yang digunakan dan disepakati

bahkan disempurnakan oleh peserta konsultasi public di tujuh region, menyebutkan bahwa

penyebab utama terjadinya deforestasi dan degradasi adalah: (1) tata ruang yang lemah, (2)

unit manajemen yang tidak efektif, (3) tata kelola pemerintahan yang lemah, (4) dasar dan

penegakan hukum yang lemah (mencakup: dasar hukum yang lemah, hukum yang memberi

peluang eksploitasi, benturan/ ketidakharmonisan, ketidaklengkapan, penegakan yang tidak jelas dan

tegas), serta (5) aspek tenurial yang tidak jelas/mengambang.

Dokumen ini memang tidak mencantumkan dengan lebih rinci aspek ketidakadilan

gender. Oleh karena itu proses konsultasi di tujuh region menyepakati perlunya

pencantuman aspek pemetaan ketidakadilan gender dan elaborasi aspek tenurial dan

perlindungan hak-hak masyarakat adat atas tanah dan sumberdaya kehutanan.

Didalam dokumen Stranas 16 November 2010 yang sudah diubah di Bappenas, masih

mencantumkan 5 aspek di atas walaupun dengan elaborasi yang sudah berbeda, walau masih

mencantumkan empat penyebab dasar yaitu: (1) perencanaan Tata Ruang tidak efektif dan

tenurial yang lemah, (2) manajemen hutan yang kurang efektif, (3) kelemahan tata kelola

(governance) di sektor kehutanan, dan (4) dasar Hukum yang belum lengkap dan jelas serta

penegakan hukum yang lemah.

Namun demikian, didalam dokumen 26 Agustus 2011 yang diterbitkan oleh Satgas REDD+

yang dikoordinasikan oleh Kuntoro Mangkusubroto, pengelompokan masalah

disederhanakan menjadi tigas aspek yaitu (1) perencanaan Tata Ruang yang tidak efektif dan

tenurial yang lemah, (2) manajemen hutan yang kurang efektif, dan (3) tata kelola

(governance) dan penegakan hukum yang lemah.

Pada dokumen Stranas 16 November 2010 dan dokumen Stranas 26 Agustus 2011, aspek

keadilan gender maupun aspek tenurial tetap saja tidak dicantumkan sesuai apa yang sudah

disepakati didalam konsultasi publik di tujuh region. Bahkan aspek “penguatan dasar/sistem

hukum dan penegakan hukum”, sudah diformulasikan dengan sangat umum dan

menghilangkan rumusan lengkap mengenai aspek: (1) dasar hukum yang lemah, (2) hukum yang

memberi peluang eksploitasi, (3) hukum yang diwarnai benturan/ ketidakharmonisan, dan (4)

penegakan hukum secara adil dan tegas.

Masalahnya kemudian adalah, dokumen FIP (para 17) justru membuat pelemahan lebih lanjut

terhadap dokumen Stranas 26 Agustus 2011 versi Satgas REDD+ yang memang sudah lemah.

Selain tidak mencantumkan dengan jelas aspek keadilan gender dan aspek tenurial dan

perlindungan atas hak-hak masyarakat adat, sebagaimana dokumen Stranas, dokumen

terakhir FIP malah mereduksi hal penting menyangkut penyebab degradasi dan deforestasi,

yaitu “dasar hukum dan penegakan hokum”. Didalam dokumen FIP direduksi menjadi

“Tata Kelola Pemerintahan dan Penegakan Hukum yang Lemah”. Substansinyapun

disederhanakan menjadi “kurangnya koordinasi antar lembaga yang mengeluarkan ijin penggunaan

lahan telah berkontribusi terhadap tumpang-tindih tuntutan dan konflik penggunaan lahan hutan

dengan masyarakat setempat yang telah dikeluarkan dari proses perijinan/lisensi. Hal ini seringkali

menyebabkan kurangnya iklim yang mendukung untuk bisnis pada sektor hutan”.

Hal ini penting untuk dilihat kembali karena problematika kehutanan sangat diwarnai oleh

sistem yang berbasis pada beberapa ketentuan perundangan yang saling bertabrakan. Bahkan

sistem saat ini malah menyediakan “ruang ruang” korupsi bahkan mata rantai pencucian

uang dalam bisnis kehutanan skala besar. Jika hal-hal menyangkut soal penataan dasar

hukum kebijakan dan penegakan hukum yang berbasis pada hukum yang jelas, adil dan

tepat, tidak dilihat sebagai masalah penyebab deforestasi dan degradasi , maka bukan tidak

mungkin aliran investasi atau utang-utang baru yang berbasis pada dokumen FIP, akan

berjalan seperti pada era Soeharto. Artinya korupsi, pencurian uang dan pelanggaran hak-hak

masyarakat, ketidakadilan gender, dan penghancuran ekosistem kehidupan akan berjalan

sebagaimana yang terjadi pada saat ini.


36

1.2. Persoalan dalam Pengelolaan Hutan Produksi

Usulan FIP mengabaikan atau luput memetakan beberapa drivers (pemicu/ penyebab) utama

deforestasi dan kerusakan hutan di Indonesia. Karenanya akan cenderung membuka ruang bagi

berlanjutnya sejumlah persoalan penghancuran ekosistem hutan, diantaranya pengeluaran 17 juta ha

hutan alam menjadi areal pemanfaatan lain (APL) sebelum pemerintah menetapkan moratorium

penebangan hutan. Penetapan ini tentu saja makin memperparah kerusakan ekosistem hutan akibat

ekspansi perkebunan kelapa sawit skala besar dan massif, perluasan hutan tanaman industry (HTI)

dan ekspansi industry pulp dan paper, serta illegal logging dan destructive logging.

Kutipan penting dibawah ini justru ditempatkan pada bagian Annex dan bukan menjadi bagian

dari analisis drivers:

“Sembilan dari 33 propinsi di Indonesia, bertanggungjawab terhadap perubahan tata guna

lahan di Indonesia sebesar 85% dan emisi karbon hutan. Hutan Produksi berkontribusi

terhadap porsi terbesar dari emisi ini antara tahun 2000 dan 2005. Hampir dari setengah

hutan tanaman (30 juta hektar) tidak memiliki ijin atau konsensi, yang membuat mereka

menjadi rentan terhadap eksploitasi dan pelanggaran serta konflik akan tata guna lahan dan

tenurial. Kinerja yang buruk terkait isu lingkungan-sosial pada kawasan konsesi hutan

produksi semakin memperparah terjadinya pelanggaran dan pembalakan ilegal, yang

membuat Kementerian Kehutanan membatalkan 163 izin konsesi dan menghentikan izin

operasional pada konsesi lainnya sejak tahun 2002. Disamping itu, proses perencanaan

tata ruang dan tata batas lahan yang kurang melibatkan masyarakat setempat ikut

memberikan andil permasalahan. Terlebih, kemungkinan untuk terjadinya deforestasi dan

degradasi hutan cenderung lebih tinggi jika kawasan hutan produksi berdekatan dengan

hutan konservasi yang berpotensi tinggi” (versi Bahasa Indonesia: Lampiran 1, butir A1.1.2

Permasalahan, hal 83; atau versi Inggris: di Annex 1, Section A1.1.2, p.59).

Melihat pernyataan di atas, sudah seharusnya rencana FIP Indonesia memasukkannya sebagai

bagian dari persoalan mendasar yang ada di hutan produksi tersebut.

1.2. Persoalan Pencucian Uang dan Manipulasi Pajak

Masalah illegal logging dan manajemen kawasan hutan produksi maupun hutan alam juga

memberi sumbangsih bagi berkembangnya manipulasi pajak dan pencucian uang dalam pasar hasil

produksi kehutanan. Menurut Interpol pemerintah Indonesia kehilangan potensi penghasilan pajak

antara satu dan dua millyard dollar AS per tahun dalam bentuk pajak dan iuran (fees) yang tidak

dibayar oleh pengusaha kehutanan. Interpol bahkan memperkirakan bahwa pemerintah Indonesia

mengalami kerugian 125 juta USD 125 juta per-tahun sebagai akibat dari kegiatan 18

conglomeratsyndikat illegal logging.6 Illegal logging tidak hanya merusak kawasan hutan tetapi juga

merupakan bisnis global yang bermotivasi mencari untung melalui manipulasi pajak dan pencucian

uang. Oleh karena itu FIP seharusnya mencermati keterkaitan antara buruknya sistem/ kebijakan

sektor kehutanan dengan maraknya illegal logging dan upaya menekan praktek pencucian uang

melalui UU 8 th 2010 tentang pencucian uang dan upaya menekan praktek manipulasi pajak melalui

UU perpajakan.

1.3. Restorasi Ekosistem yang Berpotensi Merusak Ekosistem Hutan

FIP memasukkan soal IUPHHK-Restorasi Ekosistem tetapi tidak membahas dampak RE (ERC)

terhadap masyrakat setempat. Padahal pelajaran dari IUPHHK-RE generasi pertama, yang dikelola

PT REKI di Jambi, menunjukkan bahwa tindakan Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kementerian

6 INTERPOL, The World Bank. Chainsaw Project: An INTERPOL perspective on law enforcement in

illegal logging, 2010, pg.6


37

Kehutanan yang membebaskan perusahaan dari persyratan AMDAL malah telah menimbulkan

konflik dengan masyarakat setempat. Didalam FIP tidak ada persyaratan perlunya audit terhadap

ERC generasi pertama dan dokumentasi tentang konflik tanah, konflik hutan, konflik sosial dan

dokumentasi tentang sejauh mana standard-standard dan safeguards untuk perlindungan masyrakat

dan lingkungan hidup telah diimplementasikan. FIP seharusnya mempersyaratkan bahwa semua

ERC mesti melalui proses AMDAL dan mesti memenuhi syarat perlindungan lingkungan dan

masyarakat sebelum FIP mendukung ERC.

1.4. Korupsi

Usulan FIP Indonesia telah melihat korupsi dinilai sebagai resiko, namun tidak dikembangkan

upaya pencegahan korupsi dalam implementasi FIP. Terutama dalam bentuk penataan terhadap

sistem perizinan dan kelembagaan kehutanan yang membuka peluang terjadinya korupsi maupun

peluang terjadinya manipulasi pajak dan pencucian uang.

Dalam struktur kebijakan perijinan ini, peluang korupsi di sektor kehutanan tetap besar.

Masalanya adalah, detil berkaitan dengan sebab dan peluang korupsi di sektor kehutanan seperti

ini tidak ditemukan dalam dokumen draft FIP. Padahal selama ini korupsi merupakan salah faktor

yang selalu membuka ruang bagi ekonomi biaya tinggi maupun berbagai bentuk pelanggaran

hukum bahkan pelanggaran HAM oleh pelaku bisnis kehutanan.

1.5. Situasi Masalah Tenurial

Sebagaimana terdapat dalam Angka 7 butir 1 draft FIP, tampak bahwa FIP tidak cukup

mempertimbangkan aspek tenurial dan situasi pertanahan di Indonesia, di mana mayoritas lahan

masyarakat tidak bersertifikat, termasuk tanah komunal masyarakat adat. Rumusan pada paragraf

107, butir 1: “pengakuan yang lebih baik terhadap hak-hak yang sah atas lahan dan penurunan

konflik yang terjadi yang berkaitan dengan perebutan klaim atas lahan dan yang berkaitan dengan

lahan”, justru berpotensi merugikan masyarakat yang selama ini menguasai tanah/lahan secara turun

temurun tanpa alas hak yang berbentuk sertifikat atau bukti kepemilikan tertulis lainnya. Dari aspek

gender, pendekatan formalistik seperti ini justru makin meminggirkan akses dan control perempuan

terhadap tanah/lahan yang selama ini ditentukan berdasarkan garis patriarki.

1.5. Kekerasan terhadap warga dan Intervensi Militer

Tidak memasukkan faktor kekerasan terhadap warga sehingga tidak diantisipasi sebagai resiko dan

tidak ada upaya pencegahan. Padahal sejarah sektor kehutanan sangat diawarnai oleh konflik dan

kekerasan, terutama yang melibatkan sector bisnis, dan selalu merugikan masyarakat di sekitar hutan.

Konflik-konflik ini juga sering melibatkan kehadiran militer atau aparat kepolisian dengan

pengerahan operasi bersenjata.

Dalam konteks situasi seperti itu FIP justru mengabaikan adanya Perjanjian Kerjasama antara

Panglima TNI dan MenLH No. 9 Tahun 2010 dan KERMA No. 2/VI/2010 tertanggal 3 Juni 2010 dan

Perjanjian Kerjasama Menhut dan Panglima TNI No. 6 Tahun 2011 dan KERMA No. 7/III/2011,

tertanggal 24 Maret 2011. Perjanjian ini merupakan upaya yang dimulai secara diam-diam oleh

Menteri Negara Lingkungan Hidup dan Menteri Kehutanan untuk melibatkan militer dalam proyek-

proyek penanaman pohon di berbagai wilayah konservasi atau wilayah REDD yang tersebar di 10

wilayah Komando Daerah Militer (Kodam) di Indonesia. Keterlibatan militer tentu saja tidak hanya

akan memperparah konflik yang terjadi di berbagai kawasan hutan, tetapi juga berpotensi menggusur

warga masyarakat dari sumber-sumber kehidupannya, sebagaimana yang terjadi selama era orde

baru.


38

2. Usulan FIP lebih menyediakan ‘jalur bebas hambatan untuk penetrasi sektor swasta terutama

pelnyebab utama deforestasi dan degradasi hutan

Pilihan kegiatan yang ditawarkan FIP tidak ditujukan untuk menghadapi „drivers‟ deforestasi dan

degradasi hutan, melainkan lebih terfokus pada aspek peningkatan stok karbon dan peluang-peluang

lainnya bagi sektor swasta untuk terlibat dalam carbon trading. Padahal menghadapi „drivers‟

deforestasi dan potensi kelanjutannya harus diprioritaskan. Sektor kertas dan bubur kertas dan sawit

misalnya, memiliki dampak besar terhadap hutan Indonesia, namun FIP tidak menunjukkan

komitmen untuk menghadapi masalah ini.

FIP sama sekali tidak mendasarkan rumusannya pada analisis secara mendetail dan transparen

mengenai rencana expansi sektor-sektor tersebut. Dengan demikian usulan FIP hanya menyediakan

“jalur bebas hambatan” untuk penetrasi sektor swasta. Terutama melalui “financial intermediaries”

yang tidak transparan, oleh pelaku degradasi hutan dan pelanggar HAM, yaitu pemilik IUPHHK-HA

(Izin Usaha pemanfaatan Hasil Hutan Kayu-Hutan Alam), HTI, Perkebunan Sawit, dan potensi

penyalahgunaan SVLK oleh perusahaan.

3. Usulan FIP Tidak berdasarkan pendekatan hak-hak masyarakat

Draft dokumen usulan FIP Indonesia tidak memperlihatkan sebuah pendekatan berbasis hak-hak

masyarakat yang kehidupannya bergantung pada hutan, baik laki-laki maupun perempuan. Tidak

ada jaminan penerapan hak-hak yang telah diratifikasi oleh Pemerintah Indonesia, antara lain

Kovenan Sipil Politik, Ekosob maupun CEDAW.

3.1 Pengabaian Terhadap Hak Atas Rasa Aman

Dalam draft dokumen Usulan FIP, tidak memuat aspek jaminan keamanan dan keselamatan bagi

masyarakat. Hal ini sangat penting termuat dalam usulan FIP, mengingat bahwa banyak persoalan

sosial dan konflik agraria yang terjadi di masyarakat yang kehidupannya bergantung pada sumber

daya hutan.

3.2 Tidak ada Pengakuan dan Perlindungan Terhadap Perempuan.

Walaupun dibeberapa paragraf telah menyebutkan pengarusutamaan gender, namun FIP tidak

menunjukkan adanya pengakuan dan perlindungan terhadap perempuan, bahkan perempuan tidak

disebutkan sebagai salah satu pemangku kepentingan. Penegasan ini tentu saja akan berimplikasi

terhadap munculnya model implementasi yang tidak menyediakan prosedur dan fasilitas bagi

perempuan.

(versi Bahasa Indonesia: Para. 32, Para. 39.2, Para. 51).

3.3. Standar yang Merugikan Usaha Masyarakat

Orientasi arus modal FIP ditujukan untuk mendukung perusahan yang “kecil” dan “sedang”

dengan sokongan International Finance Corporation (IFC), tetapi istilah “kecil” dan “sedang” tidak

didefinisikan dengan jelas didalam dokumen FIP. Hal ini bisa menimbulkan masalah karena kategori

kecil dan sedang mengandung ukuran yang berbeda dengan definisi yang digunakan IFC. IFC

menggunakan kategori “microenterprises”, yaitu usaha yang mempunyai kurang dari 10 orang

anggota dengan aset/”turnover” kurang dari AS$ 100,000 per-tahun. Ada juga kategori usaha yang

disebut “kecil”, mempunyai 10 sampai 50 orang dan aset / masukkan antara AS$ 100,000 hingga AS$

3 juta per tahun. Sedangkan yang disebut “sedang” (medium) mempunyai anggota 50 – 300 orang

dengan aset / masukkan antara AS$ 3 juta dan AS$ 15 juta per-tahun.

Dengan demikian, rumusan FIP sangat berpotensi membatasi akses usaha kecil masyarakat yang

selama ini sudah berjalan. Bahkan ke depan juga sulit dipenuhi oleh perusahan sejenis yang ingin


39

memanfaatkan peluang usaha. Karenanya bukan tidak mungkin hal ini makin membuka ruang bagi

perusahaan-perusahaan besar untuk memanfaatkan proyek-proyek atau investasi dibawah

mekanisme FIP.

3.4 Pengabaian Hak Atas Informasi

Usulan FIP, belum menempatkan masyarakat, laki-laki dan perempuan, terkena dampak yang

tinggal dan hidup disekitar wilayah proyek sebagai subjek proyek. Terlihat bahwa masyarakat, laki-

laki dan perempuan, tidak ditempatkan sebagai individu yang penting mendapatkan informasi

terhadap usulan dokumen FIP. Bahkan media yang digunakan tidak memperhatikan situasi

masyarakat, laki-laki dan perempuan. (para 127, hal.45, dok versi Bahasa Indonesia)

Dengan menekankan pada penggunaan pendekatan secara online untuk tinjauan masukan

publik, dapat disimpulkan bahwa proses ini justru makin meminggirkan hak masyarakat yang tidak

memiliki akses terhadap teknologi online.

4. Usulan FIP Tidak dibangun sesuai dengan ketentuan safeguards MDBs

Dokumen FIP menyebutkan bahwa dana persiapan Forest Investment Program telah disetujui

pada 21 Desember 2010 oleh MDB FIP Committe. Berbentuk Bantuan Teknis (Techical Assistance/

TA) dari ADB sebesar USD 225,000 untuk persiapan penyusunan dokumen usulan FIP Indonesia.

Namun demikian, penyusunan dokumen ini tidak sesuai dengan ketentuan-ketentuan ADB dan

MDBs lainnya dalam hal safeguards, keterbukaan informasi/komunikasi publik serta gender dan

pembangunan, dan financial intermediaries. Juga tidak mengaplikasi prinsip „do no harms‟, bahkan

tidak menganalisis potensi resiko dan dampak serta upaya mitigasinya.

5. Usulan FIP tidak memenuhi persyaratan konsiderasi gender MDBs

ADB, Bank Dunia dan IFC sebagai penyedia dana untuk penyusunan dokumen FIP Indonesia,

telah mempunyai Kebijakan prasyarat dan ketentuan mengenai konsiderasi gender, tidak saja pada

„Gender and Development Policy‟ (ADB dan Bank Dunia), melainkan juga pada safeguards (ADB)

dan Performance Standards (IFC). Namun, usulan FIP Indonesia tidak memenuhi prasyarat

konsiderasi gender MDB‟s, karena :

Perempuan tidak diakui sebagai salah satu pemangku kepentingan atau disebutkan secara

eksplisit, (Para. 32, Para. 39.2, Para. 51 dok. Versi Bahasa Indonesia)

Tidak tersedia data dan informasi basis yang terpilah secara gender

Tidak ada kajian mengenai penyebab utama deforestasi dan kerusakan hutan dalam

perspektif gender

Tidak ada kajian dampak dan resiko dalam perspektif gender, dan tidak dikembangkan

upaya pencegahan dan perlindungan perempuan dari dampak dan resiko usulan FIP

Tidak patuh terhadap persyaratan untuk mengembangkan usaha-usaha secara khusus untuk

melibatkan perempuan dalam semua proses konsultasi dan pengambilan keputusan

Tidak dikembangkan rencana aksi gender

6. Terdapat ketidakakuratan penerjemahan dokumen FIP

Dalam dokumen usulan FIP, masih terdapat beberapa ketidakjelasan makna, diantaranya :

a. Penerjemahan istilah “legitimate rights” menjadi “hak-hak yang sah” (Para. 107 butir 1),

penting untuk diperjelas. Karena memiliki makna yang sangat berbeda dan akan berpotensi

terhadap perampasan lahan masyarakat, bahkan bagi perempuan Indonesia, yang masih

kesulitan mendapatkan hak kepemilikan aset, terutama lahan. Penggunaan penerjemahan


40

“hak-hak yang sah” akan memperkuat peminggiran hak perempuan atas kepemilikan lahan.

Terjemahan ini juga akan menghilangkan hak kepemilikan lahan secara komunal.

b. Penerjemahan “empowerment” menjadi “pendayagunaan”. Makna tersebut sangat

bertentangan.

Sebagai tambahan, dalam dokumen FIP para. 107 butir 3 terjadi penyempitan makna hubungan

antara perempuan dan hutan. “Meningkatkan mata pencaharian masyarakat lokal melalui

pengembangan peluang pendapatan alternatif yang tidak memberikan tekanan kepada hutan”

Berdasarkan keprihatian tersebut, maka kami merekomendasikan kepada DKN dan Tim FIP

untuk :

1. Memprioritaskan penanganan terhadap „drivers‟ (pemicu/pelaku) deforestasi dan degradasi

hutan

2. Memperhitungkan persoalan korupsi, kekerasan dan pelanggaran HAM

3. Menggunakan pendekatan berbasis hak.

4. Menempatkan perempuan sebagai pemangku kepentingan, khususnya dalam setiap proses

pengambilan keputusan, dengan menggunakan pendekatan yang inklusif, sensitif dan

responsif gender.

5. Memuat kajian mengenai penyebab utama deforestasi dan kerusakan hutan dalam perspektif

gender

6. Memenuhi persyaratan konsiderasi gender sesuai safeguards MDBs

Kontak:

1. Puspa Dewy – Solidaritas Perempuan - [email protected]

2. Orchida Ramadhania – Aksi - [email protected]

3. Stephanie Fried - `Ulu Foundation – [email protected]

Catatan:

Kami juga menyertakan dokumen tambahan yang disiapkan secara khusus oleh „Ulu Foudation.

Dokumen ini merupakan bagian yang tidak terpisahkan dari dokumen “Pandangan terhadap Usulan

Forest Investment Program (FIP) Indonesia Aksi, Solidaritas Perempuan, „Ulu Foundation” ini.

Annex 1

1. Production Forests, Organized Crime, Money Laundering and Tax Law

2. Funding new forest degradation?

3. Ecosystem Restoration Concessions, safeguards for all concessions, plantations

4. Small, medium and large enterprises?




41

Pandangan dan Rekomendasi

Terhadap Dokumen Forest Investment Plan (FIP) Versi 26 September 2012

Solidaritas Perempuan, AKSI – action for gender, social dan ecological Justice,

dan ‘Ulu Foundation

10 Oktober 2012

Tanggapan ini merupakan tanggapan kritis terhadap substansi maupun proses yang dilakukan

oleh tim FIP untuk merumuskan dokumen. Kami melihat bahwa dokumen yang dipublikasikan pada 26

September 2012 tidak mengakomodir dan mencerminkan pandangan yang telah disampaikan

masyarakat sipil baik secara tertulis ataupun melalui presentasi dalam pertemuan 14 September

2012 bersama DKN. Tanggapan ini terdiri dari dua bagian, yaitu komentar yang bersifat umum dan

komentar khusus.

1. Komentar Umum

Dokumen FIP 26 September 2012 pada prinsipnya tidak memberikan gambaran mengenai arah

dan bentuk penyelesaian konflik tenurial dan ketidakadilan gender yang selama ini terjadi di

berbagai kawasan hutan. Penanganan masalah konflik seperti ini justru diarahkan pada

penyelesaian ekonomi atas kemanfaatan hutan, sebagaimana halnya kalangan industri

menyederhanakan fungsi hutan dari sudut pandang ekonomi. Tidak ada pertimbangan bahwa

hutan bagi masyarakat adat atau masyarakat di kawasan hutan memliki fungsi yang tidak hanya

bersifat ekonomi tetapi juga fungsi kultural, sosiologis, bahkan fungsi magis, disamping fungsi

ekologis. Jika konsep ini dipertahankan, maka lambat tapi pasti ekspansi bisnis sektor industri

kehutanan didalam proyek REDD+ menyingkirkan masyarakat dari kawasan hutan melalui

mekanisme yang bersifat ekonomi. Sama halnya dengan aspek keadilan gender, masih

dipandang sebagai pelibatan perempuan saja dan belum mempertimbangkan berbagai bentuk

atau lapisan ketidakadilan gender dalam pengelolaan kehutanan selama ini. Jika demikian, maka

proyek investasi ini hanya akan berujung pada pengerahan jumlah perempuan yang terlibat

didalam pertemuan atau proyek dan bukan menjawab ketidakadilan gender yang dialami oleh

perempuan maupun laki-laki dalam pengelolaan hutan.

Proses Penyusunan dokumen FIP tidak menerapkan prinsip meaningful consultation dan tidak

inklusif. Proses penyusunan FIP ini didanai oleh ADB. Oeh karena itu, ada kewajiban bahwa

Aturan Pelindung (Safeguards) ADB harus ditaati, termasuk syahrat bahwa semua kegiatan yang

dilakukan ADB harus taat pada Safeguards ADB, termasuk syarat untuk “meaningful consulation”. 7 Proses konsultasi publik yang dilakukan tim FIP secara online, jelas makin meminggirkan

masyarakat Indonesia yang tidak memiliki atau terbatas aksesnya terhadap internet, khususnya

masyarakat terkena dampak (mayarakat lokal, mesyarakat adat, khususnya perempuan terkena

dampak). Hal ini mempertegas bahwa FIP sama sekali tidak melihat masyarakat terkena dampak,

laki-laki dan perempuan, atau berpotensi terkena dampak sebagai pemangku kepentingan utama.

Pertemuan-pertemuan yang dilakukan dalam membahas dokumen FIP, tidak dapat dikatakan

sebagai proses konsultasi, karena tidak sesuai dengan prinsip meaningful consultation, baik

aspek keterwakilan pemangku kepentingan maupun proses (Hal.112-115).

Dokument versi 26 September sulit untuk dikomentari secara “meaningful” dalam waktu se-

singkat ini (dari 26 September s/d 10 Oktober). Tim FIP gagal memberi kepada publik versi

“TrackChanges” sebagai upaya untuk mempermudah masyarakat umum untuk melihat secara

cepat dan tepat perubahan dokumen FIP versi 2 Maret dan 10 Oktober. Kami melihat, jika hal ini

tidak dilakukan, maka “meaningful consultation” sulit terjadi.

Perempuan tidak dilihat sebagai pemangku kepentingan utama, karena perempuan tidak

ditempatkan dalam setiap posisi pemangku kepentingan pada penyusunan FIP (hal 114,20)

7 ADB Safeguard Policy Statement, 2009. Pg 15, para 48. “This safeguard policy statement applies to all ADB-financed

and/or ADB-administered sovereign and non-sovereign projects, and their components regardless of the source of financing including investment projects funded by a loan; and/or a grant; and/or other means such as equity and/or guarantees (hereafter broadly referred to as projects).


42

Walaupun FIP banyak menyebut-nyebut masyarakat yang potensial terkena dampak, namun

dalam proses pembahasan FIP, tidak menggunakan pendekatan yang secara jelas dan terencana

meyakinkan bahwa kelompok masyarakat yang terkena dampak proyek dalam sektor hutan bisa

dengan gampang memberi masukkan. Proses pembahasan misalnya (halaman 112-115), hanya

di wilayah-wilayah yang tidak merepresentasikan masyarakat potensial yang terkena proyek, yaitu

Semarang dan Jakarta, terkecuali Jambi dan Pontianak. Pesertanya pun lebih banyak kalangan

masyarakat sipil, akademisi, pemerintah, swasta. Hal ini tentu saja bertentangan dengan

Safeguard ADB selaku pemberi dana untuk technical Assistance pelaksanaan konsultasi public

yang “berarti” (meaningful consultation).

Substansi maupun proses pembahasan dokumen FIP makin memberikan kesan FIP merupakan

upaya yang menempatkan masyarakat adat atau masyarakat di kawasan hutan, termasuk

perempuan, hanya sebagai obyek. Masyarakat hanya menjadi pihak yang ditingkatkan

kapasitasnya untuk kepentingan memperbesar kemampuan penyerapan carbon, sekaligus

sebagai pihak yang diberi beban untuk merehabilitasi kawasan hutan yang rusak parah akibat

kebijakan kehutanan yang salah atau perusakan hutan oleh kalangan pengusaha.

2. Komentar Khusus

Didalam Deskripsi Rencana Investasi (angka 7), butir “Dukungan untuk pengembangan kebijakan

pengamanan (safeguards) nasional”, disebutkan:

“Meskipun proyek-proyek FIP akan menerapkan kebijakan pengamanan dari masingmasing

MDB, kami mengakui bahwa kebijakan pengamanan nasional untuk kegiatankegiatan yang

berkaitan dengan REDD+ sedang dikembangkan sebagai bagian dari upaya kesiapan REDD+

nasional (PRISAI). FIP akan bekerja erat dengan lembaga Pemerintah yang relevan, CSO,

program FCPF (Analisis Lingkungan dan Sosial Strategis), dan inisiatif-inisiatif lain yang dibiayai

oleh donor, untuk mendukung setiap upaya yang dapat memperkuat pengamanan nasional serta

pedoman dan kebijakan praktis untuk pelaksanaan proyek, misalnya FPIC. Hal ini dapat

mencakup ujicoba pendekatan dan instrumen pengamanan di tingkat proyek maupun

dokumentasi dan diseminasi pelajaran dari pelaksanaan proyek”.

Tanggapan: Seperti yang sudah kami usulkan didalam pertemuan dengan DKN, seharusnya

rumusan seperti ini diperkuat dengan formulasi yang memasukkan kalimat yang menyatakan akan

menggunakan safeguard dengan standar tertinggi yang sudah ditentukan didalam ketentuan HAM

yang mengikat secara internasional maupun nasional, termasuk tentunya standar WB dan ADB.

Hal ini penting dicantumkan untuk menjaga agar Safeguard Nasional yang sedang dalam

pengembangan tersebut tidak berkembang menjadi safeguard yang lebih rendah standarnya. Jika

tidak, maka pelaksanaan FIP bisa mengarah pada pelemahan standar perlindungan sosial,

lingkungan dan perempuan.

Berkaitan dengan formulasi mengenai “Kerangka Capaian untuk Rencana Investasi FIP

Indonesia” (angka 8):

(a) Kegiatan-kegiatan yang direncanakan dalam FIP yang difokuskan pada tema pengembangan

kelembagaan untuk pengelolaan hutan dan sumber daya alam secara berkelanjutan dan tema

investasi pada usaha kehutanan dan pengelolaan hutan berbasis masyarakat, tidak

mengidentifikasi atau berdasarkan analisis gender bahkan tidak bertolak dari apa yang

diinginkan masyarakat melalui sebuah proses “meaningful consultation.”

(b) Program yang melibatkan perempuan hanya diarahkan pada pengembangan kapasitas dan

dukungan mata pencaharian. Tidak dikaitkan dengan apa yang dikehendaki perempuan untuk

menjawab kemiskinan dan ketidakadilan yang mereka hadapi. Bahkan pelibatan perempuan

tidak dilakukan pada semua tahapan proses, mulai dari perencanaan, persiapan, penetapan

proyek, beserta tahapan pengambilan keputusan lainnya. Termasuk pelibatan dalam

menentukan FIP kedepan.


43

Mengenai konsultasi dengan Masyarakat Adat dan Masyarakat Lokal (angka 14) disebutkan:

Keterlibatan para pemangku kepentingan akan terus berlanjut selama tahap mendesain

proyek-proyek tertentu, sesuai dengan kebijakan perlindungan dan prosedur yang sudah dianut

oleh masing-masing Bank Pembangunan Multilateral (MDB) untuk persiapan proyek. Para

pemangku kepentingan, termasuk masyarakat adat dan masyarakat lokal akan terlibat selama

fase awal setiap proyek.

(a) Proses seperti ini sesungguhnya merupakan gambaran dari adanya sikap yang meremehkan

dan hanya menjadikan masyarakat adat dan masyarakat di sekitar hutan termasuk

perempuan (masyarakat yang terkena dampak) hanya sebagai obyek investasi dan bukan

sebagai para perencana kegiatan. Padahal mereka seharusnya dilibatkan tidak hanya pada

tahapan implementasi proyek, tetapi juga pada tahapan perencanaan investasi kehutanan

dan/atau penetapan wilayah investasi kehutanan, termasuk pembahasan FIP.

(b) Dokumen FIP tetap tidak menyediakan analisis dengan pemilahan gender, sebagaimana yang

sudah disampaikan dalam pertemuan maupun masukan tertulis. Proses identifikasi dan

analisis tetap hanya diarahkan pada tahapan pengembangan/pelaksanaan proyek/per-proyek

tanpa ada pertimbangan terhadap situasi ketidakadilan gender.

(c) Proses konsultasi publik yang dilakukan FIP secara online jelas makin meminggirkan

masyarakat Indonesia yang tidak memiliki atau terbatas aksesnya terhadap internet,

khususnya masyarakat terkena dampak (mayarakat lokal, mesyarakat adat, khususnya

perempuan terkena dampak). Hal ini mengkonfirmasikan bahwa FIP tidak melihat

masyarakat terkena dampak atau berpotensi terkena dampak sebagai pemangku kepentingan

utama, bahkan cenderung memanipulasi makna meaningfull consultation

Patut diperhatikan bahwa ketentuan-ketentuan dalam Pernyataan Kebijakan Pengaman ADB

(termasuk konsultasi yang signifikan) berlaku bagi semua proyek/program sovereign dan

nonsovereign yang dibiayai oleh ADB dan/atau komponen-komponennya, termasuk hibah.

Semua MDB termasuk ADB mesti mematuhi kebijakan pengaman masing-masing (termasuk

konsultasi bermakna) selama desain, persiapan dan pelaksanaan proyek-proyek individu setelah

rencana investasi ini disetujui.

Mengenai pencantuman “Komentar dan Tanggapan Pemangku Kepentingan pada Lampiran 6

dokumen FIP, kami perlu menyampaikan respon sebagai berikut:

(a) Lampiran seperti ini menjadi sangat membingungkan dan terkesan menyesatkan. Seolah-olah

komentar pemangku kepentingan diakomodir di dalam dokumen, tetapi pada kenyatannya

lampiran ini hanya berisi upaya tim penyusun FIP untuk berkelit dari keharusan untuk

mengakomodir masukan-masukan pemangku kepentingan dan untuk menundakan

jawabannya kepada tahap implementasi proyek. Kommetar kami memang adalah untuk tahap

perencanaan. Tanggapan Tim FIP tidak menunjukkan upaya sungguh-sungguh untuk

mengakomodir masukan yang bersumber dari masalah yang terjadi di lapangan.

(b) Untuk mempertegas pernyataan ini,kami lampirkan kembali tanggapan/usulan yang pernah

kami sampaikan beberapa waktu lalu ke Tim FIP.

Berdasarkan keprihatinan yang kami sampaikan diatas, maka kami merekomendasikan kepada

Tim FIP untuk :

(a) Menerapkan prinsip meaningful consultation dalam proses penyusunan dokumen FIP, sesuai

dengan Aturan Pelindung dari ADB yang mesti di-implementasikan dengan melibatkan

seluruh pemangku kepentingan, terutama masyarakat terkena dampak, laki-laki dan

perempuan.

(b) Memastikan dan menempatkan perempuan sebagai pemangku kepentingan utama

khususnya dalam setiap proses pengambilan keputusan, dengan menggunakan pendekatan

yang inklusif, sensitif dan responsif gender.

(c) Memuat analisa kajian gender dalam dokumen FIP dan memenuhi persyaratan konsideran

gender sesuai safeguard MDB‟s .


44

(d) Tim FIP memastikan komentar publik dipublikasi di internet, sebelum keputusan diambil, versi

lengkap dengan memakai “track changes”, sehingga terlihat perubahan kalimat dari dokumen

awal dan dokumen terbaru.

Kontak :

Puspa Dewy – Solidaritas Perempuan ([email protected])

Rio Ismail – AKSI-action for Gender, Social and Ecological Justice ([email protected])

Stephanie Fried - „Ulu Foundation ([email protected])





45

Date : November 4th, 2012

Attachment : Views and Recomendations for FIP document drafts version March and September 2012

Subject : Civil Society Concerns on Indonesian Forest Investment Plan

To:

FIP Subcommittee

Board of Directors of the World Bank

Board of Directors of the Asian Development Bank

Board of Directors of International Financial Corporation

Dear Sirs/Madams,

We are expressing our deep concerns regarding the draft Indonesian Forest Investment Plan which is now

under consideration by the FIP Subcommittee. From our point of view, the preparation process of this Forest

Investment Plan failed to included meaningful consultation in a participatory manner involving various

stakeholders, in particular representatives of potentially affected communities , which are likely to be impacted

by the implementation of the Forest Investment Plan. Furthermore, substantively, this forest investment plan

does not address the fundamental problems in the forestry sector and does not regard the affected

communities, especially women, as primary stakeholders.

Our concerns on the Indonesia Forest Investment Plan are as follows (for more detail, please see the

enclosed views and recommendations that were sent to FIP Team and Indonesia’s National Forest Council

(DKN) on 17 September 2012 and 10 October 2012, attached):

1. The Preparation Process

Meetings that were conducted to discuss the draft FIP document cannot be considered

consultations, as they were not based on the principle of meaningful consultation, whether in the

aspects of stakeholder representation or process. FIP Discussion processes were conducted in the

areas that, for the most part do not represent potentially affected communities in the forestry

sector, such as Semarang and Jakarta (pg. 112-115 FIP Document Draft Bahasa Indonesia

Version). The participants have represented primarily civil society, academia, government and

the private sector more than potentially affected communities.

The “public input” processes carried out by the FIP team, have further marginalized the people of

Indonesia who have no access or limited access to the internet, especially potentially affected

communities (indigenous and local communities, and especiically, women). This has confirmed

that FIP Team has not viewed the potentially afftected communities, men and women, as primary

stakeholders in the process of designing the FIP. The Draft Investment Plan mentions the

potentially affected communities during the implementation stage, but during the planning design

stage, the FIP Team failed to use a clear and well planned approached to ensure that the

potentially affected communities, in particular women, could easily be involved or provide input.

The preparatory process for FIP document has not applied the ADB’s own safeguard principle of

meaningful consultation and is not inclusive. This preparatory process is funded by the ADB

through the technical assistance fund. Hence, there are obligations to follow the ADB’s Policy,

including the requirement that all activities must abide by ADB’s Safeguards and other ADB

Policies, including the ADB Public Communication Policy8, which includes requirements for

"meaningful consulation", and the Gender and Development Policy9, which states that gender

considerations must apply to all ADB activities, including technical assistance operations.

8 ADB Safeguard Policy Statement, 2009. Pg 15, para 48. “This safeguard policy statement applies to all ADB-

financed and/or ADB-administered sovereign and non-sovereign projects, and their components regardless of the source of financing including investment projects funded by a loan; and/or a grant; and/or other means such as equity and/or guarantees (hereafter broadly referred to as projects).

9 ADB‟s Gender and Development Policy, Pg. viii-ix, Executive Summary, Gender considerations will be mainstreamed into all ADB activities, including macroeconomic and sector work, and lending and technical assistance (TA) operations. Para 85, GAD will be actively promoted in both TA and loan operations. As with ADB‟s economic and sector work,


46

There are inacuracies and differences in meaning in the FIP document translation from English to

Indonesian, leading to a significant potential for misunderstanding or misinterpretation for the

people of Indonesia. Poor translation has led to a weakening of meanings.

2. Substance

The Draft FIP refers to the drivers of the deforestation and forest degradation, but does not

thoroughly analyze potential risks, impacts and mitigation efforts. The Draft FIP does not apply

the ‘do no harm’ principle. There is no comprehensive description of the type and form of tenurial

conflicts and gender injustices (and their resolution), which have occured in the various forest

areas. Conflict resolution has been directed towards economic resolution focusing on forest

benefits.

The Draft FIP fails to be strategic in its approach to the issue of deforestation and forest

degradation, including failing to “follow the money” in terms of deforestation and forest

degradation.The proposed FIP ignores or mis-maps the primary drivers of deforestation and

forest degradation in Indonesia, namely the palm oil sector and pulp/paper industry. The

problem of illegal logging and the mismanagement of production forest as well as the natural

forests also contribute to the blooming of tax avoidance or fraud and money laundering in the

forest products market. According to the INTERPOL10, it is likely that the Indonesian government

loses potential tax revenue of between one to two billion USD per year, in the form of unpaid

taxes or fees by forest sector conglomerates. Illegal logging not only destroys the forest but is also

a global profit-motivated businesses involving tax manipulation and money laundering.

Therefore, the FIP should examine the link between poor systems and policies in the forest sector

with illegal logging, and support efforts to suppress money laundering and tax manipulation

through Indoneisa’s Money Laundering Act No. 8 Year 2010 and Tax Law and policies.

The Draft FIP is not community rights-based. Communities in and around the forest are directed

to economic based mechanisms. There is no consideration that the forest has not only an

economic function but also social, cultural, even spiritual and ecological functions for the

indigenous and local communities. The goals of enhancing capacity for communities appear

primarily focussed on increasing the carbon stocks, as well as the burden of rehabilitating the

forest areas that were severely damaged due to private sector activities and poor policies.

The Draft FIP does not meet gender justice standards. Women are not seen as primary

stakeholders in the designing of FIP. There is no gender-disaggregated information and data

baseline. There are no assesments of the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in a

gender perspective. There are no gender impact and risk assessments in and no development of

efforts to mitigate and protect women from the impacts and risks of the FIP. There is no

affirmative action to involve women in all processes of consultation and decision making. There is

no gender action plan.

Based on those concerns, we urge the Board of Directors of World Bank, Asian Development Bank and

International Financial Corporation, and the Sub-Committee of the FIP not to approve this flawed Draft FIP

document as well as the implementation of the proposed Indonesian Forest Investment Plan. Any Forest

Investment Plan must first ensure:

1) A public Consultation Process in accordance with the principle of meaningful consultation, involving all

stakeholders, in particular, potentially affected communities, especially women, by emphasizing and

based on the interest of the people of Indonesia, notably communities living in and around the forest

area, with assessment of and consideration of forests not only from an economic aspect.

gender considerations will constitute an essential element of project work. ADB will promote the mainstreaming of gender considerations in projects, and gender concerns will be addressed at all appropriate stages of the project cycle from identification through postevaluation.

10 INTERPOL, CHAINSAW PROJECT: An INTERPOL perspective on law enforcement in illegal logging. 2010, published with World Bank.


47

2) Revision of the substance of existing FIP document based on the recommendations from civil society,

in particularly ensuring the principle and analysis of gender justice contained in the FIP document,

taking note of the “money trail” in the forest sector and focusing to the drivers of the deforestation

and forest degradation, namely palm oil and the pulp and paper industriy.

Thereby are our concerns and demands. We hope that you will carefully consider our concerns and make

the right and fair decision for all the people of Indonesia. Thank you for your attention and cooperation.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned:

Organizations:

1. Solidaritas Perempuan, Indonesia, Signed By Wahidah Rustam

2. AKSI-Action For Gender, Social And Ecological Justice, Indonesia, Signed by Orchida Ramadhania

3. Ulu Foundation, USA, Stephanie Fried

4. Konsorsium pendukung Sitem Hutan Kerakyatan (KpSHK), Indonesia, Signed By Mohammad Djauhari

5. Indonesian Human Rights Committee for Social Justice (IHCS), Jakarta, Indonesia, Signed By Gunawan

6. Konsorsium Pembaruan Agraria, Indonesia, Signed By Idham Arsyad

7. Perhimpunan Rakyat Pekerja, Indonesia, Signed By Anwar Sastro Maruf

8. Kontras, Indonesia, Signed By Sinung Karto

9. Konfederasi Pergerakan Rakyat Indonesia, Indonesia, Signed By Sapei Rusin

10. Perhimpunan Sahabat Hati Damai (PESANDHAI), Indonesia, Signed By Sahat Pandiangan

11. Kelompok Studi Dan Pengembangan Prakarsa Masyarakat (KSPPM), Indonesia, Signed By Suryati

Simanjuntak

12. Walhi Sumatera Selatan, Palembang-Sumatera Selatan, Indonesia, Signed By Hadi Jatmiko

13. Solidaritas Perempuan Palembang, Palembang-Sumatera Selatan, Indonesia, Signed By Dra. Ekawati

14. Solidaritas Perempuan Kendari, Kendari-Sulawesi Tenggara, Indonesia, Signed By Sarifain

15. Lembaga Bantuan Hukum (LBH) Padang, Padang-Sumatera Barat, Indonesia, Signed By Syahrul Fitra

16. Huma, Indonesia, Signed By Tandiono Bawor Purbaya, SH

17. Walhi Sumatera Barat, Padang- Sumatera Barat, Indonesia, Signed By Ierichk Coubut

18. Yayasan Trukajaya Salatiga, Salatiga-Jawa Tengah, Indonesia, Signed By Djoewanto

19. GREENPEACE, Indonesia, Signed By Bustar Maitar

20. Front Perjuangan Pemuda Indonesia, Indonesia, Signed By Ferry Widodo

21. Relawan Perjuangan Demokrasi (REPDEM), Indonesia, Signed By Masinton Pasaribu

22. Koalisi Anti Utang (KAU), Indonesia, Signed By Dani Setiawan

23. Sarekat Hijau Indonesia, Garut-Jawa Barat, Indonesia, Signed By April Perlindungan

24. Koalisi Rakyat Untuk Hak Atas Air (Kruha), Indonesia, Signed By Muhammad Reza

25. Comunity Center Imbas Bersinar, Mataram-NTB, Indonesia, Signed By Tanwir, S.P

26. Aliasi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara (AMAN) Lombok Barat, NTB, Indonesia, Signed By Raden Moh. Rais

27. Solidaritas Perempuan Mataram, Mataram-NTB, Indonesia, Signed By B.Zulhiatina

28. Suara Perempuan Desa, Malang-Jawa Timur, Indonesia, Signed By Salma Safitri

29. Solidaritas Perempuan Sintuwu Raya, Poso-Sulawesi Tengah, Indonesia, Signed By Paulina Rusu

30. Violet Gray, Aceh, Indonesia, Signed By Edi Saputra

31. Atapku, Aceh, Indonesia, Signed By Rasulika Septila

32. Serikat Inong Aceh (SEIA), Aceh, Indonesia, Signed By Agustina

33. KPI Aceh, Aceh, Indonesia, Signed By Parmawati

34. Aceh Women's For Peace Foundation, Aceh, Indonesia, Signed By Irmasari

35. Balai Syura Uroeng Inoeng Aceh, Aceh, Indonesia, Signed By Nursiti

36. PKBI Aceh, Aceh, Indonesia, Signed By Eva Khofifah

37. Masyarakat Transparansi Aceh (MATA), Aceh, Indonesia, Signed By Abdullah Abdul Muthaleb

38. Solidaritas Perempuan Bungoeng Jeumpa, Aceh, Indonesia, Signed By Cut Risma Aini

39. Solidaritas Perempuan Sumbawa, Sumbawa-NTB, Indonesia, Signed By Ardani Hatta


48

40. Koalisi Perempuan Indonesia Untuk Keadilan Dan Demokrasi, Indonesia, Signed By Dian Kartika Sari

41. Solidaritas Perempuan Palu, Palu-Sulawesi Tengah, Indonesia, Signed By Ruwaida

42. Arus Pelangi, Indonesia, Signed By King Oey

43. Solidaritas Perempuan Jabotabek, Jakarta-Indonesia, Signed By Nurhidayah

44. The Asian Muslim Action Network (AMAN) Indonesia, Signed By Indonesia, Signed By Ruby

45. Solidaritas Perempuan Kinasih, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, Signed by Novita Dwi Arini

46. Solidaritas Perempuan Kahyangan Api, Bojonegoro-Jawa Timur Indonesia, Signed By Murtiningsih

47. Solidaritas Perempuan Anging Mammiri, Makssar-Sulawesi Selatan, Indonesia, Signed by Hajar

International:

48. AMIHAN-National Federation Of Peasant Women, Philippines, Signed By Tess Vistro

49. Cambodian League For The Promotion And Defense Of Human Rights, Cambodia, Signed By Naly

Pilorge

50. Asia Pacific Forum On Women, Law And Development (APWLD), Asia Pacific, Signed By Kate Lappin

51. Womanhealth Philippines, Philippines, Signed By Ana Maria R. Nemenzo

52. EquityBD, Bangladesh, Signed By M. Rezaul Karim Chowdhury

53. All Nepal Peasants Federation, Nepal, Signed By Keshab Khadka

54. Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum, Pakistan, Signed By Saeed Baloch

55. Bangladesh Krishok Federation, Bangladeh, Signed By Badrul Alam

56. Nadi Ghati Morcha, India, Signed By Gautam Bandyopadhyay

57. SANLAKAS, Philippines, Signed By Marie Marguerite M. Lopez

58. VOICE, Bangladesh, Signed by Farjana Akter

Individuals:

59. Risma Umar, Jakarta, Indonesia

60. Aliza Yuliana, Jakarta, Indonesia

61. Ade Herlina, Padang, Indonesia

62. Nisa Anisa, Bogor-Jawa Barat, Indonesia

63. DD Shineba, Jakarta, Indonesia

64. Iwan Nurdin, Jakarta, Indonesia

65. Ridwan Darmawan, Jakarta, Indonesia

66. Estu Fanani, Bantul-Yogyakarta, Indonesia

67. Aftrinal Sya’af Lubis SP., Bogor-Jawa Barat, Indonesia

68. Nurul Utami, Indonesia

69. Oding Affandi, Medan, Indonesia

70. Sulhani M Pratiwi, Kendari-Sulawesi Tenggara, Indonesia

71. ST. Aisyah, SE, Kendari-Sulawesi Tenggara, Indonesia

72. Rahma R. Talui, Kendari-Sulawesi Tenggara, Indonesia

73. Husnawati , Kendari-Sulawesi Tenggara, Indonesia

74. Nurhamida , Kendari-Sulawesi Tenggara, Indonesia

75. Ismad Jaya, Kendari-Sulawesi Tenggara, Indonesia

76. Sufri, Kendari-Sulawesi Tenggara, Indonesia

77. Hasma, Kendari-Sulawesi Tenggara, Indonesia

78. Husman Budiman, Kendari-Sulawesi Tenggara, Indonesia

79. WD. Imami, Bau-Bau-Sulawesi Tenggara, Indonesia

80. Nihrawati, Kendari-Sulawesi Tenggara, Indonesia

81. Patmawati, Kendari-Sulawesi Tenggara, Indonesia

82. Norma Azazi, Kendari-Sulawesi Tenggara, Indonesia

83. Munirmawati, Kendari-Sulawesi Tenggara, Indonesia

84. Ramla, Kendari-Sulawesi Tenggara, Indonesia

85. Arieska Kurniawati, Jakarta, Indonesia


49

86. Rendro Prayogo, Indonesia

87. Dewi Kartika, Jakarta, Indonesia

88. Tina Napitupulu, Jakarta, Indonesia

89. Dimpos Manalu, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

90. L. Wilsan Ibnu Hanif., Mataram-NTB, Indonesia

91. Lalu Tahta Dzhilal Aqli, Mataram-NTB, Indonesia

92. Sitra, Mataram-NTB, Indonesia

93. Dinda Nuuranisaa Yura, Jakarta, Indonesia

94. Ahmad Marthin Hadiwinata, Jakarta, Indonesia

95. Mickael B. Hoelman, Jakarta, Indonesia

96. Yuni Riawati, Mataram-NTB, Indonesia

97. Frida Kantjai, Poso-Sulawesi Tengah, Indonesia

98. Ester Parinding, Poso-Sulawesi Tengah, Indonesia

99. Risma Moguntu , Poso-Sulawesi Tengah, Indonesia

100. Jasmine Kamba, Poso-Sulawesi Tengah, Indonesia

101. Sury Kayupa, Poso-Sulawesi Tengah, Indonesia

102. Ani Ta'ere, Poso-Sulawesi Tengah, Indonesia

103. Hernia Sangira, Poso-Sulawesi Tengah, Indonesia

104. Ika Tendea, Poso-Sulawesi Tengah, Indonesia

105. Soeherry, Banda Aceh-Aceh, Indonesia

106. Melisa Silviana, Banda Aceh-Aceh, Indonesia

107. Abdul Muiz, Banda Aceh-Aceh, Indonesia

108. Henny Ulfa, Banda Aceh-Aceh, Indonesia

109. Arabiayani, Banda Aceh-Aceh, Indonesia

110. Dina Kosadiana, Banda Aceh-Aceh, Indonesia

111. Faisal, Banda Aceh-Aceh, Indonesia

112. Junaidi Abdillah, Banda Aceh-Aceh, Indonesia

113. Ruwaida, Banda Aceh-Aceh, Indonesia

114. Kamal Apriansyah, Banda Aceh-Aceh, Indonesia

115. Rosmidar, Banda Aceh-Aceh, Indonesia

116. Mariani MS, Sumbawa-NTB, Indonesia

117. Amir Manuk Allo, Sumbawa-NTB, Indonesia

118. Novianti Kartini, Sumbawa-NTB, Indonesia

119. HUSNULYATI, Sumbawa-NTB, Indonesia

120. Wardarina, Chiangmai, Thailand

121. Wiwin Matindas, Palu-Sulawesi Tengah, Indonesia

122. Suhartati, Palu-Sulawesi Tengah, Indonesia

123. Sri Mustika, Palu-Sulawesi Tengah, Indonesia

124. Indriyani, Palu-Sulawesi Tengah, Indonesia

125. Maya Safira, Palu-Sulawesi Tengah, Indonesia

126. Supryanti, Bogor-Jawa Barat, Indonesia

127. Syarifa, Bogor-Jawa Barat, Indonesia

128. Vonny Iriani, Bogor-Jawa Barat, Indonesia

129. Rohayana, Bogor-Jawa Barat, Indonesia

130. Djabaedah, Jakarta, Indonesia

131. Halima, Jakarta, Indonesia

132. Elasar, Jakarta, Indonesia

133. Nurhaya, Jakarta, Indonesia

134. Thaufiek Zulbahary, Bogor-Jawa Barat, Indonesia

135. Donna Swita Hardiani, Banda Aceh-Aceh, Indonesia

136. Marhaini Nasution, Jakarta, Indonesia


50

Protest of Civil Society to WB-IFC about the FIP Development Process in Indonesia

To:

Ms. Joyita Mukherjee, Senior Operations Officer, IFC [email protected]

Dr. Michael Brady, East Asia Forestry Program Manager at IFC

Dr. Gerhard Dierterle, World Bank, [email protected]

Mr. Werner Kornexl, World Bank, [email protected]

For the past three years, Indonesian CSOs have continued to seek information about and provide input into

the proses and substance of the Forest Investment Plan in Indonesia. Nonetheless, until now, important

questions about many aspects of the FIP process and FIP activities have not yet been answered by FIP

representatives at the World Bank and IFC despite the fact that these questions have been sent in writing directly

to the FIP representatives at the World Bank and IFC.

For example, on 30 October 2013, a number of CSOs sent a letter to the World Bank/IFC with a list of very

specific questions. These written questions were submitted with the hope of receiving a written response from

the Bank and the IFC regarding: 11

The violation of FIP requirements / safeguards regarding consultation: the FIP Design Document

requires an eight stage consultation process, including for “investment strategies.” Indonesia’s Forest

Investment Plan is an investment strategy and the development of the FIP triggers consultation

requirements. Nonethelesss, the development and process of the drafting of FIP Indonesia

demonstrated a lack of meaningful consultation or fulfillment of the principle of Free, Prior, Informed

Consultation or Consent.

The violation of FIP requirements / safeguards which forbid FIP support for industrial logging: The

IFC portion of the FIP actually plans a program to support industrial logging in natural forests in an area

of up to 700,000 hectares in West Papua, Sulawesi and East and West Kalimantan;

Detailed and specific questions were also submitted to the IFC about:

The process of choosing large scale private sector partners in the forest sector, given that

according to an INTERPOL report, this sector is at a high risk for money laundering, tax

evasion and corruption, not to mention frequent violence and violations of human rights.

The process of due diligence carried out by the IFC to ensure that the IFC’s large scale private

sector partners are free of money laundering, tax evasion and corruption as well as human

rights violations;

The attitude towards the involvement of the Indonesian National Army (TNI) in FIP projects. The

Ministry of Forestry and the Commander in Chief of TNI have already developed cooperation to

“rehabilitate conservation areas”, specifically in conflict regions. A formal cooperative work agreement

)No. NK.06/Menhut-V/2011 and No. Kerma/7/III/2011 was signed directly by the Minister of Forestry,

Ir. Zulkifli Hasan and the Commander in Chief of TNI, Laksamana Agus Suhartono on 24 March 2011.

There have been documented cases of conflict and human rights violations in the forest sector which

have had the involvement of armed forces.

Explanation about the method for the use of the highest safeguard standards, including the use of

national laws or regulations only “to the extent to which they have standards which are higher than

those of the World Bank.” (FIP Indonesia, para 46.

The use of the “do no harm” standard recommended by the ADB for the FIP.

The provision of information / information dissemination related to draft project documents which,

according to the original schedule, have already been written and should have been made public. The

fact is that, until now, there is still FIP information which has not yet been distributed to the public,

including details about the “meaningful consultation” process or the proposed location of FIP projects.

11

FIP Indonesia: Pertanyaan yang tidakdijawabdanpelanggaran criteria FIP -

Mencarijawabanlangsungdansegeradari Bank Duniadan International Finance Corporation;





51

Clarification as to whether decisions about FIP projects will rest solely in the hands of Bank and IFC

management or whether Executive Directors of the Bank and IFC have the right to examine and vote to

approve or reject Bank and IFC projects under the FIP, given the substantial risks to communities and

their forests.

The development of the implementation, preparation and project evaluation schedule, including the

proposal of WB and IFC projects to management and Board of the Bank and IFC. (A schedule was

made public but was not consistently implemented or updated.)

In response to these questions submitted by CSOs on 30 October 3013, the IFC , on 9 November 2013,

provided a very short answer. Instead of replying to the detailed CSO questions12

, the IFC only made the

following suggestions:

Please see the “Updated Matrix” of February 2013, that is, a document which had already been posted

online 8 months before the CSOs sent their list of questions. (The CSOs had already read this document

prior to writing.) The strange thing was that, in the aforementioned matrix, the FIP Team had promised

that “in the upcoming year 2013” they would carry out public consultations, something which did not

happen. The matrix also stated that the FIP Team had “requested that the National Forestry Council

(DKN) facilitate meetings and dialogue with stakeholders” and noted, alarmingly, that DKN “had only

recently approved a definition of “important public consultations” [sic: an apparent mis-translation of

“meaningful consultations”] in September 2012. 13

This means that DKN only agreed on a definition of

consultation in September 2012, after the DKN meetings had been held with “stakeholders” in order to

produce the FIP Indonesia plan, the draft of which was finalized in October 2012 and submitted to the

FIP Committee for approval.

In reality, there was no process of “meaningful consultation” or fulfillment of the principle of FPIC in

the process of the development of FIP Indonesia which was hosted by DKN. In fact, the Head of the

DKN Presidium stated, “Regardless, FIP as a formal program of the Indonesian government, will be

carried out in accordance with government plans. 14

This statement, not only represents a violation of

FIP safeguards which require an eight part process of consultation, but also of all “meaningful

consultation” and “free, prior, informed consultation” or consent requirements, because the DKN’s

approach means that communities do not have the right to choose whether they agree / consent or do not

consent to the FIP process or FIP projects.

Please see the document “Information Sharing and Outreach Events for the FIP…” of 28 October

2013, that is, a 4-page document prepared by the WB, IFC and ADB and which consists of list of

activities of the FIP Team between November 2012 and September 2013. This document actually

proves that there has not yet been a meaningful consultation process at all during the development of

the FIP. The activities which are listed in this document include: 13 meetings held by WB, IFC or ADB

with Indonesian government agencies/officials; 8 meetings with donors; 3 meetings with (unnamed)

private sector representatives, 3 meetings with World Bank partner, WWF; two meetings with

(unnamed) Indonesian CSOs and Laos CSOs, including one meeting in Laos and one meeting with

(unnamed) CSOs in West Kalimantan to “inform them about the endorsement of the FIP”, etc.

The document also listed an “informal lunch” with CSOs “which had formerly been critical

towards the FIP”, naming Solidaritas Perempuan (Women’s Solidarity for Human Rights) and Walhi

(Friends of the Earth – Indonesia) as “invitees.” However, the document provided no indication of the

results of the discussion, nor a list of the actual attendees. Neither Walhi or Solidaritas Perempuan

attended this “informal lunch” at all. It is very unclear why a document which purports to provide a

formal chronology of outreach activities would include names of CSOs who did not attend an “informal

lunch.” An informal lunch, of course, cannot be claimed to be a public consultation.

12 IFC, Joyita Mukherjee, Re: A Letter of Concerns and Continuing Unanswered Question About Indonesia FIP, 11/8/13 13

14

DKN, LAPORAN KEGIATAN, Fokus Group DiskusiMenindaklanjuti Dialog Nasional ProgramInvestasiKehutanan di Indonesia, DiselenggarakanOlehDewanKehutananNasional (DKN) Hotel Grand Aston - Yogyakarta, 19 Juli 2013, hal 3.


52

In addition, this document also mentions a “National Dialogue about DGM and FIP” hosted by DKN in

July 2013, but nevertheless, the document does not actually describe what happened at this meeting,

where many questioned the process and substance of the FIP and the DKN’s own “Community

Chamber” [“Kamar Masyrakat”] stated their rejection of the FIP, as an outcome of the National

Dialogue. This was not mentioned in the document provided by IFC, WB, ADB.

The “Information Sharing and Outreach Events” document sent by the WB and IFC in lieu of a direct

reply to CSO questions about consultation actually demonstrates how, until now, in general, they more

often meet with government agencies and bilateral donors, while meeting with potentially affected

communities and CSOs has not been a priority for the FIP Team. On those occasions when they meet

with community representatives or CSOs, those processes are a form of “socialization” of information

from MDBs and the government and certainly cannot be considered a consultation process in

compliance with FIP requirements. (See Annex III for the original document with CSO notes in the

margins.)

Let’s meet to discuss this: Rather than actually provide direct and clear written answers to continually

unanswered CSO questions, the Bank and IFC ask CSOs to meet with them. As if CSOs must (once again)

come to discuss, in the absence of written materials provided by the WB/IFC ,and not the WB/IFC being

required to provide clear and transparent information to CSOs and the Indonesian public.

Learning from the experience of CSOs who have attended FIP “socialization” (not consultation) meetings,

including those hosted by DKN – where written information is not provided in advance to attendees, minutes of

meetings do not record important input from attendees (including that pertaining to concerns regarding the

potential for military activities linked to the FIP) – it is very important to obtain written answers to the questions

which have been submitted by CSOs. It is only in this manner that clear and transparent information can be

provided directly to civil society and all concerned parties including those who are in various regions and islands

distant from Jakarta and who may not be able to attend such a meeting.

As public financial institutions supported by taxpayers in many countries, the Bank and the IFC must

provide a clear explanation about these issues in of importance both to taxpayers and also to communities

potentially impacted by the FIP.

Until now, FIP has often been portrayed as a project which has a goal of reducing forest degradation and

increasing sustainable forest management which reduces emissions and increases carbon stocks. Nonetheless,

the tendency to refuse to answer important questions, especially in an open manner in writing, adds to concerns

that the FIP truly

(a) will continue to violate requirements and safeguards for the protection of communities – women and men -

and the environment;

(b) will continue to violate the process of meaningful consultation and the requirement to provide early/prior

information in order to receive comments from communities;

(c) will contravene the rights of communities to make their own decisions about their own fate, and;

(d) will have a substantial negative impact on communities and their forests.

Proof of this is that the FIP Team, that is, the World Bank, IFC, ADB with the Indonesian government, have

already agreed to propose plans to take an area of 1.67 million hectares for FIP projects, including up to 700,000

hectares of natural forest, for an IFC industrial logging program. This not only violates the FIP’s own

safeguards, but was done without the agreement of communities or the recognition of their rights, including the

rights of women who are dependent upon forests for the livelihood of their families.

We note that both the IFC and WB have funded activities linked to violence, including the IFC’s violent

Dinant palm oil case in Honduras, and Wilmar in Indonesia, involving substantial human rights abuses by armed

forces associated with the private sector. On April 4, 2014 in a presentation to the IFC Executive Directors, the

IFC admitted that they underestimated the broader risks involving security forces, had limited ability to address

issues of land conflicts and violence and ensured the Board that, in the future, IFC due diligence would include a

focus on the use of security forces in conflict areas. 15

We see no evidence of any assessment of the use of

15

IFC, “IFC’s Environmental & Social Lessons Learned” ,Technical Briefing for the Board of the IFC, April 4, 2014.


53

security forces occurring in Indonesia by either the IFC or the World Bank, something of deep concern to civil

society.

Given these developments, and the tendency to force upon the public, policies which harm communities --

women and men -- and the protection of forests, we urge the Bank and the IFC to stop practices / projects which

clearly violate safeguards, including FIP safeguards, and harm communities and their forests, as follows:

1. Cancel plans for the IFC FIP project which will use up to 700,000 hectares of natural forest for

industrial logging, a direct violation of FIP safeguards.

2. Carry out a consultation process, in accordance with the FIP requirements (eight steps) and the MDB’s

own safeguards, with communities – women and men – and CSOs as the primary stakeholders in FIP

activities, without coercion or other efforts to prevent communities from freely expressing their consent

or lack thereof.

3. Provide written answers to the questions in Annex I, including an assessment of the role of security

forces in the forest sector in Indonesia, and in proposed FIP areas;

4. Describe, in writing, the independent grievance mechanism available to the public to file complaints

regarding the violations of FIP safeguards, including the ban on investments in industrial logging and

the consultation process.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Contacts:

CC: EDs, etc.

Enclosures:

Annex 1: Questions for the World Bank and IFC

Annex 2: Guidelines for Consultations to be carried out in accordance with subparagraph 16 (d) of the

Design Document for the Forest Investment Program

Annex 3: Comments on the “Updated Matrix of Comments and Responses on the Indonesia Forest

Investment Plan”, Feb. 2013.

Signatories:

1. Puspa Dewy (Solidaritas Perempuan), Jakarta

2. Rio Ismail (The Ecological Justice/Lembaga Keadilan Ekologi), Jakarta

3. Stephanie Fried (Ulu Foundation), USA

4. Abetnego Tarigan (Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia/WALHI), Jakarta

5. Sugeng Bahagijo (International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development/INFID), Jakarta

6. Dani Setiawan (Koalisi Anti Utang), Jakarta

7. M. Riza Damanik (Indonesia for Global Justice/IGJ), Jakarta

8. Mohammad Djauhari (Konsorsium Pendukung Sistem Hutan Kerakyatan/KPSHK), Jakarta

9. Uli Parulian Sihombing (Indonesia Legal Resource Center/ILRC), Jakarta

10. Rivani Noor (Yayasan Cappa), Jambi

11. Y.L. Franky (Yayasan PUSAKA), Jakarta

12. Koesnadi Wirasapoetra (Sarekat Hijau Indonesia), Jakarta

13. DD. Shineba (Konsorsium Pembaruan Agraria/KPA), Jakarta

14. Abdul Halim (Koalisi Rakyat untuk Keadilan Perikanan/KIARA), Jakarta

15. Lahmudin Yoto (Yayasan Tanah Merdeka/YTM), Sulawesi Tengah

16. Ahmat Pelor (Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia/WALHI Sulawesi Tengah)

17. Arie Rio Rompas (Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia/WALHI Kalimantan Tengah)

18. Ismet Soelaiman (Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia/Walhi Maluku Utara)

19. Ahmad Bahsoan (Jaring Advokasi Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Alam/JAPESDA), Gorontalo


54

20. Salma Safitri Rahayaan (Suara Perempuan Desa/Rural Women's Voices), Batu, Jawa Timur

21. Mohamad Taufik D. Umar (Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Poso), Sulawesi Tengah

22. Riza V. Tjahjadi (Yayasan BioTani Bahari Indonesia), Jakarta

23. Nordin (Save Our Borneo), Kalimantan Tengah

24. Estu Fanani (CEDAW Working Group Indonesia/CWGI), Jakarta

25. Siti Maemunah (Tim Kerja Perempuan dan Tambang), Jakarta

26. M. Tarech Rasyid (Yayasan Kuala Merdeka) Sumatra Selatan

27. Bonnie Kertaredja (Solidaritas Perempuan Kinasih) Jogyakarta

28. Kamajaya Al Katuuk (Lembaga Kajian Kebijakan Pembangunan/LKKP), Sulawesi Utara

29. Ardani Hatta (Solidaritas Perempuan Sumbawa), Nusa Tenggara Barat

30. Ida Ruri Sukwati (Solidaritas Perempuan Palembang), Sumatra Selatan

31. Ari Sunarijati (Federasi Serikat Pekerja Seluruh Indonesia/FSPSI Reformasi), Jakarta

32. Welly Mataliwutan (Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Manado), Sulawesi Utara

33. Syarief Hidayat (Yayasan Dian Rakyat Indonesia/YDRI) Sulawesi Utara

34. Jumiati Lestari (Solidaritas Perempuan Anging Mammiri Makassar/SPAM), Sulawesi Selatan

35. Shantoy Hades (Pergerakan Indonesia), Jakarta

36. Muhammad Reza Sahib (Kolaisi Rakyat untuk Hak Atas Air/KRuHA), Jakarta

37. Ida Ruwaida (Solidaritas Perempuan Palu), Sulawesi Tengah

38. Ambo Masse (Yayasan Lembaga Konsumen) Sulawesi Selatan

39. Paulina Rusu (Solidaritas Perempuan Poso), Sulawesi Tengah

40. Rizki Affiat (Asia Justice and Rights), Aceh

41. Lia Baiq Zulhiatina (Solidaritas Perempuan Mataram), Nusa Tenggara Barat

42. Agus Sutomo (Serikat Tani Serumpun Damai), Kalimantan Barat

43. Herman Kajang (Komite Pemantau Legislatif/KOPEL), Jakarta

44. Kencana Indrishwari, (Kelompok Peduli Penghapusan Tindak Kekerasan terhadap Perempuan Dan Anak/

KEPPAK Perempuan), Jakarta

45. Feri Irawan (Perkumpulan Hijau), Jambi

46. Etal Syahrudin (Jaringan Advokasi Tambang/JATAM) Sulawesi Tengah

47. Abdul Rahman Sembahulun (Ketua Kemangkuan Adat Tanah Sembahulun), Lombok Timur, Nusa

Tenggara Barat

48. I Wayan Tirja Nugraha (Lembaga Informasi dan Advokasi Sosial/LIMAS), Denpasar, Bali

49. Cut Risma Aini (Solidaritas Perempuan Bungong Jeumpa Aceh), Aceh

50. Rina Bakrie (Yayasan PUSPA Indonesia), Sumatra Selatan

51. Yudi Fahrian (Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Anak Indonesia), Sumatra Selatan

52. Yohanes P. Simanjuntak (Lembaga Pendidikan, Pengkajian dan Pembelaan Hak Azasi

Manusia/LP3HAM), Sumatra Selatan

53. Faisal Ratuella (Lembaga Pesisir dan Laut), Maluku Utara

54. Najamudin M. Daud (Kelompok Sahabat Alam), Maluku Utara.

Individual signatories:

1. Orchida Ramadhania (periset di The Ecological Justice), Jakarta

2. Aliza Yuliana (Aktivis Perempuan), Jakarta

3. Charil Syah, SH (Public Interest Lawyer), Jakarta

4. Suraiya Kamaruzzaman (Anggota Solidaritas Perempuan Bungong Jeumpa Aceh), Aceh

5. Nurhidayah (Aktivis Perempuan Jabotabek), Jakarta

6. Sandra Dewi Dahlan (Mahasiswa), Jogyakarta

7. Endang Herdianti (Aktivis Perempuan Palu), Sulawesi Tengah

8. Evani Hamzah (Aktivis Perempuan Poso), Sulawesi Tengah

9. Zenzi Suhadi (Aktivis Lingkungan Hidup), Jakarta

10. Maya Safira Latopada (Aktivis Perempuan Palu), Sulawesi Tengah

11. Ratna Sary (Anggota Solidaritas Perempuan Bungong Jeumpa Aceh), Aceh

12. Itha Karen (Aktivis Perempuan Makassar), Sulawesi Selatan


55

13. Vivian Idris (Aktivis)

14. Wahidah Rustam (Aktivis Perempuan), Jakarta

15. April Perlindungan (Aktivis), Kalimantan Tengah

16. Arief Rachman (Aktivis Lingkungan) Sulawesi Tenggara

17. Rudi Putra (Aktivis), Leuser

18. Hirim Nurliana, (Aktivis Perempuan), Jakarta

19. Andriyeni (Aktivis Perempuan), Sumatera Barat

20. Donna Swita (Aktivis Perempuan), Aceh

21. Nisa Anisa (Aktivis Perempuan), Bogor – Jawa Barat

22. Rina Marlina (Aktivis Perempuan), Tasikmalaya – Jawa Barat

23. Rudi Putra (Penggiat Konservasi di Leuser/Penerima Future for Nature Award 2013)

24. Nidar Puteh (Aktivis Perempuan Banda Aceh), Aceh

25. Ruwaida Ismail (Aktivis Perempuan Banda Aceh), Aceh

26. Faisal (Aktivis Banda Aceh), Aceh

27. Selamet Daroyni (Aktivis Lingkungan), Jakarta

28. Clara Amelia (Mahasiswa), Jakarta

29. Diecky Pratama (Mahasiswa), Gorontalo

30. Sitti Aisyah (Aktivis Perempuan Makassar), Sulawesi Selatan

31. Andy Asri (Aktivis), Makassar

32. Hasniah dg Kebo (Aktivis), Makassar

33. Nurdin Rusana (Aktivis), Makassar

34. Eva Clara (Aktivis), Makassar

35. Hasdawiyah (Aktivis), Makassar

36. Irman Rahman (Aktivis), Makassar

37. Armayanti Sunusi (Aktivis Perempuan), Lampung

38. Carmelita Mamonto (Penggiat Perempuan di lingkar Tambang), Maluku Utara

39. Astuty N Kilwouw (Penggiat Perempuan di lingkar Tambang), Maluku Utara

40. Hasmarani Nento (Penggiat Perempuan di lingkar Tambang), Maluku Utara.

kumpulan submisi solidaritas perempuan februari … · solidaritas perempuan/sp (women’s...

Documents