IV. Changes made in timber concession distributionWhen the first phase of the study was completed in the mid-90's, the system of HPH distribution was relatively easy to understand. If a company held a timber license, it could be assumed that they were logging the concession in a normal manner. This is no longer the case, and the situation has become vastly more complicated.The Department of Forestry has now divided Indonesian HPHs into two categories: HPHs still running, and HPHs declared withdrawn. The Department says there are 311 in the first category, and 344 in the second. One might conclude from this that there are only 311 timber concessions still producing timber, with 344 shut down and inactive. This is definitely not the case. Within the group of "withdrawn" HPHs, there are eighteen categories. Of that total, there are five categories occupied by fully active HPHs. The active categories are marked with a "(+)" sign in the table below. Of the 344 HPHs designated as "withdrawn", 116 are still active. However, HPHs grouped under the thirteen remaining categories can be considered as no longer functioning, and are marked with a "(-)" sign. Table 4.1 HPHs classified as "withdrawn" by the Department of Forestry
The meanings of the various Department of Forestry categories set out in the table on the previous page are not obvious in many cases, and are explained below. HPHs expired, but extended temporarily, extended in principle for 20 years, or extended definitively for 20 years. These categories are important because they contain the majority of HPHs which the Department considers "withdrawn," but which are in fact still operating actively. The simplest way to describe these HPHs is that they were considered sufficiently problematic to be declared "withdrawn" from an administrative point of view, but for some reason the Department has decided to extend their licenses. This group of HPHs is still operated by its original licensees. HPHs administered by an Inhutani. This category includes HPHs turned over partially to one of the five state Inhutani timber corporations. In all 30 cases, the Inhutanis control only minority shares in the companies, while the original licensee remains the majority shareholder. In practical terms, an Inhutani minority shareholding is believed to change nothing, nor to result in giving the Inhutanis additional operational control. Moreover, the Inhutanis do not in most cases wish to spend money to buy the minority shares that have been set aside for them by decree. But in those cases where the Inhutanis do wish to buy in, shares become available only gradually, as they are purchased from what is, for accounting purposes, the Inhutanis share of the HPHs yearly earnings. In all cases, then, these HPHs are forging ahead with operations, with the primary licensee still calling the shots. These, too, are considered "withdrawn" HPHs by the Department. HPHs being rehabilitated. This category contains no less than 91 former HPHs which have been given to the Inhutanis, nominally for the purpose of rehabilitation. It is widely assumed that these HPHs were so badly abused by their original licensees that the former Minister of Forestry turned them over to the Inhutanis, with the expectation that they would rehabilitate them. Rehabilitation does not mean recreating original ecosystems, but rather replanting with fast-growing, exotic (usually non-Indonesian) species. For the purposes of this report's calculations, HPHs being rehabilitated are classified as inactive. However, future researchers may wish to relax this assumption, as the most recent data available shows that in a Halmahera island concession it has recently acquired for the purposes of rehabilitation, Inhutani I is felling two hectares of virgin timber for every hectare it rehabilitates. Given that the concession is still 60 percent covered in virgin forest (Inhutani I 1996: 3), it is not immediately apparent why it was given to Inhutani I for the purposes of rehabilitation. A Department of Forestry official estimated that of all the country's IPKs, about half have gone to the Inhutanis in recent years. IPKs are licenses to clear cut land, purportedly to prepare it for plantations, although this happens in only a quarter of those lands set aside for the purpose of industrial timber plantations. The official also said that proceeds earned from these IPKs are now the single most important emerging source of profit for the Inhutanis. This was found to be true in the case of Inhutani I in 1997. According to the company's annual report, 643,023 m3 of its timber was obtained from selective cutting of natural forests, with a further 634,390 m3 obtained from clear cutting. These figures represented an increase from 552,373 m3 and 369,949 m3, respectively, in the previous year of 1996 (Inhutani I 1997: x). HPHs being reserved. These 37 HPHs have had their licenses pulled, and are, quite simply, being reserved by the Department of Forestry. It is not clear what exactly most of these HPHs are being reserved for, however. Five of the HPHs in Central Kalimantan and two in Jambi have been "reserved" for the purpose of being turned into industrial timber plantations (HTI). Why these HPHs were simply not placed within the sub-category of HPHs changing functions is unknown. HPHs not yet assigned a new use. The nine HPHs in this category have not yet been assigned to one of the new, non-natural-forest-related functions approved by the Department of Forestry for former HPHs. HPHs changing function. These 37 HPHs have been assigned to one of the new, non-natural-production-forestry-related functions approved by the Department of Forestry. This category includes 16 HPHs whose former hectarage is thought to have been set aside for conservation purposes, seven for industrial timber plantations (HTI), one for agricultural crop plantation (perkebunan), one for a transmigration site, and 12 for the now-canceled, but substantially clear-felled and burned-over, million hectare rice cultivation project in Central Kalimantan. The important fact to keep in mind is that 116 of the HPHs classified by the Department of Forestry's Direktorat Penyiapan Pengusahaan Hutan (henceforth, "the Direktorat") as "withdrawn" are in fact fully operating, functional equivalents of HPHs. Therefore, a more realistic count of active HPHs, based on criteria given by the Direktorat is 427 – the sum of the 311 HPHs the Direktorat considers to be active, plus the 116 additional HPHs that fall into the more ambiguous categories discussed above. Therefore, 427 HPHs is likely to be closer to the real number, and in fact this adjusted figure exactly matches the number of HPHs operating with valid decrees plus those operating with extended decrees in Statistik Kehutanan Indonesia 1997/1998. On the basis of this, the number of HPHs whose operation have been withdrawn would be 228. This is obtained by taking the Direktorat's initial figure for the number of HPHs withdrawn (344) and subtracting from that figure the 116 HPHs that are still fully operating and functional equivalents of active HPHs, according to the Direktorat's own information. The resulting number, 228, is the adjusted Direktorat figure for withdrawn HPHs. However, it should be noted that the adjusted figure of 228 withdrawn HPHs is at variance with the figure arrived at by scrutinizing the Direktorat's raw data, in which only 140 withdrawn HPHs were recognizable. This discrepancy is probably due to two factors. First, 56 of the HPHs which the Direktorat says were withdrawn were never a part of the original list of HPHs included in the author's baseline study. However, even if the 140 HPHs identified in the baseline study and identified by the Direktorat as withdrawn are added to the 56 new HPHs not identified in the baseline study but identified by the Direktorat as withdrawn, a total figure of only 196 is arrived at, and not the 228 HPHs which the Direktorat claims were withdrawn. In short, one reason the Direktorat's adjusted figure for total withdrawn HPHs is still too high is that they have almost certainly mis-counted the number of HPHs which their raw data says were withdrawn. A second reason why the adjusted Direktorat figures for withdrawn HPHs is higher than in this report is that the Direktorat's raw data lists - and therefore, it may be assumed, counts - single HPHs multiple times. In some cases, the Direktorat has listed a single HPH twice, once as active, and once as withdrawn. In other cases, the Direktorat has listed a single withdrawn HPH as having been withdrawn in two, or even three, different ways. In other cases, the Direktorat has listed a single HPH as active, and inactive in multiple ways – in one instance a single HPH is listed as withdrawn four different times. Examples of all these types of multiple listing follow. An example of HPHs which the Direktorat simultaneously lists as active and withdrawn are HPHs in which the majority of the area remains active, but a minority of the area was withdrawn for conservation purposes. Two in Riau province, Mapala Rabda and Wira Karya Sakti, were counted as withdrawn by the Directorate because they gave up a tiny portion of their hectarage for conservation purposes, 1,570 and 2,360 hectares respectively, while the remainder of their hectarage remained actively-functioning. An illustration of the Direktorat listing a single withdrawn HPH as having been withdrawn two times is Kayu Batang Karang, an unaffiliated 49,000 hectare concession in West Kalimantan, which the Direktorat lists twice on the same page as being under rehabilitation by Inhutani III. A single illustration which captures all of the above types of multiple listing is the Tunggal Yudi HPH. This single East Kalimantan HPH has been counted by the Direktorat once as active, and three times as withdrawn, for a total listing of four times. On page IC-9, Tunggal Yudi is said to be in the process of having its license extended (which therefore, according to the methodology used in this report, qualifies it as being an active HPH) . However, on page 11.A.2.-13, the Direktorat says Tunggal Yudi has been withdrawn and is being rehabilitated by Inhutani I. Then on page IIA.2.-14, Tunggal Yudi is listed two more times as being withdrawn and converted to an industrial timber plantation (HTI). In one case the hectarage being converted to HTI is listed as 16,700 hectares, while in the other it is listed as 14,400. The author recognizes that HPHs do now receive multiple designated uses, but this obviously causes multiple counting of HPHs for the purposes of Department of Forestry statistics. A final illustration of inaccuracies within the Direktorat publication is Djajanti Djaja, a HPH said to be located in East Kalimantan, and withdrawn and converted to HTI. However, Djajanti Djaja is located in Central Kalimantan, not East Kalimantan, a fact confirmed by Department of Forestry counterparts in this study. There are two points to remember from this discussion about active vs. withdrawn HPHs. First, the Department of Forestry's Direktorat Penyiapan Pengusahaan Hutan uses a dubious methodology for categorizing HPHs. As a result, the Direktorat has almost certainly understated the number of active HPHs in Indonesia, and overstated the number of withdrawn ones. Second, even if the Direktorat's methodology for determining active and withdrawn HPHs is adjusted to reflect reality, it still appears that the numbers of withdrawn HPHs are too high. This is probably due to the Direktorat's less-than-careful analysis of their own raw data, including an inaccurate totaling of HPHs, and multiple listing of individual HPHs. Furthermore, while many are aware that a large number of timber concessions were rescinded by former Minister of Forestry Djamaludin between 1995 and 1997, few are aware that a substantial number were also handed out. The following table shows the number and location of new timber concessions handed out by the former Minister, as well as of those that had their holdings substantially enlarged, either through the absorption of adjacent lands, or the absorption of adjacent timber concessions. Table 4.2 Location and size of timber concessions enlarged, and new timber concessions awarded, between 1995 and 1997
As the above table shows, the years 1995 to 1997 represented a tiny timber bonanza, with four new concessions being awarded in Central Sulawesi, and 10 in West Irian. The awarding of new timber concessions during those years was a particularly surprising development, given former Minister Djamaludin's pledge in late 1994 that all new timber concessions to be awarded would be given out not as HPHs, but as sustainable forestry management units (KPHPs). While Djamaludin did approve a number of pilot KPHPs in the closing years of his tenure, these were usually experimental projects undertaken by foreign donors and existing, heavily-logged timber concessions, which in any case did nothing to change the distribution of timber lands among existing timber groups. The following table shows output per hectare under the revised distribution of HPHs. As before, output was calculated using a series of provincial multipliers which were derived from data presented in Statistik Kehutanan Indonesia 1997/1998 (4,16). Table 4.3 HPH roundwood production per hectare by province: 1997/1998
September 7, 1999
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||