CIVIL SOCIETYMONITORING NATURE:A Review of Permits for Land-Based Industries

December 2013

Writing TeamOhiongyi Marino PandapotanHenri Subagiyo

EditorFrans R. Siahaan

PhotoCourtesy of Armin Hari: coal mining in East Kalimantan

Printed on recycled content paper

This report was produced with support from the UK Climate Change Unit (UKCCU). The opinions, findings, interpretations and summary expressed in this report are those of the civil society groups involved and do not reflect those of the Asia Foundation and UKCCU.

Permit Review i

Introduction

This permit review is a civil society initiative that aims to foster accountability in the process of grant-ing permits to land-based industries. It was motivated by the chaotic state of the permit process, which is a contributing factor to increased deforestation and land degradation.

The permit review is part of the SETAPAK Program, Asia Foundation funded by the United Kingdom Climate Change Unit (UKCCU). SETAPAK Program focused on improving forest and land governance in Indonesia, to achieve the overall goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The SETAPAK Pro-gram supports the efforts of civil society organisations in Indonesia to play a role in promoting good forest and land governance, including debating government policy and overseeing its implementa-tion in order to achieve sustainable development.

Increasing permit governance in the forestry, plantation and mining sector is critical to reducing deforestation, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, conserving natural resources and contributing to social and economic justice in resource use for Indonesia. It is hoped that the results of the review will contribute to efforts to improve permitting, functioning as a monitoring instrument for civil soci-ety to examine and evaluate the process of land and forest allocation through the licensing system, and to promote improved law enforcement.

We extend our thanks to UKCCU for the support, and to the ICEL writing team for their contribu-tion. Many parties helped in the process of conducting a permit review to produce this policy paper. For that we thank the researchers in the field who helped the research process in nine study areas, namely: Agus Budiman and Leziardi (Gemawan); Ari As’ari and Rangga (Titian); Ilham Jaya Rosdiana, Hariansyah, Khairul Razikin, and Yudistira (Stabil); Febri Irwansyah and Awaliah Rahmah (Walhi Sum-sel); Sudirman and Muhammad Farhan (Pilar Nusantara); as well as Deddy Permana and Aprillino (Wahana Bumi Hijau). We also extend our thanks to Frans R. Siahaan who edited this policy paper. And we also cannot forget to thank Blair Palmer, Prayekti Murharjanti, and Alam Suryaputra from the Asia Foundation who gave their input and support for this policy paper to be published.

We are aware that this policy paper still contains many shortcomings. For that reason, we always welcome recommendations and criticisms from readers to improve our research in the future. Fi-nally, we hope that this paper will be useful for developing a better permit system for all.

Jakarta, December 2013

Permit Reviewii

CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ i

Contents ...................................................................................................................................... ii

List of Tables and Graphs ............................................................................................................ iii

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... iv

Why a Permit Review? ................................................................................................................ 1

How Was the Review Conducted? ............................................................................................. 2

Were Permit Violations Found? .................................................................................................. 4

What Is the State of Public Access For Conducting Monitoring? ................................................ 6

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 11

Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 11

Permit Review iii

List of Tables and Graphs

Tables

Table 1. Authority to Issue Business Permits in Three Sectors .................................................. 3

Table 2. Research Sample ........................................................................................................... 4

Graphs

Graph 1. Stages of a Permit Review ............................................................................................ 2

Graph 2. Violations Found .......................................................................................................... 5

Graph 3. Documents Obtained in Three Sectors ......................................................................... 7

Graph 4. Documents Obtained Related to HTI Plantation Forest Permits .................................. 8

Graph 5. Documents Obtained Related to Plantation Permits .................................................... 8

Graph 6. Documents Obtained Related to Mining Exploration ................................................... 9

Graph 7. Documents Obtained Related to Mining Exploitation .................................................. 9

Graph 8. HTI Plantation forest permit Documents Obtained in the Areas of Study .................... 10

Graph 9. Plantation Permit Documents Obtained in the Areas of Study ..................................... 10

Graph 10. Mining Exlporation Permit Documents Obtained in the Areas of Study ..................... 10

Graph 11. Mining Exploitation Permit Documents Obtained in the Areas of Study .................... 11

Permit Reviewiv

Executive Summary

Aside from giving assurance and protection to businesses, permits are instruments to monitor and control the use of natural resources to ensure that it conforms with social, economic and environ-mental interests. It cannot be denied that the permit process in Indonesia is rife with problems. The chaotic state of the permit process has already contributed to increased rates of deforestation, land degradation, natural disasters, environmental destruction, and even impacted on poverty. This also shows the poor state of land and forest governance, which is closely related to corruption.

These conditions form the background to the need for a review by civil society. This review aims to determine whether permits issued by governments are in line with applicable procedures and pro-visions by studying various documents required to apply for a permit. The review focuses on nine study areas, namely the provinces of South Sumatra, West Kalimantan, and East Kalimantan, and the districts of Musi Banyuasin, Musi Rawas, Sintang, Kubu Raya, Berau, and Bulungan. The permits under review are the industrial timber permit (HTI), plantation permit, and mining permit, using samples from the study regions. The review method involves taking samples based on the estimated availability of permit documents. These documents are then studied and compared against prevail-ing laws and regulations.

The review identified six permits that violated applicable conditions. In the forestry sector, three conditions were found to be violated, and another five in the plantation sector. In the mining sector, the researchers were unable to ascertain whether there were violations or not, as more than 68% of the documents required for review were not obtained. The review process also highlighted the lack of transparency in the permit sector. From the 635 documents that were required, only half were obtained, and the worst conditions in this respect were found in the mining sector. This finding raises concern for public access to information for the purpose of monitoring the permit-granting process. Weak monitoring can enable deforestation and land degradation, and thus natural disasters, envi-ronmental destruction, and even poverty.

The results of this review confirm the poor state of governance in the permit process for land-based industries. Based on its findings, recommendations to the central government include to conduct an in-depth review of all permits that have already been issued, to follow up on findings of violations with law enforcement, and to make improvements to the permit system to ensure that it is inte-grated, transparent, and accountable. Recommendations to civil society include to conduct permit reviews on a massive scale and to continually use the results as a basis for advocacy to improve the permit system and the state of law enforcement.

Permit Review 1

Why a Permit Review?

Permits in the natural resources sector, aside from giving assurance and protection to businesses for their activities, also serve as an instrument for monitoring and controlling the use of natural resources in line with social, economic and environmental interests such as those mentioned in the legislation. Through the instrument of permits, governments can ensure that businesses comply with the prevailing regulations. Meanwhile, for businesses, permits can be used as a point of refer-ence in applying for and carrying out business activities. For communities, especially those poten-tially impacted by business activities, permits are useful as monitoring instruments, both to monitor businesses in carrying out their activities, and to monitor governments in issuing permits.

From the aspect of legislation, the permit-granting process is not easy, as businesses must fulfill several administrative and technical requirements. And yet for land-based industries, such as for-estry, plantations, and mining, the process appears to have beome very easy. The massive scale of permits granted in these three sectors has contributed to increased rates of deforestation. In 2011 alone, the national rate of deforestation reached 450,637 hectares (Ha) per year according to official government figures. Meanwhile, at the provincial level in East Kalimantan, West Kalimantan, and South Sumatra, the rate of deforestation was as much as 33,977 Ha per year, 41,738 Ha per year, and 13,596 Ha per year respectively.

Aside from that, permits are often issued without considering environmental carrying capacity. For example, based on data from the Mining Advocacy Network (JATAM), the area of land covered by mining permit types KP and PKP2B in the municipality of Samarinda is as much as 50,742.76 Ha or 71% of the total area. It is not surprising that such policies contribute to the worsened state of the environment in Samarinda as shown by frequent floods and unfilled former mine pits, which has claimed 11 lives since 2011.

Aside from environmental aspects such as deforestation, the massive number of permits granted also has an impact on increased rates of social conflict. Research by Widiyanto et al showed that in November 2012 there were 232 agrarian conflicts and other conflicts over natural resources in 22 provinces. On the island of Kalimantan alone, 2012 data showed that 108 conflicts occurred in the plantation sector, 28 in the forestry sector, and 13 in the mining sector. These conflicts were caused by several factors, including the limited area of forest zone (kawasan hutan), overlapping land titles, and weak application of the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC).

From an economic perspective, the huge number of permits granted has boosted growth for land-based industries in Indonesia and made a significant contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In 2012, GDP reached 7,422.8 trillion rupiah, with the agriculture sector (including forestry and plan-tations) and the mining sector contributing as much as 14.70% dan 11.85% respectively. Theo-retically, if GDP rises then public revenue will also rise, which in turn will reduce rates of poverty. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. Data from 2013 showed that as much as 21% of those in communities living in, or close to, forests are categorized as poor.

1 Forestry Ministry, 2012, Indonesian Forestry Statistics (Statistik Kehutanan Indonesia) 2011, Forestry Ministry of the Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta.2 Forestry Ministry, 2012, Indonesian Forestry Statistics (Statistik Kehutanan Indonesia) 2011, Forestry Ministry of the Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta.3 Jatam, 2010, Dredging Killer Coal & Kalimantan’s Gloomy Generation (Mautnya Batubara Pengerukan Batubara & Generasi Suram Kalimantan), Jakarta, p. 25.4 http://daerah.sindonews.com/read/2013/06/24/25/753544/warga-samarinda-gugat-pemerintah5 http://www.jatam.org/saung-berita/minerba/223-lobang-bekas-tambang-kembali-telan-korban-jiwa-.html; see also http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/boy-

drowns-in-disused-kalimantan-mining-pit/.6 Widiyanto et al, 2012, Outlook on Agrarian Conflicts and Conflicts Over Natural Resources (Outlook Konflik Sumberdaya Alam dan Agraria) 2012, HuMa Information

and Database Center, Jakarta, p. 3.7 Map of Agrarian Conflicts and Conflicts Over Natural Resources (Peta Sebaran Konflik Agraria dan Sumberdaya Alam) - http://geodata-cso.org/index.php/page/index/6.8 Widiyanto et al, 2012, Outlook on Agrarian Conflicts and Conflicts Over Natural Resources (Outlook Konflik Sumberdaya Alam dan Agraria) 2012, HuMa Information

and Database Center, Jakarta, p. 3.9 Central Statistics Agency, 2013, Press Release (Berita Resmi Statistik), Jakarta.

Permit Review2

In the province of East Kalimantan, for example, where more than 50% of the Gross Regional Do-mestic Product (GRDP) comes from the mining sector, more than 6% of the population is still living below the poverty line. At the district level, Musi Banyuasin can be used as an example. With the highest GRDP in the province of South Sumatra, reaching 53.9 billion rupiah, and the biggest contri-bution coming from the sectors of mining and agriculture (including forestry and plantations), this district in fact has the highest levels of poverty in the province, at 18.99%.

This is a sign of the poor state of governance in granting permits. Evidence presented in the trials of several corruption cases in the natural resources sector show that the poor state of permit govern-ance is closely related to corruption, collusion and nepotism, including in the stages of fulfilling the requirements of the permit, in its application, and in monitoring. The latest case to be convicted by a judge was a bribery case involving Amran Batalipu, the former district head of Buol, who was sen-tenced to seven years and six months in jail for corruption in issuing a palm oil plantation permit to PT Hardaya Inti Perkasa.

The poor state of the permit system in the sectors of forestry, plantations, and mining has spurred the initiative from civil society to conduct this permit review. Three important reasons why this review is necessary are, firstly, because of the lack of certainty that existing permits were granted based on the prevailing legislation. Secondly, based on the first hypothesis, because it is very difficult to expect that governments are carrying out their responsibilities to conduct monitoring of permits that have already been issued. Thirdly, because of the importance of protecting land and forests from illegal activities that can damage communities and the environment in the long-term by put-ting pressure on, or constricting, their range of movement. It is hoped that this review, conducted under the initiative of civil society, can be used by governments and by civil society itself to push for accountability in the permit-granting process and in the monitoring of permits that have already been granted.

The Review Process

This permit review was conducted by comparing data or documents needed to request a permit against re-quirements outlined in the prevailing legislation. In the initial stage, the researchers examined the leg-islation and any amendments to determine the con-ditions that should be referenced in issuing permits and conducting business. Each amendment gives a different legal implication to the permit-granting pro-cedure. The main provisions determined by the leg-islation were then used as study tools and outlined in a manual. The researchers then reviewed data or

9 Keynote Speech by the Forestry Minster at a Public Lecture at Sam Ratu Langi University in Manado, 8 November 2013, http://ppid.dephut.go.id/pidato_kemenhut/browse/31, accessed 29 November 2013. See also: ‘Forestry Minister: 21 Percent of Communities Living Near Forests Are

Poor’ (‘Menhut: 21 Persen Masyarakat Sekitar Hutan Miskin’), 18 August 2013, http://www.republika.co.id/berita/nasional/umum/13/08/18/mrqk6j-menhut-21-persen-masyarakat-sekitar-hutan-miskin, accessed 29 November 2013. Statistics

Indonesia, 2013, op cit.10 Ibid., p.11 Ibid., p. 48.12 Ibid., p. 152.13 http://www.tempo.co/read/news/2013/02/11/063460607/Bekas-Bupati-Buol-Amran-Divonis-75-Tahun-Penjara.

Permit Review 3

documents needed to lodge a permit application to assess their conformity to the provisions in the manual, which was used to identify whether violations had occurred.

The samples used in this permit review were made up of sample permits at the provincial and dis-trict/municipal level. Samples at the provincial level were permits that were issued by the governor in accordance with legislation. The governor has the authority to issue permits for business activities that cross district or municipal borders. Meanwhile, samples at the district or municipal level were taken from permits issued by the district head or mayor in accordance with the legislation. The dis-trict head or mayor has the authority to issue permits that are located in his or her own district or municipality. Based on the authority to give permits in each sector, the authority of central and local officials (provincial and district or municipal) to give permits can be seen in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Authority to Issue Business Permits in Three Sectors

The permits reviewed in this study are the industrial plantation forest permit (HTI), palm oil plan-tation business permit (IUP), and the mining business permit (IUP), previously known as a mining permit (KP) before the passage of Law No. 4/2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining. In securing these permits, other prerequisite permits must first be obtained, including permits for borrow-use, loca-tion permits, environmental permits, permits for release of forested land, and cultivation (HGU) permits, among others.

The permit review was conducted in three provinces, namely South Sumatra, West Kalimantan, and East Kalimantan, as well as six districts, namely the districts of Musi Banyuasin, Musi Rawas, Sintang, Kubu Raya, Berau, and Bulungan. The study areas were chosen for their strategic position in national forestry, based on the area of forest zone and rate of deforestation and forest degradation. The total area of forest zone included in the study areas reached 27,941,765 Ha or 21% of the total forest zone of Indonesia.

(131,279,115 Ha). East Kalimantan – which at the time of the study still included the now sepa-rated province of North Kalimantan – had the second greatest area of forest zone in Indonesia, at 14,651,053 Ha or 11% of the national total. Meanwhile, West Kalimantan had 8,990,875 Ha of forest zone, and South Sumatra had 8,990,875 Ha, or 7% and 3% of Indonesia’s forest zone areas,

14 Forestry Ministry, 2012, Indonesian Forestry Statistics (Statistik Kehutanan Indonesia) 2011, Forestry Ministry of the Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta.

15 Ibid.

Permit Review4

respectively. In terms of deforestation and forest degradation, the three study areas contribute ap-proximately 20% of Indonesia’s annual deforestation, according to official figures in 2011.

Initially, the selection of samples in this study was to be based on the criteria of the most extensive forest areas where for each region 10% was covered by permits in each sector (forestry, plantations, and mining). But because of the difficulties in accessing data, the sample selection was instead made based on estimates of the availability of the documents or data. The consideration of obtaining permit documents for each sample then became a top priority in conducting the permit review. Us-ing this method, 33 permits were taken as samples, specifically 8 HTI plantation forest permits, 17 plantation permits, and 8 mining permits. A complete list of the research samples can be seen in Table 2 below:

The success of the permit review depended heavily on the accessibility of permit documents and data. For this reason, a graph showing the accessibility of permit documents and data is also pro-vided in this section. In obtaining documents and data, information was requested in accordance with the standards regulated by Law No. 14/2008 on Freedom of Information (FOI Act, UU KIP). The important documents or data generally needed to conduct a permit review are the business per-mit decision letter, Environmental Impact Analysis (AMDAL) document, a recommendation from the district head/governor, a borrow-use permit (izin pinjam pakai kawasan hutan) or permit to release forested land (izin pelepasan hutan), and a letter of environmental feasibility.

In order to maximize the availability of documents and data, a network approach was also used in instances where the FOI Act failed, for example by requesting documents or data from a contact person at a related institution, non-governmental organization, or library.

Permit Violations

The results of the permit review were grouped under 3 categories, namely: (1) No Violation Found; (2) Violation Found; and (3) Unknown (whether there was a violation or not). The three categories were defined using the the following assessment criteria:

1. No Violation Found. Companies were said to have “no violation found” if all permit requirements regulated by law were fulfilled.

Table 2. Research Sample

Permit Review 5

2. Violation Found. Companies were said to have a “violation found” if there was a violation discov-ered in one or more permit requirements as regulated by law.

3. Unknown whether there was a violation or not. Companies fell into the “unknown” category if no violations were found in the limited permit documents that were obtained.

From the 33 permits that were reviewed, not one could be confirmed to be free of violations, as the data could not be accessed in full. The findings showed that at least six permits violated the condi-tions of prevailing legislation. These six permits were made up of 3 HTI plantation forest permits from a total of 8 reviewed, and 3 plantation permits from a total of 17 reviewed. 27 other permits could not be confirmed as being free of violations because the permit documents could not be ob-tained in full for review.

In the forestry sector, three violations were found, namely:

(1) Forestry activities taking place outside production forest areas. Based on Article 28 Paragraph 2 of Law No. 41/1999, production forests may only be used if a business has already secured a per-mit for the use of timber products in a production forest area. One company in Musi Banyuasin violated this provision.

(2) The bidding procedure was not properly followed, for example: (a) by businesses not holding a Tender Winner’s Certificate. This is in violation of Article 18 Paragraph 6 of Forestry Minister’s Decree No. P.10/Menhut-II/2004 on Amendments to Forestry Minister’s Decree (Permenhut) No. P.05/Menhut-II/2004 on the Granting of Business Permits to Use Forest Timber Products, which states that every winner of a tender is obliged to apply for a certificate from the Forestry Ministry. One company in Musi Banyuasin was found to have violated this provision; (b) by ignor-ing the outcome of a tender. One company in Musi Banyuasin was found to have ignored docu-ments that stated the area of land to be used by the company was 66,055 Ha, and printed in its plantation forest permit (IUPHHK-HTI) that it was given 67,100 Ha. This meant that there was a discrepancy between the SPPL and the IUPHHK-HTI of 1,045 Ha. It is worthy of note that the plantation forest permit in question is still being used on a productive plot of land.

(3) The area was still under a permit held by a third party. Based on Article 3 Paragraph 1 of Forestry

Permit Review6

Minister’s Regulation P.19/Menhut-11/2007, the areas where forested land can be developed are production forests that are no longer productive and not already covered by another permit. In reality, one company in Musi Rawas had applied for an IUPHHK-HTI plantation forest permit in an area where a permit was still in place for another company (that is, the permit was still recog-nized by the Forestry Ministry).

In relation to the violation of permits in the forestry sector, from the nine study areas, accessing data in the districts of Musi Banyuasin and Kubu Raya was comparatively easier than in the other seven areas. Three violations to the fulfillment of permit requirements were found in the review, including in both of the aforementioned districts. Details of the violations in these two districts are as follows:

(1) One permit violated three conditions, namely: (a) by not having a recommendation for permit location from a defense agency; (b) because the area of land granted exceeded that allowed in the relevant regulations; (c) by not fulfilling local requirements. These violations were made by one company in Musi Banyuasin.

(2) One permit violated the condition that others’ rights to the same land must be settled. One plantation of 15,500 Ha was found to be operating since 2003 in a location still claimed by the community. One condition for receiving a plantation business permit is that at the time of the expiration of the location permit the permit-holder should have fulfilled its obligation to the third party in accordance with the prevailing regulations. This violation occurred in Kubu Raya.

(3) One permit did not have a letter of environmental feasibility (SKLH) at the time it began opera-tions. A company that started operations in 2006 did not acquire the relevant SKLH until 2008. This document is a precondition for obtaining a business permit, or in this case a plantation busi-ness permit. This violation occurred in Musi Banyuasin.

Violations in the mining sector were unable to be confirmed because more than 68% of the required documents for review could not be obtained. This shows that the permit process for the mining sec-tor is less transparent than that of the forestry and plantation sectors.

The above violations reflect weaknesses in the government’s ability to monitor and control busi-nesses in forestry, plantations, and mining. This limits the ability of the existing permit process to ensure industry compliance for the duration of their activities, if in the beginning stages alone there are already many violations in the permit-granting process.

Public Access For Monitoring Permits

A permit review requires adequate availability of permit documents. This permit review experienced great difficulties in this regard because access to permit documents was very limited. If access to information related to permit documents is not improved, it will remain difficult for communities to effectively conduct monitoring. Permit documents are open documents according to the Law on the Disclosure of Public Information (UU-KIP). Based on Article 11 of this law, the decision of a public body and its considerations as well as all supporting policies and documents must be made readily

16 Indonesian Forestry Law No. 41/1999 (Undang-Undang tentang Kehutanan, UU No. 41 Tahun 1999), Government Gazette 1999 No. 167, Explanation of Article 28 Paragraph 1: “The exploitation of forested land should prioritize forests that are not productive in the interest of protecting natural forest” (“Pemanfaatan hutan tana-man diutamakan dilaksanakan pada hutan yang tidak produktif dalam rangka mempertahankan hutan alam”). This explanation does not clearly state that those given permits to use forested land are still obliged to consider this issue.

Permit Review 7

available. A permit document is a public body decision, or policy in the technical sense.

Although transparency is guaranteed by law, in practice many permit documents cannot be ac-cessed. For this study, many approaches were used to gain access to permit documents, starting from requesting the documents according to law from the authorized agency up to using a network approach, by asking for documents from certain parties in government agencies, academia, and non-governmental organizations who may be able to help in obtaining documents. However, many documents still could not be obtained.

From the 635 important documents needed for this permit review, 50% could not be obtained. In the forestry sector, from the 80 documents needed, 43 (54%) were obtained and 37 (46%) could not be obtained. In the plantation sector, from a total of 323 documents needed, 208 (64%) were obtained, and 115 (36%) were not obtained. Meanwhile, in the mining sector, from a total of 112 documents related to mining exploration permits that were needed, 76 documents (68%) could not be obtained and only 36 documents (32%) were available. Many more documents related to land use permits were difficult to access. From 120 documents needed, 90 of them (75%) could not be obtained, while only 30 documents (25%) could. Graph 3 shows the availability of documents in the three areas of study.

For the HTI plantation forest permit, the documents that were hardest to obtain were technical proposals, IUPHHK permit documents, and evidence of payment for the IUPHHK. From a total of 80 documents needed, as many as 37 could not be obtained. The types of documents that could not be obtained can be seen in Graph 3. Meanwhile, the documents that were relatively easy to obtain were the environmental feasibility document and company domicile certificate (SKD). The following graph shows the documents needed for an HTI permit that could not be ob-tained:

The findings in this area of study showed that many documents related to HTI plantation forest permits were not held by regional governments. Al-though the authority of issuing the permits belongs to the central govern-ment, the local governments should also have documents relating to the HTI permit because the permits can only be issued after a recommendation is made by the local head of govern-ment (governor or district head/mayor). This indicates the weakness in coordination and lack of integration in the permit system between the central and regional governments. One reason for this is the lack of strong legislation regarding the exchange of permit documents between the central and local governments. This results in limited access to information by civil society, particularly local communities most affected by these permitting decisions.

Documents related to plantation business permits that were the most difficult to obtain were letters

17 Agriculture Ministry of the Republic of Indonesia, Agriculture Minister’s Decree No. 352/2002 on Plantation Business Permit Guidelines (Keputusan Menteri Pertanian No. 352 Tahun 2002 tentang Pedoman Perizinan Usaha Perkebunan), states that the maximum area of land allowed for plantation companies is 20,000 Ha in one province, or 100,000 Ha in the whole of Indonesia, except for sugar plantations. However, the fact is that the aforementioned plantation received a permit for an area of 44,000 Ha.

Permit Review8

by the companies/applicants stating that the land has not been claimed by a third party, technical recommendations from the governor or district head, as well as plantation business permits and requests. From a total of 323 documents needed for review, the 208 which were obtained were of the types shown in Graph 5. Documents that were relatively easy to obtain were the Environmental Impact Analysis (AMDAL), Environmental Management (UKL), and Environmental Monitoring (UPL) forms, documents to release forested land and statements on the control of plant pests. Below is a graph showing the plantation permit documents that could and could not be obtained:

Permit Review 9

The documents related to exploration permits that were the most difficult to obtain were those that contained proof of the deposit of reclamation guarantee funds, reclamation plans, and use permits. From a total of 112 documents needed for review, 76 documents were unavailable and can be seen in more detail in Graph 6 below:

Documents related to exploitation permits that were difficult to obtain included proof of deposit of reclamation guarantees for exploration and exploitation, proof of deposit of post-mining guar-antees, reports of environmental feasibility studies, exploration reports, proof of payment of fixed fees, and permit request letters. From a total of 120 documents needed for reviews, 90 documents could not be obtained. For more detail, see Graph 7 below:

Permit Review10

The findings showed that the districts of Berau and Musi Banyuasin were the areas where it was most difficult to obtain documents related to HTI plantation forest permits. For documents related to plantation business permits, the areas of difficulty were the province of South Sumatra, and the districts of Musi Rawas and Berau. Meanwhile, for documents related to mining exploration permits, these were most difficult to access in the districts of Bulungan and Musi Rawas. Documents related to mining exploitation permits were most difficult to access in the provinces of South Sumatra, East Kalimantan, and West Kalimantan. See Graphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 below:

Permit Review 11

Conclusions

1. Not one permit reviewed could be said to be free of violations. Six permits were found to violate provisions of prevailing legislation, including three HTI plantation forest permits and three plan-tation permits. Meanwhile, the remaining 27 permits under review could not be said to be free of violations because not all documents were available for review.

2. Three violations were found in the forestry sector, namely: (a) Forestry activities conducted out-side production forest areas; (b) Tender procedures that were not correctly followed; and (c) Land where permits were issued that were not yet free from third-party claims.

3. In the plantation sector, in reviewing 3 plantation business permits, five violations were found, namely: (a) The absence of environmental feasibility certificates; (b) Overlapping claims over land; (c) The absence of a location permit recommendation from a defense agency; (d) Area of the plantation business permit exceeding that of prevailing legislation regarding the maximum area allowed for plantations; and (e) Unfulfilled permit location requirements, such as the area of land used exceeding that determined in the legislation (more than 20,000 Ha per province).

4. In the mining sector, the researchers were not able to determine whether violations had oc-curred or not, as more than 68% of the required documents could not be obtained. This issue also shows that permits in the mining sector are less transparent than those in the forestry and plantation sectors.

5. The weak application of public information laws with regards to permits is a major obstacle for civil society to conduct monitoring of the permit process. Aside from that, inter-agency coordina-tion between the central and local governments and between sectors is important in ensuring that the permit system is integrated, transparent and accountable.

6. The monitoring function of the provincial and central governments is not working as it should, both in terms of transparency and management in the permit process.

Recommendations

A. For Governments

(1) The six suspected permit violations found by the researchers should be followed up by law en-forcement, in accordance with the prevailing legislation. The government and law enforcers

Permit Review12

should verify and further investigate the suspected violations using the appropriate measures (administrative action, civil code, criminal code).

(2) The permit system should be improved, especially in the following areas:

a. By making permit information publicly available in order to enable the public and the govern-ment to monitor the compliance of industry activities based on permits and their supporting documents.

b. By developing integrated land maps (maps showing not only land area but also rights over land and other conditions) to help in the decision-making process. Various findings related to this issue include: (i) the unsuitability of land given for activities both from the aspect of area as well as productive conditions; (ii) the high rate of overlapping land permits; (iii) other problems mentioned in the report. The government’s “one map” inititiative needs to be ac-celerated and implemented by all agencies both at the center and in the regions.

c. By strengthening inter-agency coordination among the central and local goverments, as well as between sectors to promote a more integrated permit system.

d. By the central government conducting monitoring and exercizing control over permits for land-based industries.

(3) An in-depth review needs to be conducted to assess all permits currently held by land-based industries bearing in mind the findings of this study, which found a high rate of violations in the permit process in the nine regions studied.

B. For Civil Society

(1) Permit reviews should be conducted in an ongoing manner, as a form of monitoring issued per-mits to encourage compliance with prevailing laws and better law enforcement, both indepen-dently by communities and by governments.

(2) Civil society actors should follow up the results of permit review monitoring with the related agencies, such as law enforcers, authorized governments, and so on.

(3) The system needs to be strengthened both in the practice of providing open access to informa-tion in the permit sector by increasing the frequency of requests for information and the filing of information disputes. This will help to overcome the major problem for permit monitoring, namely the minimal amount of documents able to be accessed because transparency of the per-mit process is still weak.

(4) Networks and independent means of spreading information need to be strengthened between community groups to overcome limitations to accessing information that can be used to monitor permits.

(5) The importance of improving the permit process needs to be voiced and advocated to authorized agencies both at the center and in the regions in order to protect natural resources, the environ-ment and the rights of communities.

Permit Review 13

Permit Review14