Working Group 1 Meeting
Tanggal: Selasa 27 Februari 2007
Jam: 09.00 s/d 17:00
Tempat: Bogor (Hotel Pangrango 2)
Present
Neil Franklin
Philip Wells
Aisyah Sileuw
Gary Paoli
Yana Suryadinata
Titiek Setyawati
Indra Exploitasia
Fergus MacDonald
Purwo Santoso
Tom Maddox
IBW Putra
Irma Nurhayati
Independent
Independent
IndRI/SmartWood
IndRI
Tropenbos
Litbang Kehutanan, Dephut
Dir Biodiversity Conservation, PHKA, Dephut
APP
WWF
ZSL
Alas Kusuma Group
a/n Dr. Nyoto Santoso, IPB
Laws and other regulatory bodies
There is a need to identify how compliance with HCVF is a compliance with the laws
of Indonesia and other non-government regulating bodies. Further there is a need to
attempt to seek ways to ensure companies and resource managers are not
overburdened with multiple compliances by creating a toolkit that is where ever
possible also compliant (as a minimum) with the other regulations. See points of
agreement in relation to laws of Indonesia and the process remaining voluntary.
This activity should be conducted by a focus group consisting of individuals that
would prepare documents relating to their expertise in regulations (including nongovernment LEI, ITTO, & RSPO) and laws relating to forestry, oilpalm, mining,
agriculture, the environment, and land-use planning. The results of these mini-studies
would be then reviewed by WG1 and discussed with industry to avoid over and
multiple compliance issues. People/organisations were identified that may facilitate
this process:










Perkebunan (WG Nat Interpretation RSPO) GAPKI.
Pak Purwo
HTI Kehutanan (SK101/04 + addenda, dll) BPK, BAPLAN.
Ibu Indra
HTI Industry.
APRIL, APP, MHP
HPH Kehutanan BPK, BAPLAN. Ibu Indra
HPH Industry.
Sumalindo, Erna Djuliawati, Alas Kusuma, DRT
Pertambangan.
Follow up with TNC c.f. Emas Kalteng
LH AMDAL
BAPPENAS (SD Kehutanan)
BAKOSURTANAL
LEI
Ibu Aisyah

ITTO
Ibu Titiek, Ibu Indra, Ibu Lasmini (Dephut Project Manager
ITTO), Petrus Gunarso
ACTION Contact relevant parties, create TOR for work, identify contractors and
contract.
Other HCVF Experiences Relevant
Lessons can be learnt and incorporated into the toolkit including Argentina using
HCV5&6 to solve social conflicts at national scale, HCVF for land-use planning
(Kalbar) considered a useful framework for balancing development and conservation
needs, and mining in Kalbar.
ACTION Contact relevant parties and establish dialogue so lessons can be learnt.
Consensus Summary of Main Conceptual Agreements to Date
Draft to be further developed and combined in conjunction with WG2
•
HCVF is in accordance with CBD’s three pillars of sustainable development;
economic growth, ecological balance and social progress. It allows exploitation of
natural resources whilst maintaining ecological and social values.
•
HCVF evaluations consider only forests and are a vehicle for maintaining and
enhancing ecological and social values. However, non-forest areas also contain
ecological and social values and the name of the process and toolkit should reflect
this.
•
There is a need to create a toolkit specific for Indonesian that reflects
economic, social, and ecological factor particular to Indonesia that is acceptable to a
wide range of Indonesian stakeholders, but which still can be interpreted by the wider
global community as in line with HCVF standards and concepts.
•
HCVF should be a voluntary system that can be adopted by companies or
managers wishing to demonstrate their commitment to maintaining Indonesian social
and ecological values. It provides a reference point for implementation of Best
Practices, where a resource manager desires to proactively exceed the standards set by
regulations.
•
HCVF in Indonesia should support, synchronise with and complement existing
Government policy and regulations – and in no way seek to replace them or create
potentially confusing overlap.
•
The development of HCVF type approach in Indonesia should be considered
independent to any references to the same in FSC or other certification standards but
will be consistent with the FSC’s Principle #9.
•
The HCVF toolkit is not for identifying areas to be exploited, but for
identification of specific values that have been agreed as important by consensus, and
then providing a framework for identifying accountable management prescriptions for
maintaining or enhancing these values.
•
Indonesian interpretation of HCVF should be applicable to many sectors
including forestry, plantations, mining, spatial planning at the local and landscape
scale or even national scale.
•
Toolkit revision should be primarily focused on developing a detailed
document for management unit scale assessments to identify HCV’s present but
providing guidance for identifying landscape level values that may also exist within
the management unit.
•
There is a need to reorganise the current HCV criteria 1-6 (especially 1, 2, &3)
to a system that makes logical sense, is easy to implement, and reduces overlap and
confusion. It is agreed that we need to return to first principles, identifying what core
and component values are important to Indonesia, and then framing these core values
in a logical system.
•
There is a need to define more clearly the use of word “Conservation” within
the context of HCVF Indonesia
•
Need to provide working definitions for terms commonly used. These include
HCV, HCVA, HCVF, and HCVMA. The proposed definitions are:
o
HCV – An attribute that is of social, cultural, ecological, or environmental
importance .
o
HCVA – An area containing one or more HCV’s.
o
HCVF – A forest containing one or more HCV’s.
o
HCVMA – An area in which management prescriptions exist to maintain or
enhance HCV’s.
ACTION to provide to WG2 for discussion (completed 09/03/07) and to follow up
HCVF Critical Analysis of Toolkit
HCV 1-3
Unfortunately many of those present where unable to follow through with the
afternoon session relating to a critical analysis of the current toolkit. It was proposed
that the current 1-3 was unworkable and that we should attempt to get back to first
principles to see if we could find an alternative.
Fundamentally HCV 1-3 seeks to maintain bio-diversity that includes ‘diversity within
species, between species and of ecosystems’. This leads to a logical framework of
considering landscape, ecosystem, and components of the ecosystem. We attempted
to brainstorm factors that contribute to maintaining biodiversity and allocating within
three levels as shown below which also contains items found in HCV 4 and some
items not currently found anywhere. Those three levels could perhaps represent a new
HCV 1, 2, & 3, see table below items allocated in no particular order (probably
incomplete) and those highlighted represent things not yet or inadequately covered by
the existing toolkit.
Landscape
1.1 PA and networks
Macro effects of
climate change, fire,
CO2 emmisions
Evol. Adaptive
potential, ecoclines,
tones, topes…
Assemblages of and
interactions between
ecosystems?
2.1 Large landscape
level forests
Microclimate
Downstream effects
Functional ecosystems?
Refugia?
Prey assemblages for predators?
Components
Population viability?
Robustness, resilience of
ecosystems?
1.3 Concentrations of
threatened or endangered
or endemic spp
1.4 Critical temporal
concentrations
Unique and significant ecosystems?
Keystone spp
1.2 Critically endangered
spp
3 Rare, threatened or endangered
ecosystems
Ecological effects of indigenous
peoples
Such is the radical departure from the original tool kit we need to consider whether
this is worth pursuing, the effect on the entire revision process, and the acceptability
of this to the rest of the HCVF world.
ACTION reform working group as soon as possible to re-appraise this.