254
A. P. Sari et al.
Table 12.4 Cost estimates in concession and non-concession areas under the 1.5 Mha BRG
restoration mandate
Description
Concessions
Non-concessions
Total
Production
Protection
Startup costs
143
181
498
822
Initial capital costs for 3Rs
445
102
–
547
Operational costs
231
77
71
379
Total
819
360
569
1748
The following table presents the preliminary cost estimates based on whether or
not the areas under private or non-private concessions (note: this preliminary cost
estimation is still under review process) (e.g. Harris et al. 2015a, b) (Table 12.4).
The preliminary cost estimation carried out by BRG shows that around
US$819 million out of the total US$1,748 million investment required for
1.5 Mha restoration target is under private concessions, meanwhile, the remaining
US$929 million investment needed is for 1 Mha target under non-concessionaire
areas.
Implications of Regulatory Changes on Restoration Costs
There were changes in the peatland protection and management regulations in
Indonesia in recent years. The new approach, using Ministerial Decree (of the
Environment and Forestry) No. 130/2017, produces significantly different results
compared with the old approach using the Government Regulation (GR) No. 71/2014
and Government Regulation (GR) No. 57/2016. The differences prevail from the
different baselines. In addition to having a peat depth of more than 3 m and the
prevailing spatial and forestry plans, GR 71/2014 and GR 57/2016 use different
criteria for protection, namely whether the area contained strategic biodiversity values
such as endemic germplasm and endangered species. Ministerial Decree (MOEF)
No. 130/2017, which is the new approach, uses different criteria, namely whether
there is any peat dome exceeding critical hectarage, and whether there contains any
high conservation value area (HCVA) or high conservation value forest (HCVF).
The new approach yields a higher cost as there are bigger protected areas in the new
approach. In fact, in the new approach, about 90% of the 2.5 Mha would need to be
protected.
4
4 This assessment has not included the impacts of the Ministerial Decree No. 17/year that was
challenged in court and the successing Ministerial Decree No. 10/2019.
A. P. Sari et al.
Table 12.4 Cost estimates in concession and non-concession areas under the 1.5 Mha BRG
restoration mandate
Description
Concessions
Non-concessions
Total
Production
Protection
Startup costs
143
181
498
822
Initial capital costs for 3Rs
445
102
–
547
Operational costs
231
77
71
379
Total
819
360
569
1748
The following table presents the preliminary cost estimates based on whether or
not the areas under private or non-private concessions (note: this preliminary cost
estimation is still under review process) (e.g. Harris et al. 2015a, b) (Table 12.4).
The preliminary cost estimation carried out by BRG shows that around
US$819 million out of the total US$1,748 million investment required for
1.5 Mha restoration target is under private concessions, meanwhile, the remaining
US$929 million investment needed is for 1 Mha target under non-concessionaire
areas.
Implications of Regulatory Changes on Restoration Costs
There were changes in the peatland protection and management regulations in
Indonesia in recent years. The new approach, using Ministerial Decree (of the
Environment and Forestry) No. 130/2017, produces significantly different results
compared with the old approach using the Government Regulation (GR) No. 71/2014
and Government Regulation (GR) No. 57/2016. The differences prevail from the
different baselines. In addition to having a peat depth of more than 3 m and the
prevailing spatial and forestry plans, GR 71/2014 and GR 57/2016 use different
criteria for protection, namely whether the area contained strategic biodiversity values
such as endemic germplasm and endangered species. Ministerial Decree (MOEF)
No. 130/2017, which is the new approach, uses different criteria, namely whether
there is any peat dome exceeding critical hectarage, and whether there contains any
high conservation value area (HCVA) or high conservation value forest (HCVF).
The new approach yields a higher cost as there are bigger protected areas in the new
approach. In fact, in the new approach, about 90% of the 2.5 Mha would need to be
protected.
4
4 This assessment has not included the impacts of the Ministerial Decree No. 17/year that was
challenged in court and the successing Ministerial Decree No. 10/2019.