15 Peatland Protection in Indonesia: Toward the Right Direction?
319
However, in 2017 there was a petition for a judicial review against the MoEF
Regulation Number 17 of 2017. The petitioners challenged the legality of MoEF
Number 17 of 2017, especially Article 1 point 15d, Article 7 letter d, Article 8A,
Article 8B, Article 8C par. 1, Article 8D letter a, Article 8E par. 1, Article 8G, and
Article 23A.
The petitioners seem to worry that the Regulation might force them to change
the operational plan, which will eventually allow for the change of working area
into protected peatlands. The Supreme Court granted the petition and declare the
Regulation to have no legal basis and should be revoked accordingly. However, the
Supreme Court’s ruling seems to miss the target since the obligations to make a
revision in the spatial planning of timber permits and to make an adjustment in the
operational plan are also instructed in other regulations, especially the MoEF Number
16 of 2017 and the Peatland Regulation. In this regard, the ruling does not eliminate
the obligations, since the obligations are also mandated in other regulations. To make
it worse for the timber permit holders, the annulment of the MoEF Number 17 of
2017 means that they no longer have the right to apply for land-swap.
(e) Authorities in Peatland Protection: the MoEF, the Peatland Restoration Agency
(Badan Restorasi Gambut), and Local Government
Following the 2015 fires, the President signed the Presidential Regulation on Badan
Restorasi Gambut (BRG, Peat Restoration Agency) in 2016 (hereinafter referred to
as PR Number 1 of 2016). The BRG is a non-structural agency under and directly
responsible to the President (PR Number 1 of 2016, art. 1 par. 1). The Agency has
to coordinate and facilitate peat restoration in Riau Province, Jambi Province, South
Sumatra Province, West Kalimantan Province, Central Kalimantan Province, South
Kalimantan Province, and Papua Province (Ibid. arts. 2 and 4). BRG is obliged to
formulate and implement peatland restoration for two million hectares, within five
years. The restoration target should be met as much as 30% by the year 2016, 20%
by the year 2017, 20% by the year 2018, 20% by the year 2019, and 10% by the
year 2020. The restoration targets kicked off at Pulang Pisau Regency in Central
Kalimantan Province, Musi Banyuasin Regency, and Ogan Komering Ilir in South
Sumatera Province, as well as Meranti Islands Regency in Riau Province. The target
area of restoration efforts are peatlands in the concession area (58%), in state-owned
forests, or in the area controlled by individuals or community (Hergoualc’h 2018,
op. cit. p. 5). BRG aims to systematize peatland restoration through rewetting by
blocking canals to wet peatlands in priority areas such as burning land and peatdome, and replanting using endemic plants or other plants which can stand against
floods (PR Number 1 of 2016, op. cit. art. 3 letters e).
With such a new institution, one might conclude that the institutions for peatland
protection and recovery are the MoEF, the BRG, and local government. Without
clear authority and without well-functioning coordination and cooperation system
among the institutions, different institutions might lead to ineffectiveness of peatland
protection and recovery, where every institution throws the responsibility to others.
319
However, in 2017 there was a petition for a judicial review against the MoEF
Regulation Number 17 of 2017. The petitioners challenged the legality of MoEF
Number 17 of 2017, especially Article 1 point 15d, Article 7 letter d, Article 8A,
Article 8B, Article 8C par. 1, Article 8D letter a, Article 8E par. 1, Article 8G, and
Article 23A.
The petitioners seem to worry that the Regulation might force them to change
the operational plan, which will eventually allow for the change of working area
into protected peatlands. The Supreme Court granted the petition and declare the
Regulation to have no legal basis and should be revoked accordingly. However, the
Supreme Court’s ruling seems to miss the target since the obligations to make a
revision in the spatial planning of timber permits and to make an adjustment in the
operational plan are also instructed in other regulations, especially the MoEF Number
16 of 2017 and the Peatland Regulation. In this regard, the ruling does not eliminate
the obligations, since the obligations are also mandated in other regulations. To make
it worse for the timber permit holders, the annulment of the MoEF Number 17 of
2017 means that they no longer have the right to apply for land-swap.
(e) Authorities in Peatland Protection: the MoEF, the Peatland Restoration Agency
(Badan Restorasi Gambut), and Local Government
Following the 2015 fires, the President signed the Presidential Regulation on Badan
Restorasi Gambut (BRG, Peat Restoration Agency) in 2016 (hereinafter referred to
as PR Number 1 of 2016). The BRG is a non-structural agency under and directly
responsible to the President (PR Number 1 of 2016, art. 1 par. 1). The Agency has
to coordinate and facilitate peat restoration in Riau Province, Jambi Province, South
Sumatra Province, West Kalimantan Province, Central Kalimantan Province, South
Kalimantan Province, and Papua Province (Ibid. arts. 2 and 4). BRG is obliged to
formulate and implement peatland restoration for two million hectares, within five
years. The restoration target should be met as much as 30% by the year 2016, 20%
by the year 2017, 20% by the year 2018, 20% by the year 2019, and 10% by the
year 2020. The restoration targets kicked off at Pulang Pisau Regency in Central
Kalimantan Province, Musi Banyuasin Regency, and Ogan Komering Ilir in South
Sumatera Province, as well as Meranti Islands Regency in Riau Province. The target
area of restoration efforts are peatlands in the concession area (58%), in state-owned
forests, or in the area controlled by individuals or community (Hergoualc’h 2018,
op. cit. p. 5). BRG aims to systematize peatland restoration through rewetting by
blocking canals to wet peatlands in priority areas such as burning land and peatdome, and replanting using endemic plants or other plants which can stand against
floods (PR Number 1 of 2016, op. cit. art. 3 letters e).
With such a new institution, one might conclude that the institutions for peatland
protection and recovery are the MoEF, the BRG, and local government. Without
clear authority and without well-functioning coordination and cooperation system
among the institutions, different institutions might lead to ineffectiveness of peatland
protection and recovery, where every institution throws the responsibility to others.