The Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (KFCP) was launched in January 2010 as one of four official REDD+ demonstration activities in Indonesia (Masyhud 2010). Its objective was to “demonstrate a credible, equitable, and effective approach to reducing GHG emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, including from the degradation of peatlands…” (IAFCP 2009, 2). It officially ended in June 2014.
Among the Indonesian REDD+ initiatives included in the CIFOR-GCS sample, KFCP was the most advanced in terms of field implementation. That was because the initiative had substantial up-front funding and did not require a concession license for the intervention area (cf. Katingan in Chapter 18 and Rimba Raya in Chapter 20). However, KFCP became highly politicized and attracted (often unfavorable) media attention at the local, national and international levels. The proponent organization stayed mostly silent as allegations about their negative impacts on indigenous peoples and ineffectiveness in reducing emissions became widespread. Our field observations suggest that some of these negative public perceptions were unfounded. Thus, this case highlights the importance of a clear communication strategy for large, high-profile REDD+ initiatives such as KFCP.
This chapter draws upon primary data from three sources. First, we conducted household and village-level surveys in four settlements, consisting of two villages (desa) and two hamlets (dusun), where 131 of 683 households were interviewed in late 2010. All tables and figures are based on these survey data. Second, we interviewed key informants in various organizations in 2011–2013. Third, we studied the ways local people use peatlands and local people’s perceptions of REDD+ and KFCP, from 2010 to 2012. This study yielded deeper qualitative insights through structured and semi-structured interviews, field observations and informal dialogues in five communities, including three of the communities where we conducted household surveys.
Among the Indonesian REDD+ initiatives included in the CIFOR-GCS sample, KFCP was the most advanced in terms of field implementation. That was because the initiative had substantial up-front funding and did not require a concession license for the intervention area (cf. Katingan in Chapter 18 and Rimba Raya in Chapter 20). However, KFCP became highly politicized and attracted (often unfavorable) media attention at the local, national and international levels. The proponent organization stayed mostly silent as allegations about their negative impacts on indigenous peoples and ineffectiveness in reducing emissions became widespread. Our field observations suggest that some of these negative public perceptions were unfounded. Thus, this case highlights the importance of a clear communication strategy for large, high-profile REDD+ initiatives such as KFCP.
This chapter draws upon primary data from three sources. First, we conducted household and village-level surveys in four settlements, consisting of two villages (desa) and two hamlets (dusun), where 131 of 683 households were interviewed in late 2010. All tables and figures are based on these survey data. Second, we interviewed key informants in various organizations in 2011–2013. Third, we studied the ways local people use peatlands and local people’s perceptions of REDD+ and KFCP, from 2010 to 2012. This study yielded deeper qualitative insights through structured and semi-structured interviews, field observations and informal dialogues in five communities, including three of the communities where we conducted household surveys.
Download:
Publication year
2014
Authors
Atmadja, S.; Indriatmoko, Y.; Utomo, N.A.; Komalasari, M.; Ekaputri, A.D.
Language
English
Keywords
climate change
