A Very Real and Practical Contribution? - Lessons from the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership

Erik Olbrei () and Stephen Howes ()
Additional contact information
Erik Olbrei: Development Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University

Development Policy Centre Discussion Papers from Development Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University

Abstract: On 9 September 2007, Australian Ministers and the Indonesian President announced a $100 million Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (KFCP). This would involve protecting 70,000 hectares of peat forests, re-flooding 200,000 hectares of dried peatland, and planting 100 million trees in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Since then, the ambitions of KFCP have been quietly but drastically scaled back. The area expected to be re-flooded by the project is now just over 10 per cent of the original target. And little progress has been made on the ground. Four years on, blocking of the large canals required for re-flooding has yet to commence, and only 50,000 trees have been planted against the initial target of 100 million. What has happened to what was labelled at its launch as 'a very real and very practical contribution', one which would yield 'immediate and tangible results'? We analyze KFCP both as an aid 'announceable' and as a REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) demonstration project, and reach two main conclusions. First, KFCP illustrates the damage that an emphasis on announcing new projects and a lack of attention to reporting on project progress can cause aid. Not enough has been done to publicly reposition KFCP as a much smaller, demonstration project. Second, slow progress made in implementing KFCP (and other REDD projects), when juxtaposed against the continued rapid rate of land conversion in Indonesia, suggests that the current approach is not working. There is no easy solution. Reducing deforestation in Indonesia is a difficult task because the drivers of deforestation – which range from weak governance to a strong industry lobby and the attractive economics of palm oil – are strong and difficult to tackle. If it is worth continuing, then the focus on pilots and processes which has characterized Australia’s engagement in Indonesia’s forestry sector in recent years should be re-oriented towards a more ambitious engagement. This should be supported by a vigorous high-level policy dialogue and at least the realistic prospect of a large amount of public funds.

Keywords: deforestation; Indonesia; Australian aid; climate change; REDD (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: F35 N55 Q23 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2012-04
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-cwa, nep-env, nep-ppm and nep-sea
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (7)

Downloads: (external link)
http://devpolicy.anu.edu.au/pdf/papers/DP_16_-_A_v ... cal_contribution.pdf

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:een:devpol:1216

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Development Policy Centre Discussion Papers from Development Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Macarena Rojas ( this e-mail address is bad, please contact ).