Torn Between America and China, Elite Perceptions and Indonesian Foreign Policy - Daniel Novotny

1. Post-Cold War international relations have been marked by far-reaching shifts in the balance of power with the perhaps most widely known example being the challenge rising China pose to the predominance of the US. It has been increasingly apparent that many smaller states are forced to respond to this trend by carefully manoeuvring between these two major powers. A case in point is Southeast Asian States’ growing difficulty in effectively managing their relationships with the incumbent and the rising superpower.
2. There has been much debate about the present dynamics and possible future direction of Indonesia’s foreign policy – of particular interest is Indonesia’s approach to its relations with the US and China.

Maritime Security in Southeast Asia

1. The importance of the Southeast Asia sea lanes of communications ( SLOCs) to the economies is beyond question. The attention devoted to safeguarding the innocent passage of commercial shipping through the Southeast Asian Straits is going to increase as countries such as China, India and Japan are scrambling to secure deliveries of energy and raw materials to fuel their booming economies. The safety and security of the SLOCs are already hot topics in Asia and both littoral states and user countries pursue policies designed to achieve those goals.
2. The piracy threat to the SLOCs is disputed amongs the Southeast Asian countries themselves. Since 9/11 some countries, the US prominent among them, have been looking for any connection between piracy and terrorism. The Southeast Asian countries would argue that so far there is no proven link in the Southeast Asian waters, but they will be looking for any evidence since combating terrorism is a common obligation for any country.
3. The term “ piracy “ is debated when it comes to the illegal activities that occur in various Southeast Asian Strait, with Malacca prominent among them. Indonesia and Malaysia will argue that according to the definition of piracy in UNCLOS, there is no piracy taking place in the Malacca Strait, only armed robbery. Piracy is by definition an activity that take place solely on high seas, not in the territorial waters.

Opportunities for stronger ASEAN secretariat

Bagas Hapsoro, Jakarta | Fri, 08/12/2011 8:00 AM
A | A | A | - Klipping the Jakarta Post
ASEAN celebrated its 44th anniversary in a ceremony with a lecture from Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono at the ASEAN Secretariat in Jakarta on Aug. 8.

Also present were ASEAN Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan, Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa, ministers from the government of Indonesia, Jakarta Governor Fauzi Bowo, envoys from the 10 ASEAN members and several other countries.

In his ASEAN lecture, President Yudhoyono congratulated ASEAN on the progress it had achieved over the years. He also paid tribute to the secretary-general and his staff at the ASEAN Secretariat for their contributions in helping to build the ASEAN Community.

“I know sometimes it feels like a thankless job, but believe me, your hard work is noticed and well appreciated,” he said, as many of ASEAN colleagues nodded knowingly. I understand that colleagues following the speech from another corner broke out in applause.

“Over the years, the ASEAN Secretariat has been a major factor in the evolution of ASEAN. It has contributed to what ASEAN has become today: one of the world’s most successful regional organizations.”

“I join you today in tribute to the ASEAN Secretariat and the host of nameless and dedicated individuals who are contributing to its development,” he added.

I am sure I speak for many of my colleagues when I say we were touched by the presidential pat on the back. I can vouch that many a time, when we looked back at the projects we completed, we were indeed amazed at what we had produced despite the constraints of time, resources and multiple demands.

This is the second time the President delivered the ASEAN lecture. The first was in 2005. But “the values, the objective, and the vision remain relevant,” he noted.

He shared that, since its conception in 2003, the ASEAN Community had undergone some adjustments — especially the new challenges thrown up by global developments that were beyond anyone’s control.

But in the final analysis, he expressed the hope that ASEAN would be able to give shape and add content to the progress that has been achieved at the last ASEAN Summit in May and last month’s meetings in Bali.

As ASEAN progresses toward a regional community, the group must evolve. The deeper the regional integration, the stronger the secretariat should be. Currently, only 70 professionals work at the ASEAN Secretariat, serving a combined ASEAN population of more than 600 million people. The manpower crunch and a limited budget are two of the most critical issues confronting the secretariat.

ASEC — as the secretariat is fondly known by its staff — must expand according to the tasks and duties assigned to it, and ASEC should also be given the authority to operate efficiently. A professional and efficient secretariat will play an important role in ASEAN’s operations — leading to greater regional participation and better regional awareness.

A professional secretariat would also mean competing in the open regional market for staff, and that can only be done with a stronger financial commitment from the member states.

The ASEAN headquarters needs to create a regional and international working atmosphere and make “working at ASEAN” a prestigious assignment for people working at the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank or the European Union.

Empowering the secretariat will essentially make its staff members value their hard work in a participatory contribution to regional security, economic development, enhancing connectivity and improving human rights promotion and protection for people all over Southeast Asia.

In this way, Jakarta can attract motivated, high-quality job candidates from all ASEAN member nations to work, live and invest in the city. At the same time, the Indonesian government needs to contribute to the improvement of infrastructure and transportation systems and promote the city’s multicultural lifestyle.

But the most important issue that remains elusive is whether ASEAN members are ready for this development, ready to help Jakarta become “the diplomatic city of ASEAN” and the capital of ASEAN in the eyes of the ASEAN people.

Indonesia, as chair of ASEAN, has given huge leverage for Jakarta to foster its image as the center of diplomacy and business in Southeast Asia. It may be well assured that Jakarta will do anything within its power to prove itself as extraordinary host.

Jakarta has excellent experience at welcoming foreign diplomats and political leaders from all over the world. Having good relationships with 21 sister cities all over the world, Jakarta is a similarly active member of the most renowned and influential city associations and organizations.

They may focus on Asian-wide networking such as the ANMC 21 (Asian Network of Major Cities) or act on a global level such as the C40 in terms of exchange of experiences, ideas and methods. What they always have had in common is lobbying for a bigger role of cities in an increasingly urbanized world.

As Jakarta is keen to be the diplomatic capital of ASEAN, representing each and every ASEAN member state, we are also aware that as chair, Indonesia is committed to putting ASEAN “on the map” in world politics. For that, we are also committed to making this chairmanship a successful one.

The writer is Deputy Secretary-General of ASEAN.

After 44 years ASEAN moves closer to one community of nations

Yayan GH Mulyana, Jakarta | Sat, 08/13/2011 8:00 AM
A | A | A | - Klipping the Jakarta Post
On Aug. 8, 2011, peoples and governments of ASEAN member states commemorated the 44th anniversary of the Southeast Asian regional grouping. One thing that is obvious about ASEAN today is that it has transformed.

It has developed from a five-founding-member association into a regional cooperation that includes 10 countries from the Southeast Asia region in its membership. It has also been changing from a mere association into a community.

One notable feature of the commemoration is the hoisting of ASEAN flag side by side with the national flags of ASEAN member states — conducted simultaneously by the diplomatic missions of ASEAN member states all over the world. Though symbolic in nature, this certainly signals a stronger determination of the ASEAN member states to become a community.

The development of ASEAN from one decade to another has been steady, marked by able adaptation to the continuing changes in its internal and external environments. At the time of its foundation, the Cold War and the Vietnam War were major issues.

By the end of its first decade, armed conflict between Vietnam and Cambodia began to break out. Within this context, the five founding governments recognized the importance of consolidating amity and cooperation in the spirit of the Bangkok Declaration. In its first Summit in Bali in 1976, the five member countries agreed on and signed the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation and the Declaration of ASEAN Concord (Bali Concord I).

In its second decade (1978 – 1987), ASEAN was marked by growing confidence among its members on the significance of the association; a growing trust on the importance of collective actions in response to the economic, political and security challenges of the region. Its membership came to six countries with the joining of Brunei on Jan. 8, 1984. By the end of the decade, a wind of change was blowing in the international arena. Gorbachev introduced glasnost and perestroika. The United States–Soviet Union disarmament diplomacy was at its height. This added optimism among ASEAN member countries about the coming of a better and more conducive international environment for ASEAN.

The third ASEAN decade (1988 – 1997) was a pivotal period in the history of the grouping. Outside the region, the end of the Cold War was taking shape. Germany was united in 1990 and the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991. In Southeast Asia itself, new developments were emerging. Vietnam withdrew its troops from Cambodia by the end of 1989. Conflict in Cambodia ended in 1991, followed by the deployment of UNTAC.
ASEAN found that the new developments had given the association an important opportunity to build a stronger foundation for durable peace in the region, especially through security cooperation. But ASEAN realized that it could not do it alone. ASEAN believed that participation of pivotal players outside the region in the discussion of security matters in the region and its surroundings was vital. In view of this, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) was established in 1994.

Not only that, the ASEAN membership was also enlarged by the joining of Vietnam on July 28, 1995, and two years later Lao PDR and Myanmar on July 23, 1997. Then, in 1997, the first meeting of ASEAN+3 (China, Japan and South Korea) and first ASEAN-China Summit were convened. But 1997 was also a difficult year for ASEAN member countries. A financial crisis was sweeping over Asia and Southeast Asia, and badly affected regional economies.

At the beginning of its fourth decade (1998 – 2007), ASEAN member countries were still struggling to recover. In Indonesia itself, it was also a time when reformasi era began to unfold. On April 30, 1999 Cambodia joined ASEAN, making ASEAN a 10-member association.

On a global level, the fourth decade also features mounting attempts for deeper and more institutionalized regionalism around the world. In July 2002, the African Union was created during the last conference of the OAU in Durban. In May 2004, the EU began to enlarge its membership, and in October 2004 a new constitution was signed, which was followed by the signing of the Lisbon Treaty three years later.

The spirit of deeper regionalism and efforts to move ASEAN beyond a mere association were also reverberating in the Southeast Asia region in the first half of 2000s. During the Bali Summit in October 2003, ASEAN leaders adopted the Declaration of ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord II), which established an ASEAN Community consisting of three pillars; namely political and security cooperation, economic cooperation, and socio-cultural cooperation. Another landmark achievement by ASEAN in its fourth decade was the signing of the ASEAN Charter that serves as a legal basis of the association. Thus, ASEAN has become legally and functionally stronger.

Now ASEAN is entering the fifth decade of its history (2008 – 2017). It is a crucial episode of ASEAN in the 21st century. It is a period when the idea of an ASEAN Community is being made a reality and when the drive to make ASEAN a regional organization with global significance is being felt. Under the theme “ASEAN Community in a Global Community of Nations”, and under Indonesia’s leadership, ASEAN has been working to ensure significant progress in achieving the ASEAN Community by 2015 in all its three pillars, and to chart a post-2015 vision where it has an enhanced role in a global community of nations.

ASEAN, at 44 years old, is both in excellent shape and is going in the right direction. It has a legal identity, a clear vision for its future, an increasing amount of structure for cooperation, more partners, and anticipates more members. But, of course, it is not without challenges.

Internally, greater understanding, knowledge and participation of peoples in the ASEAN processes will be needed. An ASEAN Community will have real meaning only when ASEAN peoples have a sense of ownership and a sense of being connected and accepted within ASEAN’s family and community. It is time for the ASEAN peoples to become more of a driving force in the dynamism of the association. President Yudhoyono stressed many times on the importance of a people-centered ASEAN in his recent ASEAN anniversary lecture.

One critical purpose of such a sense of we-ness would be achieving constant consciousness among the peoples of ASEAN member countries so that whenever disputes occur, using peaceful means to settle these disputes will be the only, primary and natural choice. A facet of nationalism that favors violent means would be overcome by a constructive macro-nationalism. Dialogue, amity, togetherness and cooperation would prevail. And while the ASEAN Community remains an imagined entity, its tangible fruits of cooperation would pervade all segments of ASEAN peoples in all corners of its member states.

Externally, as ASEAN is steadily solidifying, the global community of nations would expect a greater role and visibility of the association in the resolution of global issues. As the world remains replete with problems that affect the future of humankind—from nuclear weapons to many non-traditional security threats—the need for collective leadership of ASEAN on the international stage will rise.

Those are not an easy task. But I am optimistic that as in the past, ASEAN would be able to contribute significantly to the resolution of those challenges, and that Indonesia will play its critical role in that
endeavor.

The writer is an assistant to Special Staff to the President for International Relations. The opinions expressed are his own.

East Asia Summit: ASEAN’s centrality and the challenges ahead

Awidya Santikajaya, Washington, DC | Fri, 10/29/2010 10:36 AM | Opinion
A | A | A |- Klipping The Jakarta Post
Asia Pacific leaders are meeting this week at the fifth East Asia Summit (EAS) in Hanoi, Vietnam.
Together with ASEAN and APEC, the EAS is a key element of Asia Pacific regionalism. Current members of the EAS are ASEAN countries, Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea. Countering claims that it is ineffective, the EAS has made meaningful concrete achievements, including cooperation on disaster management and the establishment of the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA).
Further, the coming EAS is crucial because it will officially invite the US and Russia to join, after the previous East Asia Ministerial Meeting last August made this recommendation.
Since its establishment in 2005, the EAS was intended to be an ASEAN-led block, and has been linked to ASEAN Summits. An important issue ASEAN faces in the recent development of the EAS is whether it is can maintain its “centrality” in the grouping.
ASEAN has been regarded as one of the most stable regional groupings in the developing world. With a population of around 600 million, Southeast Asia is emerging politically, economically and strategically, attracting external powers.
Donald E. Weatherbee explained that ASEAN has become a stage where great power rivalries and competition for influence are being played out.
Among these external powers, the US and China are the two most important countries. China’s dilating economic and military capacities have boosted its diplomatic assertiveness over its neighbors, including Southeast Asia. Early this year, ASEAN and China began implementing the ASEAN-China Free Trade Area (ACFTA).
The US also now intends to regain its lost influence in the “forgotten region” to maintain its global domination.
The US orientation toward Southeast Asia could be seen when President Barack Obama missed the US-EU Summit in Madrid last May, but hosted the ASEAN-US Summit in September, and plans to attend the EAS in Indonesia next year.
In this development, the political gravitation of China and the US has seriously challenged “ASEAN’s Centrality”. Using the dependency theory, we may conclude that the relations between ASEAN, on the one hand, and the US and China on the other are unusual. Normally, the “center” is more powerful than the “periphery”, but in this case the US and China (peripheries) are far stronger than ASEAN (center).


“There is no need to dramatically transform the existing regional order since it is too soon to conclude what kind of sustainable Asia Pacific regional arrangement it will be.”
Recently, the accretion of rivalry between the US and China has been coloring Asia Pacific international relations. At the second ASEAN-US Summit, in New York last September, for instance, the US insistently espoused the peaceful settlement of territorial disputes in the South China Sea.
The US also expressed its willingness to help craft a legally binding “code of conduct” to prevent armed hostilities among countries with territorial claims. Responding to this issue, Chinese Foreign Minister Jiang Yu stated that China opposed any internationalization and expansion of the South China Sea dispute because it would only make the issue more complicated.
So far, the ASEAN’s main position toward external powers’ involvement is to exploit those powers’ interests for regional benefit. And it is gaining ground, at least for some countries. Vietnam, for example, has gained tremendous advantages from the aggressive approaches of America and China to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people, besides of course both countries’ own economic and strategic interests.
China has already invested around $1.6 billion in a large bauxite mining and alumina refining project in Vietnam. On the other hand, last March Vietnam and the US, two former rivals during the Cold War, launched talks on nuclear cooperation, including the possibility of allowing Hanoi the right to enrich uranium and reprocess plutonium.
ASEAN has consistently worked to mitigate balances of power by maintaining peace, security and prosperity as the main principles of EAS. The gavel is now obviously on the ASEAN’s side because all external powers already praise the concept of ASEAN plus in the EAS, “thanks to” the disappearance of Hatoyama’s East Asia Community and Kevin Rudd’s Asia Pacific Community ideas.
While ASEAN has already set the rules and time-keeping, it does not necessarily mean ASEAN has succeeded in leading all EAS members to follow the existing path designed by ASEAN. What made Asia Pacific countries let ASEAN drive the regionalization process was ASEAN’s integrity, neutrality and acceptability to all stakeholders.
However, ASEAN’s centrality to the EAS will be interrupted if ASEAN cannot address two important challenges: First, overcoming intra-ASEAN differences, and second, satisfying non-ASEAN countries’ needs to join the EAS.
Despite its success in minimizing inter-state conflicts and fostering economic cooperation, ASEAN’s precept of loose cooperation (the “ASEAN Way”) makes it difficult to have a truly integrated community.
ASEAN has already moved toward extraordinary achievements through the creation of the ASEAN Charter, ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) and other instruments.
In spite of its sophisticated institutionalization, ASEAN often faces distrust from its members. In the Thailand-Cambodia border conflict mid this year, for example, there were diplomatic maneuvers by both countries in determining whether the dispute should be settled through a bilateral mechanism or by regional cooperation. ASEAN did not do much, except to suggest that both parties assuage the situation.
In this sense, if Cambodia and Thailand believed in ASEAN, why did not they agree to use ASEAN to host a dispute-settlement mechanism?
The next question is if its members do not fully trust ASEAN will that make ASEAN cumbersome as a default chairman of the EAS?
ASEAN’s chairmanship also should have the wits to think about providing more opportunities for non-ASEAN members to utilize the EAS.
There is no need to dramatically transform the existing regional order since it is too soon to conclude what kind of sustainable Asia Pacific regional arrangement will be.
While maintaining its flexibility, at least for the short-to-medium term, ASEAN should initiate the construction of EAS institutions, such as a secretariat, which is separate from, but located in ASEAN countries.
Non-ASEAN members also should become co-chairs of the EAS concurrently with the ASEAN chair, to put them into a more precise scheme.


The writer is a graduate of the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC.

Climate change, biodiversity and REDD+-Klipping Jakarta Post

Celia A. Harvey, Jonah Busch and Muhammad Farid, Jakarta | Thu, 11/11/2010 10:05 AM | Opinion
A | A | A | - Klipping the Jakarta Post
The international community is currently tackling two urgent global problems: the rapid increase in climate change and the ongoing loss of biodiversity. Two weeks ago, delegates from around the world gathered in Nagoya, Japan to discuss the failure of countries to meet their 2010 biodiversity targets and to propose new targets for reducing further biodiversity loss. And, at the end of this month, country delegates will convene in Cancun, Mexico, to continue the ongoing climate negotiations and seek solutions to the climate crisis.
One topic that is critical is how to deal with deforestation and degradation of the world’s tropical forests.
Each year, roughly 13 million hectares of forests are cleared globally, resulting in the emission of around 4.4 billion tons of CO2, or roughly 15 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change.
This deforestation also leads to the loss of hundreds — or perhaps even thousands — of plant and animal species, and negatively impacts local and indigenous communities who depend on these forests for their livelihoods.
In Indonesia alone, it is estimated that roughly 1 million hectares of forests are lost each year, resulting in the annual emission of more than a billion tons of CO2, and negatively impacting Indonesia’s biodiversity. Indonesia has a very rich biodiversity, including at least 58 amphibian species, 182 bird species and 141 mammal species that are endemic to its forests and are found nowhere else on earth.
REDD+ offers an opportunity to tackle both of these problems simultaneously. REDD+ is an international policy mechanism in which developed countries provide incentives to developing countries to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation, and to enhance carbon sequestration through forest conservation, carbon stock enhancement and sustainable management.
For Indonesia, REDD+ is an unprecedented opportunity to conserve its remaining forests, significantly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and earn revenue in support of sustainable development. It is also a unique opportunity to conserve forest habitat for the country’s remarkable biodiversity.
Although the REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) mechanism is designed primarily to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the forest sector, there are several reasons why it is also likely to provide unprecedented benefits for biodiversity.
First, for REDD+ to be successful, policy-makers will need to find ways to address the many drivers of deforestation and degradation of tropical forests. Most of these drivers of deforestation are also the key threats to biodiversity conservation.
Second, the approaches that policy makers will use to conserve and sustainably manage forests will likely build on approaches already developed and implemented by the conservation community. These key approaches include payments to local communities and jurisdictions that conserve forest, the expansion of the protected area system, the improved management of existing protected areas, recognition of indigenous communities and community-managed areas, prevention of fires, as well as the use of agroforestry systems and agricultural intensification on degraded land to reduce pressure on remaining forests.
Third, both REDD+ and biodiversity conservation are dependent on good governance. Under REDD+, governments will need to strengthen their forest governance, enhance their capacity to monitor forest cover and illegal logging, and develop clear legal and financial frameworks and law enforcement to protect remaining forests.
In addition, they will need to clarify land tenure issues and carbon rights. All of the steps towards improving forest governance will not only help ensure that REDD+ conserves forests and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, but also benefit the biodiversity that relies upon these forests.
Finally, the success of both REDD+ and biodiversity conservation efforts will depend on active participation and support of local stakeholders. If local communities and stakeholders are well-informed and supportive of efforts to reduce deforestation and degradation and actively involved in decision-making and implementation of REDD+, it is more likely that forests will be conserved over the long term, providing both mitigation and biodiversity benefits.
Of course, REDD+ on its own is not enough to solve either the climate change or biodiversity crisis. In order to tackle climate change, additional mitigation activities such as reducing fossil fuel use, using renewable energy and promoting energy efficiency through development of a low carbon development strategy are needed.
To achieve biodiversity conservation, additional conservation measures will be needed in non-forest ecosystems and in areas that may have little mitigation potential but are of important conservation value.
However, if REDD+ is well-designed and appropriately implemented, it would be a giant and historic step forward towards solving both the climate and biodiversity crises. With its vast (but rapidly disappearing) forests and extraordinary biodiversity, Indonesia is a unique position to provide global leadership in ensuring REDD+ delivers both climate mitigation and biodiversity benefits.


Dr. Celia Harvey is vice president of Global Change and Ecosystem
Services at Conservation International. Dr. Jonah Busch is a climate and forest economist at Conservation International. Muhammad Farid, MSc. is a climate change
specialist for Conservation International Indonesia Program.

Climate change, biodiversity and REDD+-Klipping Jakarta Post

Celia A. Harvey, Jonah Busch and Muhammad Farid, Jakarta | Thu, 11/11/2010 10:05 AM | Opinion
A | A | A |
The international community is currently tackling two urgent global problems: the rapid increase in climate change and the ongoing loss of biodiversity. Two weeks ago, delegates from around the world gathered in Nagoya, Japan to discuss the failure of countries to meet their 2010 biodiversity targets and to propose new targets for reducing further biodiversity loss. And, at the end of this month, country delegates will convene in Cancun, Mexico, to continue the ongoing climate negotiations and seek solutions to the climate crisis.
One topic that is critical is how to deal with deforestation and degradation of the world’s tropical forests.
Each year, roughly 13 million hectares of forests are cleared globally, resulting in the emission of around 4.4 billion tons of CO2, or roughly 15 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change.
This deforestation also leads to the loss of hundreds — or perhaps even thousands — of plant and animal species, and negatively impacts local and indigenous communities who depend on these forests for their livelihoods.
In Indonesia alone, it is estimated that roughly 1 million hectares of forests are lost each year, resulting in the annual emission of more than a billion tons of CO2, and negatively impacting Indonesia’s biodiversity. Indonesia has a very rich biodiversity, including at least 58 amphibian species, 182 bird species and 141 mammal species that are endemic to its forests and are found nowhere else on earth.
REDD+ offers an opportunity to tackle both of these problems simultaneously. REDD+ is an international policy mechanism in which developed countries provide incentives to developing countries to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation, and to enhance carbon sequestration through forest conservation, carbon stock enhancement and sustainable management.
For Indonesia, REDD+ is an unprecedented opportunity to conserve its remaining forests, significantly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and earn revenue in support of sustainable development. It is also a unique opportunity to conserve forest habitat for the country’s remarkable biodiversity.
Although the REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) mechanism is designed primarily to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the forest sector, there are several reasons why it is also likely to provide unprecedented benefits for biodiversity.
First, for REDD+ to be successful, policy-makers will need to find ways to address the many drivers of deforestation and degradation of tropical forests. Most of these drivers of deforestation are also the key threats to biodiversity conservation.
Second, the approaches that policy makers will use to conserve and sustainably manage forests will likely build on approaches already developed and implemented by the conservation community. These key approaches include payments to local communities and jurisdictions that conserve forest, the expansion of the protected area system, the improved management of existing protected areas, recognition of indigenous communities and community-managed areas, prevention of fires, as well as the use of agroforestry systems and agricultural intensification on degraded land to reduce pressure on remaining forests.
Third, both REDD+ and biodiversity conservation are dependent on good governance. Under REDD+, governments will need to strengthen their forest governance, enhance their capacity to monitor forest cover and illegal logging, and develop clear legal and financial frameworks and law enforcement to protect remaining forests.
In addition, they will need to clarify land tenure issues and carbon rights. All of the steps towards improving forest governance will not only help ensure that REDD+ conserves forests and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, but also benefit the biodiversity that relies upon these forests.
Finally, the success of both REDD+ and biodiversity conservation efforts will depend on active participation and support of local stakeholders. If local communities and stakeholders are well-informed and supportive of efforts to reduce deforestation and degradation and actively involved in decision-making and implementation of REDD+, it is more likely that forests will be conserved over the long term, providing both mitigation and biodiversity benefits.
Of course, REDD+ on its own is not enough to solve either the climate change or biodiversity crisis. In order to tackle climate change, additional mitigation activities such as reducing fossil fuel use, using renewable energy and promoting energy efficiency through development of a low carbon development strategy are needed.
To achieve biodiversity conservation, additional conservation measures will be needed in non-forest ecosystems and in areas that may have little mitigation potential but are of important conservation value.
However, if REDD+ is well-designed and appropriately implemented, it would be a giant and historic step forward towards solving both the climate and biodiversity crises. With its vast (but rapidly disappearing) forests and extraordinary biodiversity, Indonesia is a unique position to provide global leadership in ensuring REDD+ delivers both climate mitigation and biodiversity benefits.


Dr. Celia Harvey is vice president of Global Change and Ecosystem
Services at Conservation International. Dr. Jonah Busch is a climate and forest economist at Conservation International. Muhammad Farid, MSc. is a climate change
specialist for Conservation International Indonesia Program.