Since signatory of REDD (Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Degradation) plus between Kingdom of Norway with Republic of Indonesia that is low level agreement or Letter of Intent in Oslo’s Climate Change Meeting at this year, rumors of REDD ‘s economic political are being engagement. And no one really tends to bring the REDD for including indigenous forestland rights into REDD preparedness process.

The situation could be reviewed at the national process of REDD plus preparation. Department of Forestry is still only established sector on REDD plus preparation. All of forestry policies capture detail of REDD financial scheme and forest management license without including community interest as like at the beginning of REDD proposal in COP 13 of UNFCCC-Bali that REDD is only an incentive model of forestry business actor.

All supported-projects by some Annex 1 countries on Indonesia REDD preparation are not including community interest as their rights of forestland. An international commitment that is result of Poznan UNFCCC is how to accommodate indigenous people rights on adaptation and mitigation of climate change initiatives, the REDD (plus) have to facilitate local (indigenous) people participation.

According to REDD as economic incentive to forest industrial group, the local people participation could be a legally socialization target on REDD project only, it is not for really including community on process of REDD design until its implementation. To ensure that community as especially who lives around the forest participates actively, there is no REDD project that viewed that.

Two reasons that REDD demonstrative actors do the manipulated community participation. First, REDD is based on scientific activities, so the REDD demonstrative activities would be done only by the formal research agency, government and consultants professional. The demonstrative agencies prejudice community who lives around REDD project area are in under capacity.

The secondary, the demonstrative agencies use interest-based approach, not using rights-based approach that is issued on climate change mitigation discourse. As like TNC (the Nature Conservation) reason why TNC design REDD scheme based on interest approach, because two years limitation times of Kyoto Protocol is not enough times to build REDD scheme by rights-based.

All of Indonesia forestry stakeholders know that forestland rights are basic problem on forestry and natural resources sector. Local (indigenous) community is claimant of forestland that is also claimed as state forestland that according to Fay (2002) is in 56% coincides. If the REDD project has to be build by rights based approach, it would be need more times to get REDD model soon. It is not significant with the end of times implementation of Kyoto Protocol. The interest-based ignore the rights based.

Manipulated-FPIC

Free Prior Informed and Consent is popular approach on REDD after COP 14 UNFCCC held in Poznan. But if we could more deeply look inside about forestland rights, FPIC has to be implemented at long times ago. The latest condition of forestland conflicts is worse. REDD becomes an additional problem on forestland rights.

Introducing FPIC to be rights based approach on REDD project preparation is not easy and only would work for building REDD model. In community practices level of forest management, REDD had been done by indigenous community from the hundred years ago until now. FPIC on REDD context never answer the forestland rights as a solution of conflict rights between community and REDD intruder. Talking forest area is inherent with claim of forestland rights.

FPIC is promoted and forwarded into REDD social safeguard just only for making sure that community who lives around and in REDD target area get information the project only. FPIC is used to make precondition that REDD is looked under FPIC engagement. The REDD projects use FPIC in term of ‘community say yes or no for the project’ only, not to be a true FPIC in community rights of access and participation on forestland rights aspect.