The conference agenda provides an overview and details of sessions. In order to view sessions on a specific day or for a certain room, please select an appropriate date or room link. You may also select a session to explore available abstracts and download papers and presentations.
02-06: Indonesia's 'one map' policy: Does it live up to its potential?
10:30am - 12:00pm
Session Chair: Jill Pike, Millennium Challenge Corporation, United States of America
ID: 1023 / 02-06: 1 Individual Papers Topics: Economic research and impact evaluation Keywords: Cost-Benefit Analysis, Geospatial Data Infrastructure, Governance Effectiveness, Indonesia, One Map Policy
Governance effectiveness evaluation and cost benefit analysis of one map policy delivery institutions at the sub-national level in Indonesia
Nanda Noor1, Anita Silalahi1, Adi Pradana1, Aris Haryanto2
1World Resources Institute (WRI) Indonesia; 2Geospatial Information Agency (BIG) of the Government of Republic of Indonesia
Indonesian national and sub-national government agencies produce their own maps, resulting in overlapping claims, land conflicts and hindering sustainable development. To address this, the government aims to compile, integrate and synchronize 85 thematic maps, involving 19 national agencies and 34 provincial governments through One Map Policy acceleration by 2019. Geospatial Information Agency is responsible to develop spatial data infrastructure, mandating national and sub-national government agencies to establish data management institution. The agency has commissioned research to evaluate governance effectiveness and conduct cost-benefit analysis on institutional arrangement alternatives at provincial level. Using a mix of qualitative criteria evaluation with quantitative weighting method, the analysis founded 15-year net present value of Governor’s Secretary (USD 137 Million) and separate Implementing Unit (USD 178 Million) as institutions with highest performance ratings. Investment and coordination factors show that the former could serve as short-term (quick win) alternative while preparing the latter as long-term (ideal) solution.
ID: 846 / 02-06: 3 Individual Papers Topics: Land and human rights, gender, indigenous peoples Keywords: indigenous community, participatory mapping, One Map, land use, Indonesia
Mapping indigenous land: lesson learned from One Map Initiative in Indonesia
Dwiki Ridhwan, Carolina Astri, Dean Affandi, Fajar Muis, Lawalata Julius
World Resources Institute Indonesia, Indonesia
The idea of One Map comes from the lack of integrated and synchronized geospatial data on land ownership and land use sector across Indonesia. The objective of this paper is to extract lessons learned of the process in an indigenous village in Riau, Sumatra where their settlements are declared as part of a Wildlife Reserve. The study suggests implementing an ideal inclusive, sustainable, and accountable One-Map in village level would require a greater emphasis on (1) a different community engagement approach to make all social class and gender within the community equally participate, (2) an incorporation of environmental impact assessment for land use planning, and, in context of One Map in forest area, (3) a mutual understanding among institutions about One Map and their support on sustainable practices.
ID: 1136 / 02-06: 5 Individual Papers Topics: Global frameworks; indicators; progress monitoring, LGAF Keywords: social forestry, impact evaluation, community forest, village forest, community-based forest management
Towards prosperity and sustainability: The progress of social forestry implementation in Indonesia
1WRI Indonesia, Indonesia; 2Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies, Sweden; 3Coordinating Ministry of Economic Affairs, Indonesia
Social Forestry (SF) in Indonesia had embarked on a new, exciting phase under the Jokowi administration. Despite the government’s ambitious social forestry goal, there has been no robust evaluation framework to assess whether the SF initiative is progressing toward achieving the program’s intended objectives, i.e. 1) tenurial conflict resolution, 2) welfare improvement, and 3) forest protection. After an extensive desktop review, we developed fifteen evaluation indicators covering the environmental, socio-economic, and institutional aspects of SF management. We then tested out the evaluation framework in two SF locations in Sumatra, where we conducted random household surveys, interviews, and focused group discussions. SF implementation in both locations is generally able to protect the forest from threats while also improving communities’ welfare through forest-based income and environmental services. Yet, overlapping boundaries between the proposed and approved maps also remained, suggesting the complexities of SF implementation in Indonesia.