Case Study 5: Mappi, Himalaya Group

Issues of potential concern:

• Changes to Forest Moratorium • Forest release violates regulations

© Ulet Ifansasti / Greenpeace

Land cover in PT Bangun Mappi Mandiri, part of the Himalaya group. The concession permit is for agricultural food crops. 28 Mar, 2018.

This case involves three concessions in Mappi Regency which were given location permits in July 2013. PT Bangun Mappi Mandiri (PT BMM) received a location permit to plant food crops, while PT Mappi Sejahtera Bersama (PT MSB) and PT Himagro Sukses Selalu (PT HSS) got location permits for rubber plantations. PT BMM and PT MSB are owned by members of the Asmadi family, which owns the Himalaya Group of companies. PT HSS is assumed to be part of the same group, as it is registered to the same address and its majority shareholder Liong Lily Endah Sintawati’s personal address listed in the company records matches that of Asmadi family members. There are no other known plantation concessions belonging to this group, which has previously specialised in the production of industrial machinery.392

Controversy surrounds the Forest Moratorium status of these three concessions. In the fifth revision of the moratorium map in November 2013, all areas within the concessions previously marked as primary forest were removed from the map, and changes were made to the boundaries of the peat area. During the sixth moratorium revision in May 2014 all areas previously indicated as peat within the boundaries of the three concessions were removed from the map.

Map of PT Himagro Sukses Selalu, PT Bangun Mappi Mandiri and PT Mappi Sejahtera Bersama showing moratorium changes revision 5, revision 6 and revision 7.

The 2016 frame of reference for an EIA for one of the companies, PT BMM, explains that the basis for the companies’ claim that no primary forest was present was a survey purportedly carried out by the Papua Province Forestry and Conservation Agency on 14 December 2013. Similarly, Peat Identification Survey no. 87 conducted by the Indonesian Centre for Agricultural Land Resources Research and Development (BBSDLP) in April 2014 is said in the same document to have been the basis for the claim that no peat was present. The cover page for BBSDLP’s survey is included and shows that the survey was for PT BMM’s concession only, so that it is reasonable to conclude that it was carried out at PT BMM’s request. Ministry correspondence tables record letters sent from the directors of the three companies in August 2014, stating, presumably on the basis of this and similar surveys for PT HSS and PT MSB, that the entirety of the three concessions was mineral soil, not peat.

The chronology of events implied by the abovementioned documents appears to be inconsistent with the dates when the map was changed: the date given by the EIA frame of reference document for the Papua Province Forestry and Conservation Agency survey was one month after all primary forest had already been removed from the moratorium map. Similarly, the letters from the company concerning the supposed absence of peat were apparently received by the ministry three months after a new revision had already removed the peatland from the map. These inconsistencies may point to informal deals outside the documented process.

Even more seriously, there is a weight of evidence that extensive peat and primary forest are indeed present in the concessions and that the areas removed from the moratorium map should not have been removed at all. The MoEF and other government bodies have continued to develop management strategies for the area on the basis of evidence that peat is present within the three concessions. Mapping of Peatland Hydrological Units393 as mandated by the MoEF 2016 regulation on peat management394 has identified a network of peat areas in the unit Sungai Jaman Kawarga – Sungai Samaleki Digul, including parts of all three concessions.395 The Peat Restoration Agency even identified the unit as one of its three priorities in Papua for 2020.396 After extensive surveys, the agency recommended parts of PT MSB’s and PT HSS’s concessions for inclusion in a restoration program for peatland that burned in the fires of 2015.

© Ulet Ifansasti / Greenpeace

Burnt area in PT Himagro Sukses Selalu's rubber plantation concession. Significant areas of peat in the three Himalaya Group concessions burnt in the 2015 dry season, according to government burnscar data. Some have been identified as priorities for peat restoration. 28 Mar, 2018.

393 The relevant peat regulation refers to Peatland Hydrological Units (Kesatuan Hidrologi Gambut) as self-contained peat areas bordered by rivers and/or the sea, or comprising individual swamp areas. 394 Government Regulation 57/2016 (President of the Republic of Indonesia (2016b)) 395 Maps can be seen at http://appgis.dephut.go.id/appgis/KHG/PAPUA_KHGAMBUT.jpg or in greater detail via the MoEF WebGIS service: http://geoportal.menlhk.go.id/arcgis/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=0387032be5f648f99f8be9ba30f4d2ca. 396 Badan Restorasi Gambut (2020)

Map of PT HSS, PT BMM and PT MSB showing extent of peatland hydrological units, BRG priority areas for peat revitalisation, and 2019 BBSDLP peat survey data.

Additionally, the latest (2019) survey by the BBSDLP – the agency responsible for the 2014 survey that led to some of the changes in the moratorium map – shows extensive areas of peat between 50 cm and 100 cm deep present in all three concessions. The companies’ claim that there is no peat present in these concessions cannot therefore be regarded as credible.

The supposed absence of primary forest is in turn called into question by 2019 land cover maps issued by the MoEF, which show areas of primary forest in all three concessions, just as all previous issues of the maps have done, despite these areas’ removal from the Forest Moratorium map. Furthermore, the three companies’ own EIAs admit the presence of both peat and primary forest. PT MSB’s EIA study indicates that 14% of the concession consists of histosols (the scientific term for soils – principally peat – that consist largely of organic material) and that 19.4% of it is primary forest. PT HSS’s EIA study shows 13% of the concession as peat (labelled organosol – a synonym for histosol), and 21% as primary forest. The figures given in PT BMM’s EIA study are 2% organosol and 49% primary forest.

Greenpeace Indonesia’s requests for information about the surveys and the methodology behind changes to peat and primary forest mapping in this and other cases from the BBSDLP, the MoEF and the Papua Province Forestry and Environmental Agency397 have been rebuffed or ignored.

Despite available evidence that the land cover and peat surveys by the Papua Province Forestry and Conservation Agency and the BBSDLP apparently contained false information, Siti Nurbaya’s ministry issued forest release decrees to all three concessions between July and October 2017. For the two rubber concessions, a total of 57,987 ha was released in this period, thus also violating her ministry’s regulation imposing a limit of 20,000 ha to be released to a group in one province until evaluation of the previous release determines whether the concession has been developed.398 PT BMM’s concession is exempt from this requirement as the planned commodities are classed as food crops rather than plantation crops.

None of the companies has cleared land in the three years since the ministry released the concessions from the forest estate, but the land remains outside the forest estate and excluded from the Forest Moratorium map. In a recent consultation organised by the MoEF, an official from Mappi Regional Development Planning Board (Bappeda) observed that the board was uncertain of the status or plans of the three companies.399

397 Previously named the Papua Province Forestry and Conservation Agency. 398 See Regulation 51/2016 (Minister for Environment and Forestry (2016)). 399 Direktorat PDLKWS (2020)