A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE IN THE CARBON FUND DISTRIBUTION POLICY OF THE FOREST CARBON PARTNERSHIP FACILITY (FCPF) IN MAHAKAM ULU REGENCY, EAST KALIMANTAN

  • Dhespy Tandi Pasauran Master of Government Science, Mulawarman University
  • Muhammad Dzaudan Sani Master of Government Science, Mulawarman University
  • Muhammad Hairul Saleh Master of Government Science, Mulawarman University
  • Sonny Sudiar International Relations of Mulawarman University

Keywords

Distributive Justice, Carbon Fund, Mahakam Ulu

Abstract

The distribution of benefits from global carbon financing schemes continues to face serious challenges regarding fairness for regions that make substantial contributions to forest conservation. This study examines the carbon fund allocation policy of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) in East Kalimantan Province, focusing on Mahakam Ulu Regency, which maintains 86.95% forest cover yet reportedly receives a disproportionate allocation. A qualitative case study approach was employed through document analysis, secondary data review, and media-based interviews with local stakeholders. The theoretical framework draws on distributive justice based on contribution, rights, and needs, with indicators of proportionality, transparency, institutional capacity, and stakeholder participation. Using Miles and Huberman’s (1994) interactive analysis model, findings indicate a misalignment between Mahakam Ulu’s ecological contribution and the funding received only IDR 1.305 million per km² of forest in the first payment period. Contributing factors include a lack of transparency in the Benefit Sharing Plan (BSP) allocation formula, limited local institutional capacity, and the exclusion of three villages from the beneficiary list. This study recommends reformulating allocation criteria to recognize passive conservation value, strengthening local capacity, and improving distribution transparency.

References

[1] Arhin, A. A. (2014). Safeguards and dangerguards: A framework for unpacking the black box of safeguards for REDD+. Forest Policy and Economics, 45, 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.05.003

[2] Bank, W. (2021). Indonesia East Kalimantan project for emissions reductions results: Benefit sharing plan. World Bank Documents & Reports. https://doi.org/10.1596/36131

[3] Bank, W. (2024). Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF): A global partnership. World Bank Documents & Reports. https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org

[4] BPDLH Kemenkeu. (2024). Carbon Fund of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Emissions Reduction Payment Agreement (FCPF). Badan Pengelola Dana Lingkungan Hidup, Jakarta.

[5] BPS Kaltim. (2021). Luas kawasan hutan dan konservasi perairan menurut kabupaten/kota di Provinsi Kalimantan Timur. Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Kalimantan Timur, Samarinda.

[6] BPS Kaltim. (2024). Jumlah penduduk 15 tahun ke atas menurut kabupaten/kota (jiwa), 2021–2023. Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Kalimantan Timur, Samarinda.

[7] FCPF. (2025). Indonesia: Benefit sharing plan for the Indonesia emission reductions program in East Kalimantan. World Bank. https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org

[8] Fraser, N. (2008). Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalizing world. Columbia University Press.

[9] Kaltim, B. P. S. (2021). Luas kawasan hutan dan konservasi perairan menurut kabupaten/kota di Provinsi Kalimantan Timur. Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Kalimantan Timur.

[10] Kaltim, B. P. S. (2024). Jumlah penduduk 15 tahun ke atas menurut kabupaten/kota (jiwa), 2021–2023. Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Kalimantan Timur.

[11] Kemenkeu, B. (2024). Carbon Fund of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Emissions Reduction Payment Agreement (FCPF). Badan Pengelola Dana Lingkungan Hidup.

[12] Luttrell, C., Loft, L., Gebara, M. F., Kweka, D., Brockhaus, M., Angelsen, A., & Sunderlin, W. D. (2013). Who should benefit from REDD+? Rationales and realities. Ecology and Society, 18(4), 52. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05834-180452

[13] Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

[14] Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

[15] Ribot, J. C., & Peluso, N. L. (2003). A theory of access. Rural Sociology, 68(2), 153–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.2003.tb00133.x

[16] Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.

[17] Sunderlin, W. D., Larson, A. M., & Cronkleton, P. (2009). Forest tenure rights and REDD+: From inertia to policy solutions. In A. Angelsen, M. Brockhaus, M. Kanninen, E. Sills, W. D. Sunderlin, & S. Wertz-Kanounnikoff (Eds.), Realising REDD+: National strategy and policy options (pp. 139–149). CIFOR.

[18] Wong, G. Y., Luttrell, C., Loft, L., Yang, A., Pham, T. T., Naito, D., Assembe-Mvondo, S., & Brockhaus, M. (2019). Narratives in REDD+ benefit sharing: Examining evidence within and beyond the forest sector. Climate Policy, 19(8), 1038–1051. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1618786

[19] Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.

2026-07-06