- Indonesian Forestry Minister Raja Juli Antoni has appointed seemingly unqualified members of his political party to a key program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, raising concerns over political favoritism and lack of climate expertise.
- The program is largely funded by Norway and the U.K., with critics warning that donor money is being misused for political appointments rather than forest conservation.
- Norway has called for accountability but remains passive, stating that fund allocation is Indonesia’s responsibility; activists have urged both Norway and the U.K. to audit spending and ensure funds aren’t misallocated.
- Experts warn that time is running out to meet Indonesia’s 2030 climate targets, and that failure could harm Indonesia’s global reputation and worsen climate-related disasters.
JAKARTA — The Norwegian government is monitoring growing concerns over Indonesia’s decision to appoint political figures with little climate expertise to oversee a climate forestry program largely financed by Norway.
Indonesian Forestry Minister Raja Juli Antoni has come under scrutiny recently for naming several fellow members from his political party, the Indonesian Solidarity Party (PSI), to key positions within the office responsible for the FOLU Net Sink 2030 initiative.
This aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Indonesia’s forestry and other land use (FOLU) sector by curbing deforestation, preventing forest fires, and increasing reforestation efforts. The ultimate goal is for Indonesia’s forests to absorb more carbon than they release by 2030, a part of the country’s climate commitments under the Paris Agreement.
To coordinate, monitor and evaluate the program, the government established an operation management office (OMO). However, in a Jan. 31 decree, Forestry Minister Raja restructured the OMO by appointing PSI cadres to the office, raising concerns over political favoritism.
Raja is one of the founders of the PSI and currently serves as its secretary-general, the party’s No. 2.
The appointments have also drawn criticism due to the OMO’s relatively high monthly salaries, ranging from 8 million rupiah at the lowest level to 50 million rupiah for leadership positions ($500-$3,000). Critics say these salaries are excessive for a government-backed environmental initiative, particularly at a time when the government is cutting the budget for several agencies, including those related to the environment.
Raja has defended the appointments, saying the OMO is funded by donors and partner countries, not the state budget. The decree specifies that the funding comes primarily from Norway’s contributions and other approved sources.
‘Interim’ appointments
Norway did not immediately react to the controversy, but engaged with the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry on March 10, more than a month after the appointments. During the meeting, the Norwegian Embassy in Jakarta emphasized the importance of accountability in managing the FOLU Net Sink program.
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Forestry downplayed concerns, saying the current OMO structure is “interim” and part of a planned restructuring to improve transparency and accountability. However, the government has not provided a timeline or clear criteria for new appointments, raising fears that this ‘interim’ justification could be used to maintain political placements indefinitely.
“The sudden use of the term ‘interim’ seems completely made up,” Greenpeace Indonesia forest campaigner Muhammad Iqbal Damanik told Mongabay. “If it was truly interim, why wasn’t it mentioned from the start?” “The ministerial decree doesn’t mention anything about ‘interim’ either.”
Foreign funding concerns
Norway has long supported Indonesia’s environmental efforts, particularly through the Norwegian International Climate and Forest Initiative (NICFI).
After Indonesia’s devastating 2015 peatland and forest fires, which burned 2.6 million hectares (6.4 million acres), Norway pledged $50 million to the newly established Peatland Restoration Agency (BRG). More recently, since 2022, Norway has paid $216 million to Indonesia for successfully reducing emissions by curbing deforestation and forest degradation. These funds are managed by the Environmental Fund Management Agency (BPDLH), under Indonesia’s Ministry of Finance.
The U.K. is another major donor, having signed a 2022 agreement to help Indonesia meet its FOLU Net Sink goals. However, the public is now questioning whether these foreign funds are being used appropriately. Critics say they fear donor contributions are being diverted for political purposes rather than supporting Indonesia’s urgent forest and peatland conservation efforts.
Indonesia’s FOLU Net Sink target is expected to require at least 204 trillion rupiah ($12.4 billion). Yet, at the same time, key agencies responsible for forest and peatland restoration and fire prevention are facing budget cut, Iqbal of Greenpeace said.
“Why not allocate the money to critical areas like peatland restoration? For example, why not give funding for forensic investigations into peatland fires?” he said. “That way, the government can hold companies accountable for peatland destruction. That would be far more beneficial than spending money on hiring political appointees.”
Civil society group Bareng Warga has demanded greater oversight of the program’s funding.
“In light of these developments, we call upon the governments of the United Kingdom and Norway to reevaluate their ongoing financial support for the FOLU Net Sink 2030 program,” the group posted on the social media platform X. “A thorough review is essential to ensure that their previous and current contributions are not being misallocated due to political influences, but are instead driving tangible environmental outcomes as intended.”
The call has gained traction online, with social media users demand investigations by the U.K. and Norway into the use of their funds, under the hashtag #ReevaluateFOLUNetSink2030.
“Indonesia should not assume it can spend donor funds however it pleases,” Iqbal said. “If these misuses of funds are exposed, it will be highly embarrassing for Indonesia.”
Norway’s response
When asked whether Norway would reconsider its funding in light of the controversy, the Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment told Mongabay that it would “continue to follow the issue through close dialogue with Indonesia’s Ministry of Forestry and relevant partners.”
It added that while it provides funding based on agreed objectives and guidelines, it doesn’t approve specific budget details, meaning Indonesia has discretion in allocating salaries, including for political appointees.
And once funds are transferred to Indonesia, full responsibility shifts to the Indonesian government, the Norwegian climate ministry said.
“Any breaches of the conditions shall be handled within the framework of Indonesia’s laws and regulations,” the ministry said.
Iqbal criticized Norway’s passive stance, saying it was simply taking a “wait and see” approach.
“If we look at past Norway-Indonesia agreements, it does seem like Norway tends to follow whatever the Indonesian government says,” he said.
However, Norway shouldn’t just distribute funding and then wash its hands of the matter, he said; it must ensure that the program succeeds.
“Norway is ultimately responsible for reporting to its own citizens how this money is used, because Norwegian taxpayers fund these initiatives,” Iqbal said.
Norway could push for a transparent audit of how its funds are being used, ensuring they directly support Indonesia’s forestry goals rather than political patronage, he added.
He pointed out that Norway’s contribution agreement with Indonesia includes transparency and accountability requirements. If funding misuse is suspected, Norway could request an audit or reconsider future funding, Iqbal said.
“Norway should act as an equal partner,” he said.
Where’s the expertise?
Beyond concerns over transparency, Iqbal highlighted the lack of technical competence among the PSI appointees.
Media reports identified at least 11 PSI members within the 43-person OMO, or about a quarter of the total staff.
PSI spokesman Agus Mulyono Herlambang defended the appointments, saying the members are capable since they’ve previously worked with Raja and their main role is to assist the minister with administrative tasks.
“Because they have been assisting Minister Raja Juli for a long time, they can immediately start working at full speed,” Agus told local media.
However, a review of publicly available profiles shows that none of the appointees have significant expertise in forestry or climate science. At least four individuals — Andy Budiman, Sigit Widodo, Kokok Dirgantoro and Suci Mayang Sari — come from media and journalism, while others have backgrounds in activism, social media and psychology.
Given that the FOLU Net Sink 2030 program is highly technical, Iqbal said, it requires experts in forestry, carbon accounting and ecosystem management.
“If the PSI argues that communication is crucial, then the best communicators should be those who understand the subject matter — not just people from the media industry,” he said.
Lawmakers from various other parties have also criticized the appointment process for lacking transparency and reeking of favoritism.
“The public deserves to know who conducted the selection process and how it was carried out,” said Alex Indra Lukman, a lawmaker from the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P).
Firman Soebagyo from the Golkar party, suggested the appointments might be illegal.
“A government institution should not be used as a political instrument to achieve certain objectives that contradict the law,” he said. “Civil servants should have had the opportunity to fill these positions, but instead, they have been easily displaced by a group of party cadres whose professionalism is not necessarily proven.”
Even if no laws have been violated, the process is still unprofessional and undermines meritocracy, said Bambang Purwanto, a lawmaker from the Democratic Party.
“This is unacceptable. The president will be blamed if his ministers act this way. While there is no explicit legal prohibition, this has gone too far — it’s clearly opportunistic,” he said.
What’s at stake?
Activists warn that the issue of climate change is too urgent to be politicized.
The average global temperature exceeded 1.5° Celsius (2.7° Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels for the first time last year. Scientists say the increase has driven more frequent and intense wildfires, floods, and other extreme weather events.
“Ultimately, we will experience worsening floods, extreme rainfall, and droughts,” said Bambang Hero Saharjo, an environmental forensic expert from the Bogor Institute of Agriculture (IPB). “Future generations will demand answers: ‘What did you do to prevent this crisis?’”
That’s why the government needs to take the FOLU Net Sink 2030 program seriously, he said.
“This is a serious issue, and time is running out. It is already March 2025, and we only have five years left,” Bambang said.
Failure to achieve the FOLU Net Sink target won’t just hurt Indonesia’s climate efforts — it could also damage its international credibility, Bambang warned.
“If we fail, we will become an international embarrassment,” he said.
Banner image: Haze rising from an oil palm plantation and forest in Riau province. Image by Rhett A. Butler / Mongabay.
FEEDBACK: Use this form to send a message to the author of this post. If you want to post a public comment, you can do that at the bottom of the page.
Credits
This story first appeared on Mongabay
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and Mongabay, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.