On May 19, 2011, President Soesilo Bambang Yudhoyono signed Presidential Instruction No. 10 of 2011 regarding the Postponement of New Permit Issuance and Improvement of Primary Natural Forest and Peatland Governance, commonly known as the Moratorium Presidential Instruction, after being postponed for a long time due to numerous involved interests. Initially proposed as part of the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) strategy within the framework of the Letter of Intent (LoI) between Indonesia and Norway agreed upon in Oslo in May 2010, the forest moratorium issue has evolved into a polemic reflecting the intense struggle of the parties potentially affected by the policy implementation.

From various debates on this matter, we can analyze the positions and interests of various actors involved, including the government (executive), parliament (DPR), business circles (especially plantation and forestry entrepreneurs), and civil society represented by non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

This article analyzes the post-Presidential Instruction polemic in the print media, which tends to pit ‘ecology’ against ‘economy’ within a binary opposition framework that oversimplifies the issue and even misleads, while neglecting the dimension of community rights in the debate. A strong discourse voiced during the policy formulation period of this moratorium is the discourse of ‘foreign interests’ from business entities opposing the comprehensive moratorium. This is exemplified in the statement of the General Secretary of APHI, Salahuddin Sampetoding, as follows:

“Foreign NGOs are trying to pressure the government to implement a moratorium for all types of forest areas, such as secondary forests and other land uses. This is intended so that Indonesia will no longer dominate the global pulp and paper business. (Bisnis Indonesia, 20/02, emphasis added by the author)”

Through the discourse of “economy versus ecology” and “foreign interests versus national interests,” businesses attempt to universalize their particular/special interests into general interests, even national interests. This article also attempts to deconstruct the discourse of ‘economic growth’ always emphasized by business entities to undermine the moratorium policy or at least weaken it, which was successful with the issuance of a substantively weak Presidential Instruction with various exceptions that rendered its additional protective strength insignificant.

Another point raised in this article is the coherence between the discourse presented by business entities in the media and the discourse articulated by some DPR members representing the parliament in the media, which can be explained by economic rent logic and paycheck democracy. The polemic ongoing before the issuance of the Presidential Instruction continues post-issuance with discourses that do not shift from the manipulation and misrepresentation of concepts of state sovereignty and national interests. All of this makes the long road to saving Indonesia’s forests and the global climate increasingly challenging and winding, only navigable through improving and strengthening the moratorium policy beyond its current state.

The full article can be downloaded here:

Media Discourse Analysis of the 2011 Moratorium