After one year, Singapore has led the Association to progress in ASEAN’s three pillars, the next torch of the Association is now in Thailand’s grip. Faced with relentless fights against new threats of transnational crime, terrorism, trade wars, climate change, the new chairmanship seems to give some hopes to reach out a greater partnership, reaffirming some key agendas of deepening the infrastructure and people-to-people connectivity, maintaining the rules-based order and sustainability.

“Advancing Partnership for Sustainability” has been chosen as Thailand’s new tagline for its chairmanship of ASEAN 2019. It encompasses two points: sustainability and connectivity. Along with this tagline, many observers may ponder upon what will the next chairmanship bring to the region? And how will it pull the ASEAN member states together in the midst of facing other countries’ spur of development assistance? And more importantly, how would it push the agenda to strengthen ASEAN Centrality in any regional initiatives that seem to tear apart?

One greatest challenge facing the new chairman would be on finding the regional alternative to face the geopolitical battle in Indo-Pacific region; one depicted by the divisive characteristics of Pax-Americana and Pax-Sino initiatives on their own geopolitical strategy in the region.

ASEAN does not hold view a common ground on whether they should go take sides on either one of them, nor to just omni balance. The fact that there has yet been any unified approach to face Belt and Road Initiative, or US Pivot to Asia, tells us that the Association is tested for its unity. This, in turn, would be even more interesting to examine, as we also observe that countries like South Korea with its New Southern Policy, India and its Act East Policy and Japan with its long-standing International Cooperation Agency also try their best to get some shares of influences over ASEAN countries.

This above-mentioned argument would then also bring our attention to the dilemma of aid over independence. Noting that many of these initiatives by bigger economies usually showcase some features of being (infrastructure) development assistance, the question whether these assistances would be effective -for the receiver, thus, not likely to turn as a weapon against them – is largely determined by the ASEAN country itself. Thailand, could perhaps, encourage its fellow member states to be very careful in taking any risks of accepting aids so that they could benefit from the opportunities provided by the global economy.

Being a chairman determines your country’s privilege to set the agenda of the meetings. Perhaps, Thailand could seize the moment by introducing a new aid assessment tool or framework that ASEAN could agree upon, to better evaluate the effectiveness of aid – if they could not have an agreement upon the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (PD) – sheds lights on values of net aid value, donor’s commitment to the Declaration, value for money, time to access aid, etc. –for what always being claimed as having too many indicators. Together, ASEAN could foster its institutional power to make the best of it in using the donor’s assistance while providing transparency and such.

In a similar vein, the new Chairmanship would also give up a new opportunity for the Association to explore existing partnerships. Keeping the old ones and trying to dig deeper into the core of the cooperation sounds delicate rather than having to reach out to new partners. Perhaps, Thailand could also lead the Association to work with South Korea in narrowing the development gap between Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam under ROK’s New Southern Policy. This could be made possible by requesting South Korea to help spillover its digital transformation into Southeast Asia, in two strategic possible cooperation areas of technology and creative industry.

Korea, as a middle power, looks as if it poses no threats to the region – moreover when compared with great players such as China and the US. With its miraculous economic transformation in the last 50 years, internet penetration rate and broadband speeds, as well as its leading technology companies Samsung, LG and Hyundai, such cooperation are possible. These show that South Korea has leverage on spreading its influence through its soft power approach- military power-centric afar. Looking at this trend, ASEAN needs more investor in developing its Research and Development in Industry 4.0 Sectors, transfer of idea and technology, as well as bridging its skills and capacities gap in digital technology. In addition, in the field of creative industry, countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines are emerging inexorably. With emerging powerhouses in Southeast Asia and greater public-private partnerships, the way to achieve a rapid digital economic growth in ASEAN would come handy.

Amidst the geopolitical battle in the region between China and the US, Thailand, which has long been known for its unique foreign policy principle and a dedicated member to focus on ASEAN, comes as a promising actor to leverage the regional association’s position vis-à-vis great powers. Thai’s “Bamboo Bending with the Wind” foreign policy principle tells us about the policies that are rooted solidly in their own, but flexible enough to bend with the wind to survive. Together, the member states can swirl in the wind while balancing the US and China, through ASEAN-led foreign policy focus. Perhaps, it could also then facilitated by considering again the intra-regional initiative of having its “ASEAN-style Indo-Pacific Vision’ hoped to accommodate all interests regardless of some small frictions between countries.

With the laid foundations and ongoing projects under Singapore’s chairmanship that tend to shed lights on issues such as cybersecurity and digitalization, as well as maintaining the rules-based order in the region, Thailand should also continue the legacy of its predecessor. In this, we hope to keep the existing initiatives and make some improvements on ASEAN’s resilience and innovation, as we are living on the era of disruption whose challenges are inevitable but could be learned and mitigated. And this would continue to put the test on every member state of ASEAN, with no exceptions to Thailand.

Written by Kevin Iskandar Putra, research intern at the ASEAN Studies Center, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada

The global debate on the sustainability and legitimacy of palm oil production is one that continues to evolve and define the industry. As Indonesia and Malaysia are the two major palm oil producing nations, there is much discussion around the issues that palm oil plantations pose in the face of environmental sustainability, the local economy, and human rights. The Indonesian debate on palm oil is an international issue that continues to affect local, national and international frameworks through negative consequences to the flora and fauna and land disputes, while also providing benefits for local economies and the development of rural Indonesia.

Palm oil is a global commodity that is extracted from the oil palm tree, Elaeis guineensis. These plantations can be found throughout Southeast Asia, however largely concentrated in Indonesia’s Kalimantan and Sumatra. The oil palm is an attractive source of livelihood for farmers, due to the high yielding compared to soy and canola.

In 2010, Indonesia’s land-use for oil palm plantations was at 8.4 million hectares, this is juxtaposed with the 18 million hectares that the Indonesian Government has deemed suitable for plantations for current or future stakeholders in the industry. Through this booming industry, Indonesia has accumulated international attention through their rapidly increasing economy, and the mass deforestation of native rainforests as a result. Together, Indonesia and Malaysia provide 80.5% of the world’s palm oil. This is a major market for the two nation-states, with Indonesia alone producing 32.5 million tons of palm oil in 2014, with 80% exported to global consumer. The global community plays a major role in consumer products, as approximately half of the packaged supermarket products contain palm oil, with the industry expected to grow rapidly. Indonesia hopes to increase its production and exportation of the palm oil to 40 million tonnes annually by 2020.

Today, Indonesia is one of the largest palm oil producer in the world, with a rapidly increasing economic and trading market. The production of Palm oil and exportation contributes heavily towards to nation’s Gross National Product (GNP), thus provides  an obligation and responsibility for the nation, and stakeholders, to continue to provide this commodity for the global community to import and consume, in addition for the state to balance their national economy. However, in 2015 San Afri Awang, Indonesia’s Environment and Forestry Minister, stressed that the government’s “authority is being taken over by the private sector”, demonstrating the heavy influence and power these big corporations have over the governmental policy and economy, through lobbying and networks.

The environmental impacts of mass palm oil plantations are extensive within Indonesia. Deforestation is the major issue that continues to negatively impact the industry. Between 2008 and 2008, 3.1 million hectares of rainforests were lost due to new oil palm plantation, with approximately half a million hectares lost every subsequent year. In addition, the imbalances in the environment are found in the forms of disturbances in the soil, the loss of carbon from biomass, as well as the accumulation of organic matter due to peat swamps for oil palm establishment. The use of agrochemicals such as fertilizers, rodenticides, and pesticides also threaten the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems within the region. Humans also become the subjects and experience the environmental damage of wildfires, as many have to suffer from respiratory, cardiovascular disease and death. Furthermore, 20% of wildfires across Indonesia are attributed directly to palm oil plantation practices between 1989-2008.

The majority of Indonesia’s rainforests grow on carbon-rich peatland, which causes major environmental and economic risks. The palm oil plantations create two issues when dealing with carbon mitigation, first is the emissions from deforestation, and second is the emissions created from the production of palm oil.  Through these two processes, carbon is released from the soil, and methane is released from the mill effluent. These elements are major influences in Indonesia’s rainforest loss and contribute heavily to its national pollution and emissions.

Major palm oil companies in Indonesia often resort to illegally expanding their plantations to neighboring forests, which in many cases results to deforestation of rainforests. This creates an unbalanced ecosystem through the disruption of biodiversity and food chains. Two critically endangered species, Orangutans and Sumatran tigers, which are only found in the region, are facing extinction, along with much other native flora and fauna. Orangutans are decreasing at alarming rates, there are approximately 50,000 orangutans left in the wild, compared to approximately 315,000 in 1990. Although the palm oil industry is not wholly responsible, they largely contribute to the destruction of their habitat, which is the leading cause of extinction.

Challenges are also created through local conflicts between local community and palm oil companies. In 2015 alone saw 776 conflicts between palm oil companies and local indigenous communities. Abram et al. (2017) state that these problems arise due to “boundary disputes, illegal operations by companies, perceived lack of consultation, compensation and broken promises by companies”. In addition, many small local or indigenous communities have not had the privilege of obtaining legal documents that certify ownership of land, thus creates major issues in proving land ownership. Many communities suffer livelihood damages and access to community resources, once they are in conflict with large palm oil companies. As a source of income, local members often are left with no options but working for the companies, and many experience inadequate labor standards and abuse.

The mushrooming local to national corruption in the sector of palm oil is an increasing concern for many national and international bodies. The lack of law enforcement and land allocation creates a messy and ambiguous working environment on a local level. Local government in regencies across the country are the most susceptible to bribery and corruption, due to the lobbying, or personal interests in the sector. In 2012, 13 regents were under investigation for providing illegal allocation and permits, while a third of all regents in Indonesia are under investigation for corruption. This led to the imprisonment of two governors for illegally providing permits to palm oil investors or companies in 2012 alone. In addition, some local governments have invested interests in the palm oil sector, and according to the EIA International, crimes in the palm oil industries happen largely due to the issuance of the Plantation Business Permit (IUP) prior to approval of Environmental Permit, or the Forest Clearance prior to Timber Utilisation Permit (IPK). Therefore, a major aspect of corruption occurs through the allowance of companies to skip or bypass certain laws which are in place to ensure the legality, sustainability, and validity of the plantation.

Despite the issues and challenges that the palm oil industry faces, one could also argue that it is indeed very difficult to find the alternative to this commodity. For Indonesia, the industry itself creates 17 million jobs for communities and smallholder farmers. Approximately, 4 million people in Indonesia are dependent on this industry to sustain their livelihoods and community. (These local economic benefits for communities have provided mechanisms to reduce poverty and increase social development through a rural economy and job opportunities. In addition, it provides major advantages in Indonesia’s national economy and exports, as in 2016 alone, Indonesia generates 13.9 billion USD for its exports on palm oil, with the biggest export destinations of India, China, and Pakistan.

Juxtaposed with this, is the 31 million tons of palm oil that were exported in 2017, bringing about 75 percent of Indonesia’s total output and 22.9 billion USD foreign exchange revenue. Overall, these are significant benefits for cultivating and producing sustainable palm oil. These benefits can be seen in a local community level, to a national economic level.

To better portray the issue on hand, two frameworks surrounding palm oil production in Indonesia, namely the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil and Moratorium on the Issuance of New Permits for Palm Oil Plantations would be examined. The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) comes as an international effort to establish and implement global standards with the focus to advance the production, procurement, finance and use of sustainable palm oil products. Actors involved in the RSPO include oil palm growers, retailers, banks and investors, environmental or nature conservation NGOs, social or development NGOs, as well as palm oil consumers. Indonesia’s certified area per 30 June 2018 holds 1,555,847 hectares share, including the smallholders certified under group certification. Noted in 2018, Indonesia holds the highest number of complaint submissions, whose number accounts up to 69% of the total case since 2009. In many countries in the Asian region, RSPO faces challenges as many stakeholders and consumers are reluctant to pay more on sustainable products (https://www.rspo.org/key-documents/impact-reports). If the trend continues, the RSPO would lose its significance in the global community, which would create negative effects in advocating against the clearance of primary forest, fires, disputed land ownership.

Nevertheless, the RSPO creates important pathways to combat this growing industry, such as through its newly adopted consensus-driven P&C 2018 scheme where deforestation is not encouraged, along with the implementation of the High Carbon Stock Approach. The RSPO’s role in creating a space for stakeholders to come together to implement strategies for sustainable palm oil production has created significant changes within the industry and continues to do so, however, there are still major challenges that they face in creating a fully sustainable industry.

The moratorium on the issuance of new permits for palm oil plantations instructed by President Joko Widodo in September 2018 to his ministers and regional administrations, is arguably deemed as a significant mechanism to mitigate the environmental and social consequences of the sector. Besides its objective to boost the productivity of palm oil plantations, this moratorium also aims to reduce conflict between smallholders and corporations inside natural forests. Nevertheless, Indonesia is still being scrutinized as to whether it could make some betterments to the law enforcement and practices on the palm oil industry. The complexity of the issue in Indonesia seems to be put together with the discussion of its Palm Oil Bill in the Parliament. This Bill, which is seen as part of the National Legislation Program in 2016 and 2017 by the House of Representative of the Republic of Indonesia (DPR-RI) seems to align only with the interests of the investors. If this Bill is passed, the battle of finding the best solutions to unsustainable palm oil production may become increasingly difficult.

The multidimensional aspects of solving sustainable practices within the palm oil industry indicate that there is a need to exert greater eagerness in discussing upon the matter with multiple respective actors. In order to bring about new impetus on resolving the issue, all stakeholders need to collaborate hand-in-hand in making dialogues as accommodative and constructive as possible. The Government’s role as a determining factor on the mitigation and production becomes more important than ever. Thus, they need to prompt themselves to always consider their responsibility towards their people in every action. Perhaps, by investing more on the Research and Development on finding the substitute of palm oil, collaborating with epistemic communities and partners in the advanced countries for its environmentalist agenda would be leverage in enhancing the sustainability aspect of the palm oil business.

To further argue, the efforts to nurture the environment would also be accentuated by raising the awareness and implementing a better coping mechanism of introducing smart plantation. The role of Civil Society Actors should also be encouraged, by giving them more opportunities to grow their resistance power against the palm oil industry.

There are major challenges and issues concerning the implementation, processes, and characteristics of the palm oil industry in Indonesia. The global push for change within the sector is a major driving force behind the move to a more sustainable industry. The palm oil industry continues to rapidly change and grow with the attention and support of the global community, affecting societies on a local, national and international level.

Written by Kevin Iskandar Putra & Mia Dunphy. Kevin is a research intern at the ASEAN Studies Center, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada.

7,7 SR Earthquake and 1.5-meter-high tsunami hit Central Sulawesi, Indonesia on September 28th, 2018. The natural disaster caused various physical destructions, and fatalities; the death toll reached 1,948, and thousands may still be buried under the debris, not yet found. In response to the unfortunate disaster, The ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER) has coordinated with relevant agencies and stakeholders to organize search and rescue teams as well as humanitarian support to Indonesia. This, of course, relieves some of the burdens Indonesia now carries.

ASEAN’s strong commitment to reduce disaster losses in the region and to jointly respond to disaster emergencies is manifested through The ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER). The agreement was signed in Vientiane, Lao in July 2005, it outlines the directions that may be taken into consideration by ASEAN in the following years.

The agreement classifies the key strategies to implement the AADMER to become more people-centered, people-oriented, financially sustainable, and network approachable by 2025. Most importantly, the focus is to further strengthen the role of the ASEAN Coordinating Center for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management (AHA Center) as the main coordinating body for disaster management, and to realize the vision of ‘One ASEAN Response’.

Established by the 10 ASEAN Member States, AHA Centre is an inter-governmental organization, which aims to assist cooperation and management among the ASEAN Member States and with the United Nations and international organizations for disaster management and emergency response within ASEAN region. AHA Center frequently reports its progress and activities to the ASEAN Committee on Disaster Management (ACDM). The ACDM members consist of leaders of National Disaster Management Offices (NDMOs) of the 10 ASEAN Member States who operate as the Governing Board of the AHA Centre. The following statements are the core values that AHA Centre has:

• Always maintain the trust and confidence of the ASEAN Member States
• Open working environment where everyone is part of a first class professional team that is stronger together and helping one other
• An efficient and non-bureaucratic organization that constantly delivers results and gets things done
• Zero tolerance towards corruption with high accountability and financial integrity
• Passion for excellence in everything we do through continuous improvement and innovation to make ASEAN great in disaster management.

Furthermore, there are 3 main mandates carried out by the AHA Center: disaster monitoring and analysis; preparedness and response; and capacity building. In addition, one of the main strategies of the AHA Center is concrete action in every disaster monitoring and analysis Through these activities, the AHA Centre targets to decrease the loss of life and impairment to property from natural disasters by identifying hazards and risks before impact and by increasing warning times.

The AHA Center operates closely with the National Disaster Management Organization (NDMOs) of all ten ASEAN Member Countries in monitoring and distributing information about disasters in the region. As regards to preparedness and response, AHA Centre advances several tools and regulation to hasten the mobilization of resources between the ASEAN Member States and its partners in times of catastrophes – one of the available resources includes standard operating procedures.

Concerning the third operation, capacity-building aims to build a disaster-resilient region. It has two courses, which are ASEAN-Emergency Response and Assessment Team (ASEAN-ERAT) and the AHA Center Executive Programme (ACE). The ASEAN-ERAT is a response team to support the affected ASEAN Member States during disasters.  Every time a disaster occurs in the Southeast Asia region, ASEAN-ERAT members are ready to be deployed within eight hours after an emergency warning is activated or based on the request of the affected country. As for the ACE Program, it is intended to train future leaders of disaster management in ASEAN. The ACE program by far is the most concentrated disaster management training program in the region.

For disasters that occurred in Central Sulawesi, most ASEAN member countries provided assistance, aid, and relief to Indonesia through AHA Centre. The Malaysian government has contributed RM1 million and set up the Sulawesi Earthquake/Tsunami Disaster Fund (TBGBTS) on October 4, 2018, to help the victims of the disaster.

Singapore Government has also offered to send humanitarian provisions and workforces to help with ongoing relief; two Republic of Singapore Air Force C-130 aircraft are set to deliver humanitarian supplies and equipment, including tents, meal rations, and medical supplies. The aircraft then will continue to help Indonesia with disaster relief works including the evacuation of citizens from the areas affected.

Meanwhile, the Singapore Civil Defense Force (SCDF) has employed two officers to participate in a 10-day mission to central Sulawesi as part of the ASEAN Emergency Response and Assessment Team; this is under the coordination of the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management.

The Vietnamese Government decided to offer US$100,000 in aid relief. Prime Minister of Thailand, presented a contribution of 5 million baht (approximately US$155,000) to H.E. Mr. Ahmad Rusdi, Ambassador of Indonesia to Thailand. While Lao PDR donated 200,000 USD and Brunei Darussalam deployed members to explore types of assistance needed. The Philippines donated 300,000 USD and sent relief items, and Cambodia gave 200,000 USD.

As a manifestation of the ‘One ASEAN One Response,’ the AHA Center is expected to always be alert and prepared to assist countries affected by the disaster. Since the ASEAN member countries are vulnerable to natural disaster, the AHA Center has a very imperative role in ASEAN. AHA Center should also do more research about the possibility of future disasters and how to effectively manage them – since nature has always been a mystery when it comes to disastrous events. It is important that the AHA Center should always be prepared for whatever is to come.

Written by Raissa Almira, a research intern at the ASEAN Studies Center, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada.