15.2.1 Forest Cover and Management

Forest cover and condition are influenced by various drivers – direct and indirect. A growing population, trending towards 9 billion, is increasing demand for food and other commodities and placing more pressure on land while also affecting livelihoods and health. Climate change may curtail food production in some locations and create new options in others (Lobell et al. Reference Lobell, Schlenker and Costa-Roberts2011). Competing demands on land require the management of trade-offs, which will raise many challenges (Laurance et al. Reference Laurance, Sayer and Cassman2013). Achieving SDG 15 will require addressing these drivers and trade-offs so as to bolster life on land and accommodate wider societal values.

Many studies document trends and changes in the extent and condition of the world’s forests and biodiversity (FAO 2010, 2012, Keenan et al. Reference Keenan, Reams and Achard2015, Sloan and Sayer Reference Sloan and Sayer2015). For example, FAO’s Forest Resources Assessments have found that between 1990 and 2015, global forest cover decreased by 3.1 per cent, to 30.6 per cent of global land area. Total forest area declined from more than 4.1 billion ha to below 4 billion ha. The rate of loss has slowed since 2010, but there are significant regional variations. From 2010 to 2015, boreal and subtropical forests suffered virtually no net loss while temperate forests gained over 2 million ha per year. Deforestation remained higher in the tropics, with 5–6 million ha lost annually in the same period, a reduction from nearly 10 million ha per year in the 1990–2000 period (FAO 2015).

Using different definitions and methods, Global Forest Watch (2019) shows continued, if uneven, decline in tropical tree cover since 2001. Agriculture has been responsible for about 80 per cent of tropical and subtropical deforestation (Kissinger et al. Reference Kissinger, Herold and De Sy2012). Over this same period, large-scale commercial agriculture has replaced subsistence agriculture as the most important driver of change across the tropics and subtropics. In recent years commercial agriculture has been responsible for 70 per cent of deforestation in Latin America, compared to 30–35 per cent in tropical Asia and Africa (Kissinger et al. Reference Kissinger, Herold and De Sy2012). In recent years the FAO’s FRA studies have reported on changes in the condition, management and production of forests (FAO 2012). Though forest area has increased in many parts of the world, much of this is a result of expansion of industrial tree plantations. Planted forest area increased in all regions between 1990 and 2015, while natural forest area declined in all regions except Europe and Oceania (FAO 2015). Plantations constitute about 7 per cent of the world’s forests (FAO 2015) and will likely continue to expand beyond 2030.

Another trend concerns sources of wood and timber. The area of timber-production forest in low-income countries is declining, though it remains stable in higher-income countries. Meanwhile, the volume of wood harvested is increasing in every region except Europe and North America (FAO 2015). Addressing growing demand for wood in the tropics may ultimately require more intensive forest management or greater timber imports from temperate and boreal forests.

15.2.2 Biodiversity

Current global species extinction rates are estimated to be about three orders of magnitude above those of the prehuman world (Pimm et al. Reference Pimm, Jenkins and Abell2014). Habitat loss, unsustainable hunting, introduced invasive species and other factors have contributed to 322 recorded extinctions of terrestrial vertebrates since 1500. Meanwhile, the populations of most remaining species have declined (Dirzo et al. Reference Dirzo, Young and Galetti2014, Pimm et al. Reference Pimm, Jenkins and Abell2014). Detailed assessments by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) have identified 24 307 species that are currently facing significant threat of extinction (IUCN 2019).

Forests, in particular tropical forests, harbour most of Earth’s species and most of the threatened species (Vira et al. Reference Vira, Agarwal, Jamnadass, Vira, Wildburger and Mansourian2015). In IUCN’s most recent global assessment of mammal species, 25 per cent (1139) were judged ‘threatened with extinction’ while another 15 per cent (836) were ‘data deficient’ (Pimm et al. Reference Pimm, Jenkins and Abell2014, Schipper et al. Reference Schipper, Chanson and Chiozza2008). These figures are underestimates, as we still know little about the overall diversity of many tropical taxa. New species are still being discovered in even the best-known groups; for example, 85 new primates were described between 2000 and 2016 (Estrada et al. Reference Estrada, Garber and Rylands2017) and a new great ape (an orangutan, Pongo tapanuliensis) was described in 2017 (Nater et al. Reference Nater, Mattle-Greminger and Nurcahyo2017).

The risk of species loss reflects multiple factors – including habitat loss, modification and fragmentation, over-exploitation, interactions with other species and climate change – and combinations of all these factors (Selwood et al. Reference Selwood, Mcgeoch and Mac Nally2015). When a species is lost from a forest, the ecological processes that depend upon that species are lost with it; this reduces community resilience and can provoke further species losses (Dirzo et al. Reference Dirzo, Young and Galetti2014, Redford Reference Redford1992).

These threats and changes are ongoing worldwide. For example, terrestrial ecosystems are increasingly fragmented by infrastructure (Laurance et al. Reference Laurance, Clements and Sloan2014), posing new challenges for those seeking to protect life on land. Climate change is a major emerging threat. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows that the Earth warmed by an estimated 0.74°C over the last century and is forecast to warm by another 1.5–4.5°C this century (IPCC Reference Stocker, Qin and Plattner2013). Places where forest can grow, and in which species can persist, will change as climate changes. While the worst impacts likely lie beyond 2030, significant changes are now underway. Various local extinctions have already been attributed to changes in climate (Cahill et al. Reference Cahill, Aiello-Lammens and Fisher-Reid2013, Wiens Reference Wiens2016,). Predicted changes mean that many species will not persist unless they move to more favourable locations, but many species face barriers to such movement or appear unable to move rapidly enough to find and track suitable climates (Corlett and Westcott Reference Corlett and Westcott2013). Even common species appear at risk (Warren et al. Reference Warren, Vanderwal and Price2013). While outcomes remain uncertain, many authoritative accounts based on IPCC scenarios anticipate numerous extinctions (Cahill et al. Reference Cahill, Aiello-Lammens and Fisher-Reid2013). Even if forests persist, climate will influence their growth and productivity and intensify threats, such as drought and fire that impact their ecological and economic viability.

15.2.3 Social–Economic Systems

For several billion people, wild plants and animals remain essential elements of daily life. Forests and biodiversity underpin subsistence, providing goods and services important for health, fuel and income. Many farmers still depend on wild resources. Food security and nutrition are bolstered and sustained by wild species to a much greater extent than is often widely recognised (Colfer et al. Reference Colfer, Sheil, Kaimowitz and Kishi2006). Many million people lack ready access to modern healthcare and depend on wild plants and animals for medicines. Forest-dependent people are among the world’s poorest and most marginalised. In many cases, wild resources provide a crucial safety net, allowing people to find food and manage after crises (Liswanti et al. Reference Liswanti, Sheil, Basuki, Padmanaba and Mulcahy2011). As these dependent populations grow and access to wild resources declines, there will be major implications for people’s lives and livelihoods. If these wild resources are no longer available, difficult lives will be made even harder.

As challenges to development and sustainability become increasingly evident (climate change, water, food security, inequality etc.), bottom-up commitments may be stronger drivers of change than top-down discourses and policy. SDG 15 conveys a sense that central government is the predominant driver of moves to conserve life on land, but recent practice suggests that in many countries moves to achieve conservation through decentralised governance systems are gaining traction (Agrawal et al. Reference Agrawal, Chhatre and Hardin2008, Ribot et al. Reference Ribot, Agrawal and Larson2006). Decentralised and community resource management are being pursued in many countries and in diverse contexts, but they are not always the panacea that their advocates claim (Agrawal and Gibson Reference Agrawal and Gibson1999, Boedhihartono Reference Boedhihartono2017, Robinson et al. Reference Robinson, Holland and Naughton-Treves2014). Some communities that have maintained strong control over their lands and resources remain effective in achieving desirable conservation outcomes and are willing to see large tracts of land set aside in perpetuity: an example is the protection of Papua’s Foja Mountains and large areas of the Mamberamo Valley that are held to be sacred (Sheil et al. Reference Sheil, Boissière and Beaudoin2015). Nonetheless, in many cases there is a tension between the management of resources for local goals and the need to conserve public goods values (Sayer et al. Reference Sayer, Margules and Boedhihartono2017).

The growth of economies, a major target of many other SDGs, will have major impacts on terrestrial biodiversity. Human populations will move, cities will grow, agricultural technologies will allow for producing more on less land (Sayer and Cassman Reference Sayer and Cassman2013). If these trends continue, the supply and demand of forest goods and services in 2030 and beyond will be primarily determined by indirect drivers outside the forest sector (Bruinsma Reference Bruinsma2009). The planet as a whole may be advancing through a forest transition in which nations experience a period of protracted forest loss, followed by reaching a low point and then a stage of widespread reforestation and forest recovery (Rudel et al. Reference Rudel, Coomes and Moran2005). Different regions are advancing at different speeds, with some areas still suffering dramatic forest loss, such as Southeast Asia, and others showing substantial gain, such as the tropical Andes. Those who seek to implement SDG 15 need to do so with these likely changes in mind. Maintaining forest-dependent biodiversity through the low point in the transition, and the rapid expansion of suitable habitat in the post-transition era, will be important (see Wright and Muller-Landau Reference Wright and Muller-Landau2006 and subsequent discussions, e.g. Melo et al. Reference Melo, Arroyo-Rodríguez, Fahrig, Martínez-Ramos and Tabarelli2013, Rudel et al. Reference Rudel, Defries, Asner and Laurance2009). Examples include the widespread protection even of young or degraded forests and control of damaging practices such as hunting, over-exploitation and fire that may reduce the conservation value of human impacted forests (Chazdon et al. Reference Chazdon, Peres and Dent2009). The implication is that there are many domains where policymakers can make a major difference to the maintenance or loss of life on land. Those seeking to address SDG 15 should identify the right policy signals to ensure the best outcomes for biodiversity and for societies’ future needs. These are long-term objectives: 2030 should not be seen as an end point – the changes that are under way in 2030 will influence life on land for millennia.

Aside from the many sectoral challenges, those addressing SDG 15 will also confront long-standing issues of legal enforcement. Consider the challenges posed by the illegal trade in wildlife and timber – worth, respectively, an estimated USD 8–10 billion (Haken Reference Haken2011) and USD 7 billion per year – with links to powerful organised crime systems and insurgencies (Milner-Gulland Reference Milner-Gulland2018). In many regions military interests manage and protect these activities. Trends suggest that ‘regulatory approaches are being overwhelmed by rising prices and growing relative poverty between areas of supply and centers of demand. Aggressive enforcement of trade controls, in particular bans, can increase profits for traffickers and lead to the involvement of organized criminals with the capacity to operate even under increased enforcement effort’ (Challender and MacMillan Reference Challender and Macmillan2014: 484). Foresters, conservationists and enforcement agencies are ill-equipped to confront such forces. More light needs to be shed on these issues, which will prove challenging. According to Global Witness, in 2016 there were 200 confirmed murders of environmental activists, wildlife rangers and Indigenous leaders trying to protect their land (Watts and Vidal Reference Watts and Vidal2017).

15.2.4 What Are the Future Challenges for Conservation of Life on Land?

What challenges will forests and biodiversity face in the coming decade? How will the context of conservation and sustainable use change from that which existed in 2015? How will progress on the other SDGs impact the attainment of SDG 15? Several major trends are already apparent, all of which will impact on life on land. If economies continue to grow as they have in recent decades, then many more people will escape from extreme poverty – including many who currently depend upon forest resources for their livelihoods. The dependency of these people on forests will decrease. If economies stagnate, then the rural poor will suffer disproportionately and achieving conservation goals will be more difficult. Under optimistic scenarios, people in rural areas will have better health and education and, consequently, smaller families. The ability to provide services, peace and opportunities to those who survive in and around forests, rangelands and wetlands will be a major determinant of many of the SDGs, including SDG 15. A major unknown is the fate of the 2 billion-plus subsistence farmers in the tropics: will economies and education provide attractive alternative livelihoods on or off the lands? If progress is made on the other SDGs, then we see the following scenario unfolding between now and 2030:

• People will move from rural areas to cities.

• Agriculture will continue to intensify and move towards larger, more mechanised farms. Industrial agriculture, especially tree crops, will continue to expand into forested areas. Productivity gains may reduce demand for land, but in some regions expansion may displace farmers into other frontier areas (Laurance et al. Reference Laurance, Sayer and Cassman2013).

• A shift will occur in the demand for agricultural commodities – for example an increase in meat and dairy consumption – as peoples’ purchasing power increases.

• Infrastructure will continue to expand into forest areas to access mineral resources and new land for agriculture.

• Demand for near-natural forests for their biodiversity values and other ecosystem services will increase. Demand for forests for recreational use, especially in peri-urban areas, will also grow (Tyrväinen et al. Reference Tyrväinen, Pauleit, Seeland, de Vries, Konijnendijk, Nilsson, Randrup and Schipperijn2005).

• Processes of decentralisation of natural resources management to communities and local governments will continue. Integrated management practices may become more widely adopted.

• Countries will move towards a green economy or bio-economy and increasing forest extent and health will be supported by this trend.

• Timber harvesting from natural forests will continue to decline as more timber is produced at less cost from plantations, on farms and along roadsides.

• Capacity to assess and monitor a wide range of forest attributes, particularly with improved remote sensing and application of the ‘internet of things’, will increase.

• Attempts to address some of the world’s climate concerns through forest conservation and restoration will intensify.

• Climate-related stresses on forests and the associated risks from fire and invasive species will intensify.

The SDGs are part of a greater process. The SDGs will not be entirely met by 2030, with inevitable disparity in the progress made in different countries. Conserving life on land will remain a work in progress and SDG 15 will play out in a variety of contexts. Contexts will strongly influence the approaches that would be appropriate to pursue SDG 15 targets. Those implementing the SDGs will need the awareness, flexibility and understanding to adapt to the nuances and opportunities of their specific situations.

15.3.1 Targets for Forest Cover and Management

The measurement and interpretation of forest resource changes is challenging. Even measuring changes in forest area remains beyond the capacity of many countries – though increasingly easy access to satellite-based imagery is helping address this. For example, Terra-iFootnote ¹ and Global Forest WatchFootnote ² both provide access to land-cover data. FAO’s FRA already collects data applicable to SDG 15 – including forest area as a proportion of land area and country compliance with requirements to report on policies relevant to sustainable forest management. The FRA also reinforces concerns about SDG 15. Forest area change means different things to different countries. For many forest-rich tropical countries, economic growth is seen as requiring increased forest conversion to agriculture and other uses. A case in point is Bolivia, which in its submission to the FAO Forest Resources assessment for 2015 stated the intention to reduce forest area by some 75 per cent, presumably in order to spur economic growth. This demonstrates the conundrum governments face in planning forest area. Many governments will choose the path of economic growth over forest conservation, but they seldom make this de facto policy explicit.

Indicator 15.2.1 requires measurement of progress towards sustainable forest management. What defines and determines sustainable forest management remains unclear for many. The topic is contentious, and achievements are difficult to quantify. This is demonstrated in how the FRA has handled the topic since FRA 2010. In the 2010 reporting year, countries were simply asked how much forest area was under sustainable forest management. Guidelines were lacking and the reported values were not taken seriously outside the FAO process. In the most recent FRA (FAO 2015), countries were asked to report a range of values including areas under management plans – inclusive of those that had community inputs, monitoring of management plans and public forest resource reporting (MacDicken Reference MacDicken2015). This approach allows users to select indicators that best fit their understanding of sustainable forest management. It is a pragmatic solution, but there are still concerns that the selected indicators neglect crucial factors such as the contributions of forests – and how they are managed – to people.

By focusing on forest cover and protected forest extent, SDG 15 may underestimate the complexity of forest land governance and the differing values of forest types. Forests where timber has been harvested often retain significant biodiversity values and protecting these values is important, especially when the other option is forest clearance (Edwards et al. Reference Edwards, Tobias, Sheil, Meijaard and Laurance2014). For centuries, tropical foresters sought to protect and manage natural forests in a sustainable manner (Dawkins and Philip Reference Dawkins and Philip1998, Ghazoul and Sheil Reference Ghazoul and Sheil2010, Wiersum Reference Wiersum1995). Forestry’s destructive image arose in the second half of the twentieth century when large-scale industrial timber harvesting was widely promoted without regard for sustainability. Nonetheless, though overshadowed, efforts to protect and sustainably harvest tropical forests have continued into the modern era. Two large tropic-wide meta-analyses found that selectively harvested production forests retain a species richness of animals, insects and plants similar to that found in undisturbed forests (Gibson et al. Reference Gibson, Lee and Koh2011, Putz et al. Reference Putz, Zuidema and Synnott2012), and far higher species richness than competing non-forestland uses (Gibson et al. Reference Gibson, Lee and Koh2011). Production forests also harbour an array of IUCN red-listed species (Edwards et al. Reference Edwards, Larsen and Docherty2010), underscoring their potential to protect critical biodiversity. Managed timber concessions are often better protected than poorly staffed protected areas (Meijaard and Sheil Reference Meijaard and Sheil2007). However, harvesting timber at higher intensities (Burivalova et al. Reference Burivalova, Şekercioğlu and Koh2014), failing to retain patches of undisturbed forest within production landscapes (Edwards et al. Reference Edwards, Tobias, Sheil, Meijaard and Laurance2014) or using more destructive conventional rather than reduced-impact logging techniques (Bicknell et al. Reference Bicknell, Struebig and Davies2015) devalues the conservation potential of production forests. Intensively managed tropical forests tend to lose certain species and become more homogeneous (Alroy Reference Alroy2017).

Production forests should be seen as an addition to rather than a replacement for more strictly protected areas. While there are many uncertainties and unknowns, when we look at the big picture we do largely know which practices improve conservation outcomes (Dale et al. Reference Dale, Brown and Haeuber2000, IUCN and ITTO 2019, Meijaard et al. Reference Meijaard, Sheil and Nasi2005). Achieving SDG 15 requires an open-minded approach that seeks opportunities to promote improved conservation outcomes not only through the protection of large-scale intact landscapes devoid of people, but also through the small-scale trade-offs that arise in more densely settled regions.

15.3.2 Targets for Biodiversity

Achieving SDG 15 requires an intensification of efforts to implement the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and a range of other plans and strategies elaborated by intergovernmental processes. The Aichi targets encompass more ambitious goals than those originally agreed on by the CBD in 2002. Available data from the 55 different biodiversity indicators compiled by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre suggest that the Aichi targets, set by the CBD in 2010, will not be achieved by the 2020 target date (Tittensor et al. Reference Tittensor, Walpole and Hill2014). By 2010, 31 indicators had not been achieved and biodiversity was still declining with no substantial reductions in the rate of loss. Pressures on biodiversity were still increasing. There were some successes, including improvements in the nominal coverage of protected areas (Butchart et al. Reference Butchart, Walpole and Collen2010), but most of the increase was in protected landscapes whose biodiversity values may not be high.

By 2016, some 14.7 per cent of the world’s terrestrial surface was officially protected (217 155 areas): coverage is generally higher in the tropics (Brooks et al. Reference Brooks, Wright and Sheil2009). Yet, as protected area targets are often achieved at the cost of reduced management standards and abilities, this alone is not a sufficient proxy for improved biodiversity outcomes (Dudley et al. Reference Dudley, Phillips, Amend, Brown and Stolton2016, Watson et al. Reference Watson, Dudley, Segan and Hockings2014,). Many species occur primarily, or exclusively, outside formal protected areas or require much larger habitat areas to ensure viability (Brooks et al. Reference Brooks, Wright and Sheil2009, Ricketts et al. Reference Ricketts, Dinerstein and Boucher2005, Rodrigues et al. Reference Rodrigues, Akcakaya and Andelman2004). This reflects the tendency for governments to protect areas that are economically marginal and under only limited threat. Such approaches do not yield the best conservation outcomes. Protected areas are effective only if adequately resourced, yet this is often not the case (Brooks et al. Reference Brooks, Wright and Sheil2009, Bruner et al. Reference Bruner, Gullison, Rice and Da Fonseca2001, Inamdar et al. Reference Inamdar, De Jode, Lindsay and Cobb1999). These shortfalls in funding tend to be most severe in the poorest countries – the places where investments in conservation can likely make the biggest direct contributions. A simple national-scale conservation-status index based on changes in the IUCN red-listing of birds and mammals can predict with remarkable accuracy the positive impacts of the financial investments made towards achieving conservation versus benefits from economic, agricultural and population growth (Waldron et al. Reference Waldron, Miller and Redding2017). This model indicates that the relative benefits of conservation spending are greatest in the poorest, most biodiverse nations (Waldron et al. Reference Waldron, Miller and Redding2017).

McCarthy et al. (Reference McCarthy, Donald and Scharlemann2012) examined global conservation needs and estimated that the conservation of terrestrial species would require an annual expenditure of USD 76.1 billion, equivalent to 0.1 per cent of global GDP, or less than 5 per cent of global defence spending (Sheil Reference Sheil, Sanz, Lewis, Mata and Connaughton2017). Current expenditures average about half of these requirements in higher-income countries and less than one-third (31 per cent) in lower-income countries. While McCarthy et al. (Reference McCarthy, Donald and Scharlemann2012) are doubtless correct that conservation should obtain increased financial support, their approach neglects local costs and consequences (Sheil et al. Reference Sheil, Meijaard, Angelsen, Sayer and Vanclay2013), including past injustices, widespread evictions and mistreatment of local populations (Agrawal and Redford Reference Agrawal and Redford2009, Dowie Reference Dowie2011). These are not just a ‘colonial legacy’; many communities living near protected areas suffer from the presence of wild animals: crops are destroyed, domestic animals are killed and people are attacked (Hill Reference Hill2015, Naughton-Treves et al. Reference Naughton-Treves, Alix-Garcia and Chapman2011). With current laws often not offering any provisions for direct compensation, victims bear the costs.

Such human costs of protected areas matter both as an ethical concern in their own right, not least because they can erode advances being made on other SDGs such as ending poverty (SDG 1), access to affordable energy (SDG 7) and justice (SDG 16), and because they undermine community support and escalate threats. They pose a challenge to local support for conservation (Sheil et al. Reference Sheil, Meijaard, Angelsen, Sayer and Vanclay2013). Indeed, failure to satisfactorily address such costs and concerns has often turned communities against conservation (Baker et al. Reference Baker, Milner-Gulland and Leader-Williams2012, Boissière et al. Reference Boissière, Sheil, Basuki, Wan and Le2009, Sharpe Reference Sharpe1998, Temudo Reference Temudo2012), with much conservation expenditure required to counter the ensuing conflicts (Roe Reference Roe2008). We already see politicians speaking against conservation and promising that if they are elected, they will ensure that people will get their lands back (Sassen et al. Reference Sassen, Sheil, Giller and Ter Braak2013). In a world in which conservation requires societal support, the manner in which local costs are dealt with appears crucial. While the biophysical measures of SDG 15 do not address these trends and their drivers, those looking to achieve these goals should.

15.3.3 Targets for Financial and Policy Instruments

The SDG 15 targets related to governance, particularly Targets 15.9–15.12, cover policy integration, resource mobilisation and capacity-building for the conservation, sustainable use and fair and equitable sharing of benefits from forests, biodiversity and landscapes. Of these, the call for policy integration is the most innovative. Indeed, the loss of terrestrial biodiversity is favoured by existing sectoral approaches that underlie land-use decisions and their hierarchical ordering. Mining and infrastructure are higher priorities than agriculture, which in turn is higher than forestry and conservation. Integrating biodiversity concerns into all land-use policies and decisions would be an advance. Thus, agriculture, infrastructure and forestry could become much more nature-inclusive, which might then substantially reduce their impacts on biodiversity. The absence of reference to natural resource issues in most of the SDGs is symptomatic of a fundamental trade-off among the priorities of the different sectors.

The advancement of nature-inclusive land-use policies will in many cases be opposed by vested interests. The decisions that drive the political economies of biodiversity loss and deforestation, including illegal practices and organised crime, are shaped by these economic-interests. Greater cross-sectoral integration, not just sectoral policy reform, is essential. Transformational change of political economies is surely essential, but such change appears unlikely. Along with policy changes, the behaviour of producers and consumers needs to be fundamentally changed. Working with the best integrative practices at the landscape level can be a first step forward (Sayer et al. Reference Sayer, Sunderland and Ghazoul2013).

The other two institutional targets under SDG 15 are resource mobilisation and capacity-building. External forest finance has relatively little impact in most cases because the value of forest production or alternative land uses is typically much higher than development assistance funding. Simula (Reference Simula2008) provided an estimate of total official development assistance (ODA) to the forest sector at nearly USD 2 billion per year, of which about USD 1.3 billion is to forestry and some USD 700 million to forest conservation. In contrast, wood removals from tropical Africa, Asia, Oceania and South America were reported to be approximately 1803 x 10⁹ cubic metres in 2011. Using a 2011 value of USD 150 per cubic metre this comes to about USD 270 billion, or more than 100 times the value of total official ODA flows to forests.Footnote ³ Simula’s estimate of USD 1.3 billion of ODA to forestry is less than 0.5 per cent of estimated value of wood production. This does not include the value of non-timber forest products, or the value of domestic public-sector expenditure. In addition to external ODA flows, Whiteman et al. (Reference Whiteman, Wickramasinghe and Piña2015) report some USD 7.3 billion in public-sector forest expenditure in tropical and subtropical countries in 2010. As another comparison, consider palm oil: in 2016, the value of Indonesian palm oil exports was USD 18.1 billion (GAPKI 2017). The financial drivers impacting forestlands are vastly larger than government allocations to the forest sector. ODA contributions to the forest sector remain important to support research and to provide examples of sustainable forestry, but many of the problems of unsustainable resource use will only be resolved with widespread changes in the behaviour of both producers and consumers and their governments.

15.4.1 SDG Implementation in Indonesia

The SDGs in Indonesia are overseen by an SDG coordination team (Figure 15.1) that integrates targets and indicators within the medium-term plans of central and provincial governments. The national SDG action plan is the template for all provincial action plans for the period up until 2020.

Figure 15.1 Organisational structure of SDG coordination in Indonesia.

The top-down nature of the SDGs presents challenges for the application of SDG 15 in many countries, including Indonesia. The SDGs prioritised in the national SDG action plan must pass through the national and subnational development plan and budgets before implementation at the local level. In this process, the Indonesian government identifies which goals align with national and regional priorities and allocates resources towards these priorities. As a result, some SDGs receive higher budget allocations, particularly SDG1 (No Poverty) and SDG2 (Zero Hunger). Targets 15.4, 15.A and 15.B are not identified in the national development plan, so we would expect to see no investment in, for instance, mountain conservation. Considering the trend for increased deforestation in upland areas, the omission of Target 15.4 is a concern for protection of biodiversity and preservation of forested land.

In Riau, the first province to complete its SDG action plan, SDG 15 receives little attention: just three targets – 15.1, 15.2 and 15.3 – are included. Unlike the national SDG action plan, Targets 15.5–15.9 are excluded. For a province that has extensive industrial forestry concessions, it is surprising to see that key biodiversity and invasive species targets are not addressed. An acknowledged value of the SDG process – to encourage integration and to make trade-offs more explicit – is not being addressed in the Riau Provincial Action Plan. Interestingly, some of the estate crop industries operating in Riau are using the SDGs as a framework for guiding their own activities in ways that promote environmental and social sustainability.

Indonesia is prioritising the SDG Target 15.2 for the restoration of degraded land. The MoEF aims to identify 500 000 ha of forest for restoration by 2019, and to have actually restored 100 000 ha by that date. The way this is done will have important consequences for other SDGs. In the past, degraded lands have often been allocated for estate crop development. There will still be pressure from local governments to convert degraded land to estate crops in order to drive local economic development. If MoEF restores natural forest, then a significant contribution to SDG 15 could be made. Further expansion of estate crops could lead local communities to lose their land and suffer economically (SDG 1) and culturally (SDG 2 Zero Hunger, SDG 10 Reduced Inequalities). People could be forced to move and could degrade forests in other areas. Estate crop development could provoke land conflicts and run counter to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Institutions).

A harmonised approach to the SDGs requires a full understanding of the social–ecological systems where change is happening. The danger is that SDG 15 is only used as a measuring and communication tool, unable to address the myriad of interconnected impacts that result from focusing only on achieving the headline indicator measurements.

15.4.2 Conclusions for Indonesia

Indonesia is taking a strong position on implementing the SDGs, but, like many other countries, is challenged to fully understand how the SDGs interact. The establishment of 12.7 million ha of forestlands under community management has implications for SDGs 1–3 and many more, but currently there is no framework for capturing this information and measuring the impacts of such policies on the other SDGs. Government policies tend to favour the pursuit of individual goals and may overlook trade-offs. As in many countries, SDG implementation is the responsibility of sectoral institutions. It is proving difficult to deal with the interconnected web of targets and indicators that Agenda 2030 envisages.

In many cases, the only options for Indonesia’s rural population to escape poverty require converting more forestland to agriculture or for people to move to cities. Local and provincial governments are understandably sympathetic to the needs of the rural poor. Reclassification of land as ‘other land use’ allows more land-clearing by smallholders but also by estate crop companies. Estate crops provide employment, drive local economies and are favoured by local government. The political economy of land-based investments in Indonesia has been widely debated (Barr and Sayer Reference Barr and Sayer2012). Lessons learned from REDD+ demonstrate the difficulty of coordinating action against deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions on a national scale. Navigating synergies and trade-offs of SDGs will have to be context-based, recognising that forests in different parts of Indonesia are at different stages of transition. The diversity of Indonesia means SDGs cannot take a one-size-fits-all approach. As tenure arrangements continue to evolve, the challenge of conserving life on land will have to be met in a context of contested land claims and greatly increased pressures on forests. The dilemma facing the achievement of the SDGs in Indonesia is symptomatic of the situation found in many tropical countries under extreme development pressures.