Consolidated and compiled By Happy Tarumadevyanto | Independent Consultant | Environmental Asia | happy.devyanto@environmental.asia
Toward LEI establishment in 1993
The establishment of the Indonesian Ecolabel Institute (LEI) originated from the global issue of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM), especially after the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) Conference in Bali in 1990. This conference set the year 2000 as the deadline for achieving sustainable tropical forest management and introduced the concept of ecolabels, requiring tropical timber products to have an ecolabel certificate.
Process Leading Up to 1993
While specific details about the formation process of LEI up to 1993 are not explicitly mentioned in the search results, it can be concluded that this period was an initial phase where awareness and the need for sustainable forest management standards in Indonesia began to grow. Some processes that likely occurred during this timeframe include:
- Increased Awareness of Global Environmental Issues: Global environmental issues, such as deforestation and climate change, became increasingly urgent. This spurred the need to develop mechanisms to ensure that forest products originated from responsible sources.
- Initial Discussions and Initiatives: Following the 1990 ITTO decision, intensive national-level discussions likely took place among the government, the forestry industry, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and academics regarding how to implement ecolabels in Indonesia.
- Studies and Concept Development: Benchmarking studies were probably conducted with other countries that already had ecolabel systems, along with the development of initial concepts regarding criteria and indicators for ecolabel certification suitable for the Indonesian context.
- Formation of an Initial Framework: Although LEI was officially established in 1999, the preceding years, including 1993, were likely when the institutional foundations and initial framework for an ecolabel system began to be designed and discussed. This included identifying stakeholders and potential certification models.
Essentially, the period leading up to 1993 was a time of preparation and initiation in response to global market demands and international commitments to sustainable forest management, which ultimately led to the formation of the Indonesian Ecolabel Institute.
In 1993, the Indonesian Ecolabel Working Group (Pokja Ekolabel) was established to discuss, identify, and solidify the criteria and indicators for Sustainable Production Forest Management (PHPL), assessment methodologies, and the PHPL certification system.
Throughout its process, the Pokja Ekolabel involved representatives from various stakeholders, including the Expert Team of the Indonesian Forest Concessionaires Association (APHI), the National Standardization Council (DSN), NGOs, and academic experts. The Pokja Ekolabel later evolved into the Indonesian Ecolabel Institute (LEI), which was officially established on February 6, 1998.
LEI (Lembaga Ekolabel Indonesia) is an organization that develops an ecolabelling system to support sustainability initiatives undertaken by communities, Indigenous Peoples, and the private sector, as well as to assist the government in its sustainable development agenda.
The sustainable production forest management certification system developed by LEI has served as both a recognition tool and a market instrument for communities, Indigenous Peoples, and business actors who implement sustainability in terms of economic, environmental, and social functions.
LEI Management
Based on the information available, the Indonesian Ecolabel Institute (LEI) was only established in 1998, and later became a constituency-based organization in 2004. Therefore, there were no directors of LEI from 1993, as the institution had not yet been formed by that year.
However, it is known that Dr. Mubariq Ahmad was both the founder and Executive Director of the Indonesian Ecolabel Institute from 1997 to 2000.
Other available information mentions Diah Y. Suradiredja as the Chair of the LEI Member Working Assembly (MPA), indicating a leadership position within the organization, though not specifically Executive Director. She served after the Third LEI Congress.
Momentum of LEI Progress
- 09 Feb 2009 The Indonesian Ecolabeling Institute (LEI) was strongly appealed by WALHI that LEI should stop issuing Sustainable Plantation Forest Management (PHTL) certifications to industrial timber plantation (HTI) companies that convert natural forests or open peat ecosystems when establishing their plantations, two environmental NGOs, Forest Watch Indonesia (FWI) and Telapak, urged that day. https://www.walhijambi.or.id/lembaga-ekolabel-indonesia-harus-hentikan-sertifikasi-pengelolaan-hutan-tanaman-lestari-pada-konsesi-hutan-tanaman-industri/
- 23 Apr 2020 – Report of SPOS https://sposindonesia.org/progress-report/lei/?lang=id In October, the LEI team continued coordination to launch the process of submitting the draft Regulation of the Minister of Agriculture concerning the ISPO Certification System for approval by the President of the Republic of Indonesia. A series of discussions were also held with PPHBun to determine the ISPO logo and with Puslatan regarding the training curriculum. Additionally, a small team meeting in which LEI was involved was also held to further discuss the certification scheme for the sustainable palm oil plantation sector. The certification scheme itself reached 34 schemes and has been revised according to input from BNSP (National Professional Certification Agency).
Publication
03 April 2024 Sawit Indonesia Dalam Dinamika Pasar Dunia
https://lei.or.id/sawit-indonesia-dalam-dinamika-pasar-dunia.php
LEI’s content materials committee
- Alm Pak Hariadi Kartodihardjo (PHPL Prod)
- Alm. Pak Buce Saleh (PHPL Prod)
- Haryanto R Putro (PHPL Ekologi)
- Yando Zakaria (PHPL sosial)
- Agus Setyarso (CoC)
- Pak Sofyan Warsito (CoC)
- Noegroho Marsum (CoC)
- Didik Suharjito (PHBML)
- Mas Bowie (PHBML)
- Mas Ojie (PHBML)
- etc
LEI Challenges
Some thoughts
- Ultimately, the effectiveness of an organization is measured by its ability to function well and deliver value to a wide range of stakeholders. When the organization lacks clear direction and fails to strengthen its capacity through regular brainstorming and training activities, it gradually loses its competitive edge. This opens the door for new organizations to emerge—ones that operate more efficiently and are perceived as delivering greater benefits.
- To address today’s pressing challenges effectively, This organization’s current personnel have yet to adopt a grounded, optimistic, and persistent mindset. It appears there is a lack of individuals truly committed to driving positive change within the organization. There has been no clear demonstration of engagement in sustainability hotspots around the world—no active collaboration with foresters, landscape management boards in key regions, or with partners from related sectors such as coffee, cocoa, banana, and tea. This absence of real-world application raises concerns about the organization’s understanding of, and commitment to, strengthening the impact and relevance of certification programs.
Why LEI (Indonesian Ecolabel Institute) appears “outdated”
why LEI (Indonesian Ecolabel Institute) appears “outdated” or less involved with SVLK (Timber Legality Assurance System) actually requires an understanding of the fundamental differences between the two.
Understanding the Differences
LEI is a voluntary certification scheme focused on sustainable forest management, comprehensively covering environmental, social, and economic aspects. Its goal is to promote responsible forestry practices.
In contrast, SVLK is a mandatory system initiated by the Indonesian government to ensure timber legality, meaning that timber is obtained, transported, and processed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. SVLK is a prerequisite for exporting Indonesian timber products, especially to the European Union through the FLEGT VPA scheme.
Why LEI Appears “Outdated”
Although both aim to encourage better forest governance, their focus and nature differ. LEI operates as an independent third-party certification that goes beyond mere legality, while SVLK is a government tool to ensure legal compliance.
LEI is not “outdated” or uninvolved; rather, they operate in different spheres. A company can hold an SVLK certificate for legality and also an LEI (or FSC) certificate if it wishes to demonstrate a higher commitment to sustainability and access premium markets. Some community forests certified by LEI also meet SVLK requirements.
Challenges Faced by LEI
LEI does face challenges that make it appear “outdated” or “lagging” in the eyes of some, especially amid the dominance of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the existence of the Timber Legality Assurance System (SVLK). Some reasons include:
- Lower International Market Recognition Compared to FSC: Although LEI has comprehensive standards, international market recognition and preference, particularly in Europe and North America, tend to be stronger for FSC. This leads many Indonesian forestry companies to prefer FSC certification for global market access, with some even opting for a combination with SVLK.
- SVLK as a Government Mandate: Since 2009, SVLK has become a mandatory system implemented by the Indonesian government to ensure the legality of timber and timber products. This obligation, especially for exports, shifts the industry’s primary focus from voluntary certifications like LEI to fulfilling SVLK regulations. Many international buyers accept SVLK as proof of legality, reducing the incentive for additional voluntary certification from LEI.
- Cost and Capacity Constraints: For community forest managers and small-scale industries, the cost of LEI certification often becomes a barrier. Additionally, the understanding and management capacity to meet comprehensive certification standards are still limited in some regions.
- Lack of Promotion and Support: Compared to FSC, which has a global network and support, LEI may be less aggressive in promotion and advocacy at both international and domestic levels, resulting in lower awareness and demand for its certification.
Despite these challenges, LEI continues to play a vital role in promoting sustainable forest management in Indonesia, especially with its focus on local characteristics and involvement of various stakeholders. However, competition with other schemes and the dynamics of government policy pose significant challenges.
Conclusion
We developed a valuable body of knowledge on sustainable forest management, but unfortunately, we failed to sustain the institution that hosted it. This happened even though support flowed from many directions, and numerous experts contributed their time and energy to both building the knowledge and strengthening the institution’s growth.