Forest-Land Rehabilitation for Indonesia's Carbon Stock Enhancement Strategy

(1)

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

Implementation of forest-land rehabilitation to support the enhancement of carbon stock on Indonesia’s FOLU net sink 2030 strategy

To cite this article: I W S Dharmawan and Pratiwi 2023 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1180 012010

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

Implementation of forest-land rehabilitation to support the enhancement of carbon stock on Indonesia’s FOLU net sink 2030 strategy

I W S Dharmawan^*and Pratiwi^*

National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Research Center of Ecology and Ethnobiology, Bogor, Indonesia

*Corresponding author: [email protected]; [email protected]

Abstract. Indonesia's critical land area has a declining trend and in 2018 it was recorded that the critical land area was 14.01 million ha. Efforts to restore critical land through forest-land rehabilitation activities are very important strategy for Indonesia to achieve the FOLU net sink by 2030. This strategy contributes significantly as a sinker for CO2 emissions because it will increase carbon stocks. This study aims to review the implementation as well as contribution of forest-land rehabilitation to support the enhancement of carbon stock on Indonesia’s FOLU net sink 2030. The desk study focused on analyse and review the data on rehabilitation program realization and compare to the target of rehabilitation program achievement in the document of Indonesia’s FOLU net sink 2030. Nationally, the increasing carbon stocks by planting trees through forest-land rehabilitation activities during 2015-2019 has reached a total planting area of 1,183,581 ha or an average planting of 236.716 ha/year. Meanwhile, Indonesia's FOLU net sink 2030 has a target of increasing carbon stocks of 8,255,323 ha during the 2022-2030 period or an average planting target of 917,258 ha/year. This shows that the contribution of increasing carbon stocks through forest and land rehabilitation is very important, but there is still a gap between the realization of planting for the 2015-2019 period compared to the planting target for 2022-2030 to achieve the FOLU net sink in 2030. This gap can be overcome through the following strategies: 1) selection of priority locations; 2) strong funding support from international and private sectors; 3) community involvement actively through appropriate social forestry mechanisms.

1. Introduction

Forests have a very important role in sustaining life, as well as mitigating biodiversity loss and climate change [1,2], increasing interception and infiltration, decreasing runoff especially on slope areas, and reducing soil erosion [3,4]. Increasing the population has led to an increase need of land for agriculture, settlements, infrastructure, etc. Changes in land use that often exceed its carrying capacity, often lead to the appearance of degraded lands [5]. Indonesia has a degraded land area of around 14,01 million ha [6].

The impacts of degraded land include: ecological, economic and and social aspect. Ecologically, land degradation causing loss of biodiversity, will also affect the hydroorological conditions of which in turn will increase the risk of flooding and drought. Meanwhile, economically, the land degradation impacts include: land resources economic values are reduced so that the welfare of the community is

(3)

2

also disrupted. Socially, the existence of land degradation will affect the occurrence of a shift in community culture, from natural culture to artificial culture [7]. Therefore, several efforts to restore the function of these degraded lands must be carried out immediately.

One of the efforts to overcome this degraded land is to rehabilitate degraded land. Actually, Indonesia has carried out the rehabilitation of degraded land, however, when it is compared to the extent of degraded land, it seems that efforts to improve the rehabilitation of degraded land must be increased.

Policies and implementation of the forestry sector as part of corrective measures will continue to be improved to address the challenges of dealing with the impacts of climate change in the forestry sector.

Climate resilience through forest land rehabilitation programs to support climate change mitigation actions is a real form of corrective action in the forestry sector [8]. In addition, forest-land rehabilitation as well as reforestation are main activities in the achievement of global climate change mitigation [9, 10]. The forest-land rehabilitation also could increase the quality of soil fertility and water to support the sustainable landscape management [11-13].

In 2021, Presidential Regulation No. 98/2021 on the carbon pricing, it is stated that the reduction of GHG emissions (article 3 paragraph 4) will be strongly supported through a program to increase carbon sequestration in the forestry sector and other land uses by 2030 (known as National Program “Indonesia's Forestry and Other Land Use Net Sink 2030/Indonesia’s FOLU Net Sink 2030”). Forest land rehabilitation activities in the FOLU net sink 2030 are carried out through rotational and non-rotational rehabilitation. Rotational rehabilitation activities are carried out through planting and the timber can be harvested. For non-rotational rehabilitation, it is carried out on unproductive land in production and protection forests but the timber cannot be harvested [8]. This study aims to review the implementation as well as contribution of forest-land rehabilitation to support the enhancement of carbon stock on Indonesia’s FOLU net sink 2030.

2. Material and Methods

This study is a desk study focused on the review of implementation as well as contribution of forest- land rehabilitation to support the enhancement of carbon stock on forestry-land use net sink 2030 of Indonesia. A desk study was conducted from March 2022 to June 2022 to analyse and review the data on rehabilitation program realization and compare to the target of rehabilitation program achievement in the document of Indonesia’s FOLU net sink 2030. The analysis of those data is then strengthened by a review of challenges and efforts to address the challenges of future rehabilitation programs in order to meet Indonesia’s forestry-land use net sink targets for 2030.

Desk study data were obtained in the form of secondary data from focus group discussion (FGD) with Ministry of Environment and Forestry, statistics of Ministry of Environment and Forestry year 2018, operational planning of Indonesia’s FOLU net sink 2030, strategic planning on Directorate General of Watershed Management and Protection Forest as well as journals / proceedings / books / reports publication. An analysis was conducted using descriptive, qualitative and quantitative methods in accordance with the calculation of rehabilitation program realization to gaps calculation between realization and target achievement.

3. Trend, Realization and Challenges of Implementation of Rehabilitation Program

Rehabilitation of forest and land aims to improve biodiversity, increase the economic land value, and improve land productivity [14]. In Indonesia, the rehabilitation of degraded land has been carried out for a long time, namely since the 1950s [15,16]. Various projects related to the rehabilitation of degraded land have also been implemented [17]. In 2000 the government issued a Forest and Land Rehabilitation Master Plan through the activities of the National Movement for Forest and Land Rehabilitation (GNRHL) [15]. This Program is directed at super-priority tourist destinations, such as around Lake Toba, Mandalika, Borobudur, Labuan Bajo, and Likupa as well as candidate for the State Capital (IKN) in East Kalimantan. This program was also carried out in 15 priority watersheds, 15 priority lakes, areas prone to floods and landslides as well as areas upstream from 65 dams/reservoirs [18]. Forest and land

(4)

rehabilitation was conducted from 2015-2019 were 200,447 hectares; 198,346 hectares; 200,990 hectares; 188,630 hectares; and 395,168 hectares respectively (Table 1) [19].

Table 1. Achievements of rehabilitation program in 2015-2019.

Rehabilitation activities Total area (ha)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Forest rehabilitation (Reforestation and afforestation)

10,508 7067 35,123 25,179 206,000

Community Forest 189,218 190,567 164,240 162,500 188,168

Urban Forest 240 215 452 - -

Mangrove Forest 491 497 1175 960 1000

Total (ha) 200,447 198,346 200,990 188,630 395,168

Source: [19]

Although rehabilitation has increased but compared to the degraded land area in 2019, which were 14.01 million hectares, seems that rehabilitation efforts still need to be improved. Several challenges of rehabilitation program in Indonesia are: still a huge of degraded land that needs to be rehabilitated [20,21], lack of monitoring resulting in the repetition of similar mistakes [22], lack of community participation [15], low application of land rehabilitation technology, low of land rehabilitation financing from the government, etc.

To overcome these challenges in forest and land rehabilitation, several solutions are needed. These efforts include: strengthen inter-organizational institutions that handle rehabilitation program projects, involved community in the surrounding forest area also land rehabilitation activities starting from planning, monitoring and evaluation, several approaches must be carried out holistically by taking into account the aspects of the community including socio-economic as well as cultural, considering the community interests, especially in species preference development, the need to apply rehabilitation technologies, certainty of rehabilitation program funding. If these challenges can be solved, it is expected that forest and land rehabilitation will be successful.

4. Contribution of Forest-land Rehabilitation Program to the Achievement of Indonesia’s FOLU Net Sink 2030

The rehabilitation program can reduce the rate of deforestation and forest degradation. Rehabilitation is carried out through restoration, maintenance and improvement of forest cover quality to increase carbon storage [23]. The rehabilitation program is carried out through efforts to increase carrying capacity and productivity [24,25]. The rehabilitation program aims to improve land quality and increase land productivity. Non-rotational rehabilitation activities, apart from carbon storage, are also more directed to play a role in the provision of environmental services such as water and others. Until 2020, forest- land rehabilitation activities have significant contribution to the decreasing of deforestation amounted 3.51 million hectares (1996) to 1.09 million hectares (2015) as well as become 115 thousand hectares (2020). In addition, according to the quality index data of land cover also indicated an increase from 58.42 (2016) to 60.74 in 2020 [8]. This downward trend in deforestation rates indicates a reduction in emissions from the forestry sector supported by the forest-land rehabilitation program.

Indonesia has nationally contribution in GHG emissions reduction by 29% using scenario of business as usual (BAU) with its own efforts and 41% with adequate international support in 2030 [26]. This commitment has then been stated in the National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN) 2020- 2024. One of the important agendas to implement this commitment is forest-land rehabilitation. In the 2020-2024 RPJMN, the forest-land rehabilitation achievement target is set at 420,000 hectares annually so that for five years the total forest-land rehabilitation achievement target is set at 2.1 million hectares.

In the achievement target on rehabilitation program of forestry-other land use net sink 2030 of Indonesia is included in the group of carbon stock enhancement (rotational and non-rotational rehabilitation) of

(5)

4

8,255,323 ha (consisting of 5,533,087 ha for rotational rehabilitation and 2,722,236 ha for non-rotational rehabilitation) (Table 2).

Table 2. Rehabilitation program target in carbon stocks enhancement of Indonesia’s FOLU net sink 2030.

Institution Management type

Enhancement carbon stock

Total area (ha) Rotation

rehabilitation (ha)

Non-rotation rehabilitation

(ha)

Sustainable Forest Management Directorate General

Production forest-non concession

88,457 215,842 304,299

Convertible production forest-production forest

304,044 123,972 428,016

Production forest management unit- industrial plantation forest

2,106,325 971,734 3,078,059

Production forest management unit-natural forest concessionaries

1,519,486 320,782 1,840,268

Production forest management unit- ecosystem restoration

23,987 43,052 67,039

Watershed Management and Forest-land Rehabilitation Directorate General

Protection forest-non indicative map of social forestry area

0 92,711 92,711

Ecosystem and Biodiversity Resources Directorate General

Conservation 0 638,548 638,548

Social Forestry and Environmental Partnership Directorate General

Protection forest management unit- social forestry area indicative map

0 29,000 29,000

Production forest management unit- social forestry area indicative map

38,869 168,036 206,905

Sub-national Government

Non-cultivation rights 1,230,100 85,070 1,315,170

Cultivation rights 221,820 33,488 255,308

Total 5,533,087 2,722,236 8,255,323

Source: [8]

The achievement target of increasing carbon stocks in Indonesia's FOLU net sink from rehabilitation activities is 917,258 ha/year (Figure 1). The three largest areas for rehabilitation targets are in production forest management unit-industrial plantation forest (3,078,059 ha), production forest management unit- natural forest concessionaries (1,840,268 ha) and non-cultivation rights in sub-national government (1,315,170 ha) (Table 2). This target is higher than the 2020-2024 RPJMN target of 420,000 ha/year.

The target for rehabilitation activities in Indonesia's FOLU net sink 2030 is also very large when compared to the rehabilitation realization in 2015-2019 covering an area of 236,716 ha/year (Table 1).

The FOLU net sink 2030 mitigation action program will be implemented in a total area of 72,254,287 hectares, and specifically for mitigation in the field of enhancement of carbon stock through a rehabilitation program it will be implemented in an area of 8,255,323 hectares or 11.4% of the total area.

(6)

This fairly high rehabilitation contribution will require significant costs. The extent of critical land in Indonesia is not comparable to the forest-land rehabilitation plan to be implemented by the government, especially the Ministry of Environment and Forestry as an institution which has the duties and functions of rehabilitation program. The rehabilitation program planning is based on the real condition of the state budget's financial capacity to finance forest-land rehabilitation in each province, so that between the reality of budget capacity and the critical land area, the budget is still too small compared to the existing critical land area [27].

Figure 1. The achievement target of increasing carbon stocks in Indonesia's FOLU net sink from rehabilitation activities.

5. The Way Forward

To carry out forest-land rehabilitation activities in the future, increasing and maximizing the midst of limited funding in achieving the target of Indonesia's FOLU net sink 2030, are needed efforts to implement forest-land rehabilitation effectively. The gap between realization of forest-land rehabilitation so far and target achievement for Indonesia’s FOLU net sink until 2030 can be overcome through the following strategies: 1) selection of priority locations; 2) strong funding support from international and private sectors; 3) community involvement actively through appropriate social forestry mechanisms.

The forest rehabilitation program implemented by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry must make a significant contribution to the achievement of NDC through the program direction of the forestry-other land use net sink 2030. The priority location of the rehabilitation program must consider the condition of forest cover and the threat of deforestation and forest degradation. In order to achieve rehabilitation results effectively, spatial planning support is needed in the process of determining rehabilitation priority locations down to the site level. A forest-land rehabilitation program is effective;

it can be ensured that forest-land rehabilitation has supported the achievement of emission reduction as illustrated in Figure 2.

917.258 917.258 917.258 917.258 917.258 917.258 917.258 917.258 917.258

1.834.516 2.751.774

3.669.032 4.586.291

5.503.549 6.420.807

7.338.065 8.255.323

0 1.000.000 2.000.000 3.000.000 4.000.000 5.000.000 6.000.000 7.000.000 8.000.000 9.000.000

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Size (Ha)

Year

FOLU net sink target 2030

Target 917.258 ha/year (2022 - 2030)

(7)

6

Figure 2. Relationship between forest-land rehabilitation, effectivity program dan reducing emission.

In accelerating forest-land rehabilitation to enhance the target achievement of forestry-other land use net sink 2030, strong funding support from non-state budgets is needed, such as grants and the involvement of private sector funding. Strengthening non-APBN funding support for forest-land rehabilitation is very important. So far, it is indicated that the lack of forest-land rehabilitation funding sources from the APBN is also one of the obstacles to the achievement of the forest-land rehabilitation target has not been maximized. In the final evaluation report of the RPJMN 2015-2019, it is stated that the APBN funding is only able to rehabilitate an area of 200 thousand hectares.

Community empowerment is a very important part of mainstreaming forest-land rehabilitation implementation, starting from seeding, planting, to maintenance. Since the existence of forest-land rehabilitation, people's views have changed, from those that were previously only planting plantation or agricultural crops but also becoming more aware of combining these plants with forest plants in an agroforestry pattern. This agroforestry model will further increase public awareness in protecting forest and land areas so that future forest-land rehabilitation results will be maximized. The agroforestry pattern is very appropriate to be applied to the forest-land rehabilitation program because it is supported by strong institutions from the community and has a high level of sustainability. According to the existing agroforestry implementations that has been applied in Indonesia as well as other countries, it showed that agroforestry gives an important contribution not only for climate change mitigation [28,29,30,31,32] but also to increase family income, ensure food availability, increase access to financial loans as well as strengthening farmer’s institutions at the local level [11,33].

6. Conclusions

Forest-land rehabilitation program contributes to the reduce deforestation rates as well as indicates a reduction in emissions from the forestry sector so far. On the other hand, the difference in the realization of forest-land rehabilitation so far and its support for achieving the target of forestry-other land use net sink 2030 in Indonesia, which is still quite large, requires appropriate strategic efforts to achieve maximum emission reduction results. Strategic efforts to deal with these problems can be done through:

selection of priority locations; strong funding support from international and private sectors; and community involvement actively through appropriate social forestry mechanisms.

Priority locations of forest-land rehabilitation activities must pay attention is in according to the threat levels of deforestation, forest degradation as well as fires. Strengthening non-APBN funding support (from grants and private sector) for forest-land rehabilitation is very important to overcome the

(8)

funding gaps from APBN. The agroforestry pattern is very appropriate to be applied in forest-land rehabilitation to ensure program sustainability and strong support from community institutions.

References

[1] Choi Y, Lim H, Krasovskiy A, Platov A, Kim Y, Chung T I, Kim M, Lee W K, Shvidenko A, Kraxner F, Schepaschenko D, Biging G S, Chon J and Jeon S W 2022 Can a national afforestation plan achieve simultaneous goals of biodiversity and carbon enhancement?

Exploring optimal decision making using multi-spatial modeling Biol. Conserv. 267 109474 [2] Hui D, Deng Q, Tian H and Luo Y 2016 Climate change and carbon sequestration in forest ecosystems Climate change mitigation and adaptation eds W Y Chen, T Suzuki, M Lackner (New York, USA: Springer)

[3] Andrade E M, Guerreiro M J S, Palácio H A Q and Campos D A 2020 Ecohydrology in a Brazilian tropical dry forest: Thinned vegetation impact on hydrological functions and ecosystem services J. Hydrol. Regional Studies 27 pp 1-13

[4] Zhang J, Bruijnzeel L A, Quiñones C M, Tripoli R, Asio V B and van Meerveld H J 2019 Soil physical characteristics of a degraded tropical grassland and a ‘reforest’: Implications for runoff generation Geoderma 333 pp 163–177

[5] Dharmawan I W S and Pratiwi 2019 Karakteristik lahan terdegradasi Bunga rampai iptek silvikultur di lahan terdegradasi (Degraded land characteristics Bunga rampai silviculture technology in degraded land) eds P Setio, P Desriwan (Bogor, Indonesia: IPB Press)

[6] Ministry of Environment and Forestry 2019 Statistik Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan Tahun 2018 (Statistics of Ministry of Environment and Forestry Year 2018) (Jakarta, Indonesia: Ministry of Environment and Forestry)

[7] Pratiwi 2020 Rehabilitasi hutan dan lahan untuk perbaikan daya dukung lingkungan hidup dalam kumpulan pemikiran 17 profesor riset untuk pembangunan lingkungan hidup dan kehutanan (Forest and land rehabilitation for improving environmental carrying capacity in a collection of thoughts 17 research professors for environmental and forestry development) eds H Gunawan, B Leksono, B Santoso, Djarwanto (Bogor, Indonesia: IPB Press)

[8] Ministry of Environment and Forestry 2022 Rencana operasional Indonesia’s FOLU net sink 2030 (Operational planning of Indonesia’s FOLU net sink 2030) (Jakarta, Indonesia: Ministry of Environment and Forestry)

[9] Grassi G, House J, Dentener F, Federici S, den Elzen M and Penman J 2017 The key role of forests in meeting climate targets requires science for credible mitigation Nat. Clim. Change 7 pp 220-226

[10] Rockström J, Gaffney O, Rogelj J, Meinshausen M, Nakicenovic N and Schellnhuber H J 2017 A roadmap for rapid decarbonization Sci. 355 pp 1269-1271

[11] Octavia D, Suharti S, Murniati, Dharmawan I W S, Nugroho H Y S H, Supriyanto B, Rohadi D, Njurumana G N, Yeny I, Hani A, Mindawati N, Suratman, Adalina Y, Prameswari D, Hadi E E W, and Ekawati S 2022 Mainstreaming smart agroforestry for social forestry implementation to support sustainable development goals in Indonesia: A review Sustainability 14 pp 1-29

[12] Agroforestry Network 2020 Agroforestry and water for resilient landscapes (Stockholm, Sweden: Agroforestry Network)

[13] Bargues T, Reese A H, Almaw A, Bayala J, Malmer A, Laudon H and Ilstedt U 2014 The effect of trees on preferential flow and soil infiltrability in an agroforestry parkland in semiarid Burkina Faso Water Resour. Res. 50 pp 3342–3354

[14] Kobayashi S 2004 Landscape rehabilitation of degraded tropical forest ecosystems: Case study of the CIFOR/Japan project in Indonesia and Peru For. Ecol. Manag. 201 pp 13-22

[15] Nawir A A, Murniati and Rumboko L 2007 Forest rehabilitation in Indonesia: Where to after more than three decades? (Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research/CIFOR)

(9)

8

[16] de Graaff J, Aklilu A, Ouessar M, Asins-Velis S and Kessler A 2013 The development of soil and water conservation policies and practices in five selected countries from 1960 to 2010 Land Use Policy 32 pp 165–174

[17] Indrajaya Y, Yuwati T W, Lestari S, Winarno B, Narendra B H, Nugroho H Y S H, Rachmanadi D, Pratiwi, Turjaman M, Adi R N, Savitri E, Putra P B, Santosa P B, Nugroho N, Cahyono S A, Wahyuningtyas R S, Prayudyaningsih R, Halwany W, Siarudin M, Widiyanto A, Mandira M, Utomo B, Sumardi, Winara A, Wahyuni T, Mendham D S, Hevia J N and Stavi I 2022 Tropical forest landscape restoration in Indonesia: A review Land 11 pp 1-37

[18] Dharmawan I W S 2022 Program RHL dan implementasinya di Indonesia Bunga rampai implementasi program rehabilitasi hutan dan lahan dalam perspektif konservasi tanah dan air (RHL program and its implementation in Indonesia Bunga rampai implementation of forest and land rehabilitation in soil and water conservation perspective) eds B Mulyanto, I W S Dharmawan, B H Narendra, A Sukmana (Bogor, Indonesia: IPB Press)

[19] Ministry of Environment and Forestry 2020 Rencana strategis Direktorat Jenderal Pengelolaan Daerah Aliran Sungai dan Hutan Lindung (Strategic planning on Directorate General of Watershed Management and Protection Forest) (Jakarta, Indonesia: Ministry of Environment and Forestry)

[20] Barchia M F, Amri K and Apriantoni R 2018 Land degradation and option of practical conservation concepts in Manna Watershed Bengkulu Indonesia TERRA 1 pp 23–30

[21] Pramono I B 2014 Mitigation of land degradation at Juana Watershed, Central Jawa J. Degrad.

Min. Lands Manag. 2 pp 235–242

[22] Mansourian S and Vallauri D 2014 Restoring forest landscapes: Important lessons learnt Environ.

Manag. 53 pp 241–251

[23] Garsetiasih R, Heriyanto N M, Adinugroho W C, Gunawan H, Dharmawan I W S, Sawitri R, Yeny I, Mindawati N and Denny 2022 Connectivity of vegetation diversity, carbon stock, and peat depth in peatland ecosystems Glob. J. Environ. Sci. Manag. 8 pp 369-388

[24] Dimtsu G Y, Kifle M and Darcha G 2018 Effect of soil and water conservation on rehabilitation of degraded lands and crop productivity in Maego watershed, North Ethiopia J. Degrad. Min.

Lands Manag. 5 pp 1191-1205

[25] Mekonen K and Tesfahunegn G B 2011 Impact assessment of soil and water conservation measures at Medego watershed in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia Maejo Int. J. Sci. Technol. 5 pp 312-330

[26] Ministry of Environment and Forestry 2021 Updated NDC Indonesia (Jakarta, Indonesia:

Ministry of Environment and Forestry)

[27] Nurrochmat D R, Sundawati L, Siregar I Z, Darusman D, Trison S, Supriyanto, Wilarso S, Wijayanto N and Sukendro A 2009 National forest assessment: Indonesia (Bogor, Indonesia:

Forestry Faculty IPB University and AKECOP)

[28] IPCC 2019 IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems (Geneva, Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)

[29] IPCC 2000 IPCC special report on land use, land use change and forestry (Geneva, Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)

[30] Murthy K I, Gupta M, Tomar S, Munsi M and Tiwari R 2013 Carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems in India J. Earth Sci. Clim. Chang. 4 131

[31] Singh V S and Pandey D N 2011 Multifunctional agroforestry systems in India: Science-based policy options (Jaipur, India: Climate Change and CDM Cell, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board)

[32] Nair P K R, Nair V D, Kumar B and Showalter J M 2010 Chapter five-carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems in advances in agronomy ed L S Donald (Cambridge, MA, USA:

Academic Press)

[33] Wiati C B, Dharmawan I W S, Sakuntaladewi N, Ekawati S, Wahyuni T, Maharani R, Hadiyan

(10)

Y, Naibaho Y, Satria W I, Ngatiman N, Abdurachman, Karmilasanti, Laksmita A N, Angi E M and Khadka C 2022 Challenges to and strategies for the climate village program plus: A lesson learned from Indonesia Sustainability 14 pp 1-22