The enactment of FLEGT License opens a new round of changes in forest governance in Indonesia. Recognition of the SVLK is a success and a challenge for Indonesia to be able to consistently implement SVLK in a credible and accountable manner. Indonesia must continue to work hard to maintain the credibility of the system by showing seriousness in following up the findings of violations in the implementation of the SVLK.

Related to this, the Independent Forestry Monitoring Network (JPIK) together with the Certification Institution (LS) held a discussion to discuss the implementation of SVLK and their respective roles in its implementation. The discussion held in Bogor on December 8 was also to discuss input for improvement of the SVLK system, although further discussion is still needed to discuss this. Although using the same system and standards in carrying out their respective roles, there are still differences in perspectives. This is also one of the main objectives of this meeting. So that Independent Monitors and Certification Bodies can work together to ensure the credibility of the SVLK.

Since the FLEGT License was officially implemented, Indonesia will become a spotlight in the eyes of the international community. It is important to have collaboration between CBs and independent monitors (PIs). “The existence of JPIK helps make the verification results more credible. LS must also be open to things that often appear as input from JPIK, “explained Akhmad, from Ayamaru.

The discussion held at the JPIK secretariat was attended by 32 representatives of certification bodies and independent monitors, namely Transtra, MMS, KPS, Trustindo, Almasentra, TUV, ISE, Equality, Sarbi, SCS, Ayamaru, MHI, BRIK, Sucofindo, MAL, NKL, JPIK, and FWI. “This needs to be discussed further. From the point of view of the PI it is important to convince outsiders, that what is produced by the LS is a reliable result, “said Arbi Valentinus, JPIK Board who was present at the discussion.

LS and PI welcomed the discussion and hoped that it could be done routinely, considering that more comprehensive discussion was needed. Including sharing and sharing input to improve the work of each institution in order to maintain the credibility of the SVLK.