Land Dispute Resolution in the Political Reform at the time of Decentralization in Indonesia 1 Minako Sakai (The University of New South Wales)
Abstrak Tulisan ini mengkaji dampak dari tahun-tahun awal reformasi politik, demokratisasi, dan otonomi daerah terhadap masalah agraria. Selama masa Orde Baru, masyarakat setempat tidak dilibatkan dalam hal kepemilikan/pengelolaan sumber daya tanah. Sengketa tanah berkembang menjadi isu politik di banyak daerah di Indonesia. Data yang disajikan dalam tulisan ini berasal dari Sumatra Selatan, salah satu dari daerah ‘terawan’ di Indonesia berkaitan dengan sengketa tanah. Tulisan ini terutama memfokus pada dua masalah utama berkaitan dengan masalah agraria, yaitu kedudukan hak ulayat dan solusi sengketa tanah.
Introduction During the New Order regime (1966– 1998), land disputes, open protests and demonstrations were very much restricted. The lo-
1 The original version of this paper is a revised version of the paper presented at the panel ‘Conflicts Surrounding the Devolution of Power in Political Economy’, at the2nd International Symposium of Journal ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA, ‘Globalization and Local Culture: A Dialectic towards the New Indonesia’, Andalas University, Padang, July 18–21, 2001. This paper was translated into English by Marianna M.G. Warokka and myself from the Indonesian version published in the Journal ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA, 2002 26(68):40–56. I would like to express my gratitude for the assistance of the Palembang Walhi (Indonesian Forum for the Environment) and the LBH in Palembang for information on land disputes in South Sumatra. This research was financed by the 2000/2001Special Research Grant of The University of New South Wales at the Australian Defence Force Academy. I also received useful input from George Quinn and Yunita Winarto.
cal military unit generally suppressed protest movements related to land disputes in customary communities known as masyarakat adat. Suharto’s resignation in May 1998 constituted the beginning of the customary community movement to demand the return of their customary rights including communal land rights (hak ulayat or tanah ulayat). Demonstrations in the agricultural field and related incidents have been reported by various local and national mass media (Lucas and Warren 2000:220–221). The mass media have also become more liberal in disseminating news.2 2
Several examples concerning community movements to demand communal land rights include the following reported incidents: · farmers began to cultivate the Cimacan golf course (July 22, 1998), Java (Bachriadi and Lucas 2001); · farmers occupied cocoa plantations and empty land owned by Tutut’s (Former President Soeharto’s eldest
ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Special Volume, 2002
15
Map 1 Research Location: South Sumatra
The land dispute pattern in the post-Suharto era generally does not occur among fellow farmers, but between farmers and the compa-
· · · · · ·
daughter’s) company, PT Citra Lamtorogung Persada in Lampung (August 3, 1998); farmers staged demonstrations in Medan, Bandung and Denpasar (September 24, 1998); farmers attacked and set fire to a landlord’s property in Riau (December 7, 1998); farmers opened an irrigation channel to obtain more water in Aceh (December 8, 1998); farmers destroyed the harvests of PT Perkebunan Nusantara II Kebun Batangkuis in Medan (December 29,1998); and farmers occupied (Former President) Suharto’s animal husbandry in Tapos, and demanded the revocation of land use right for agriculture (HGU) granted to PT Rejo Sari Bumi (March 30, 2000).
nies owned by investors and/or the government. Furthermore, most of the current land dispute cases are not settled in the courts, but through negotiations between companies and aggrieved community members with the regional government acting as mediator. Therefore, the role of the regional government, as well as the social and political context, may affect the process and resolution of land disputes in Indonesia. Since the fall of the New Order regime, several reviews on agrarian affairs as well as land disputes have been published. For example, a book written by Bachriadi and Lucas (2000) discusses in detail the land disputes in Tapos and Cimacan during the New Order regime. Munarman (2001), Nuh and Collins
ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Special Volume, 2002
16
(2001), and Collins (2001) discuss several land dispute cases in South Sumatra. The focus of such reviews is useful to locate the causes of land disputes originating from the New Order regime’s policies, but they have yet to assess the impact of regional autonomy and reform for a solution to the agrarian issue, especially land dispute resolution related to communal land rights. This article thus is intended to analyze the impact of reforms and the implementation of regional autonomy on the agrarian issues. The focus of this article is directed at the status of communal land rights, the role of the regional government and the validity of resolutions undertaken in order to analyze whether political reforms and the implementation of regional autonomy have affected the various agrarian issues. The cases in this article derive from South Sumatra Province, one of the regions in Indonesia where a number of land disputes have occurred since the fall of the New Order regime. The two research locations in South Sumatra are indicated on the following map. South Sumatra is renowned for its fertile lands and its abundant water supply as a result of the existence of numerous rivers flowing through the territory. These lands are suitable for planting rubber, palm oil trees in the lowlands and coffee in the highlands.
Causes of land disputes in South Sumatra following the fall of Suharto Based on the survey conducted by Lucas and Warren (2000:225) on land disputes handled by the Indonesian Institute of Legal Aid (Lembaga bantuan Hukum, LBH) in 14 provinces throughout 1998, I estimated that disputes in South Sumatra covered 23.6% of the total lands being disputed and 24% of the total amount of survey cases.
One of the effects of Suharto’s fall is the increase of cases registered at the LBH in Palembang (Tiopan 2001), as seen in Table 1. Table 1 Land Dispute Cases handled by the LBH in Palembang Year 1994
Number of Cases 6
1995
13
1996
21
1997
38
1998
81
Source: LBH in Palembang The total number of cases handled by the Palembang LBH is 193 cases (Tim LBH Palembang1999).3 Most of the cases handled by the Palembang LBH are related to land disputes in the location of Industrial Forest Plantation (Hutan Tanaman Industri, HTI), palm oil plantation and government land.4 HTI became known to the public in South Sumatra at the beginning of the 1980s, when its government attracted investments from timber companies and the paper industry.5 In the 1990s, HTI was the proposed solution to re-
3 Please note that not all community members request assistance from LBH. 4 For land dispute patterns in South Sumatra, see Collins (2001), Munarman (2001), Nuh and Collins (2001). 5
Since the IVth Five-Year Development Plan, the Indonesian government has assisted the development of the timber industry to 1) support the growth of the timber industry, 2) support timber exports and meet the domestic demand for timber, 3) increase the number of trees in production forests, especially in unproductive regions, 4) increase job and business opportunities (Nugroho 1994:17).
ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Special Volume, 2002
17
solve the tropical forest deforestation crisis in Indonesia (WALHI and YLBHI 1992:41). The government offered full support for the development of HTI and offered reforestation funds to HTI companies collaborating with stateowned enterprises (Badan Usaha Milik Negara, BUMN). The process of determining the HTI location became one of the sources of land disputes in South Sumatra. In general, the causes of land disputes in South Sumatra may be summed up as follows (Munarman 2001; Tiopan 2001): • abuse of permit: companies that have obtained licenses forcefully evicted the local population from their land; • assumption that the land belongs to the state: companies did not examine the existing land users; • approaches used by the local government always favored companies that hold licenses without regard to the root of problem; • the local government established a committee to procure land, favoring investment companies; • the judicial system worked to oppress the local community in the event of conflicts between security apparatus and the local community; and • with the abolishment of the Customary Government System as a result of Law No.5/1979, the existence of communal land owned by the customary community, including marga, became vague. The marga system was a traditional territory unit headded by a chief (pasirah) and consisted of several hamlets. Marga territories also included communal land. The aforementioned matters indicate that the economic political context during the New Order became the root of the land dispute issues in South Sumatra.
Communal land status during the reform and regional autonomy era In addition to the political and economic contexts, land disputes occur due to the weak legal position of communal lands in the framework of national law. The legal status of communal land rights indicated by adat in Indonesia set forth in Agrarian Law article 5 1960 (Haverfield 1999: 51–54) may be summarized as follows: • adat must not be contrary to national interests; • adat must not be contrary to Indonesian socialism; • adat must not be contrary to the principles of Agrarian Law or other government law; and • all lands belong to the state. The position of communal land to date is below that of public and state interests. Therefore, the agenda of agrarian reform discussed by a government agency (the Bogor Institute of Agriculture) and an NGO (the Agrarian Reform Consortium) in 1999 was aimed at empowering the position of communal land rights. Unresolved issues of communal land rights may result in state disintegration. (Lucas and Warren 2000:226–227). One of the efforts of the central government to overcome agrarian issues is the issuance of a new regulation by the State Minister of Agrarian Affairs/Head of the National Land Agency (Badan Pertanahan Nasional, BPN) No.5 1999 regarding Guidelines for the Settlement of Communal Land Rights Issues under Customary Law to be used in the Regional Autonomy era. Law No.22/1999 regarding Regional Autonomy allows regions to manage national resources available in their territory. These guidelines based on the Principle Agrarian Law have become the operational guidelines in the field of land affairs as well as the
ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Special Volume, 2002
18
settlement of financial issues related to communal land (Nasoetion 2000:15). These guidelines are very important because of the increasing land disputes based on communal land rights claim. The guidelines state that communal land right is recognized as still in existence upon fulfilling following requirements (Article 1, Regulation of the State Minister of Agrarian Affairs/Head of the National Land Agency): • communal land right is recognized by customary law and is owned by certain a customary community over a certain territory; • certain territory constitutes the environment of community members to obtain the benefits of natural resources, including land; and • there are still uninterrupted hereditary physical and spiritual relationships between the customary community and the relevant territory. However customary land right claim toward certain plots of land, is not recognized if such plot is already legally obtained by other persons, namely through purchases or releasing it from rights and interests covering it by Government agencies, legal entities or individuals in accordance with the applicable provisions and procedures (article 3). Following the issuance of these guidelines, legal experts held several workshops to compare the current condition of communal land rights throughout Indonesia.6 Being very different from their stance in the New Order era, legal experts and the Governor of South
Sumatra are beginning to be outspoken on the existence of communal land rights in South Sumatra; and village-level government responsible for the conservation of communal land rights, if such communal land rights are proven to remain in existence (Arsyad 2001:17). Because in general, the investment companies have obtained legal business permit including ‘purchasing’ the land, the disputed lands are no longer recognized as communal lands. Since the position of the communal land right is very weak and the revision of agrarian law is moving slowly, the legal experts and activists are of the opinion that keeping an inventory of communal land rights is merely a way to detect which communal land will be allocated for future business projects. The second item affecting the agrarian issue and the method of land dispute settlement is the authority delegated to regional heads as the result of regional autonomy. Since January 1, 2001, regional heads are authorized to manage the natural resources available in their territory. Today, the courts may theoretically become an agency to endeavor to settle land disputes in Indonesia.7 But in reality, many land dispute cases were not settled through the courts, because community members do not believe that the judicial system is fair and free of politics. On the contrary, the costs are high and the legal system in Indonesia is very corrupt (Collins 2001:130–131). As a consequence, most of the community members prefer to have direct negotiations with the companies under the auspices of LBH or request the mediation of the regional government.
6
Seminar on Communal Land in West Sumatra was organized by the Regional Office of West Sumatra Provincial National Land Agency on October 23–24, 2000 in Padang. National seminar on the existence of communal land rights in Regional Development organized by the Faculty of Law, Sriwijaya University in collaboration with western region (Badan Kerja Sama-Perguruan Tinggi Negeri, BKS-PTN) on May 16, 2001 in Palembang.
7
Land reform courts were abolished with the issuance of Law No.7 Year and agrarian affairs were given to District Courts (Bachriadi 2001:314–315).
ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Special Volume, 2002
19
In connection with this matter, what needs to be examined is what is the impact of efforts to eradicate corruption, collusion and nepotism (Korupsi, Kolusi, dan Nepotisme, KKN)? Regarding the implementation of regional autonomy, has the authority delegated to the regional heads brought about a land dispute settlement method that adequately meets the aspirations of the community?
Patterns of land dispute and dispute settlements in South Sumatra in the regional autonomy era The South Sumatra provincial government has supported the settlement of land disputes and delegated authority to regents prior to the implementation of regional autonomy. Based on the report signed by the Public Administration Assistant, H. Amran Harun, on July 2, 2001, 39 land dispute cases that were filed by the regional government (Provincial and Regency Governments) have been ‘successfully settled’, while 78 cases are in process in South Sumatra Province as recorded in General Government Affairs Bureau of the South Sumatra Province Regional Secretariat. The total number of land dispute cases handled by the regional government is 117 cases. This is quite a large number, because land dispute cases recorded in the compilation of LBH in Palembang up to 1999 reaches 193 cases. Prior to the implementation of regional autonomy, the Governor of South Sumatra instructed the local Regent to examine and settle land dispute issues. In view of Law No. 22 regarding Regional Autonomy, the governor authorized the regents to form a special team to handle such cases or request heads of subdistrict (camat) to investigate land dispute cases. Although the operational cost of such a team is very high, a number of cases processed by it indicate that this team is very useful for
the negotiation process. The team’s duty, for example, in Muara Enim Regency covers the following matters (Muntaquo 2000:25–26): it • examines the validity of the demand letters; • conducts a societal approach to the community filing demands and to the government; • creates an inventory of the legal subjects and objects of the dispute; • prevents third-party intervention; • witnesses the agreement to solve problems; and • reports to the Muara Enim regional government head/Regent after completing each task. Most of the communities’ demands in South Sumatra include: • compensation for trees and crops (tanam tumbuh); • provision of employment opportunities; and • the return of forcefully occupied lands. The amount granted as compensation for trees and crops varies depending on the cases and circumstances. To date, there has been no decision to return the lands to members of the community demanding their unconditional return. In this article, I will assess whether such compensation payment constitutes the best method based on the analyses of two cases in South Sumatra. The two cases illustrate the patterns of land dispute settlement in South Sumatra mediated by the regional government in the regional autonomy era. The examples used are land disputes that concern the HTI and palms oil that have been settled. To evaluate the impacts of reform and regional autonomy in solving agrarian issues, I will discuss the following matters: • recognition and status of communal land rights; • the role of the regional government; • the political, social and economic impacts affecting the methods of its settlement;
ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Special Volume, 2002
20
• •
the validity of resolutions granted; and who benefits from this resolution.
Case of former Rambang Kapak Tengah Marga against Musi Hutan Persada (MHP) Musi Hutan Persada (MHP) owned by Prajogo Pangestu, who is close to the Suharto family, obtained an Industrial Forest Concession (Hak Pengelolaan Hutan Tanaman Industri, HPHTI), and began to take over lands in South Sumatra Province around 1991 (Decision of the Minister of Forestry No.205/ KPTS-II/1991). According to the September 1997 HTI Development Report, MHP had 296,400 hectares under its concession. MHP supplied its wood raw materials to PT Tanjung Enim Lestari or PT TEL. PT TEL is a pulp plant in Muara Enim Regency designed to produce 450,000 tons of pulp per year. Its main shareholder includes Siti Hardiyanti Rukmana, one of Suharto’s daughters. PT TEL entrepreneurs were partly financed by a loan syndicate of 25 banks from 9 countries. The requirement for such loan was the approval of an independent environmental impact study in the affected areas. Conflict between the local community and such timber/paper plant occurred in connection with: • the land appropriation process by the timber company; • the land procurement process for the site of the pulp plant site;8 • concerns of the environmental impact of the pulp plant in such region; and • recruitment of employees for such pulp plant. Out of the 300,000 hectare of MPH’s con8
For dispute case summary against PT TEL, see Nuh and Collins (2001).
cession land, LBH in Palembang recorded approximately 19,918 hectares (6.7%) as land being disputed between MHP and the local community. Out of the 1,600-hectare paper plant site, 1,370 hectares are still being disputed. One of the land disputes attracting media attention was the case of land belonging to former Rambang Kapak Tengah Marga, located in Rambang Lubai Subdistrict, Muara Enim Regency. Following the fall of Suharto and some time following the 1999 general election, the local community consisting of 12 villages began lobbies and staged demonstrations to retake their lands. I had been conducting anthropology research in the same area between 1994 and 1996, but at that time the community members seldom discussed their frustrations against on such logging company, as they had been intimidated by the presence of the military. They realized that the HTI project had been receiving a lot of attention from the Suharto family, but they could not express their disappointment. During the New Order era, only a few local communities such as the Dalam Village (paper plant site), Rambang Dangku Subdistrict, Muara Enim Regency and Pelawe Village (logging site), Muara Kelingi Subdistrict, Musi Rawas Regency opposed the land acquisition process by MHP because they were intimidated by the security apparatus. After holding several meetings, the former Kapak Tengah Marga community led by land dispute coordinator, Junial Komar hailing from Pagar Agung Village but now residing in Jakarta, decided to file three demands: • the return of approximately 26,000 hectares of land to the community by MHP (MHP took over the communal land from the Kapak Tengah Marga that should not have been included in their HPHTI); • compensation for the loss of opportunity
ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Special Volume, 2002
21
Table 2 The amount of compensation paid by MHP in 2001 Objectives
Amount
Cooperative and foundation fund allocation (granted to the coordinator) Compensation for households
Rp483,000,000 - Rp350,504,000 for foundation land - Rp132,496,000 for cooperative Rp3,168,931,700 - Rp625,900 per household - 5,063 households in total
Payment for sub-contractor and village heads Rp248,000,000 (Rp5,000,000 per person) Thanksgiving ceremony cost
Rp101,000,000
Table 3 List of Compensation for Loss of Trees and Crops Type of Tree
Number of Tree
Price (Rp per tree)
Sub total (Rp)
Durian
1800
30,000
54,000,000
Rubber
19500
25,000
487,500,000
Cempedak
1300
30,000
39,000,000
Petai
1650
25,000
41,250,000
Kemang
1125
62,000
69,750,000
Jengkol
4700
10,000
47,000,000
Kabau
3100
10,000
31,000,000
Mangosteen 1600
15,000
24,000,000
Remanas
2200
20,000
44,000,000
Kecapi
1175
15,000
17,625,000
Total
•
in the last 9 years. It was estimated that the per hectare compensation was Rp 25,000,000, and the total was Rp 665,000,000,000; and the amount of compensation for trees and crops on the land taken by MHP was around Rp885,125,000 (see table 3).
885,125,000
In the negotiation process explained in the chronology of events as indicated in the Appendix, thousands of community members participated in a demonstration in front of the South Sumatra Governor’s office in February 2000. The South Sumatra Governor seemed very sympathetic to the demands of the com-
ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Special Volume, 2002
22
munity members and issued a status quo statement instructing MHP to stop their field activities. MHP ignored such instruction, and questioned the legal authority of the governor, who is not entitled to meddle in MHP business. As the result, the masses burned an MHP office and in the end the disputed land was released from concession area and was handed over to the South Sumatra Provincial Government.9 The demand for compensation on the trees and crops claimed by the community was satisfied with the payment of 4 billion rupiah in October 2000. Table 2 accounts for the amount of compensation for trees and crops paid by MHP to the community members. Because of the involvement of thousands a mass staging demonstration, the case of the former Rambang Kapak Tengah Marga became headlines of some local newspapers, such as Sriwijaya Post and Sumatera Ekspres. The community members of Rambang Kapak Tengah welcomed such decision, including the payment of compensation. The community members demanding compensation in other areas in South Sumatra were pleased about the outcome as they felt enthusiastic in the hope of receiving the compensation demanded.
Recognition and status of communal land What does the process and resolution of this MHP case indicate in terms of agrarian reform? Is the disputed land recognized as the ownership of the community members and returned to the original owners? The decision issued by the South Sumatra Governor in the negotiation process said that ‘their lands the ownership of which is claimed by the local community are
9 Nuh and Collins (2001:51) said that land was ‘returned’ to the community. This response was legally inaccurate.
located inside and outside of the forest area that is currently the HTI land of MHP’. Decision of the Minister of Forestry and Plantations No.147/KPTS-II/2000 to exclude 12,050 hectares of land area from the MHP’s working area does not provide any clue on the status of the land in dispute. The plants and facilities in the location are recognized as remaining the right of MHP. The land excluded from the working area was submitted to the South Sumatra Provincial Government to ‘promote public welfare inside and in the vicinity of the working area of PT MHP in general and village members of former Rambang Kapak Tengah I Marga in particular’.10
The role of the regional government In this case, the governor was closely involved and acted as a mediator to the community members of former Rambang Marga residents. In the negotiation process, the Governor decided the status of the land as ‘status quo’ and instructed the stop of MHP field activities. The Governor also determined the amount of compensation.
Political, social and economic impacts affecting the settlement methods Since MHP belongs to a Suharto’s crony, who became a suspect in a fund mark-up scandal in mid-2000 when the community members were demanding the payment of compensation, the exclusion of the disputed land from the working area of MHP was deemed as a ‘re-
10
Decision of the Minister of Forestry and Plantations Number 148/KPTS-II/2000 issued on July 7, 2000, the second decision said that forest area that was handed over would subsequently be managed by the South Sumatra Government and its products are used for the welfare of the community inside and in the vicinity of working area of PT. MHP.
ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Special Volume, 2002
23
form’ effort.11 Taking stern action against MHP and favoring the claimant community members could be said to be one of the political reform measures taken by the regional government. Therefore, the regional government made a stern decision, such as the status-quo decision and by not objecting to interference with the business of MHP. In the negotiation process, thousands of community members staged a demonstration and were camped on the front lawn of the South Sumatra Governor office in Palembang. During the negotiation process, the security apparatus did not arrest any of the community members. The struggle for the eradication of Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism, including those perpetrated by Suharto cronies constitutes a praise-worthy action in the eyes of the community.
The validity of resolution given The resolution given to MHP and conducted by the Provincial Government caused two problems; namely the status of the land and its utilization methods in the future as well as conflicts concerning the distribution of compensation. Following the exclusion of land from the MHP concession working area, there had been no decision on the future of such land for almost a year. The trees of MHP were harvested, leaving only empty land at the site. The community members of former Rambang Kapak Tengah Marga urged the land dispute coordinator to seek investors for released land. According to the information expressed by the local villagers, it was very difficult to seek investors because they were afraid of community members who could demand and disrupt its investment activities. A number of commu-
nity members opened fields at the site without permit, due to the absence of a decision. By the end 2001, the community members finally agreed on the offer of a People’s Joint Forest Management (Mengolah Hutan Bersama rakyat, MHBR) scheme12 from MHP. The community members I interviewed admitted that they accepted the MHBR scheme because they had no other choice. The payment of compensation was not always the best solution, because the local community lost their lands and the amount of compensation for trees and crops paid by MHP to one household head was not commensurate with the household’s future needs. Because most of the compensation payments were given to the coordinator with a provision that such money was destined for a foundation to be established at their area to improve regional welfare, many community members suspected the coordinator’s wealth. Since the holding of thanks-giving ceremony at the site, the coordinator was often in Jakarta and he did not send any news on potential investments. There were rumors that the coordinator purchased a luxury car (BMW) following the payment of compensation. There had been no news from the coordinator concerning the establishment of the foundation and the details of the foundation’s establishment plan. Several community members were disappointed with the amount of compensation payment for each individual. In their opinion, the cost and time expended by community members during their
12
The MHBR scheme offered by MHP gives the opportunity to the local community to earn incomes from HTI. For example, the community was given jobs such as planting, felling and keeping fire. During timber harvest, the community would also receive several percent as promised MHP. The MHBR included the local community in 11 For example, there was an article contained in a local the management of HTI. To what extent the local comdaily entitled ‘Rontoknya Bisnis Kroni Soeharto’, Sriwijaya munity could receive profits from this pattern are not clear Post, May 2, 2000. yet.
ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Special Volume, 2002
24
struggle against MHP all this time were not commensurate with the compensation payment.
Who benefits? Since the amount of compensation was not commensurate with the community members’ needs and aspirations, the payment of compensation could be said to be symbolic. In this context, who actually reaped the benefits from this land dispute? The elite of the community constituted the parties who gained some wealth including the coordinator. The coordinator had an opportunity to open the timber business for MHP, and obtained quite satisfactory compensation. In addition, he had the opportunity to undertake a political movement, including filing a proposal to turn Prabumulih into a Regency with the implementation of regional autonomy.13 The land dispute coordinator was politically affiliated to the Crescent Star Party (Partai Bulan Bintang). The person concerned had allegedly sought a seat as a Regional People’s Legislative Assembly member in the subsequent general election. Due to the intensive involvement of the South Sumatra Governor and the success of compensation payment made by the Suharto’s crony-owned company, the name and function of the South Sumatra Governor were significantly elevated at the time when the position and role of the governor was being questioned on the eve of the implementation of regional autonomy. It could be said that land dispute cases constitute an opportunity to seek political fortune for local elite rather than as an agrarian reform measure.
13
Muara Enim and Prabumulih community communication forum for Justice and Unity made a statement to propose the establishment of Prabumulih Regency on July 25, 20002 to Muara Enim Regent.
Land disputes in the vicinity of palm oil plantations Now let us look at land dispute cases in the filed of palm oil. There are many companies engaging in the field of palm oil plantation management. There are approximately 32 companies noted by the LBH in Palembang. Individual investors, including investors from Malaysia own these companiesdifferent from HTI cases owned by Suharto’s cronies. Most of the palm oil companies that came to South Sumatra in the beginning of the 1990s, coincided with the entry of Suharto’s crony-owned logging companies. PT. Multrada Multi Maju (MMM) has 15,000 hectares of land in Kikim Subdistrict, Lahat Regency. MMM is a Malaysian company, which obtained a Right of Cultivation (Hak Guna Usaha, HGU) from Jakarta based on the land acquisition by the Central National Land Agency. Out of the 15,000 hectares, around 4,097 hectares have been disputed by the local people from 16 villages in the vicinity of Kikim Subdistrict since 1994. MMM did not contact or pay compensation to the local people when they seized the land. There are two main schemes of land management in palm oil plantation, namely the Core (Inti) and Plasma (Plasma) schemes. Through the Plasma scheme, the local people were permitted to grow palm oil trees provided to them by the company. The yields were sold through the local cooperative to the company. In the Core scheme, the participation of the local community was put aside. The company took over the lands and they planted the palm oil trees by themselves. The company had to choose the type of the plantataion scheme when it applied for a business permit. MMM ran its businesses by applying the Core scheme and as the result, the Kikim community members lost all access to land management.
ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Special Volume, 2002
25
The community staged demonstrations on this case, but the security apparatus often suppressed their struggle during the New Order era. Land disputes between Kikim community members from 16 villages and MMM became increasingly tense in 1999 following the fall of Suharto. To meet their daily needs, the Chief of Resort Police in Lahat (Kapolres) and the South Sumatra Governor permitted Kikim community members to harvest the palms. the harvesting by Kikim community members imposed massive losses to MMM, as a result, several Kikim community members were caught and punished because they were proven to have systematically stolen palms in February 2000. After that, Lahat Regent formed a team in Kikim Subdistrict to settle land disputes. Kikim Subdistrict Head served as a mediator between Kikim community members and MMM. After negotiations, most of the Kikim community members approved the payment of compensation in the amount of Rp500,000 per hectare.
Recognition and communal land rights status In the negotiation process, there was no discussion or explanation from the regional government concerning the existence of communal land rights in MMM’s palm oil plantation area. The regional government and MMM only acknowledged trees and crops on the disputed lands, therefore, the resolution agreed upon between MMM and 16 villagers represented by village chiefs was compensation/care in the amount of Rp500,000, per hectare on trees and crops .
The role of regional government In view of the implementation of regional autonomy, Lahat Regent directly instructed Kikim Subdistrict Head to serve as the head of
the on-the- spot Settlement Team against land disputed by the community in Kikim, Lahat, Merapi and Tebing Tinggi Subdistricts at the expense of Lahat Regency Government. The subdistrict head assigned with this task held a meeting with the Kikim community members disputing with the palm oil company, and became as a mediator. During the negotiation process, Kikim subistrict Head filed proposals, but he never made a decision concerning the business activities in the field as was conducted by the South Sumatra Governor against MHP.14
Political, social and economic impacts affecting settlement methods Since MMM is a Malaysian investor that is not owned by a Suharto’s crony, the government of Lahat Regency or South Sumatra Provincial government did not take any stern stance in conveying the demands of the community members to the company. For example, during the negotiation process, several Kikim community members were arrested for having committed criminal offenses. The government seemed to have taken into consideration international business relations in order to attract foreign investors.15 Political reform context did not really affect its problem solving methods as it did in the MHP case which was deemed as a reform measure against Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism.
The validity of resolution given The local community proposed that the Plasma system be implemented so that the 14
For example, Kikim District Head, Chozali Hanan ‘instructed PT MMM to temporarily stop its activities’ in a letter No.591/798/04.15/2000, October 9, 2000. 15 For example, business interest in the field of mining has decreased since the implementation of regional autonomy (Boulan-Smit 2002).
ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Special Volume, 2002
26
people in Kikim community can make living out of it. This proposal was rejected by MMM. The resolution offered was compensation/care in the amount of Rp500,000 per hectare. Because the land in Kikim area had been taken by the palm oil company, the payment of compensation would not solve the root of problem. Where do the farmers earn a living if there is no land in their area? LBH legal experts presumed that there would be soon new demands arising from the new community members against the same company, because they no longer own land for cultivation.
Who benefits from this resolution? The payment of Rp500,000 per hectare served as inadequate compensation, if the farmers could not obtain new lands nearby. One of the entities that benefited was the palm oil company, which remained in business following the payment of compensation. Compensation was not a good solution, but it was often used by the companies as a way out, because the compensation recipients could no longer make any more legal demands. In other words, compensation could be used as a ‘temporary muzzle’. In addition to the company, the Regent’s popularity in the eyes of the people is also elevated as a party capable of overcoming land dispute issues. This is an important issue as the election of the Regent approaches. Mediating land disputes thus constitutes a good opportunity for regional elites to become popular in this regional autonomy era.
Conclusions Based on land dispute case analyses, I conclude that land dispute issues and their resolu-
tion have not yet met the aspirations of customary communities. Since the resolution was achieved through the mediation of a government office, the resolution and negotiation process depends on the existing political and economic conditions. There should be a judicial system that can actually be trusted by the community so that the resolutions given can become a basic pattern for the subsequent land disputes. Compensation for trees and crops is not the best solution because the local community continues to own no land and is not able to make ends meet if there is no more land available. Compensation for trees and crops is only an effort to ‘temporarily smother the fire and the embers of the fire will resurface in the future’. The payment of compensation for trees and crops will not empower the customary community that had been long marginalized during the New Order era. Based on the case analyses concerning land dispute cases at the post-Suharto era, this article highlights that the implementation of current regional autonomy does not easily overcome the agrarian issues that concern the interests of the local community. The government’s inconsistent stance on the demands of community members that result in land disputes will adversely affect the interest of foreign businesses as exemplified in the mining sector. The decrease of foreign investors in Indonesia will result in a protracted economic crisis and may yet again result in the possibility of political and military oppressions as it did in the New Order era in regions where foreign investor security guarantees were the government’s top priority.
ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Special Volume, 2002
27
Appendix Summary of Cases of Former Rambang Kapak Tengah I Marga against MHP in Muara Enim Regency June 24, 1999
First meeting organized by coordinator, Junial Komar, in Pagar Agung
July 24, 1999
Written demands filed to MHP base camp in Suban Jeriji with six copies forwarded to Muara Enim Regency Regent
July 28, 1999
Demands were also filed to the South Sumatra Governor
August 3–8, 1999
Demands were filed to the National Land Agency in Jakarta, Minister of Forestry, Speakers of the House/Assembly (DPR/MPR, National Commission on Human Rights and President Habibie
August 13, 1999
Meeting between local community representatives and MHP in Jakarta resulted in the agreement to settle cases under the auspices of the Muara Enim Regional Government. The negotiation team would be established by the Muara Enim Regional Government
October 7, 1999
Thousands of people staged a demonstration in front of the South Sumatra Regional Government office in Palembang and demanded the cessation of the MHP operationThe South Sumatra Governor issued a statement supporting the agreement dated August 13
October 27, 1999
MHP agreed to comply with all demands of the people representatives if Muara Enim Regional Government examined the demands of the local people
November 1, 1999
MHP cancelled its agreement as of October 27, 1999
February 17, 2000
3000 people of Rambang Kapak Tengah I Marga staged a demonstration at the front yard of the South Sumatra Governor. They camped there and stated that they would not leave before the case was settled. The number of the demonstrators increased to 4500 persons
February 18, 2000
The Head of Muara Enim Land Office informed the people and the governor that the disputed land would be reduced from 24,706 hectares to 12,050 hectares
February 24, 2000
The Governor of South Sumatra issued a status quo statement. MHP questioned the legal authority of the governor
February 25, 2000
As the consequence of status quo, MHP estimated substantial losses
March 1, 2000
Disregarding the status quo instruction, MHP continued logging and a furious mob attacked the MHP base camp and set fire to 2 trucks.The MHP base camp in Gemawang was threatened by the furious mob of Rambang Kapak Tengah Marga residents. The employees of MHP were evacuated
March 6, 2000
A meeting between the Governor, local people and the Director General of Production Plant Forest Management approving to release the disputed land from MHP to the state for the interest of the local community
March 24,2000
Following the success of the Rambang and Babattoman cases, a village in MUBA Regency began to claim 1500 hectares of land from MHP
ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Special Volume, 2002
28
April 15, 2000
The people of Rambang Lubai threatened to kidnap the Secretary General of the Ministry of Forestry, Suripto
May 30, 2000
Suharto officially came under house arrest in Jakarta
May 15, 2000
240 Babattoman people staged a demonstration in front of the Governor's office to claim their lands from MHP
May 24, 2000
Palembang Regional People's Legislative Assembly (DPRD) demanded that the Forestry Concession (HPH) in South Sumatra be revoked. The HPH was decided by the Ministry of Forestry in Jakarta The Governor of South Sumatra also expressed his stance to annul all HPHs in South Sumatra and declared that HPHs were harmful to the region, including HPHs granted to state-owned forestry company, Inhutani
June 7, 2000
Minister of Forestry, Nur Mahmudi Ismail, decided to exclude 12,050 hectares of the disputed land from MHP's HPH No.38/KPTS-II/1996 (Decision of the Minister of Forestry and Plantations No.147/KPTS-II/2000) 12,050 hectares of the disputed land were returned to the Governor of South Sumatra to be handled on behalf of the local community. The South Sumatra Governor was charged with disbursing the compensation (Decision of the Minister of Forestry and Plantations No.148/KPTS–II/2000)
August 9, 2000
The Governor decided that the payment of compensation for the lost plants and trees was Rp.4 billion which had to be paid by MHP to the local people (Decision of the Governor of South Sumatra No.375/SK/I/2000)
August 14, 2000
The local people accepted this offer along with the part of the logging land thereby making MHP capable of paying the compensation. The land dispute coordinator was appointed as the logging operation coordinator
October 8, 2000
The thanksgiving gathering in Pagar Agung village was attended by politicians including the Governor of South Sumatra The cost was Rp101 million
March 16, 2001
Minister of Forestry, Nurmahmudi Ismail, refusing to discharge Suripto was replaced by Marzuki Usman
March 21, 2001
Suripto, the Secretary General of the Ministry of Forestry, filed corruption allegations against Prajogo Pangestu to the public prosecutor's office. Prajogo was accused of marking up the size of MHP land in South Sumatra in order to obtain reforestation fund
March 28, 2001
Suripto was replaced by Harsono by reason of old age
April 18, 2001
Suripto provided evidence of mark-up to the public prosecutor's office
May 1, 2001
The Police in Jakarta interrogated Suripto in connection with selling state secrets to a foreign entity. Suripto was released on May 3, 2001
May 18, 2001
Prajogo was interrogated by the public prosecutor's office
May 18, 2001
No investors were willing to replace the operation of MHP in Rambang Kapak Tengah I siteMHP offered People's Joint Forest Management production sharing scheme to the local community
June 12, 2001– November 2001
Projogo officially became a suspect in a corruption caseThe local community and MHP approved such People's Joint Forest Management pattern offer.
ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Special Volume, 2002
29
Chronology of Kikim Case The fall of Suharto
Demonstration by Kikim people continued. The demonstrators thronged the DPRD office of Lahat Regency in trucks
May 4, 1999
In an interview by the Sumatra Ekspres on May 4, 1999, Lahat Resort Police Chief, Let. Col. Pol. Marin Eko Siswanto was issued to make a statement that both the company and the disputing community members were permitted to harvest.
September 1999
The Governor of South Sumatra tried to mediate the dispute and granted a permit to the local community to harvest the palms from MMM plantations to meet their daily needs
November 11, 1999
Kikim people burnt the MMM base camp
November 15, 1999
The Governor of South Sumatra announced that he would take stern action
November 26, 1999
The DPRD of Lahat Regency demanded Lahat police to suppress people who acted brutally and destructively
November 1999– February 2000
The theft of palm oil increased and caused MMM to suffer losses Rp.2 billion per month
February 2000
13 persons were arrested as thieves by the local police followed by a demonstration. Another 12 people were arrested. One of the Kikim leaders, Subowo from Wonorejo Village, was sentenced 7 months in jail under the charge of systematic theft of palms
February 27, 2000
Lahat regent permitted Kikim District to establish a team to handle land disputes in the region (using Law No. 22 regarding Regional Government, 1999)
March - July 2000
Kikim subistrict head prepared a report underscoring land disputes with various companies. The report recommended case settlement by granting alternative land and replacing the Core scheme with Plasma scheme
June 12, 2000
Demonstration in front of the South Sumatra Regional Police Chief office in Palembang organized by the South Sumatra Farm Laborer Resistance Front to demand the release of Subowo from the jail was broken up by police and 14 demonstrators were arrested
July 20, 2000
Farmer demonstrators of Penanggiran and Ujan Mas villages were shot and arrested when they clashed with local police in front of the Regional Government office. 103 persons were detained. Those farmers opposed land acquisition by Cipta Futura and PTPN VII Sungai Lengi to be converted into palm oil plantations
January 2001
Kikim subdstrict head managed to reach a consensus between the local people and MMM to settle the case by offering Rp. 500,000 per hectare to the people
ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Special Volume, 2002
30
Bibliography
Arsyad, R.H. 2001 Hak Ulayat Masyarakat Adat di Sumatera Selatan. A paper presented in a ‘Seminar Nasional tentang Eksistensi Hak Ulayat dalam Pembangunan Daerah’, organized by the Faculty of Law, Unsri in cooperation with Western Region BKS-PN, May 1) Palembang. Bachriadi, D. 2002 ‘Sengketa Agraria dan Perlunya Penegakan Lembaga Peradilan Independen’ in Lapera Team (ed.) Prinsip-prinsip Reforma Agraria Jalan Penghidupan dan Kemakmuran Rakyat. Yogyakarta: Lapera Pustaka Utama. Pp. 299–334. Bachriadi, D. and A. Lucas 2000 Merampas Tanah Rakyat: Kasus Tapos dan Cimacan. Jakarta: Kepustakaan Populer Gramedia. Boulan-Smit, C. 2002 ‘When the Elephants Fight the Grass Suffers’: Decentralisatioin and the Mining Industry in Indonesia’, Antropologi Indonesia 26(68):59–66. Collins, E.F. 2001 ‘Multinational Capital, New Order ‘Development’ and Democratisation in South Sumatra’, Indonesia 71:111–133. Haverfield, R. 1999 ‘Hak Ulayat and the State: Land Reform in Indonesia’, in T. Lindsey (ed.) Indonesia: Law and Society. Leichhardt: The Federation Press. Pp. 42–73. Lucas, A. and C. Warren 2000 ‘Agrarian Reform in the Era of Reformasi’, in C. Manning and P. van Diermen (eds) Indonesia in Transition: Social Aspects of Reformasi and Crisis. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Pp. 220–238. Munarman 2001 ‘Refleksi Kasus Pertanahan di Sumatera Selatan’, in Lapera Team (ed.) Prinsip-prinsip Reforma Agraria Jalan Penghidupan dan Kemakmuran Rakyat. Yogyakarta: Lapera Pustaka Utama. Pp. 517–542. Muntaqo, F. 2000 Research Report: Perspektif Eksistensi Hak Ulayat dalam Era Pelaksanaan Otonomi Daerah (Studi terhadap Hak Ulayat di Kabupaten Muara Enim Propinsi Sumatera Selatan). Lembaga Penelitian Universitas Sriwijaya Indonesia. Nuh, M.M. and E. Collins 2001 ‘Land Conflict and Grassroots Democracy in South Sumatra: The Dynamics of Violence in South Sumatra’, Antropologi Indonesia 25(64):41–55.
ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Special Volume, 2002
31
Nasoetion, L.I. 2000 ‘Key Speech’, in Buku Himpunan Makalah dan Rumusan Workshop Tanah Ulayat di Sumatera Barat organized by the Regional Office of the West Sumatra Provincial National Land Agency on October 23-24, Padang. Pp.11–19. Nugroho, T. 1994 Hutan Tanaman Industri: Kajian Konsep dan Implementasinya. Jakarta: Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia. Tiopan 2001 Pembaruan Agraria: Jawaban untuk Penyelesaian Konflik Pertanahan di Sematera Selatan. A paper presented in a Land Regional Seminar Program organized by FKMMPKM, Prabumulih, March 15. Palembang Legal Aid Foundation Team 1999 Data Kasus Pertanahan Sumatera Selatan (Kompilasi Data LBH Palembang), Palembang. Walhi and YLBHI 1992 Mistaking Plantions for the Indonesia’s Tropical Forest. Jakarta: Wahana Lingkungn Hidup Indonesia.
ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Special Volume, 2002
32
