Extraction activities by way of forcibly appropriating natural forest resources from communities create multi-dimensional conflicts. Forest extraction that is initially aimed at benefiting the community and at the same time providing added value for economic growth in Indonesia ultimately ends in failure when the initial objective of benefiting the communities is not achieved. Essentially, development of the forestry sector in Indonesia can only be described as a success if it is able to maintain the existence and supportive capacity of the local environment. Development fails when it is unable to improve the welfare of the community, as one of its primary target groups.If we observe the path of forestry development in Indonesia over almost three decades, combined with various research and/or records about the communities in and around the forests, we will witness a colossal parade of failures of the forestry sector to respect community rights or support community welfare. This is evident, for example, in the lack of options that the Siak River community has to deal with the impacts of forestry industry along the river .
In 1991, the communities of three districts in South Aceh were threatened by starvation because their land was controlled by five companies with forestry concessions. The Sakai people in Riau still have to move due to the appropriation of their land by Arara Abadi, an affiliate of APP, and the Caltex oil company. They have been evicted from their land and have to work as laborers in order to rent a house plot on what used to be their people’s farming land.All this could only occur because the forestry development process is founded on an erroneous paradigm. Forestry development focuses on both domestic and foreign investment, which is hoped to have a subsequent trickle down effect. This has been unsuccessful. Instead, the people’s economic sectors have subsidized the economic activities of businessmen. Millions of hectares of people’s land have been taken over by businessmen through State policies that have ultimately failed to respect the rights or ensure welfare for the people.Makinudin and Effendi (2001) gave an example from South Aceh regency, which had an average economic growth of 6.2% in 2000 (with 50% contributed by the forestry sector annually), when the growth of the “green economy” was 3.6% at most. Why? The reason is that almost 50% of conventional economic growth in South Aceh had caused serious depreciation of forest resources. Flooding and landslides color the region’s economy ever more frequently. Of course, it is the community around the forests who suffer these impacts, combined with crop failures in the downstream agricultural sector.Appropriation of people’s lands, which is then claimed as State land, has multifold impacts that ultimately strip people of their means to rebel. Aceh is one of the most obvious examples. Rebellion in Aceh during the last two decades has partly been based on the injustice of natural resources exploitation. However, this is usually seen merely as an issue of factional politics in the political arena .Subdivision of forest (read: community) land into business concessions doesn’t just narrow the community’s living space but also cuts off their access to forest resources. This can only occur in a country that positions the Government as a power that has exorbitant rule over resources.The Government does actually acknowledge the existence of communities and their systems of land tenure. These are regulated in Law No. 5/60 on Agraria Principles and Law No. 5/67 on Forestry Principles, which was subsequently updated with Law on Forestry No. 41/99. However, regardless of this acknowledgement, it is also firmly stated that the opportunity to demand forest exploitation rights and collective rights may not override the national interest. This means that if the State has given rights to forestry businessmen to profit from the forests, the people must give way to (subsidize) these businessmen. From the point of view of the Government, the presence of industry at the location will have a trickle down effect – and provide a trickle of profit for the surrounding community.In the short term, a portion of the community indeed feels these economic advantages (apart from the group who lose their land and their economic support). Dozens of people carry out economic activities at the site, for example, supplying foodstuffs and other necessities, and getting employment opportunities – although most members of the community become laborers due to their limited education. Economic profits are derived. In the short term, when the process of exploitation is underway, the village pulses with the beat of life. In the long term, after the concession ends, the forest soils have lost their fertility, the community has lost access to the forest commodities that existed before the concession, and there are often horizontal conflicts and new pests, as well as new threats of flooding and landslides.Sardjono (2004) ranks several factors contributing to the sub-optimal impacts of forestry development policies for the local community. There is only one outcome for these many adverse impacts: conflict. The previous discussion provides the background for this conflict. It only requires one or two triggers – social envy, crop failure and so on – to make this conflict permanent.Such conflicts have been occurring since the colonial period. Although the triggers for conflict in the past and the present have significant differences, the root of the problems that emerge is always the same: differences in understanding of forestry resource management. During the era of kingdoms, forests were regarded as a single unit with the people. The King could not arbitrarily make decisions about the ownership of a forest area which was under a community’s administration. Instead, the King would ask for a tribute from the managing community. The same thing occurred if the kingdom had particular interest in the land; however this was always accompanied by adequate compensation. Despite this, in historic recordings, it is noted that the Padalarang people in West Java migrated when the Pasundan Kingdom forcibly appropriated the forests there for use as a hunting ground . This migration reflects one of the conflicts of the time.During the colonial period, the forests according to Javanese understanding were blessings from God who would indicate specific groups of people to receive these blessings, who then had the right to manage them. In a community with this sort of static thinking, dimensions of conflict and reflection on conflict would obviously develop in a very different and far more refined way.Education and opportunity to access information and knowledge transformed this outlook into something more dynamic. Despite this, there were still people from an adequate educational background who continued to hold the view that management was a blessing given to selected community groups, and not the result of humans’ own hard work.During the New Order period, reflections on the conflict itself were not transparent. The repressiveness displayed by the State through the military and police meant that people thought twice before demanding their rights. However, this was only a matter of time. The root of the problem were muted, but only required a push for dimensions of conflict to reemerge. Only those conflicts that emerged during this period are included. A number of conflicts that arose in previous years but have not yet been resolved are excluded. It is evident that in 2000 – 2006 there were 317 incidents of conflict in the forestry sector. The total number of conflicts declined from 59 conflicts in 2000 to 34 in 2002, and then increased again to twice the number in 2004. The post-decentralization growth in the number of non-government organizations can be seen as indicative of the size of their access to sources of conflict, hence leading to escalations of conflict in 2000, 2004 and 2006.The start of 2004 saw a change in the regime. Regime change, as shown by history, always makes people feel as if things will get better in the future. At the same time this pushes people to be more open and to have more aspirations since they hope that the problems they currently face will improve in the future.Another interesting finding is that a high proportion of conflict occurred in the plantation and forest concession sectors, followed by conflict in the conservation and industrial timber estate zones. Apart from conflicts in the plantation sector, conflicts in the logging concessions, protected zones and industrial timber estates also deserve our attention, remembering the significant proportion of conflicts that occur here. It needs to be determined, as mentioned above, how many of these conflicts are new rather than old recurring conflict. There are at least five major causes of conflict, that is, forest exploration, timber poaching, environmental destruction, regional boundaries or access and shifts in land use zoning. The most common cause of conflict in a range of areas (36%) is unclear forest boundaries for the surrounding community .In any part of the world, economic crises and conflicts that are accompanied by violence always receive the particular attention of Governments, non-Government organizations and even the private sector. The World Bank states that civil war and natural resource conflicts can bring development processes to a critical point, retard national economies and send communities’ social systems several years into the past.Attempts to prevent conflict, build understanding and peace between disputing parties, and carry out rehabilitation after conflict is a very difficult process. It requires Government and non-Government intervention, and also has political and technical dimensions that are fundamentally intertwined and cannot be separated.Indonesia, a country categorized as a “Developing Country”, is not free from natural resource conflicts. They are innumerable and have become a dominant factor as the major trigger of conflict, most of which end in violence. Research conducted in Riau Province found that 67% of a total 649 conflicts in the province between 1999 and 2003 arose from natural resource conflicts, and more than half ended in violence that caused fatalities .On one hand, violent conflict can be triggered by economic disparity, unequal access to natural resources, environmental degradation, population growth, disintegration and fragmentation within community groups, and failure of the State to perform its functions.On the other hand, conflict can arise due to the ineffectiveness of democratic institutions and conflict resolution mechanisms, unsupportive policies, loss of social identity and culture, and human rights violations. Although economic activities can trigger conflict, economic activities can also function as triggers that create peace between the disputing sides.In the last two decades, natural resources, including timber from natural forests, have played a foremost role as a source of conflict. Of 134 natural resource conflicts that occurred in Riau from 1999 – 2003, 13% were triggered by timber disputes related to stands, logging areas and distribution of profits . Indeed, research conducted by CIFOR shows that approximately 40% of forest cover in the world excluding Brazil is found in countries that have experienced many such conflicts.The disputes and conflicts in Indonesia, at both national and regional levels, that have been caused by timber cannot yet be proven academically. However, numerous natural resource conflicts that have occurred between the community, State and private sector show that the conflicts exist at significant frequency.In many cases, this conflict is triggered by illegal logging practices, both by the community, companies, and even by the State itself through State enterprises or by backing up or being otherwise involved in these practices.Research that has been carried out in Indonesia depicts the important role of the timber industry in the bigger scheme of conflicts. Although the data is still fragmented, it illustrates the respective roles of the stakeholders in conflicts. The involvement of the business sector itself is quite variable in WALHI’s notes, from the unilateral cancellation of agreements to violence that ends in murder.Companies often use violence to intimidate and stifle any opposition to their activities. The local Government police, and in many cases the military, also support timber companies when there is conflict with the community. This pattern emerged during the Soeharto Government and continues to be played out, though now in more creative forms and models. Companies still bribe the police, military and local Government to suppress anybody resistant to the company’s activities. Violations of human rights often occur in regions where there are industrial activities and Government security units, where these forces generally have a low educational background, minimal supervision and are free from the attention of the mass media and NGOs. The Government often tolerates and even supports these violent practices .In an attempt to maintain their traditional rights, communities tend to act pragmatically by seizing companies’ heavy equipment, blocking roads that companies must pass through, and the anarchical action of burning company field offices in order to stop company activities. The majority of these conflicts occur because of boundary issues that the companies and Government have not wanted or been able to resolve, environmental damage that has directly affected community life, failure to pay the agreed level of compensation, weak law enforcement, corruption and negative effects of decentralization become the triggers of larger conflict regarding natural resources.An interesting feature of conflict in the forestry sector that makes it distinct from other sectors is that conflict in the forestry sector involves many parties, from the local scale to the national scale, and even the international. Furthermore, the difference in status between the “strong” and “weak” parties is very distinct. The stronger parties are usually easily able to maintain their position because they have the power to oppose the weaker parties. They have more information and greater financial capacity than their weaker counterparts . This difference in power makes it difficult to find a solution for conflicts in the forestry sector.Another characteristic that distinguishes forestry sector conflicts to those in other sectors is that the public is often unaware of conflicts in the forestry sector. This is because they often occur in isolated areas or are co-opted by the various law enforcers so that journalists working in the field have little chance of adequately covering the story .
In 1991, the communities of three districts in South Aceh were threatened by starvation because their land was controlled by five companies with forestry concessions. The Sakai people in Riau still have to move due to the appropriation of their land by Arara Abadi, an affiliate of APP, and the Caltex oil company. They have been evicted from their land and have to work as laborers in order to rent a house plot on what used to be their people’s farming land.All this could only occur because the forestry development process is founded on an erroneous paradigm. Forestry development focuses on both domestic and foreign investment, which is hoped to have a subsequent trickle down effect. This has been unsuccessful. Instead, the people’s economic sectors have subsidized the economic activities of businessmen. Millions of hectares of people’s land have been taken over by businessmen through State policies that have ultimately failed to respect the rights or ensure welfare for the people.Makinudin and Effendi (2001) gave an example from South Aceh regency, which had an average economic growth of 6.2% in 2000 (with 50% contributed by the forestry sector annually), when the growth of the “green economy” was 3.6% at most. Why? The reason is that almost 50% of conventional economic growth in South Aceh had caused serious depreciation of forest resources. Flooding and landslides color the region’s economy ever more frequently. Of course, it is the community around the forests who suffer these impacts, combined with crop failures in the downstream agricultural sector.Appropriation of people’s lands, which is then claimed as State land, has multifold impacts that ultimately strip people of their means to rebel. Aceh is one of the most obvious examples. Rebellion in Aceh during the last two decades has partly been based on the injustice of natural resources exploitation. However, this is usually seen merely as an issue of factional politics in the political arena .Subdivision of forest (read: community) land into business concessions doesn’t just narrow the community’s living space but also cuts off their access to forest resources. This can only occur in a country that positions the Government as a power that has exorbitant rule over resources.The Government does actually acknowledge the existence of communities and their systems of land tenure. These are regulated in Law No. 5/60 on Agraria Principles and Law No. 5/67 on Forestry Principles, which was subsequently updated with Law on Forestry No. 41/99. However, regardless of this acknowledgement, it is also firmly stated that the opportunity to demand forest exploitation rights and collective rights may not override the national interest. This means that if the State has given rights to forestry businessmen to profit from the forests, the people must give way to (subsidize) these businessmen. From the point of view of the Government, the presence of industry at the location will have a trickle down effect – and provide a trickle of profit for the surrounding community.In the short term, a portion of the community indeed feels these economic advantages (apart from the group who lose their land and their economic support). Dozens of people carry out economic activities at the site, for example, supplying foodstuffs and other necessities, and getting employment opportunities – although most members of the community become laborers due to their limited education. Economic profits are derived. In the short term, when the process of exploitation is underway, the village pulses with the beat of life. In the long term, after the concession ends, the forest soils have lost their fertility, the community has lost access to the forest commodities that existed before the concession, and there are often horizontal conflicts and new pests, as well as new threats of flooding and landslides.Sardjono (2004) ranks several factors contributing to the sub-optimal impacts of forestry development policies for the local community. There is only one outcome for these many adverse impacts: conflict. The previous discussion provides the background for this conflict. It only requires one or two triggers – social envy, crop failure and so on – to make this conflict permanent.Such conflicts have been occurring since the colonial period. Although the triggers for conflict in the past and the present have significant differences, the root of the problems that emerge is always the same: differences in understanding of forestry resource management. During the era of kingdoms, forests were regarded as a single unit with the people. The King could not arbitrarily make decisions about the ownership of a forest area which was under a community’s administration. Instead, the King would ask for a tribute from the managing community. The same thing occurred if the kingdom had particular interest in the land; however this was always accompanied by adequate compensation. Despite this, in historic recordings, it is noted that the Padalarang people in West Java migrated when the Pasundan Kingdom forcibly appropriated the forests there for use as a hunting ground . This migration reflects one of the conflicts of the time.During the colonial period, the forests according to Javanese understanding were blessings from God who would indicate specific groups of people to receive these blessings, who then had the right to manage them. In a community with this sort of static thinking, dimensions of conflict and reflection on conflict would obviously develop in a very different and far more refined way.Education and opportunity to access information and knowledge transformed this outlook into something more dynamic. Despite this, there were still people from an adequate educational background who continued to hold the view that management was a blessing given to selected community groups, and not the result of humans’ own hard work.During the New Order period, reflections on the conflict itself were not transparent. The repressiveness displayed by the State through the military and police meant that people thought twice before demanding their rights. However, this was only a matter of time. The root of the problem were muted, but only required a push for dimensions of conflict to reemerge. Only those conflicts that emerged during this period are included. A number of conflicts that arose in previous years but have not yet been resolved are excluded. It is evident that in 2000 – 2006 there were 317 incidents of conflict in the forestry sector. The total number of conflicts declined from 59 conflicts in 2000 to 34 in 2002, and then increased again to twice the number in 2004. The post-decentralization growth in the number of non-government organizations can be seen as indicative of the size of their access to sources of conflict, hence leading to escalations of conflict in 2000, 2004 and 2006.The start of 2004 saw a change in the regime. Regime change, as shown by history, always makes people feel as if things will get better in the future. At the same time this pushes people to be more open and to have more aspirations since they hope that the problems they currently face will improve in the future.Another interesting finding is that a high proportion of conflict occurred in the plantation and forest concession sectors, followed by conflict in the conservation and industrial timber estate zones. Apart from conflicts in the plantation sector, conflicts in the logging concessions, protected zones and industrial timber estates also deserve our attention, remembering the significant proportion of conflicts that occur here. It needs to be determined, as mentioned above, how many of these conflicts are new rather than old recurring conflict. There are at least five major causes of conflict, that is, forest exploration, timber poaching, environmental destruction, regional boundaries or access and shifts in land use zoning. The most common cause of conflict in a range of areas (36%) is unclear forest boundaries for the surrounding community .In any part of the world, economic crises and conflicts that are accompanied by violence always receive the particular attention of Governments, non-Government organizations and even the private sector. The World Bank states that civil war and natural resource conflicts can bring development processes to a critical point, retard national economies and send communities’ social systems several years into the past.Attempts to prevent conflict, build understanding and peace between disputing parties, and carry out rehabilitation after conflict is a very difficult process. It requires Government and non-Government intervention, and also has political and technical dimensions that are fundamentally intertwined and cannot be separated.Indonesia, a country categorized as a “Developing Country”, is not free from natural resource conflicts. They are innumerable and have become a dominant factor as the major trigger of conflict, most of which end in violence. Research conducted in Riau Province found that 67% of a total 649 conflicts in the province between 1999 and 2003 arose from natural resource conflicts, and more than half ended in violence that caused fatalities .On one hand, violent conflict can be triggered by economic disparity, unequal access to natural resources, environmental degradation, population growth, disintegration and fragmentation within community groups, and failure of the State to perform its functions.On the other hand, conflict can arise due to the ineffectiveness of democratic institutions and conflict resolution mechanisms, unsupportive policies, loss of social identity and culture, and human rights violations. Although economic activities can trigger conflict, economic activities can also function as triggers that create peace between the disputing sides.In the last two decades, natural resources, including timber from natural forests, have played a foremost role as a source of conflict. Of 134 natural resource conflicts that occurred in Riau from 1999 – 2003, 13% were triggered by timber disputes related to stands, logging areas and distribution of profits . Indeed, research conducted by CIFOR shows that approximately 40% of forest cover in the world excluding Brazil is found in countries that have experienced many such conflicts.The disputes and conflicts in Indonesia, at both national and regional levels, that have been caused by timber cannot yet be proven academically. However, numerous natural resource conflicts that have occurred between the community, State and private sector show that the conflicts exist at significant frequency.In many cases, this conflict is triggered by illegal logging practices, both by the community, companies, and even by the State itself through State enterprises or by backing up or being otherwise involved in these practices.Research that has been carried out in Indonesia depicts the important role of the timber industry in the bigger scheme of conflicts. Although the data is still fragmented, it illustrates the respective roles of the stakeholders in conflicts. The involvement of the business sector itself is quite variable in WALHI’s notes, from the unilateral cancellation of agreements to violence that ends in murder.Companies often use violence to intimidate and stifle any opposition to their activities. The local Government police, and in many cases the military, also support timber companies when there is conflict with the community. This pattern emerged during the Soeharto Government and continues to be played out, though now in more creative forms and models. Companies still bribe the police, military and local Government to suppress anybody resistant to the company’s activities. Violations of human rights often occur in regions where there are industrial activities and Government security units, where these forces generally have a low educational background, minimal supervision and are free from the attention of the mass media and NGOs. The Government often tolerates and even supports these violent practices .In an attempt to maintain their traditional rights, communities tend to act pragmatically by seizing companies’ heavy equipment, blocking roads that companies must pass through, and the anarchical action of burning company field offices in order to stop company activities. The majority of these conflicts occur because of boundary issues that the companies and Government have not wanted or been able to resolve, environmental damage that has directly affected community life, failure to pay the agreed level of compensation, weak law enforcement, corruption and negative effects of decentralization become the triggers of larger conflict regarding natural resources.An interesting feature of conflict in the forestry sector that makes it distinct from other sectors is that conflict in the forestry sector involves many parties, from the local scale to the national scale, and even the international. Furthermore, the difference in status between the “strong” and “weak” parties is very distinct. The stronger parties are usually easily able to maintain their position because they have the power to oppose the weaker parties. They have more information and greater financial capacity than their weaker counterparts . This difference in power makes it difficult to find a solution for conflicts in the forestry sector.Another characteristic that distinguishes forestry sector conflicts to those in other sectors is that the public is often unaware of conflicts in the forestry sector. This is because they often occur in isolated areas or are co-opted by the various law enforcers so that journalists working in the field have little chance of adequately covering the story .
Tenurial Conflicts
Tenurial conflicts within the dimensions of Indonesian natural resource conflicts take first place in frequency. Border issues and unresolved compensation processes represent a portion of an increasing number of tenurial conflicts. Almost all of these conflicts occur because of differences in the perception of legal issues. Companies with timber concessions or industrial timber estates maintain that they have obtained official permission from the Government. On the other hand, the Government never does a ground check to see if the permits that they have issued disturb the community or not. This issue actually stems from the politics of “State forests” that has been applied thus far. Although regulations require confirmation of regions that have been designated as State forests, which are marked by boundaries (so that the potential for conflict with community ownership rights can be ascertained), the Government has neglected this confirmation in practice. The Government itself admits that boundaries for less than 20% of State forests have been confirmed. Therefore, if we refer back to the regulations, these forestry concessions could be described as illegitimate because they have not been issued in State forests.Tenurial conflict is a consequence of the ‘nationalization’ of forests. A paradigm of development based on the rate of domestic and foreign investment has led this country to give unlimited power to the Government. The Government provides an enormous opportunity to investors to invest their capital at the same time as ‘asking’ the people to subsidize the investors in terms of land. This process has proceeded smoothly with the incorporation of military interference. Runtu Village, South Arut District in Central Kalimantan is still a controversial case, where the involvement of the police and military to salvage investment has proceeded without any legal action whatsoever to address the favoritism demonstrated by the police.Since 1982, Runtu Village land has been “forced to subsidize” the PT Astra Agro Lestari company. New Order repression at that time succeeded in forcing the Runtu Village population to shut their mouths and accept the policies that were unilaterally issued by the central Government. It was only during the reform period that the community was brave enough to openly demand the land that had been appropriated by the company. In a subsequent meeting held by the company and the Government, the West Kotawaringin Local Government disingenuously found that the land could not be returned because of the agreed partnership between the West Kotawaringin Local Government and PT Astra Agro Lestari. Clearly, this agreement took place between the company and the local Government, subsequent to previous agreement with the central Government. The agreement of the community was not necessary because the development paradigm in Indonesia gives greater consideration to the amount of money invested by investors. Meanwhile, conflicts are also frequent in conservation regions. This could only occur because the determination of regions as national parks or protected forests was done without the participation of the local community. People unexpectedly discover national park boundary markers in their backyards. The impacts of these conflicts vary. The Government most often carries out evictions to solve the problem. The community are evicted from their villages because they are perceived as having crossed into the national park zone, although the community were living there well beforehand.The issue of compensation and outstanding compensation often emerges in tenurial conflicts. This accusation has some connection with history. Companies often ignore community concerns, often with encouragement from the Government. Companies are also often aided by military and police forces to assert their will on the people. This sort of behavior has fed the community’s hatred and mistrust of the Government and police/military forces, which became a major issue in the mass media in 2001. The freedom stemming from the reform period gave them an opportunity to demand the rights that they had lost over the previous years.The opposition displayed by the victimized community is often of a pragmatic nature. In many cases, the community is forced to close down companies’ activities by blocking roads or bridges. The community then lobbies the Minister for Forestry and relevant institutions with letters to demand that concessions be retracted. Is there a close connection between the increase in the number of conflicts and the reform era? The close association cannot be denied. Pressure applied to the community and mass media has meant that many conflicts in the forestry sector have not been exposed. For instance, when the strings of several national mass media are tugged, red lines are visible between the company owners and Golkar. Even if there are no direct relations between the two, Soeharto would control any news they released. The Minister for Information at the time, who in some people’s opinion could more accurately be identified as Golkar and Soeharto’s spokesperson, controlled the issue and retraction of press/publishing licenses. This much power meant that it was relatively easy for Soeharto to control journalism, by wielding the retraction of press/publishing licenses as a threat. In this way, Soeharto co-opted the media.The fall of Soeharto did not suddenly herald a democratic climate. During the BJ Habibie era, Government and military/police powers were still very strong, and able to control the mass media. Although repressive practices declined compared to previous years, this was not significant enough to give people/communities the courage to acknowledge conflicts in the forestry sector and bring these to the fore.It was only in the Abdurrahman Wahid period that the energy from several conflicts, which had previously been repressed, suddenly erupted. The graph of conflicts in a range of sectors increased sharply. The press started to feel the aura of freedom to report on what had previously been taboo.From the analysis above, it can be seen that boundaries are one of the main triggers of the conflicts that have emerged in the last decade. There is also, of course, an element of Government error in performing its duties and functions. To date, the Government has undertaken all necessary steps for forest gazettal in only 17% of the forests that it claims are State forests. 83% of the so-called State Forests have been created without following the regulations to establish their boundaries. This means that, according to regulations, more than 80% of State control of forests is illegal. This plundering continues until present. Where the policy for determination of boundaries has been handed over to local Government, the relevant local leader never carries it out, even though the industry in question has submitted their payment to the local cashbox for the boundaries to be set.Subsequently, a relevant question is, which borders need to be obeyed? Is it the boundary set by the Government or the borders acknowledged by local communities, which often overlap with the Government claim? Border issues will continue to recur if an appropriate solution is not found. It is not easy to reach an agreement about boundaries, but a solution must be found in order to end boundary conflicts in forestry areas. This uncertainty about the boundaries of customary land is often exploited by a section of the community to claim ridiculous areas of land.It is worth noting that the boundary issues are not new problems in the forestry sector. There needs to be agreement regarding the definitions, processes and determination of boundaries. In the Timber Legality Standard, one of the factors indicating whether a concession is legal or not is the existence of Boundary Delineation Notifications and map appendices, the verification of which has reference to community considerations.
Conflict Caused by Damage to the Environment and Health
Environmental damage and pollution that affect community health also contribute significantly to conflicts in the forestry sector. Although there has been no thorough research that examines the patterns of conflict caused by environmental damage, conflicts arising from logging practices and timber industry operations have occurred everywhere, including in the natural forests, industrial timber estates, national parks, pulp and paper factories, and plywood factories. Depending on the location and situation, conflicts can involve Government institutions, business stakeholders, the community, logging groups and security forces.In all parts of the world, the forests are indeed an arena for conflict between the various parties with stakes in forest resources. The interests of one party often clash with those of others. In many cases, conflicts of interest between companies with logging concessions and industrial timber estates often infringe the rights of the local people. The two sides both need timber to meet their production capacities. The industrial timber estates have tended to delay planting trees using the cost as an excuse. The money spent on developing industrial timber estates, including the permanent costs and the re-planting costs are far more expensive than accepting timber from other sources, which ultimately come from natural forests.Moreover, these two industries often carry out logging like a person eating hot porridge. That is, starting from the edge and heading to the center. In many cases, when a company carries out logging, it does not only log from the edge of its own concession, but penetrates deep into the natural forests, which are not part of its concession. In 2003, PT Arara Abadi clearly harvested timber far from its concession near Giam Siak Kecil Game Reserve. The distance between the logging and its concession was up to 11 km. Two companies (PT Arara Abadi and PT Riau Andalan Pulp & Paper) operating near the Zamrud Nature Reserve in Riau logged trees 14.2 km from their concessions .An example of conflict that really attracted the attention of both the national and international mass media was the case of the PT Arara Abadi (a subsidiary of Asia Pulp & Paper – Sinar Mas) security forces attacking Mandi Angin Village in Riau Province. Since 1999, PT Arara Abadi had carried out logging on 2,000 ha of community land (Rasau Kuning Resort). According to PT Arara Abadi’s testimony, this land was part of the company’s concession as proven by Decree of the Minister for Forestry No. 743/kpts-II/1996 on 25 November 1996 . However, the company have refrained from showing the map of this land. The local Government was similarly reluctant to help the community to ascertain the actual location of the PT Arara Abadi concession.On 23 February 2000, the problem was taken up by the Minister for Forestry in Jakarta, and a status quo was decided for the land. However, seven months afterwards, the company took 5,000 cubic meters of timber from the land. The community became angry and detained 20 PT Arara Abadi trucks. Two weeks later at 14.30 WIB, 500 of PT Arara Abadi’s militia carried out a surprise attack on the community settlement in Mandiangin village. The 500 men were transported in 10 trucks and brought sharp weapons such as machetes, axes and iron pieces. Meanwhile, the villagers only numbered 300 men. The attack by the militia saw two homes completely burnt down and 30 people injured. Interestingly, eyewitnesses testified that they saw police present who did nothing. Another interesting observation was that the militia did not forget to bring two ambulances. The Mandiangin Village Head, Syaiful Wakni, has continued to write letters to the company that essentially state that agricultural and collective land should be returned.Other conflicts that deserve attention are conflicts caused by the water and air pollution around factories. Although the problem of waste disposal is regulated in the Law on the Environment and companies must conduct an environmental risk analysis (AMDAL) before beginning operations , in reality many companies have unsatisfactory waste installations.This is also the case where discarded materials that are considered by the Environmental Impact Analysis do not correspond with the materials that are actually discarded. The construction of waste installations is indeed expensive and will reduce businessmen’s profit margins in the short-term. Hence, companies usually build solitary disposal pipes that are not actually connected with the sewerage pipes leading to the waste installation. By this means they can dupe auditing officers.Even the Environmental Impact Analysis process contains many deceptions. The academics used to conduct the Environmental Impact Analysis often have poor cultural and social knowledge of the local community. Even without considering the possibility of corruption in the form of data manipulation, the problems of conducting an Environmental Impact Analysis deserve close examination. Prior and Informed Consent Without Coercion must be the focus of attention because this has become the bargaining tool for whether or not a company’s entry is accepted, or considered to threaten the territory and rights of the community.Conflicts related to environmental damage and pollution can be found in the conflict involving the Porsea community and PT Inti Indorayon Utama (now Toba Pulp Lestari).Thousands of the Porsea community protested against the re-opening of PT Inti Indorayon Utama for operation, which has now changed its name to PT Toba Pulp Lestari (TPL). They felt that the peaceful life and healthy environment that they have enjoyed for four years would be lost with the re-opening. However, a cabinet meeting on 9 January 2002 explicitly decided to open, as seen in the results of the decision which depicted Rini Soewandi (Minister for Industry and Trade) as the team leader to observe the location and Yacob Nuwaewa to publicize the re-opening of Indorayon. Moreover, the plant had been operating on the sly for two to five hours per day since January 2003. The company also used military forces (Mobile Brigade and Police) to support the re-opening. These have already displayed their cruelty in capturing, assaulting and torturing members of the community who participated in the protest action.The Government’s stubborn attitude in allowing the reopening of Indorayon in Porsea has clearly hurt all of the community there, who feel that their lives have suffered immensely since the company began operating.During its course, Indorayon has affected community life through effects on the environment, human rights, culture and society. The forests have been severely damaged. This is proven by Landsat Satellite Image: as much as 24,116 ha land outside the Sibatuloting forest region now lacks cover and suffers heavy erosion including severe gully erosion and landslides. A rotten odor was constantly released during previous operations and the current re-opening of the pulp mill. Research undertaken by the University of Indonesia Public Health Faculty in collaboration with WALHI showed that this pollution has reduced the robustness of community health. Agricultural yields have also declined by 40%. Ducks, chickens, pigs and fish that are raised as well as hard plants such as stinkbean (petai), pithecolobium bean (jengkol), coffee and clove have become completely unproductive because of the pollution.In addition to the environmental losses and reduced level of health, the community also suffered materially, for instance due to the appropriation of 225 ha of their customary grazing land, which was surrendered to PT IIU for 30 years for compensation worth Rp 12,500/ha. In 1989, PT IIU charged 10 old women from Sugapa village for opposing Indorayon by maintaining their customary land. Landslides in Bulu Silape village buried and killed 13 people in 1989. Several instances of shootings and torture by militia have also left victims. To present, at least 20 people have died in the course of Indorayon’s operations.The data and incidents described above basically indicate to us that conflicts in the forestry sector exist, and at a high level relative to conflicts in other natural resource sectors. These conflicts have the potential to grow geographically and have many dimensions.In logging concessions and industrial timber estates, conflicts are often tightly suppressed so that they cannot emerge in either the mass media or the legislative, which is the representation of the people in Government. This silencing is done using violence. It has only one aim, that is, so that the people do not voice their stories to the public and so that other people cannot help, which would possibly incur costs on the company.
Conflicts in the forestry sector associated with tenure, environmental damage and/or health can be classified as:
o Appropriation of land by companies, followed by intimidation by police/military forces or company-owned militia, who generally have a background as petty criminals;o Restriction of access to forests so that communities cannot benefit from forest yields to improve their welfare;o Available employment cannot accommodate the educational level of the community in the villages;o Convoluted and unfruitful negotiations. Companies tend to send representatives who cannot make decisions, with the aim of stalling for time so that the community becomes bored with negotiating and resolving the conflict that has occurred;o Environmental damage, with the common symptoms being flooding, emergence of new pests and/or pollution;o Restriction of access to the benefits of resource extraction activities. Various programs for community development are conducted without negotiation with the community.Conflict due to Decentralization of PowerIt seems that decentralization can give birth to conflict. Local Governments feel dizzy with their new authority. They have always had the guidance of central Government, and now that it is time to be autonomous, it seems that not all provinces are capable and ready to perform their duties. The politics of power played by Soeharto also proved that political education has been inadequate. The people do not value the existence of differences in opinion.. The repressiveness of the New Order still maintains a good grip on everyone’s memory and when the opportunity arises, they put this into practice with the expectation of a similar response, that is, the obedience and subservience of political opponents. Regional level rulers have transformed from being the repressed to becoming the new repressors. Hundreds of Soehartos have emerged in all corners of Indonesia.The shift in power in 2000 deliberately recalled the issue of separatism. The central Government, which has been terrified of losing income from various natural resources in Indonesia, then gave responsibilities for agriculture, industry, trade and employment to the 360 regencies at the time (2000). However, defense, security, national planning and natural resource exploitation remained the jurisdiction of central Government.Although from one perspective this has greatly influenced the political climate in Indonesia, it has also had impacts elsewhere: the depletion of natural resources. More than three-quarters of regencies in Indonesia have a budget that is inadequate for carrying out regional administration. This is not a problem for areas that have natural gas and mineral resources because the proceeds from the Specific Allocation Fund is large enough to turn the wheels of government, although some still claim this is inadequate.To address this, the central Government issued regulations that allowed regencies to issue logging permits on 100 ha areas of land, which was originally aimed at helping poor communities around the forests to develop subsistence agriculture using capital from the logging. This objective was abused. While claiming to support the development of subsistence agriculture, the 100 ha permits were continually used as a money-making tool by the associated regencies.The 100 ha money machines not only caused problems with land degradation. The euphoria of decentralization had made the regents arrogant and they felt as if they had unlimited power over their jurisdiction. Boundary conflicts arose. This was caused by the great many regents who issued policies that conflicted with those passed by the central Government. 100 ha permits for timber processing (Timber Forest Proceeds Exploitation and Collection Permits) overlapped with industrial timber estates and logging concessions which had previously been issued by the central Government, as well as with community-owned lands.A study was conducted to see how far these problems met uncertainty and inconsistency in the regulations, which eventually ended in conflict. Regulations that were found to be inconsistent, unclear and problematic included: 1) decentralization of licensing; 2) weak and corrupt law enforcement; and 3) significant differences between official regulations and traditional rights. It was estimated that more than 500 regulations, laws and policies that regulate forests overlap. What needs to be recognized is that all this uncertainty has just one outcome, that is, environmental degradation and deterioration in health due to the unsustainable factory and logging operations.Another problem that has emerged from the 100 ha licensing is that there is no obligation for concession holders to carry out reforestation. The permits are also only valid for one year. This is sufficient time to clearfell all of the tree stands in and outside the concession (timber poaching); however it is not sufficient time to arrange a work plan for reforestation in the region.In reality, decentralization has produced an imbalance of power between national and local level Government. Political behavior at the regional level has ultimately manifested as a reincarnation of the nepotism and collusion commonly employed by Soeharto. Decentralization has suddenly created mini-Soehartos alongside a horrifying increase in corruption. In 2002, the Government passed Governmental Regulation 34/2002, which was aimed at reducing deforestation and stopping the issue of concessions by local Governments. This regulation also stipulated that concessions issued by Regency governments since 2002 were illegal and were therefore to be retracted. Here, the central Government has no idea how to enforce the law, since the police and military receive bribes from the illegal loggers or are actively involved in the illegal logging themselves .The problem becomes even more difficult because these two levels of Government both feel as if they have the right to issue permits. The lack of clear regulations regarding this problem, which could potentially solve the problem, means that resolution often occurs in the field. The figures for deforestation have escalated drastically across the board without any further attempt to seek the root of the problem. Forestry industries are falling over one by one because of the scarcity of legal raw materials.
(by freewebs, save forest)
