The Unending Agrarian Conflicts

In January, the Consortium of Agrarian Reform and the Alliance of Nusantara Traditional Communities released final notes on agrarian conflicts for 2020.

The frequency and diversity of conflicts recorded constitute an accumulation of the conflicts in the previous period as yet unsettled as well as those arising in the pandemic period. These agrarian conflicts are structural in nature, which are conflicts concerning the access to and utilization of natural resources between the weak group and the group with a strong bargaining position, in which the latter obtains licenses/rights with (central and regional) government facilities.

While in the New Order period the majority of conflicts stemmed from the expropriation of land owned by communities, including traditional communities based on customary law (MHA), for development purposes to serve public interest, with the passage of time the diversity of conflicts has broadened. Data from the Consortium of Agrarian Reform (KPA) and the Alliance of Nusantara Traditional Communities (AMAN) indicate the same typology of conflicts, comprising the fields of (1) plantations; (2) forestry; (3) infrastructure development; (4) mining; (5) military facilities and others.

Also read : Gambling on Agrarian Bill

In the KPA notes, there were 241 cases at the end of 2020. The largest number was in plantations (122 cases), followed by forestry (41 cases), which rose significantly from the previous year. AMAN recorded 40 cases, with the highest number in plantations (10 cases), followed by forestry and infrastructure development (six cases respectively).

Why, even amid the pandemic in which the economy has slowed down, have agrarian conflicts continued? The conflicts between communities and MHA on the one hand, and other parties needing land for their business or activity on the other, arise because of the two sides’ different perceptions and relations with regard to natural resources, especially land.

Also read: New Land Policy

For rural communities and MHA, land serves as a source of livelihood that must be maintained for their survival and taken care of as a manifestation of gratefulness for God’s blessing (Article 1 of the Law on Basic Agrarian Principles/UUPA). Land ownership also demonstrates individual dignity and prestige. For the other parties, particularly investors, land constitutes a commodity that can be transacted, both the land itself and its products, as long as economic benefits accrue to them (land as a commodity).

KOMPAS/BAHANA PATRIA GUPTA

Students and farmers in the East Java Peasants Alliance rallied to commemorate National Farmers Day in front of the East Java DPRD Building, Surabaya, Tuesday (9/24/2019). Their demands include asking the government to resolve agrarian conflicts in East Java.

For farmers/rural communities and MHA, land is also the place of abode and the link connecting them with their ancestors. For them land is irreplaceable so that if they have to surrender it, their way of thinking is: how they can obtain a “replacement” for their source of livelihood as well as its associated values.

Perceptions of land have to do with the relations between humans and their land in various dimensions. From the economic aspect, rural communities and MHA tend to maintain their ownership as a source of livelihood rather than for commercial purposes; for investors, land and natural resources need to be processed/exploited for trading. Judicially, formal evidence of ownership is absolutely required for investors whereas for rural communities and MHA, evidence of physical control comes first. Land registration that has not yet been thoroughly completed all over Indonesia opens the chance for the emergence of conflicts due to areal claims by various parties.

Politically, legislation tends to side more with investors’ interests. Law No.3/ 2020 on the Amendment to Law No.4/2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining and Law No.11/2020 on Job Creation (UUCK) are examples. On the other hand, the debate on the MHA Bill has been stagnant since 15 years ago.

Also read: 150 Years of Shackles on Land Rights

The different perceptions and relations with respect to land have triggered conflicts of interests between those striving to maintain their land all-out and those seeking the opportunity to secure land as their assets, anytime chance appears regardless of the pandemic period. What later happens is disparity in land control/ownership. On the one side rural communities and MHA find it hard to maintain their land, and it’s even harder for the landless to acquire it. On the other, those with strong capital can obtain land as their business assets, even control it with their (leasehold or building) rights on a broad scale.

Why? It’s because so far there has been no law regulating the maximum limit of possession of land rights by statutory bodies although it has been referred to by the UUPA since 1960 (Article 17 Paragraph 1).

Also read: Is 60-year-old UUPA Still Relevant?

Efforts to settle conflicts

Responding to the agrarian conflicts that could not yet be thoroughly settled, in 2017 the government formed a Team for Speedy Settlement of Agrarian Conflicts (TPPKA) with the Presidential Staff Office the node of coordination.

The team is tasked with receiving complaints, analyzing cases, making field verifications and submitting recommendations for their settlement. Since its formation, the team has received 666 cases, which were selected with the following result: 413 cases were passable while 167 cases lacked supporting information. Of the 413 cases, 167 could be settled within a short term, 92 a medium term and 154 a long term. To strengthen this commitment, on 12 June 2019 a ministerial meeting was held involving 12 ministries/agencies, including the Indonesian Military/National Police. There has been no information yet about the team’s achievements.

With the high frequency of agrarian conflicts, the Deputy Agrarian and Spatial Layout Minister/National Land Agency on 6 January 2021 stated that several strategies had been prepared to handle the issue. Disparity in land ownership/control is to be overcome through the agrarian reform program. Meanwhile, the settlement strategies require strong leadership, cross-sectorial coordination and communication, and the understanding of community needs.

Also read: Land is a ”Soulmate”

The conflict settlement effort should be appreciated and supported with several notes. First, the settlement of agrarian conflicts cannot only be done by looking at: the parties in conflict, the types/kinds of conflicts, the cases of positions, pieces of ownership evidence, the relevant legal basis. The problem is very complex. What appears on the surface and what is reported contain the root of the problem that has never been totally settled, which is injustice in land control/ownership.

Second, the existing legislation is more inclined to be pro-investors and does not sufficiently strengthen the rights of rural communities and MHA as well as other marginalized people. Agrarian conflicts affecting the group pf communities are cross-sectorial in nature and each sector has its own law that is not always in line, even overlaps and conflicts with those of the other sectors. The conflicts of norms make it difficult to settle agrarian conflicts.

However sophisticated inter-ministry/agency coordination and communication may be, it certainly is not that simple for the sectors deviate from their respective laws with all its consequences. Therefore, it’s necessary to seriously consider the attempt to harmonize sectorial laws as directed by the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) 20 years ago (MPR Decree No.IX/MPR/2001 on Agrarian Reform and Natural Resources Management). While the UUCK is capable of unifying 78 laws that are not in the same vein, if there’s a strong government commitment the harmonization of sectorial laws should be able to be strived for (Maria SW Sumardjono, “Omnibus Law of Natural Resources, Kompas, 28/11/2019).

Third, the current model of conflict settlement has been maximally applied, but it’s of a partial and temporary nature. Conflict settlement should be conducted in a comprehensive and institutional manner. The problem is, who can guarantee that the upcoming government will pay attention to the settlement of agrarian conflicts? The proposal to form an independent institution under the President for agrarian conflict settlement was once made in the initial version of the Land Affairs Bill (2017), but later it (was skipped in)/skipped the following versions due to the lack of understanding of its urgency and relevance.

Fourth, community needs should be understood. Communities and MHA want their rights to be recognized and protected from “disturbances” by other parties. Community rights should be toughened in the normative context through the improvement of Presidential Regulation No.86/2018 on Agrarian Reform and the implementation of agrarian reform in conformity with the President’s commitment stated on 23 November and 3 December 2020.

Also read: 90-Year HGU Right Provision Deemed Nonsensical

The formation of a Joint Working Team and the plan of action as its follow-up step should involve 14 related ministries/agencies and leaders of nongovernmental organizations. This team’s performance is expected to show positive results because it is supported by concrete proposals from the NGOs in the form of field data. The recognition of MHA’s rights should be seriously endeavored to persuade the promulgation of the MHA Law. The activity of the MHA group to map their areas and encourage the announcement of regents’ decisions to recognize and protect MHA and their rights should be supported in the effort to prevent conflicts from an early stage. An example is the Decision of Regent Maybrat No.72/2020.

Laying foundations of settlement

Conflict settlement attempts should be carried on through the synergy between various teams by accommodating patterns of conflict settlement proposed by communities and MHA. When the power structure still tends to provide more facilities to access the control/ownership of natural resources including land for the group with a strong bargaining position, it is necessary to strive to raise the bargaining position of the disadvantaged group so that social justice will be more concretely brought about.

DOK. PRIBADI

Maria SW Sumardjono

For this purpose, it is necessary to realize the Law on the Control and Management of Natural Resources and improve Presidential Regulation No.86/2018 on Agrarian Reform related to institutionalization and working procedures as well as the urgency to set up an independent institution for agrarian conflict settlement, as an anticipation for the formulation of the Agrarian Reform Law and the endorsement of the MHA Law.

Maria S.W. Sumardjono, Professor, Gadjah Mada University law school; Member, Indonesian Academy of Sciences (AIPI).

This article was translated by Aris Prawira.