DTE Special Edition Newsletter No 93-94,December 2012 · involving two palm oil companies PT Sumber...

The struggle for land

DTE Special Edition NewsletterNo 93-94, December 2012

From the DTE team:

This Special Edition DTE Newsletter has

been compiled with the help of colleagues in

Indonesia and abroad, to present a picture of

land issues in Indonesia today.

We look at land-related

developments from national, international

and local perspectives, with the aim of

providing information and context to inform

current debates about land-grabbing, and the

need to protect community rights to land

and resources.

DTE would like to thank all our

contributors and commentators for helping

us put this publication together. To our

wider readership - we hope this edition of

DTE is useful for your work.

office: Greenside Farmhouse, Hallbankgate, Cumbria CA82PX, England, email: [email protected] tel: +44 16977 46266 web: www.downtoearth-indonesia.org

Inside...

Policies and practice: favouring big business over communities

Why systemic agrarian conflicts are continuing to break out across the landBy Noer Fauzi Rachman

Indonesia’s ‘One Map Policy’Interview with Kasmita Widodo

The international landgrabbing picture: an update

Bali Declaration on Human Rights and Agribusiness in South East Asia

When Indigenous Peoples fight for their land rightsBy Zulfikar Arma

Agrofuels: key driver in new landgrabbing wave

How much land? Snapshots of corporate control over land in Indonesia

Communities lose out to landgrabbersCommunity lands and resources are being targeted as never beforein Indonesia. International concerns over food, energy and financialsecurity and the climate, plus the profit motive are combining toattract developers and investors into ‘frontier’ areas across thecountry.There are few effective protections for local people living inthose areas because key legislation has never been implemented.Fourteen years after the fall of Suharto, the security forces are stillbeing used to deal with people who protest against the loss of theirland and livelihoods.

As communities and civil society organisations call for deep reforms,it is becoming more crucial that their voices are heard.

Front cover picture: January 2012 protests against violent land conflict, Jakarta. Inside cover: Rice and other crops, Kasepuhan indigenous territory, Java

1

6

8

10

13

15

17

19

1

DOWN TO EARTH No. 93-94, December 2012

The year 2012 opened with mounting civilsociety concern about the violentsuppression of community protests over landand resources. January protests in Jakartapointed to three prominent cases - Mesuji,Bima and Pekasa - which showed how armedsecurity forces were being used to deal withcommunity opposition to landgrabbing.

In Mesuji, Lampung province,southern Sumatra, protests over landinvolving two palm oil companies PT SumberWangi Alam and PT Barat Selatan MakmurInvestindo, and a state-owned timberplantation company, Silva Inhutani, had endedin four deaths within a one year period.1 Thedeath toll over the 2009-2011 period was 30people.2 In Bima, West Nusa Tenggaraprovince three people were shot dead andanother 9 were critically injured in lateDecember 2011 when police and militarypersonnel fired on a peaceful protest againstthe takeover of their farmland by anAustralian-owned mining company PTSumber Mineral Nusantara.3 The samemonth, in Sumbawa, also in West NusaTenggara province, around 50 housesinhabited by indigenous Pekasa families werereported to have been burned down bypolice and military personnel in a move toevict them from an area claimed by the stateas a protected forest and targeted by goldmining company Newmont Nusa Tengara forexploration.4

The government body responsiblefor dealing with land conflicts, the NationalLand Agency (Badan Pertanahan Nasional,BPN), reported as many as 2,791 landdisputes in 2011, while the National HumanRights Commission said that 738 landdisputes had generated 4,502 formalcomplaints of rights abuses.5

Meanwhile civil societyorganisations' records give more detailedsnapshots of the extent and types of landconflicts in Indonesia today. KPA, one ofIndonesia's leading CSOs working on agrarianissues, noted 163 agrarian conflicts across thearchipelago during 2011, a large increase from2010 when they had documented 106conflicts. Twenty two people had been killed

in the conflicts, which had involved around70,000 households and covered almost half amillion hectares. Most of these cases (60%)had occurred in plantations, while 22% hadbeen in forests, 21% were conflicts overinfrastructure projects, 4% (8 cases) in themining sector and one case in coastal areas.East Java saw the highest concentration ofcases during the year (36 cases), with NorthSumatra (25 cases), Southeast Sulawesi (15cases) and Central Java (12) having thesecond, third and fourth highest number ofconflicts. The Sumatran provinces of Jambi(11), Riau (1) and South Sumatra (9) werenext highest, with other areas followingbehind.6 Meanwhile, another leading resourcerights CSO, HuMa, noted 110 cases, covering2.7 million hectares of disputed land. Theseconflicts involved government and companiesas dominant players.7

Renewed calls for reformThe conflicts in 2011 and more violentincidents in 2012 have sparked reneweddemands for the deep, pro-poor agrarianreforms that many civil society organisationshave been calling for since former presidentSuharto's fall from power in 1998 ushered in

the period of reformasi. Laws governing theuse of the country's land and naturalresources, they argue, have not beenimplemented to ensure that Indonesia'snatural wealth is being utilised for the benefitof the majority of its people. Instead, theselaws - particularly the sectoral laws passedunder the Suharto regime and subsequently -have provided the legal foundation for theunsustainable exploitation of the country'sminerals, oil and gas, forests and seas by ahandful of business conglomerates for thebenefit of the business-political-military elite.

Indigenous peoples have beenparticularly disempowered by the failure ofsuccessive governments in Indonesia toimplement any provision for recognising andprotecting their customary territories andresources. This is the case from the 1960Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA) onward.An earlySuharto-era Forestry Law of 1967 led toaround 70% of Indonesia's territory beingcategorised as the 'state forest zone'8 and, asthe majority of Indonesia's forest-dwellingindigenous peoples lived in this zone, theirancestral rights to the lands and resourceswere effectively swept aside to allow in thetimber, mining and (later on) plantations

Policies and practice: favouring big business over communities

In this article we highlight some of the influences at work inside Indonesia which are contributing to the ongoingtransfer of land from communities to corporations.These influences include national and local government policies,laws, governance and practices, whose provisions for supporting indigenous peoples and communities' rights and

livelihoods have been deprioritised in favour of large-scale, commercial 'development' projects.The result is a growingdisparity between rich and poor, worsening imbalance in the control over agrarian resources and more and more

conflicts between communities, private sector and the state.

Protests against brutal handling of land conflicts, Jakarta, January 2012

barons. Indigenous lands within this state-claimed forest zone were also appropriatedfor the resettlement of poor Javanese familiesunder the World Bank-funded transmigrationscheme. In addition, they were also allocatedfor national parks and other categories ofprotected forest, without indigenous peoples'consent.9

In the years immediately afterSuharto's ousting from power in 1998,campaigners pushed hard to refocus policy-making on the interests of the poor,supported by mass movements of peasantfarmers to reclaim and reoccupy land takenaway from them over the previous threedecades.There were also renewed efforts toreclaim indigenous peoples' rights andterritories.A new forestry law was passed in1999, but this only provided for limited rightsfor indigenous peoples to use lands withinstate-controlled forests. Following his visit tothe first Congress of Indigenous Peoples ofthe Archipelago (KMAN) in 1999, the agrarianaffairs minister issued a decree (PermenAgraria No 5/1999) which paved the way forimproved recognition of adat rights, but thiswas not implemented.10

In 2001, came a majorbreakthrough when Indonesia's highestlegislative body, the MPR, issued a decree(TAP MPR IX, 2001) to prepare the groundfor the reform of all sectoral laws affectingland and natural resources management.However, over a decade later, this decree hasstill not resulted in the intended reforms andan original intention to replace or reform the1960 UUPA has been dropped.11 Calls fromcivil society for a special commission for landconflict resolution to be established wererejected and instead the BPN was given thetask of dealing with land conflicts - despitethe fact that the BPN itself causes conflict byhanding out land licences.This was also a set-back for greater accountability andtransparency because the BPN was wellknown for corrupt practices during theSuharto era and well into the post-Suhartoperiod, and remained a source of funding forhighly-expensive election campaigns.12

Government commitments toimplement land reform have come and gone,including commitments by current PresidentSusilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who promisedland reform as part of his election campaignin 2004. While important progress towardsgaining recognition for indigenous peoples'rights to their lands and resources has beenmade,13 the vast majority of new sectorallaws that have been issued continue toconfirm the land rights status quo.14 As aresult, the promotion of business interestsover community needs remains as prominentas ever.

This has meant that more and moreof Indonesia's land has come under thecontrol of powerful businesses. According to

a summary by KPA published in September2012, 531 logging and timber plantationlicences have been issued, covering 35.8million hectares of forests controlled by ahandful of local and foreign companies.Around 11.5 million hectares is covered by oilpalm plantations; more than twenty islandshave been acquired by foreign investors forthe tourism industry.16 According to JATAM,35% of the country's land area is covered bymining concessions.17

This area is set to expand muchfurther: Sawit Watch says the government hasissued a total 26.7 million hectares of ijinlokasi (location licences) for oil palmdevelopment, thus tripling the area currentlyunder cultivation.18 Up to 3.5 million hectaresis reported to be allocated for new foodestates and 9 million hectares for new timberplantations by 2016; an additional 2.2 millionhectares of the state forest zone will be used

to expand non-oil and gas mining; and 1.5million hectares has been planned forjatropha plantations.19 A further 26.6 millionhectares of forests is to be dedicated toREDD+ projects to mitigate climate change.20

InequalityThe development of these businesses has hada clear impact on agrarian structures, as JohnMcCarthy et al writing in the Journal ofPeasant Studies this year note. "Between 1983and 2003 the Gini coefficient for landdistribution in outer island Indonesiaincreased from 0.48 to 0.58 indicating rapidlygrowing inequality in land ownership. In SouthSumatra and South Kalimantan, thepercentages of households in the category of

marginal farmers with landholdingsconsidered too small to meet more thansubsistence requirements, have increasedfrom 9% to 20% and from 30% to 40% in eachprovince respectively over 20 years."21

According to Chalid Muhammad, director ofIndonesia's Green Institute, agrarian injusticehas remained entrenched since the Suhartoperiod and has not been addressed bysuccessive post-Suharto governments. Theresult is that more than 50% of Indonesia'sland is controlled by less than 500 businesses,including national and internationalcompanies.22

Decentralisation and moneypoliticsThe regional autonomy laws passed in 1999which aimed at decentralising control overthe management of land and resources, haveonly been partially implemented and havelargely not - as many hoped - resulted in afairer use of natural resources and greateraccountability to local populations.

A central pillar of Suharto's NewOrder regime was the use of Indonesia's richagrarian and natural resources to enrich thepresident's family members and friends and toconsolidate his power.

As noted in Marcus Colchester'sbook review in the previous edition of DTE,instead of promoting more social justice, "theprocess of decentralisation has...facilitatedthe proliferation of the same predatory elites,once dominant in Jakarta, to populate everycorner of the country." Land and resourcesare a key means of accumulating power, andpaying for election campaign "war chests".

"Now we see at the local level, a strengthenedand expanded political class who buy officethrough money politics and who furnish theirambitions and pay off their supporters withpreferential access to State contracts and accessto natural resources."23

It is common knowledge that more and morelicences for the commercial exploitation ofthe country's land and resources will beissued to generate funds to support thecandidates' campaigns in the next generalelections in 2014. It is ironic that given thealarmingly high level of land conflicts,promises to address land problems will nodoubt become a focus for some of theseelection campaigns.

McCarthy et al have furtherunderlined why pro-big business policies areprioritised by the regional governmentswhose officials hold key powers withinnetworks involving local businessmen,brokers, investors, local companies, localpopulations and large corporations. Referringin particular to the expansion of oil palmplantations, they note: "[f]or districtgovernments a failure to attract investors


2

Plantation land leased to PT Asiatic Persada,Sumatra.

3


would be perceived as an inability to deliverthe maximum development benefits. On theother hand local governments who attractinvestors and issue large numbers of permitsgain directly - from entitlements in oil palmschemes and through support for electoralprograms in return for services rendered."Moreover, the unclear, complex proceduresfor acquiring land and overlapping land useregimes provide officials with opportunitiesfor rent-seeking.24

As a separate article on Aceh in thisedition of the DTE newsletter shows, the'special autonomy' introduced for this regionhas not been implemented in ways that resultin gains for less powerful communities andthe process of handing community land overfor large-scale commercial projects hascontinued.

Regional level laws relating to landhave been passed in both Aceh and Papua,which recognise indigenous land and resourcerights. In Papua (and in the now separateprovince of Papua Barat) they have not beenimplemented as the implementing regulationsrequired to activate them do not yet exist. InAceh, key provisions in the two qanun(regional regulations) that are mostimportant for indigenous peoples (numbers 9and 10 of 2008), have not beenimplemented.25 Moreover, a draft law on therole of Mukim - traditional inter-villageinstitutions for decision-making on lands andresources lying outside the agriculturalboundaries of the villages - had not yet beenpassed in mid-2011 after a five year delay.26

Registering landLand reform efforts supported by the WorldBank and Asian Development Bank amongothers have focused on getting landregistered - a task given to the National LandAgency (BPN), set up in 1988. However thepace of registration has been slow andexpensive. It has also drawn criticism fromCSOs who argue that registration willintensify the treatment of land as acommodity, will lead to greater inequality inland distribution as more land is traded withdominant landowners more likely toconsolidate gains. Meanwhile, the continuedfailure to accommodate communal land titlemeans that indigenous communities continueto be disadvantaged by the process.

Recent movesIn recent months there has been a greaterlevel of public debate on land, as severalimportant draft laws related to agrarian issuesare scheduled for debate in Indonesia'sparliament. At the same time, Indonesia'sindigenous peoples' alliance AMAN is movingto consolidate the political space they haveprized open in the past few years.

On the positive side, TAP MPR IX/2001 hasbeen brought back onto the table ingovernment discussions about land and landreform. In his keynote speech in aninternational conference in Lombok last year,Kuntoro Mangkusubroto referred to the TAPMPR as the clear legal basis for reforms on

land tenure. Kuntoro leads the PresidentialUnit for Development Monitoring andOversight (UKP4) and the REDD TaskForce.29 Along with the constitution and the1960 UUPA, the TAP MPR is also one of thethree reference laws in the new draft land law(see below).

Indigenous peoples are also makingmoves to formalise their claims over land. Anew draft law, prepared by the indigenouspeoples' alliance AMAN, to recognise andprotect indigenous peoples' rights is currentlyunder discussion in parliament.30 It remainsto be seen, of course, how far it can withstandefforts to water it down by the powerfulvested interests lined up against recognisingindigenous rights to control their territories.

In November 2012, the results of aninitiative to map indigenous territories acrossIndonesia by the Ancestral DomainRegistration Agency (BRWA)31 were handedto UKP4/REDD+ Task Force and theGeospatial Information Agency at a Jakartapress conference. The land on the BRWAmaps - 2.4 million hectares consisting of 265maps of indigenous territories - representsonly a small fraction of actual indigenouslands, but it could nevertheless mark animportant step on the road to full recognitionby the Indonesian government.32

One MapAt the Jakarta press conference Kuntoro saidthe BRWA information would be included inthe One Map - an initiative to bring all landuse maps together which is linked to the two-year moratorium on clearing primary forestsand peatland, announced in May 201133(seealso interview, page 8). Having all land useinformation on one map may seem like anobvious basis for coherent national planning.However it has never happened in Indonesiauntil now, partly due to an apparentreluctance on the part of some of thepowerful sectoral ministries preferring tokeep control of their own land useinformation.

Civil society organisations havecommented that the One Map policy, hasboth risks and opportunities. On the onehand, if local community land is clearlymarked on the map, incoming investors willhave a quick reference to find out whichcommunities need to be targeted to persuadethem to give up their land; on the other hand,if maps are publicly available and accessible tocommunities, they will be able to see which oftheir lands has been allocated to what kind ofdevelopment and ensure they are wellprepared to resist any transfer of land beforeit happens, rather than after it has alreadybeen agreed over their heads by governmentofficials.The maps are also designed to allowboth government and civil societyorganisations to identify who is responsiblefor illegal land clearance.

Land status in Indonesia

Around 70% of national territory isclaimed by the Indonesian government as'forest' under control of the state. Lessthan 0.2% of this has been allocated tocommunities under various tenuresavailable in law.27 Most of the area hasbeen awarded to the forestry industry andto be converted to other uses such asplantations, under processes whose legalbasis have been challenged.28

The customary territories of the estimated60-100 million indigenous people inIndonesia, overlaps with the land inside andoutside the state-controlled forest zone,and their rights to use these lands haveonly weak recognition under the law (ashak ulayat).These usufructary rights aresubordinated to other land use rights, suchas forestry, plantation and miningconcessions as handed out by thegovernment.

The remaining 30% of Indonesia's territoryfalls under the official land titling regime ofthe Basic Agrarian Law of 1960 (UUPA)and its implementing regulations, withregistration being administered by theNational Land Agency (BPN).

Growing rice, Kalimantan

4


MP3EIOther national policies threaten tooverwhelm any gains: the push for economicdevelopment detailed in the government'sMasterplan for the Acceleration andExpansion of Indonesia EconomicDevelopment (MP3EI) represents apotentially hugely damaging regressive stepfor indigenous peoples and localcommunities. Launched last year by theCoordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs,MP3EI is promoting large-scale private andpublic sector projects with scant regard forhuman rights, environment or climateimpacts. MP3EI involves developing largeenergy, infrastructure, industrial, andagribusiness projects across Indonesia in sixtarget 'corridors', prioritising 22 economicactivities.34

Focused as it is on large-scale top-down resource exploitation projects, andrelying on huge amounts of investment capitalfrom private as well as public sectors, MP3EIrepresents a return to development Suharto-style: highly centralised decision-making onlarge-scale projects imposed on Indonesia'sregions without consultation or consent.MP3EI's smelters, petrochemical plants, nickeland coal mines, industrial plantations, portsand roads seem likely to encouragelandgrabbing at its worst.

It is telling that the MP3EI does notmake any estimates of the land needed forthe various large projects listed as prioritiesin the six 'corridors'. Indeed if someone readthe plan with no prior knowledge ofIndonesia's complex land situation they maywell get the impression that there are nosignificant obstacles to such developments.Only now and then are land issuesmentioned, such as under the "difficulties inland acquisition" as one of the challenges tocoal mining development in Sumatra; "theoverlapping of land use for mining and forforestry or plantations in Kalimantan"identified as a challenge for coal developmentin Kalimantan; and "land use overlaps" as anobstacle to nickel mining in Sulawesi.

Linked to MP3EI is the 2012 law onland acquisition for development. Its passagethrough parliament was met with intensivecriticism from CSOs who argued that itlegitimised landgrabbing, would lead toincreased poverty, landlessness and conflicts.

A judicial review has been launched againstthe regulation by an Indonesian NGOcoalition against landgrabbing, includingFriends of the Earth Indonesia (WALHI), KPAand Sawit Watch.

Women, land and resourcesWhat is the impact of landgrabbing onwomen? Recent discussions of this aspect oflandgrabbing in Indonesia have pointed to thedisproportionately negative effect of evictionson women. According to the IndonesianPeasants Union (SPI) in 2011 almost 274,000families were evicted from land they had beencultivating.Writing in Inside Indonesia, RebeccaElmhirst notes that "women's lack of voicewithin their communities has made themespecially vulnerable to dispossession.Women's livelihood activities are often thefirst to be affected by the development oflarge-scale plantations, which curtails theirability to collect fuel, fodder and foodstuffsfrom hitherto forested areas. Indeed thesteep rise in numbers of women migrating tobecome domestic workers overseas is partlyattributable to their diminishing prospects inrural areas..."35

Land acquisition for oil palmplantations in particular has been noted forits negative impact on women.As summarisedby FPP, Cirad, and ILC in Palm Oil andindigenous peoples in South East Asia, reportsshow that "whereas under customary law,women may hold lands (as among theMinangkabau in West Sumatra) or equally bymen and women (as among most Dayakpeoples in Borneo), when they get formaltitles as smallholders these are vested in maleheads of households. The marginalization ofwomen has been cited as a cause of theincreased instances of prostitution in oil palmareas.According to the Indonesian Ministry ofWomen's Empowerment, the impact of oilpalm plantations on rural women can include:an increase in time and effort to carry outdomestic chores, through the loss of accessto clean and adequate water and fuel wood;an increase in medical costs due to loss ofaccess to medicinal plants obtained fromgardens and forests; loss of food and incomefrom home gardens and cropping areas; lossof indigenous knowledge and socio-culturalsystems; and an increase in domestic violenceagainst women and children due to increased

social and economic stresses (Hertomo2009)."36

In forest areas, women may also bevulnerable to gender injustice, according toIndonesian researchers Mia Siscawati and AviMahaningtyas.Three case studies - indigenouswomen in Banten and Central Kalimantan anda rural woman in Gunung Kidul, Yogyakartaprovince - demonstrate how women facevarious forms of gender injustice such assubordination, marginalisation, discrimination

UK investors highlightedDTE recently pointed out to UKparliamentarians that some of Indonesia'sbiggest landgrabbers enjoy financial backingfrom UK investors.They include JardineMatheson, majority-owner of Indonesianconglomerate Astra International, which isinvolved in plantations, mining and theautomobile industry. Other investors arecoal mining giants BHP Billiton, Bumi plc,Archipelago Resources, a UK companyinvolved in conflict with communities overits gold mining operations in NorthSulawesi, and Rio Tinto - involved in theFreeport copper and gold mine in Papua.

In a joint briefing sent to MPs before thevisit of President SBY to the UK inOctober, DTE stated:

"Bumi and its Indonesian shareholders havebeen associated with numerous humanrights and environmental abuses, includinga brutal attack against striking workers atthe KPC mine in March this year. JardineMatheson, which controls major palm oilcompanies operating in Indonesia, has beenaccused of causing deforestation andbiodiversity loss."

"In Papua, the large military presence, theclimate of impunity for human rightsabuses by the security forces andrestrictions on civil and political freedomsmeans that the impacts of land andresources appropriation are even moresevere for the local population. Humanrights abuses, including killings, arecommonly associated with logging, miningand oil palm plantation ventures, whileadditional problems associated with in-migration from other parts of Indonesiaare increasing the pressure on indigenousPapuans and their resources.Two UK-listedcompanies, BP and Rio Tinto, are heavilyinvolved in resource extraction in Papua intheir Tangguh and Grasberg operationsrespectively."http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/failure-respect-rights-protect-livelihoods-and-promote-climate-justice

5


and stereotyping which limit their access toand control over their lands.The researchersargue that "the reformulation of the legalframework for forest lands and resources,which should include the recognition of therights of Indigenous Peoples, should alsoinclude gender justice principles and actions."They are also calling for systematic capacitybuilding on gender justice in forest tenure andgovernance among government institutions,civil society organisation and donor agencies;increasing the voices of women andvulnerable groups in decision-making; andadopting gender justice principles incommunity organising processes and inmultistakeholder approaches in reformingforest governance through tenure conflictresolution.37

Notes1. 'Kasus Mesuji, Pemerintah Belum Sentuh

Akar Konflik', KPA website,http://www.kpa.or.id/?p=672 [no date]accessed 23/Nov/12.

2. Mesuji, Cermin Konflik Agraria yang

Kronis, KPA websitehttp://www.kpa.or.id/?p=636, accessed23/Nov/12.

3. Joint press release 24/Dec/11, Walhi. TheAustralian company is named as PT. ArcExploration Ltd.

4. BeritaHUKUM.com, 24/Dec/11,http://www.beritahukum.com/detail_berita.php?judul=Polisi+Akui+Pembakaran+Puluhan+Rumah+Adat+Pekasa#.UK9vyGeXlCo,accessed 23/Nov/12.

5. Energy, food and climate crises: are theydriving an Indonesian land grab?, East AsiaForum, John McCarthy,17/Jul/12http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/07/17/energy-food-and-climate-crises-are-they-driving-an-indonesian-land-grab/

6. Joint Press Release, Catatan Akhir Tahun2011, AMAN, HuMa, WALHI, KPA andothers 29/Dec/11.

7. Joint Press Release, Catatan Akhir Tahun2011, as above.

8. See Tim Lindsey ed, Indonesia Law andSociety, The Federation Press, 2008;Obstacles and Opportunities, WALHI andAMAN, 2003, and DTE’s Forests, People andRights (http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/forests-people-and-rights), 2002, for more background.

9. See Indonesia's Transmigration Programme: anUpdate (DTE, 2001). For more backgroundto the UUPA, see DTE 76-77, May 2008;DTE 72, May 2007; DTE 66, Aug 2005 (rePerpres 36/2005 on land acquisition fordev); DTE 62, Aug 2004 on new plantationlaw and call for agrarian conflict resolutioncommission; and DTE 60, Feb 2004 on landpoverty.

10. See Forests for the Future, AMAN-DTE,April 2009, pages 280-281, Obstacles andOpportunities, WALHI and AMAN, 2003and Forests, People and Rights, DTE specialreport on Forests, 2002, for morebackground and analysis on this regulation.

11. For more background on the TAP MPR2011 see DTE 52, February 2002.

12. See Jude Wallace, 'Indonesian land law andland administration', in Tim Lindsey ed,Indonesia Law and Society, The FederationPress, 2008.

13. See DTE 72, March 2007,http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/agrarian-reform-it-really-pro-poor

14. These include amendments to theConstitution (18B(2) and 28I(3)) whichrecognise "customary law peoples" andtheir traditional rights, and respects theircultural identity; and other laws andregulations including Human Rights Law(39/1999); Law 32/2004 and regulation72/2005 which frees indigenous peoplesbeing organised in standardised "desa" orvillages; Law No.27/2007 on coastal areasand small islands which recognisescustomary wisdom, indigenous laws andrights, Law No 32/2009 on environmentalprotection. For a comprehensive list see'Peluang Hukum untuk Pengakuan HakMasyarakat Adat atas Wilayah Adat (tanah

ulayat), presentation by Sandra Moniaga,Samdhana Institute 25/May/12.

15. Sectoral laws seen which are seen asparticularly skewed towards large-scalebusinesses and investors include theforestry law 41/1999, plantations law18/2004, water law No 7/2004, mineralsand coal 4/2009, investment 25/2007,horticulture 13/2010, Oil and Gas 22/2001and Land Acquisition for development inthe public interest 2/2012.

16. Kusutnya Keagrariaan Kita, Kompas25/Sep/12. According to the ForestryDepartment's statistics book (2012), as atDecember 2011 there were 292 licencesissued to companies for timber use innatural forests (IUPHHK) in Indonesiacovering a total area of 23.28 millionhectares. Seehttp://www.dephut.go.id/files/BUku%20Statistik%20Juli%202012_terbaru.pdf

17. Figures quoted in Drama Haru SBY,Kompas 30/Oct/10, Chalid Muhammad

18. Palm oil and indigenous peoples inSoutheast Asia, January 2011.

19. Figures quoted in 'Energy, food and climatecrises: are they driving an Indonesian landgrab?', East Asia Forum, John McCarthy,17/Jul/12http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/07/17/energy-food-and-climate-crises-are-they-driving-an-indonesian-land-grab/

20. Green Economy, Komodifikasi SumberDaya Alam, Hadiedi Prasaja 4/Jun/12,Serikat Petani Indonesia

21. ‘Trajectories of land acquisition andenclosure: development schemes, virtualland grabs, and green acquisitions inIndonesia's Outer Islands’. John F.McCarthy, Jacqueline A.C. Vel & Suraya Affif,Journal of Peasant Studies, Volume 39, Issue2, March 2012

22. Drama Haru SBY, Kompas 30/Oct/10,Chalid Muhammad

23. See book review DTE 91-92,http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/proliferation-political-piracy-post-suharto-indonesia

24. ‘Trajectories of land acquisition..’, as above.25. Pers comm Zulfikar Arma, December

2012. The qanun can be viewed athttp://acehprov.go.id/Kepemerintahan/2.14/Qanun

26. See Aceh: The Ulu Masen REDD+ PilotProject, Rights, forests and climate briefingseries - October 2011, FPP, Pusaka, YayasanRumpun Bambu Indonesia, at:http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2011/10/aceh-briefing-3.pdf

27. World Agroforestry Centre quoted in PalmOil and indigenous peoples in South EastAsia, FPP, cirad, International Landcoalition, Marcus Colchester, January 2011.

28. Researchers have established that mostconcessions have been handed without theproper legal processes being followed andthat the government has legally establishedstate forest in less than 10% of the overallforest estate. (See AMAN-DTE, Forests for

A new land law

A new draft land law (RUU Pertanahan)38

has drawn criticism from the Consortiumfor Agrarian Reform (KPA) which wasinvited to comment by the working grouppreparing the law. KPA said the draft lawreflected the struggle between three maingroups: the pro-land market group,including World Bank and ADB who werein favour of getting rid of the 1960 law;those in favour of properly implementingthe 1960 law in its original intention andthose in favour of keeping the 1960 lawwith amendments. Iwan Nurdin of KPAsaid the draft law appeared to be aimed atpromoting the registration of land and wasnot based on the spirit of agrarianreform.39

The ADB has been involved in promotingthe new law not least as a means ofaddressing concerns about bottlenecks inimplementing infrastructure projects.40 In2007, the ADB provided technicalassistance worth US$500,000 (with a lateradditions of $300,000) to help draft thenew law. Originally designed to finish inJanuary 2010, the revised closing date forthe funding (and therefore passing of thelaw and follow-up work included in theproject) is now June 2013.41

(continued bottom of page 7)

6


Why systemic agrarian conflicts arecontinuing to break out across the land

By Noer Fauzi Rachman*

The systemic agrarian conflicts referred to inthis article are protracted conflicts arisingfrom opposing claims made on particularpieces of land, or over natural resources andcommunity-owned areas or territories, bygiant corporations in the business ofinfrastructure, production, resourceextraction and conservation, and where eachopposing side is taking direct or indirectaction to negate the claim of the other. Thistype of agrarian conflict arises from thegranting of licences and concessions tocorporations by public officials-including theMinister for Forestry, Minister for Energy andMineral Resources, the Head of the NationalLand Agency (BPN), regional governors andlocal district heads-which sanction them touse land, natural resources and territories forinfrastructure, production and extractionprojects as well as conservation.

The way the law is applied, the useof force, the criminalisation of localcommunity figures, manipulation, fraud andcoercion are all used widely andsystematically.These tactics are often used todeny local people's land claims or to transfercontrol over land, natural resources andterritories into the hands of these giantcorporations for their projects/concessions.They also exclude local people from, or limittheir access to, land, natural resources andterritories. Conversely, direct opposition onthe part of local people - whether facilitatedby social movement organisations, NGOs, orby the political elite - challenges this transferof control, forced exclusion of the localpopulation, or limiting of access to the land.

The case of palm oilplantationsThe production of crude palm oil (CPO) hasbeen increasing rapidly from year to year.Indonesia is the biggest producer of CPO inthe world. According to figures fromIndonesian Commercial Newsletter (July 2011)CPO production climbed from 19.4 milliontonnes in 2009 to 21 million tonnes in 2010.In 2011, it is estimated that production willrise by 4.7%, to approximately 22 milliontonnes. Total exports of CPO are alsoincreasing, from 15.65 million tonnes in 2010to an estimated 18 million tonnes in 2011.From the total amount of CPO produced inthe country, only around 25% (approximately5.45 million tonnes) is consumed by thedomestic market. This level of production is

supported by the ongoing expansion of oilpalm plantations, which increased from 7.5million hectares in 2010 to 7.9 millionhectares the following year.Data from the Directorate General of EstateCrops in 2012 shows that the extent of oilpalm plantations in Indonesia has reached 8.1million hectares. However, according to theIndonesian NGO network Sawit Watch, theactual area covered is much higher, thought tototal around 11.5 million hectares. It is oftenthe case that palm oil plantations developareas beyond their legal boundaries. Aproportion of the total area noted by theDirectorate General are plantationscultivated by farmers on their own land.According to Dirjenbun data (2012), thisamounts to 40% of all oil palm cultivation;Sawit Watch (2012), however, maintains thatthe proportion is actually less than 30%.Withan expansion rate of 400,000 hectares perannum, driven by the government, privatebusinesses and local farmers, the area of landthat will be devoted to palm oil cultivation by2025 is projected to reach 20 millionhectares. The question remains: where willthis land for expansion come from?

The data presented at a sustainableplantations coordination meeting inPontianak, West Kalimantan on 25 January2012 by Herdradjat Natawidjaja, the Directorof Post-harvest and Business Development ofthe Directorate for Estate Crops at the

Ministry of Agriculture, makes veryinteresting reading. He stated that about 59%of the 1000 oil palm companies acrossIndonesia are currently engaged in land-related conflicts with local communities. Ateam from the Directorate General for EstateCrops has identified such conflicts in 22provinces and 143 districts. In total, there arearound 591 conflicts, most of which areconcentrated in Central Kalimantan (250cases), followed by North Sumatra (101cases), East Kalimantan (78 cases), WestKalimantan (77 cases) and South Kalimantan(34 cases).

ConsequencesProblems stemming from large scale landacquisition for investments in infrastructure,plantations, mining and forestry - or, to use amore partisan term, landgrabbing - score thehighest number of complaints from thepublic, as repeatedly reported by the NationalCommission for Human Rights. From ahuman rights perspective, the grabbing ofland, natural resources and territories is aviolation of the people's economic, social andcultural rights. When violent conflict breaksout between corporations, the security forcesand local people, it becomes a matter of civiland political rights violations.The squeeze oncommunity land, and the resulting decline inpeople's ability to fulfil their daily needsindependently through farming, marks theearly stages of the transformation of theirexistence as farmers with diverse livelihoodstowards a state of landlessness. Some of themwill become wage labourers and others willbe unemployed or underemployed.

One of the consequences ofprotracted agrarian conflict is the way itspreads: disputes over land claims, naturalresources and territories can turn intoconflicts about other issues. Longstandingagrarian conflicts may precipitate a socio-ecological crisis: forcing villagers to migrate tonew areas to seek new farmland or to jointhe ranks of the urban poor. In this way, ruralconflicts become the source of newproblems in the cities.

In extended agrarian conflicts,people want to know what the governmentposition is and what role it plays.Communities can sometimes feel there is noprotective or supportive government at all. Inthe early stages of the dispute, they protestagainst the government.When they are thencriminalised, they feel that the government is

Protesters call for land reform, Jakarta, January2012.

7


against them. In turn, their loss of faith in thegovernment can erode the victims' sense ofbeing Indonesian, part of the nation.

The articulation of agrarian conflictcan take other forms too, including disputesbetween landowning farmers and plantationworkers, ethnic conflicts between localcommunities and migrants, and inter-villageconflicts. A 2012 study by the Peace-buildingInstitute (Institut Titian Perdamaian) showsthat the majority of large-scale ethnic andreligious conflicts that occurred during andafter Indonesia's transition to democracy(1998-1999) were rooted in struggles overland, natural resources and territories.

Quo vadis the IntegratedAgrarian Conflict ResolutionTeam?When these conflicts persist at high-intensity,communities seek access to social movementorganisations, NGOs, local governmentcouncils, the National Land Agency, theMinistry of Forestry, the National Parliament,the National Human Rights Commission, andso on. In a number of cases, some of theclaims and needs of the victims can beaddressed according to the authority orcapacity of these organisations. However, thisis often not the case with conflicts that havealready become chronic, whose complexityinvolves multiple sectors and whose impactshave already spread.

This type of systemic agrarian

conflict is perpetuated because of theunchecked decisions made by various publicofficials (Minister for Forestry, Head of theNational Land Agency, Minister for Energyand Mineral Resources, as well as districtheads and governors) who includecommunity land, natural resources andterritories in concessions handed out tocorporations for production, extraction andconservation projects. We know that, basedon their authority, the motivation of theseofficials is to collect rents and to achieveeconomic growth; they therefore continue togrant licences and land rights to these giantcorporations. We also know that if acorrection is indeed made, these officials willin turn be sued by companies whoseconcessions are reduced in size or cancelled.The officials involved in such cases willcertainly want to avoid the risk of incurringlosses should they lose in court.

Systemic agrarian conflicts havenow become chronic, with wide-rangingimpacts. We can no longer rely onconventional methods to tackle them.At thispoint, we need an institution with fullauthority, that functions across thegovernment sectors, and which has sufficientcapacity to deal with past, present and futureagrarian conflicts. Furthermore, systemicagrarian conflict needs to be overcome bydealing with the roots of the problem, namelythe agrarian imbalance, marked by thedominant position held by corporations inthe control over land and management of

natural resources. Indonesia does not havelegal and policy instruments in place to limitthe maximum extent of land that the holdingcompanies of predatory capitalistcorporations can control. If we want to dealwith the root of this problem, ourcommitment as agrarian reformers needs tobe renewed.

At a cabinet meeting at theAttorney General's office in South Jakarta on25 July 2012, President Susilo BambangYudhoyono gave a directive to set up anagrarian conflict resolution team. The team'sterms of reference, including the extent of itsauthority and the team's operationalmethods, are being formulated by thePresident's Unit for Development Monitoringand Oversight (UKP4) so that it can then beimplemented by the Office of the Ministry forPolitics, Law and Security.

Quo vadis this new organisation?

*) Noer Fauzi Rachman holds a PhD inEnvironmental Science, Policy andManagement from University of California,Berkeley. He is currently the director of theSajogyo Institute in Bogor,West Java; he alsoteaches in the Faculty of Human Ecology atthe Institute of Agriculture (IPB) in Bogor.

The original Indonesian language version of thisarticle appeared in Media Indonesia in March2012, and was translated by DTE with theauthor’s kind permission.

the Future, April 2009, p.279).29. See DTE 89-90, http://www.downtoearth-

indonesia.org/story/redd-indonesia-update30. See DTE 91-92, http://www.downtoearth-

indonesia.org/story/indonesia-s-indigenous-peoples-continue-struggle-recognition; page1

31. BRWA (http://brwa.or.id/) was set up byAMAN and JKPP See alsohttp://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/node/160

32. Seehttp://www.mongabay.co.id/2012/11/15/peta-wilayah-adat-diakomodir-masuk-one-map/#ixzz2D4ISIZF4

33. See http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/redd-indonesia-updatefor background

34. See DTE 89-90, http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/big-plans-papua forbackground on MP3EI

35. Rebecca Elmhirst, 'Finding Ecological Justicefor Women', Inside Indonesia Jul-Sep 2012.

36. Palm oil and indigenous peoples in SouthEast Asia, FPP, CIRAD, International Land

Coalition, Marcus Colchester, January 201137. 'Gender Justice: Forest Tenure and Forest

Governance in Indonesia', Mia Siscawati andAvi Mahaningtyas, June 2012, Rights andResources.

38. The draft land law of June 2012 refers toconstitution, TAP MPR IX, 2001 and UUPA,has chapters on land administration, landreform, registration, collection andprocessing of physical data, includingmeasurement and mapping, rights and proofof rights, certification, transferring,conversion, division and extinction ofrights, and conflict resolution.

39. RUU Pertanahan Pertarungan TigaKelompok Besar, 27/June/12, KPA website.

40. http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/projdocs/2007/37304-INO-TAR.pdf

41. The project aim, according to the ADB is"to assist the Government to enhance thelegal and administrative framework for landlaw including land acquisition andresettlement. The technical assistanceaimed to support, among other things:preparation and approval of a draft LandLaw and consultation on the draft LandLaw in selected regions and with the civil

society; (see ADB Project Data Sheet37304-012, updated October 2012). A listof what the new law should cover,according to the ADB, includes "redefinitionof land-related titles, covering title forapartment, title for space below and aboveland, land title for adverse possession,customary rights for indigenouscommunities, riparian rights, and land titlefor coastal land areas; ...Islamic law andinheritance, and women's rights over landand related resources and compensation;"and "land acquisition and resettlement forpublic and private purpose".

(continued from page 5)

8


Q: Heru Prasetyo, Indonesia's REDD+ TaskForce Secretary, told REDD-Monitor thatIndonesia's One Map 'movement' originatedin 2010, when the President's Delivery Unitfor Development Monitoring and Oversight(UKP4) showed President Susilo BambangYudhoyono how maps from KLH andDephut for forest cover were not the sameand he instructed that one map be created.1Can you tell us anything more about wherethe idea of the policy came from and what isthe rationale behind it?

A:This is quite strange: two ministries issuedifferent maps covering the same thing, i.e.forest cover. It implies that there aredifferent policy directions and that there isdifferent decision-making about land andforest cover in Indonesia.This begs thequestion: which map is the right one? Fromwhat I see, the background to PresidentSBY's instruction is Indonesia's climatechange programme which is going to beimplemented with support from othercountries.

Q:Why is mapping a hot topic in Indonesiaright now? Is it related to the 2011Moratorium or is it a wider issue?

A: It's true that mapping is very closelyrelated to the 2011 Forest Moratorium.2 Isee the moratorium map3 as an entrypointfor UKP4, whose task it is to supervisedevelopment from the governance and lawenforcement side. It's not just the forestrysector but other sectors too, that need tobe addressed so that the same data and thesame map is used across the board - mining,plantations and so on.We are also looking atthe relationship with Indonesia's economicdevelopment acceleration plan, as set out inthe MP3EI,4 as there is almost equalmomentum for both of these agendas.

Q:What will the map being developed byUKP4 eventually show? For example, will itonly include official data from the variousrelevant ministries (forestry, plantations, land,mining & energy etc) or will it also showinformation about the customary landowned by indigenous peoples in Indonesia?

A:This has been the focus of our attentionduring the several meetings we have hadwith UKP4 in a special forum to discuss OneMap as well as in other UKP4 fora. How willthe maps of indigenous territories really fare

in the One Map policy? We hope indigenousterritory maps will be become part of thereference for policies and legislation inforestry and other sectors, including climatechange and REDD+. Then the thematicmaps made by government ministries andagencies, for example maps of licensed areas,HGU concessions and maps of indigenousterritories can be displayed by theinstitutions with the authority to do so, suchas the Geospatial Information Agency (BIG),and can be viewed by the general public.

Q:Who is leading the development of theOne Map? Is it a good process in terms ofCSO involvement and public consultation?What has your involvement been?

A: Currently UKP4 is leading, and has givenBIG the task of preparing the systeminfrastructure and the standardization of theexisting maps, including maps of indigenouspeoples' territories, so that all thematic mapsfrom each sector, plus the indigenous maps,can be integrated. Civil society involvementhas been going quite well, in my opinion.Thisstarted with the official acceptance of theindigenous territory maps that were handedby JKPP and AMAN to UKP4 and BIG onNovember 14th.There are 265 maps of

indigenous territories, covering an extent of2.4 million hectares, transferred forprocessing into part of the Indonesia OneMap. Now, together with BIG, we arepreparing a participative mapping guide sothat indigenous territory maps can be madeaccording to a Community Spatial Data(DSM) standard, to contribute to the OneMap.Also, the REDD+ Taskforce is carryingout a project to acquire existing thematicmaps and licences in the provinces whichhave been selected as REDD+ pilotprovinces.5 I've just been to a meetingabout this in South Sumatra.The SouthSumatra government there, through theprovincial planning office and BIG and theParticipatory Mapping Service Node NGOgroup, is preparing a policy and mechanismwhich will enable DSM to contribute to theOne Map, in this case in South Sumatra.

Q:According to ArcNews6 the Japanesegovernment's Japan InternationalCooperation Agency provided a loan to theIndonesian Geospatial Information Agency tocarry out the one map work, while NTTData, a Japanese-owned company isoverseeing implementation.Why do youthink Japan is interested in funding thisinitiative?

Indonesia's 'One Map Policy' An interview with Kasmita Widodo, director of Indonesia's Participatory Mapping Network JKPP and head of BRWA,

Indonesia's Ancestral Domain Registration Agency.

Screenshot of BRWA website showing registered areas of indigenous territory in Sulawesi, and detailsof Anoi territory in green box. www.brwa.or.id

9


A:The information I got from the director ofBIG at one of the meetings was that theagency is working together with ESRI7 todevelop the BIG portal because thecompany has good experience and capacity.As regards funding from the Japanesegovernment to develop the IndonesiaGeospatial portal, this does need to belooked at as it seems that there iswidespread concern that strategicinformation on Indonesia will be accessibleto external parties.There are also concernsabout an American initiative through theMillennium Challenge Corporation (MCC)to support village border mapping, workingwith district and provincial governments.

Q:What have been the main contentiousissues in debates about how the map shouldbe developed?

A: These are sensitive issues, to do withdifferent sectors and their egos. Each sectorhas a thematic map which is the mainreference used when issuing licences. So thecorrupt practices related to licensing whichgo on in the ministries and agencies with theauthority to issue those licences thrivewhere the common reference maps areunclear or where there are no commonreference maps at all. It's certainly no easytask to unify all ministries and agencies thatproduce thematic maps for their sectors.Another issue is that existing participativemaps or maps of indigenous territories needto be "standardized", in their geometricaspects for example.

Q: If the main purpose of the map is to clearthe way for more investment, the policycould well accelerate landgrabbing, couldn'tit? But, if there is open public access to themap, local people will be able to see what isplanned in their areas and preparethemselves better to oppose developmentsthat will affect them negatively.What is yourview of the potential positive and/ornegative impacts of the development of onemap? Do the dangers outweigh the benefitsor vice versa?

A: Getting indigenous peoples' maps in theofficial geospatial information, getting theirinformation out there, is an opportunity, as Isee it. The current situation, where there isno clarity, where there are no commonthematic reference maps for the governmentand for communities, has created a mess fornatural resources management andwidespread agrarian conflict. If theindigenous territory maps can be made intoone thematic map that gets the same level ofsupport as other thematic maps, then theoverlapping tenures will become clear. Itmeans the government will have recognisedthat there are tenurial problems that needto be sorted out.

Landgrabbing has been going on in Indonesiafor a long time, one of the causes being thesectoral maps and the lack of recognition forindigenous territories.The One Map is notan instant cure-all for land managementinjustices and agrarian conflict. It is just onebasis for government decision-making whichwill of course be influenced by other factorsbeyond the power of the map itself, includingpolitical factors, and the way this country ismanaged in terms of policies and leadership.As an initiative to clarify spatial datareferences for decision-making, in myopinion, the One Map policy deserves somerespect.At the same time, we should remaincritical and get on with the job of preparingcommunity spatial data.

Q:The portal for the "Geospasial untukNegri" map is at http://maps.ina-sdi.or.id/home/. Is this the best place to goto for information on land use in Indonesia?What other sites and resources do yourecommend?

A:This is the portal being developed by BIG.It is where the indigenous territory mapswill appear on their own dedicated page.Putting aside the question of howcomprehensive the information and dataavailable here is, I think it's really good thatthis one portal has started displaying all thebasic maps and thematic maps.The ForestryMinistry also has a web-GIS on forestry.8

Q: How does the One Map policy relate to,or affect the work of JKPP and that ofBRWA?

A:The One Map policy has providedimportant momentum for JKPP and BRWAto communicate about the existence ofparticipative maps and indigenous territoriesto the government. It means that communitymaps don't just make an appearance orbecome needed when there is a conflict, butalso when there are decisions to be takenwhich affect communities living in a targetedarea.

Q:What would you like to see happen nextto the one map policy?

A: I hope the standardisation process forparticipatory mapping by BIG pays attentionto uniqueness of participatory mapping anddoesn't just get caught up in thetechnicalities.Also future political changesand the fact that UKP4 will come to the endof its legal existence in 2014 (the end ofPresident SBY's period of government),mean that policies which protect the rightsof indigenous peoples to their territoriesand lands need to be prepared.

Notes1. http://www.redd-

monitor.org/2012/09/20/interview-with-kuntoro-mangkusubroto/

2. See http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/redd-indonesia-updatefor more background on the moratorium

3. The moratorium map, which shows whichareas are off limits for development, hasnow been revised three times. It can beaccessed athttp://appgis.dephut.go.id/appgis/petamoratorium_rev3.html

4. Masterplan for the Acceleration andExpansion of Indonesia EconomicDevelopment. See also DTE 91-92 for morebackground, http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/big-plans-papua

5. For more information on the pilot projectssee: http://www.redd-indonesia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=205&Itemid=87

6. http://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/spring12articles/indonesia-nsdi-one-map-for-the-nation.html

7. ESRI is Geographic information system (GIS),mapping software and services company,based in California, USA. Seehttp://www.esri.com/

8. See http://appgis.dephut.go.id/appgis/. GIS =Geographic Information System

JKPP's website:http://www.jkpp.org/

BRWA's website:http://brwa.or.id/

Durian: non-timber forest products managed incommunity forests.

10


The recent surge in demand for land is beingdriven by powerful agro-industrial companieslooking for profits from high value crops, bythe governments of land-poor countrieswanting to secure food supplies outside theirown borders, and by investors looking for asafe haven for their money in anunpredictable financial climate. Changingpatterns of food and energy consumption -more meat,2 more agrofuels - are also drivingdemand for land, while rapid urbanisation eatsup millions of hectares of agricultural landevery year.3

Last year we reported the resultsof World Bank analysis of land deals in 81countries.4 New evidence from the LandMatrix Database, an independent initiativelaunched earlier this year,5 tells of acontinuing rush for land, though the pace ofthis has slowed since its 2009 peak.

Analysis released in April 2012 fromthe database shows that the majority of landdeals are concentrated in just elevencountries, of which seven are African, andthree are in Southeast Asia: the Philippines,Laos and Indonesia.The analysis confirms thatinvestors are targeting countries with weakland tenure security, although they are alsolooking for high levels of investor protection.Around a quarter of the land deals in thedatabase are in forested areas, and 45% ofthem target existing cropland or crop-vegetation mosaics, meaning likely conflictswith local communities. Investment is comingfrom wealthier, food-importing countries, andfrom public as well as private sources: privatecompanies, state-owned companies,investment funds and private-publicpartnerships.

Trends driving the land rush areidentified by the Land Matrix analysis as risingprices, population growth, growingconsumption rates, market demand for food,agrofuels, raw materials and timber, carbonsequestration and financial speculation.Investors are being attracted to food crops(34% of the investments in the database) aswell as non-food crops (26%); "flex crops" orcrops including soybean, sugarcane and oilpalm that can be either for food or non-fooduses (23%) and "multiple use" crops (17%).

This indicates a continuing trend forinvestment in agrofuels and high value exportcrops such as rubber. Most deals are gearedtoward the export market, with 43% ofexport-oriented deals aiming to send theproduction to the country of origin of theinvestors.Other results of the analysis - basedon a smaller number of cases - show thatgovernments are selling land used bysmallholders, acquisitions are rarely based on

Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC),there is "limited but worrying" evidence ofevictions, and rates of compensation are low.6

A different set of data collected bythe NGO GRAIN covers 416 large-scale landgrabs from the year 2006 by foreign investorsfor the production of food crops. Thisconfirms that Africa is the primary target forland grabs, though Latin America, Asia, andEastern Europe are important destinationstoo. In Indonesia, 4.24 million hectares of landis included.7 GRAIN names the USA, UAE,Saudi Arabia, China, India, the UK andGermany as major sources of investment. Italso notes that the UK serves as a tax havenfor land-grabbers, whose true operating basemay be elsewhere. Most investors are fromthe agribusiness sector, but financialcompanies and sovereign wealth funds wereresponsible for around a third of the 298companies documented.8

Land acquisition by large companieswith backing from governments, institutionalinvestors and development policymakersmeans that poor people in target countriesare losing out, not only from lack of land togrow food, but also the appropriation andprivatisation of common property resourcessuch as water and forests.9

Investors and speculatorsWho exactly is investing in the global landrush? As noted by GRAIN, a large number ofland deals are being done by agribusinesses,but sovereign wealth funds, and financialcompanies are also buying up land. At thesame time, some of the world's mostimportant international institutionsconcerned with land, food and developmentare helping the process along by continuing topromote the private sector and globalmarkets as the primary means of addressingglobal food and energy crises. This includespromoting opening up more land to privatesector farmland investment.

The World Bank has drawnparticular criticism from the peasants'movement and civil society organisations inrecent months. CSOs have accused the WorldBank of playing a key role in the global landgrab by making capital and guarantees

The international landgrabbing picture:an update

Last year DTE reported on the global land-grab phenomenon and its connection to the 2008 financial crisis, theglobal food price spike of 2007/2008 as well as the ongoing climate change & energy crisis.1 Since then, more

analysis of data on land deals has become available which fills in some of the detail in the picture. In this update,we take another look at the global rush for land with a focus on investors and their obligations to the people

affected by land-grabbing.

'Greengrabbing'

Greengrabbing, a term which has emergedas part of the landgrabbing analysis,10 isgenerally used to mean land appropriationfor environmental ends, where there arenegative impacts on local communities.Thiskind of land acquisition may include debt-for-nature swaps and biodiversity offsetschemes (where, for example a miningcompany claims it is offsetting thebiodiversity it is ruining in one area bypaying to protect it in another area).Theterm can also refer to measures tomitigate or adapt to climate change, suchas REDD+ schemes and plantations todevelop agrofuels as alternatives to fossilfuels.

Current debates around REDD+ andagrofuels make clear that there are hugedoubts about their effectiveness in doinganything about climate change, and indeedthere are well-grounded fears that theycould make things worse. Landgrabbing foragrofuels and the human rights abuses thatgo with it have already been well-documented in Indonesia and elsewhere.As far as REDD+ is concerned, unlessstrong human rights and resource rightsguarantees and safeguards are put in placeand maintained for poor people, theseprojects will be viewed as any other kindof landgrabbing - a means of transferringrights, access and benefits out of the handsof local communities and into the hands ofbig business; in the case of REDD+, thecarbon credit business.

11


available for multinational investors, providingtechnical assistance and support to improvethe agricultural investment climate in targetcountries, and promoting policies and lawsthat are corporate-oriented rather thanpeople-centred.11

According to a report in TheGuardian, the Bank has tripled its support forland projects to US$6- US$8 billion a year inthe last decade, though no data is available onhow much of this goes to land acquisitions.The Bank's private sector lending arm, theIFC, said it has roughly $4.85bn of agri-relatedinvestments of which roughly $600m has aland component.Total land holdings related tothe investments amount to 0.7m hectares.The IFC says it doesn't make financial landacquisitions for speculative purposes.

Oxfam is urging the World Bank tofreeze its investment in large-scale landacquisitions to send a strong signal toinvestors to stop landgrabs. It wants the UKgovernment, as one of the bank's biggestshareholders, to push for this and, aspresident of the G8 next year, to put food,hunger and landgrabs at the heart of theagenda. Oxfam also wants the UKgovernment to press the EU to reverseagrofuel targets since these are key drivers oflandgrabbing.12

The heads of two other institutionscame in for sharp criticism recently too, afterwriting an article heavy-handedly pushingprivate sector investment in food productionin emerging economies. The article, 'Hungryfor Investment' by president of the EuropeanBank for Reconstruction and Development(EBRD) Suma Chakrabarti, and director-general of the Food and AgricultureOrganisation (FAO), Jose Graziano da Silvawas published in the Wall Street Journal inadvance of an agribusiness decision-makers'summit in Istanbul, in September 2012.13

Chakrabarti and da Silva argue that the worldneeds more food, meaning more foodproduction and that the private sector can bethe "main engine" of agricultural growth.Referring to emerging economies in EasternEurope,Asia and North Africa, they argue formore private sector investment in emergingeconomies in land and for governmentsupport for policies that foster private sectorinvestment. Small and "uneconomically sizedfarms" are among the issues holding countrieslike Turkey back and which need to beaddressed, they say.

It is responsible private investment from aroundthe globe that can fertilise this land with money- once the local business environment is right.Many countries are hungry for such investment-and their investment can help to make lifeeasier for the world's hungry.14

CSOs have expressed dismay, sayingthat this amounts to a worldwide call formore landgrabbing, a dismissal of the

achievements of peasant farmers and the hardwork done by CSOs to develop the FAO-hosted process to develop voluntaryguidelines on governance and land tenure (seestandard-setting section, below). In a jointstatement La Via Campesina, GRAIN, Friendsof the Earth International and others pointout that, far from being inefficient, "[w]hereverofficial data are available, as in the EU,Colombia, Brazil, or in the studies undertakenin Asia, Africa and Latin America, peasantfarming is shown to be more efficient than

large-scale agribusiness."15 A further argumenthere is that instead of investing in enablinglarge-scale investments by private sectoractors, money should instead be invested infarmers.

Pension funds & banksCampaigners protesting outside a recentAgriculture Investment summit in Londonhighlighted the role that pension funds play inlandgrabbing, asking "Do you realize whatyour pension funds?" GRAIN, one of the

In recent months another global food crisishas been tightening its grip. The worst USdrought in sixty years and severe drought inEastern Europe is driving up prices, with soyand maize prices at all-time highs in July.16

Cereals and vegetable oil prices remained atpeak levels in August.17 Rice prices remainedrelatively stable, and experts are notpredicting a repeat of the 2008 food crisis.18

Nevertheless, countries in the Middle Eastand North and Sub-Saharan Africa especiallyremain vulnerable to the current price hikesand the crisis has underlined deepeningconcern about the ongoing impact of volatilefood prices on the world's poorest. Alreadyan estimated 1 billion people are chronicallymalnourished - one in seven of the world'spopulation.19

There are multiple connectionsbetween food prices and landgrabbing: the2007/8 food price spike prompted some richfood-importing countries - such as the GulfStates - to seek greater control over theirfood supply by investing in food productionin the global South. The use of agriculturalland to grow crops for energy rather thanfood (including corn, palm oil, rapeseed,sugarcane and jatropha) continues to beassociated with food price hikes, especially inyears like 2012 where the harvest is poor.20

Higher food prices affect the poordisproportionately because they spend ahigher percentage of household income onfood than better-off people and here the linkbetween landgrabbing and malnutrition isevident: according to the UN SpecialRapporteur on the Right to Food, due toinequitable access to land and capital,smallholders and agricultural labourers makeup a combined 70% of those who are unableto feed themselves today.21

Analysis by Oxfam of severalthousand land deals in the last decade foundthat international land investors andagrofuels producers have taken over enoughland around the world that could feed nearly1 billion people. Oxfam says the land rush is"out of control and some of the world'spoorest people are suffering hunger, violenceand greater poverty as a result".Very few, ifany, of these land investments benefit localpeople or help to fight hunger.22

Climate change & foodpricesThe close connections between climatechange and food price volatility have beenwell-documented by reports from theground, including in Indonesia.23 Separateresearch commissioned by Oxfam hasmodeled the impact of extreme weather -like droughts, floods and heat waves - on theprices of key international staple crops to beexpected in 2030. It suggests that existingresearch, which considers the gradual effectsof climate change but does not take accountof extreme weather, is significantlyunderestimating the potential implications ofclimate change for food prices.The research,says Oxfam, shows how extreme weatherevents in a single year could bring about pricespikes of comparable magnitude to twodecades of long-run price rises. "It signals theurgent need for a full stress-testing of theglobal food system in a warming world."24

Speculating on FoodMarket speculation is playing a key role too."Banks are earning huge profits from bettingon food prices in unregulated financialmarkets. This creates instability and pushesup global food prices, making poor familiesaround the world go hungry and forcingmillions into deeper poverty" says the WorldDevelopment Movement (WDM).The WDM,Oxfam, La Via Campesina and many othersare part of an international coalition25 callingfor regulation of commodity futures26

markets to limit the damage.A recent study by Friends of the

Earth Europe of European institutionsinvolved in agricultural commodity futureshighlighted Deutsche Bank, Barclays,ABP (theDutch pension fund) Allianz (Germanfinancial services group) and BNP Paribas.27

FoE Europe is calling for tighter regulation inEU markets to curb the 'monstrous' futuresmarkets which worsen food price volatility.They want improved transparency in thesemarkets as a first step, plus limits on the sizeof bets speculators can make and othermeasures.

Another food crisis

groups protesting, says pension funds arereported to be the biggest institutionalinvestors in both commodities in general andin farmland in particular. "Pension fundscurrently juggle US$23 trillion in assets, ofwhich some US$100 billion are reportedlygoing into farmland acquisitions. By 2015,these commodity and farmland investmentsare expected to double.

GRAIN's documentation of 416recent land grabs, lists pension fund investorsfrom 9 countries, (USA, Australia and 7European countries) including 13 publicsector funds. For example, CalPERS (theCalifornia Public Employees' RetirementSystem) is investing around 0.2% of its totalUS$231.4 billion funds in global farmlandventures, including in Africa, Southeast Asiaand South America.29 Companies CalPERSinvests in include the Indonesia-basedIndofood (US$1m); Singapore's Wilmar(US$24.5m),30 Olam (US$6.1m), and GoldenAgri-Resources (US$8m); and Malaysia's SimeDarby ($3.2m) and IOI Corp ($4.7m),31 all ofwhich have extensive plantations holdings oroperations in Indonesia and some of whomhave poor records on human rights and theenvironment.

FoE Europe's study found asignificant number of financial institutionsacross Europe involved in financing landgrabsdirectly or indirectly, including Allianz,Deutsche Bank, Generali, ABP, HSBC, Lloyds,Unicredit,AXA and Credit Agricole.32

SpeculationOften it is difficult to differentiate betweeninvestors in farmland and land speculators.Studies have revealed that many land deals donot result in actual implementation ofcropland development on the ground, whichmay sound like a blessing for the communitieswho live there. However, research on landdeals in Indonesia by McCarthy,Vel and Afiff,demonstrates that this 'virtual land grabbing'can still serve to profit particular actors, whilemarginalising others. 'Failed' projects mayallow businesses to succeed in other ways, byproviding businesses opportunities to accesssubsidies, to get bank loans using land permitsas collateral or "to speculate on futureincreases in land values."33

For some investors purespeculation is the prime focus. As noted in aCivil Society statement on the finance of landgrabs issued in June this year, private equitygroups and many specialised farmland fundsoften operate on the basis of a high returnfive-year exit strategy. Land investorsthemselves point out that they can easilymake their profits by simply renting or sellingthe land.34

Standard-setting &safeguardsThe industry and policy-makers' response tocriticism about landgrabbing has been to draftnew standards for companies engaged inacquiring farmland aimed at reassuringshareholders, investors and the public. These

new sets of principles add to existing ones,such as the Global Compact and the EquatorPrinciples (to which companies and bankssign up) and the World Bank and IFC'ssafeguard policies.

In our last newsletter, we reportedon the Principles for Responsible Investmentin Farmland, announced by a group ofinstitutional investors last year.38 Meanwhile,the seven Principles for ResponsibleAgricultural Investment (PRAI) have beendeveloped, co-sponsored by the World Bank,FAO, UNCTAD and IFAD. The Bank is nowengaged in a process of assessing whetherand how existing projects meet the PRAI,with case studies in Africa and Asia.39

Another main strand of standard-setting is the development by the FAO-hosted Committee on World Food Security(CFS) of the Voluntary Guidelines ongovernance and land tenure, "aimed at helpinggovernments safeguard the rights of peopleto own or access land, forests and fisheries."40

According to GRAIN, these guidelines,


12

Infrastructure pushThe World Bank and governments in theG20 have been criticised by CSOs forpushing large-scale infrastructure projectsas pro-growth and pro-jobs, while they aremore likely to benefit private sectorinvestors rather than the poor. Sinceinfrastructure projects like dams, powerstations and roads, often require largeareas of land, communities may lose landand resources, while missing out on thebenefits.35

In Indonesia, the World Bank Group'sprivate sector investment arm, the IFC, isallocating around USD200 million forinvestment in the country's infrastructurethis financial year, aimed mostly at tollroads and water sanitation.36

The infrastructure agenda is reflected inthe Indonesian government's controversialMP3EI economic masterplan (see also page4), which pays scant attention to social andenvironmental sustainability or climateimpacts.37

The Principles forResponsible AgriculturalInvestment

Principle 1: Existing rights to land andassociated natural resources arerecognized and respected.

Principle 2: Investments do notjeopardize food security but ratherstrengthen it.

Principle 3: Processes relating toinvestment in agriculture aretransparent, monitored, and ensureaccountability by all stakeholders,within a proper business, legal, andregulatory environment.

Principle 4:All those materially affectedare consulted, and agreements fromconsultations are recorded andenforced.

Principle 5: Investors ensure thatprojects respect the rule of law, reflectindustry best practice, are viableeconomically, and result in durableshared value.

Principle 6: Investments generatedesirable social and distributionalimpacts and do not increasevulnerability.

Principle 7: Environmental impacts of aproject are quantified and measurestaken to encourage sustainableresource use, while minimizing therisk/magnitude of negative impacts andmitigating them.

(Source:http://unctad.org/en/Pages/DIAE/G-20/PRAI.aspx)

"They are displacing farmers, uprootingcommunities and food production, anddestroying ecosystems on a massivescale, sometimes through promises ofjobs, sometimes at gunpoint. People arebeing moved off with little or no regardfor their historic or cultural rights.Thegrabbers want big spaces…and youcan only get that if you take commonlyowned ancestral lands. Sometimes theyliterally come to in to a village, put inan airstrip and a compound and roadsand canals and the villagers are told togo to the nearest town and they loseabsolutely everything.They areincreasing hunger and poverty globally.In a world where 1 billion peoplealready go hungry, land must stay in thehands of local communities so that theycan feed themselves."

Kenneth Richter, Friends of the Earth.28

(continued page 14)

13


The Bali Declaration was adopted at the end of a four-dayconference attended by representatives of national human rightsinstitutions of the Southeast Asian region, academics, indigenouspeoples' representatives and supportive national and internationalNGOs.

The Bali Declaration is important because it focuses on countries'international human rights obligations relating to agribusiness - a keyarea of the debate about standards which is often downplayed in thediscussions led by agribusiness proponents when developingvoluntary principles and guidelines for the sector.

Hosted by Indonesia's national human rights commission, KomnasHAM, the conference concluded that the lack of a dedicated regionalhuman rights system or regional norms on land development inSoutheast Asia meant that there is an urgent need for states in theregion to protect and secure the rights of indigenous peoples andrural communities whose rights are being violated by agribusinessinvestment and the operations of palm oil corporations.Theparticipants resolved to work with governments, legislatures andbusinesses in the region to ensure that they take urgent steps to"reform or reinforce national laws and policies and policies relatingto land tenure, agrarian reform, land use planning and landacquisition so that they comply fully with their countries' humanrights obligations.45

The Declaration makes recommendations on the Right to Food,iland rights, Free, Prior and Informed Consent, the right to personalintegrity and security, smallholder and community options, workers,women, children, dispute resolution, access to justice, impactassessments, the Right to Development and Human Rights; and theratification of human rights instruments.These includerecommendations on the Right to Food:

States need to accept that the right to food may be violatedwhen people are denied access to land, fishing or huntinggrounds, or are deprived of access to adequate and culturallyacceptable food or by the contamination of food and watersources.

States therefore need to take measures to protect people’s rightsin land and allow land owners to decide on the use of their landstaking into account their own livelihoods and, environments.

Recognising that peoples have diverse cultures and may relate toland in very different ways, States therefore have an obligation torespect collective property rights over lands, territories andresources, the right to culture and the right to self determination(including the right to pursue their own economic, cultural andsocial development)

States likewise have an obligation to protect certain activities thatare essential to obtaining food (e.g. agriculture, hunting, gathering,fishing) and an obligation to provide or ensure a minimum level ofessential food that is culturally appropriate.

And on land rights:In reviewing their land tenure regimes, national governments andlegislatures need to review and revise or reinforce their nationalpolicies and laws on agricultural development and land acquisitionto ensure that they respect the rights of indigenous peoples andrural communities and do not facilitate the denial of people’srights to food, to land and to free, prior and informed consent.

In revising their tenure systems, State should recognise that, whilesecurity of tenure is indeed crucial, individual titling, povertyeradication and the creation of a market for land may not be themost appropriate means to achieve it.

Instead, States should, where relevant strengthen, customary landtenure systems and review or reinforce tenancy laws to improvethe protection of land users.

Drawing on the lessons learned from decades of agrarian reform,States must pay renewed attention to policies and procedures ofland redistribution to ensure that they respect peoples’ rights tofood, livelihood, cultural identity and self-determination.Thesereforms must be accompanied by measures to supportsmallholder farmers, indigenous people, and women to promotefood security.

Land development schemes/programmes/mechanisms/projectsmust be designed in ways that do not lead to evictions, disruptiveshifts in land rights and increased land concentration in the handsof corporations.*

While many land development programmes and policies focus onareas considered to be "empty”, "marginal” or "degraded”, Statesshould recognize that there are few areas truly unoccupied orunclaimed, and that frequently land classified as such is in factsubject to long-standing rights of use, access and managementbased on custom. Failure to recognize such rights will deprivelocal communities and indigenous peoples of key resources onwhich their wealth and livelihoods depend.

And on rights to personal integrity and security: States mustensure that there is rule of law, humane treatment and a peacefulenvironment in agribusiness development areas, and must securepeople against violence and arbitrary arrest and prohibit the useby agribusiness ventures of mercenaries, privately contractedpolice and para-militaries.

The Bali Declaration can be accessed athttp://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2011/12/final-bali-declaration-adopted-1-dec-2011.pdf

*Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food to the UNGeneral Assembly A/65/281, 11th August 2010.

i. Information about the Right to Food can be found athttp://www.fao.org/righttofood/about-right-to-food/en/

Bali Declaration on Human Rights and Agribusiness in SE Asia

adopted in May 2012, are acclaimed for havingsecured international agreement bygovernments, and for putting emphasis on therights and needs of marginalised people.Another round of CFS consultations onresponsible agricultural investment, whichincludes civil society groups, is expected tostart in November 2012.41

The arguments for and againstvoluntary principles or guidelines have beenwell rehearsed: on the one hand suchstandards can be used to raise awarenessabout issues and impacts, and provideopportunities for communities whose liveshave already been negatively affected bylandgrabbing to seek some measure ofredress; on the other hand, they arevoluntary, meaning that there are no realsanctions when companies fail to adhere tothem. Moreover, the 'damage limitation'opportunities such standards may offer canbe seen as a distraction from the morefundamental problems. In the case oflandgrabbing these include increasinginequality in access to and control over land.

GRAIN argues: "rather than helpfinancial and corporate elites to "responsiblyinvest" in farmland, we need them to stop anddivest. Only then can the quite differentmatter of strengthening and supporting small-scale rural producers in their own territoriesand communities succeed, for the twoagendas clash."42 GRAIN and other CSOsprotesting outside the World BankConference on Land and Poverty inWashington, April 2012, accused the Bank ofpromoting the PRAI "to legitimise the globalcapture of people's lands by big corporateinvestors for industrial agriculture" andaccused the Bank of acting in total impunity.Ajoint statement titled "World Bank: get out ofLand!" called on countries to stop theimpunity and instead fully comply with theirhuman rights obligations.43

A human rights-based approach toagribusiness expansion - which involvesensuring that states fulfil their obligationsunder international human rights law - isadvocated in the Bali Declaration on HumanRights and Agribusiness in Southeast Asia,signed December 2011 (see box, previouspage). While voluntary initiatives such as thePRAI, Voluntary Guidelines, as well as thePrinciples and Criteria of the Roundtable onSustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) are recognised,these, says the Declaration, must becomplemented by actions by States "tocomply fully with their human rightsobligations, including the right to food, therights of peoples to freely dispose of theirnatural wealth and resources and the rightnot to be deprived of a means ofsubsistence."44

The real investorsLand is indeed at the heart of a global"resources-grab" which includes water,minerals, oil, gas, forests and marine life.49

Current trends to commodify, or enclosenature go hand in hand with the massivetransfer of land from the hands of small-scalefarmers and local communities into thecontrol of large-scale corporations, and theirfinancial backers.

Yet evidence is accumulating thatlocal communities and indigenous peoplesoffer more effective means of using andprotecting the world’s dwindling naturalresources than do big companies, or large-scale state interventions.50 They have muchmore than anyone else 'invested' in their landand the natural resources they depend on:time and effort (sometimes amounting togenerations-worth), expertise and traditionalknowledge, as well as their own wealth. Formany communities, their investment in theland extends to their whole socio-cultural lifeand identity as peasant farmers or indigenouspeoples.

It is time decision-makers paidmore attention to the demands and rights ofthese communities and put more effort intotackling over-consumption and restraining themarkets to ease the pressures on food andland which are taking such a heavy toll on thepoor.

Many thanks to Anna Bolin for her inputs to thisarticle.

Notes1. See article in DTE 89-90, December 2011.2. See discussion on the impacts of higher meat

production and consumption in China in'Who will feed China: Agribusiness of its ownfarmers? Decisions in Beijing echo around theworld', GRAIN, 4/Aug/2012 at www.grain.org

3. 'Resource Depletion: Opportunity or loomingcatastrophe?' BBC News 12/Jun/2012

4. See article in DTE 89-90, December 2011.5. The Matrix (http://landportal.info/landmatrix)

was set up by International Land Coalition(ILC) and Landtenure.info. It collates andseeks to verify records of agricultural landdeals in low and middle income countries inthe Global South and Eastern Europe,involving transnational companies which areover 200 hectares in size, have beenconcluded since the year 2000 and that entaila transfer of rights to use, control or ownland through sale, lease or concession.

6. See Transnational Land Deals for Agriculturein the Global South, by Ward Anseeuw,Mathieu Boche, Thomas Breu, Markus Giger,Jann Lay, Peter Messerli and Kerstin Nolte,April 2012, athttp://landportal.info/landmatrix/get-the-detail#analytical-report, accessed 1/10/2012.

7. Extent of farmland grabbing for foodproduction by foreign interests: how muchagricultural land had been sold or leased off?,GRAIN,http://www.grain.org/media/BAhbBlsHOgZmSSJBMjAxMS8xMi8xNC8xMV8zNF8yN18xMzNfZm9yZWlnbmlzYXRpb25fdGFibGVfZGVjXzIwMTFfRU4ucGRmBjoGRVQ/foreignisation%20table%20dec%202011%20EN.pdf, accessed3/10/12.

8. GRAIN releases data set with over 400 globalland grabs, 23 Feb 2012,http://www.grain.org/article/entries/4479-grain-releases-data-set-with-over-400-global-land-grabs, accessed 3/10/12

9. New literature looks at "water grabs" for thewider consequences of large-scale farmprojects as they consume the lion's share oflocal water resources. See Guardian 31-08-12.See also Ben White, Saturino M Borras Jr.,Ruth Hall, Ian Scoones and Wendy Wolford.'The new enclosures: critical perspectives oncorporate land deals' Journal of Peasant Studies,July 2012.

10. A useful discussion of greengrabbing can befound athttp://www.ids.ac.uk/news/appropriating-nature-green-grabbing

11. 'World Bank: get out of land!' Statement,signed by Campagna per la Riforma dellaBanca Mondiale, FIAN International, Focus onthe Global South, Friends of the EarthInternational, GRAIN, La Via Campesina, and

14


What kind of land?Recent research confirms what is painfullyobvious for communities at the sharp endof land deals. Land is being grabbed fromexisting users. It is not, as governments,investors and other supporters of the landdeals continue to claim, unused orunderused land, ripe for development.

The FAO confirms that on a global scale,there is little land left for the expansion ofagricultural land.At present more than 1.5billion hectares of land is used for cropproduction (arable land and land underpermanent crops) but "there is little scopefor further expansion of agricultural land.Despite the presence of land potentiallysuitable for agriculture, much of it iscovered by forests, protected forenvironmental reasons or employed forurban settlements."46

Oxfam has dismissed the 'unused land'claim, arguing that much of the landtargeted by investors is quality farmland,already being used for small-scale farming,pastoralism and other types of naturalresource use.47

The dangers of continuing the empty landmyth are spelled out more fully by BaliDeclaration: "While many landdevelopment programmes and policiesfocus on areas considered to be "empty”,"marginal” or "degraded”, States shouldrecognize that there are few areas trulyunoccupied or unclaimed, and thatfrequently land classified as such is in factsubject to long-standing rights of use,access and management based on custom.Failure to recognize such rights willdeprive local communities and indigenouspeoples of key resources on which theirwealth and livelihoods depend."48

(continued on page 20).

15


When Indigenous People fight for theirland rights

A protracted land conflict in Aceh involving communities, a plantation company and a struggle for authority betweencentral and regional authorities.

By Zulfikar Arma,Aceh's Indigenous Peoples Network (JKMA)

Land disputes and conflicts appear to begrowing in number, intensity and diversity.Thisis happening along with an increasing level ofdifficulty for communities to establishownership of land and a widening gapbetween the bargaining positions of the threemain actors wanting to secure land rights: thegovernment, the private sector andcommunities.

These conflicts are usually rooted ina failure to deal with matters properly orthoroughly in the past. Land prices are goingup as demand grows and the land supplybecomes more limited. This is prompting arush to claim ownership over land, withoutstrong evidence or clear proof. Things aremade more complex if third parties getinvolved who are not acting in good faith. Adispute will become hard to resolve if oneside insists it is right and is not willing todiscuss the matter.

Problems over disputed land centreon the land itself, its boundaries, extent, status,legal ownership, the rights over the land, andthe transfer of those rights. Where disputesinvolve government officials or the privatesector, usually there are problems related tothe location and extent of the land, its release,vacating the land, compensation or otherpayments, and the extinguishing or withdrawalof rights over it.

Land problems may also involvelocal people using land in forests, violations ofland reform legislation, access to land fordevelopment, civil land disputes andcommunity demands for customary rights -communal as well as individual.Another causeof problems is the lack of understanding on allsides about land legislation.

Conflict in Aceh Singkil, theland of Hamzah Fanshuri1

Aceh Singkil district has a land area of 3,578km2, and consists of 11 subdistricts, 23Mukim,2 and 190 Gampong.

The majority of Aceh Singkil's land isin the hands of oil palm companies.There areseven oil palm plantation companies active inthe district: PT Socfindo, in Gunung Meriahsubdistrict with a concession of 4,414.18 ha;PT Lembah Bakti in North Singkil district(6,570 ha); PT Delima Makmur in Danau Parissubdistrict (12,173.47 ha), PT

Ubertraco/Nafasindo3 in Kota Baharusubdistrict (13,924.68 ha); Lestari TunggalPratamadi in Danau Paris subdistrict (1,861ha); PT Telaga Zam-zam in Gunung Meriah(100.05 ha) and PT Jaya Bahni Utama in DanauParis subdistrict (1,800 ha). Of these sevencompanies, PT Ubertraco/Nafasindo is still inconflict with the community.

The land conflict in Aceh Singkilbetween the local community and PTUbertraco/Nafasindo, a Malaysian-ownedcompany, is rooted in the same problem asmany land conflicts across Indonesia: where acompany holds a HGU (right ofexploitation/cultivation) over an area, but hasnot actually developed parts (or any) of theland for a long period.

Ubertraco/Nafasindo, whose HGUconcession was issued for a forested area inKota Baharu district in 1988, did not developplantations on much of the land. This can beseen from the state of the land on the ground,where a part of the concession area has notbeen cultivated. The fact that there were nomarked boundaries to the concession, becameanother problem in this dispute, and it wasnever clear what land was included in the

HGU concession and what was unclaimedstate land.

Local communities used theundeveloped parts of the concession land tosupport their livelihoods. Currently, aroundfour thousand households from 22 villages inAceh Singkil are using most of this disputedland and many of them claim ownership.Theyback their claims with land registrationcertificates, land rights certificates issued bythe state land agency (BPN) and decisions ofthe Supreme Court from 2009.

Over six years ago, the companyagreed to hand over parts of the HGUconcession for community use. A documentco-signed by Aceh Singkil district securitycouncil4 and PT Ubertraco on 30th August2006, stated "…if there is community land inthe HGU, this should be excluded from theHGU because it has been neglected for 20years." A separate document, issued by theAceh Singkil district head the following yearconfirmed that only part of the HGUconcession was being cultivated by thecompany, and that, since the boundaries werenot marked, the community was using therest.

Singkil District

Map of Aceh showing the rough location of mainland Singkil district, bordering NorthSumatra province.

16


The role of the governmentin land conflict resolutionSince the community first reported the landproblem to the Aceh Singkil districtgovernment in 2006, there have been variousmeetings and actions involving the districtgovernment, the district BPN office, thecompany, the 22 village communities, the Acehgovernment and the provincial BPN office.Various agreements have been reached andvarious decisions have been issued. Theactions taken include documentation of thedispute and verification by the 22 villages, andcollection of land rights documents. In 2010,the HGU concession was re-surveyed and re-mapped. This led to 4,000 hectares beingdetermined as community land to be excisedfrom the company's HGU plantation area.5All these actions were facilitated by andinvolved the provincial and districtgovernments and also involved technicalinstitutions of the provincial and district BPNoffices, plus communities and company.

Eventually, in 2011 the provincialAceh government, through the then governorIrwandi Yusuf, issued a letter to the districthead with instructions to solve the conflict asfollows:

The land that was already planted with oilpalms or had been cultivated by PTUbertraco/Nafasindo but which,according to the redrawing of theboundary by the provincial BPN office, felloutside the company's HGU area, was tobe transferred to the community via thedistrict government, accompanied by theSingkil-based NGO Gempa, and under thesupervision of the provincial government.The public facilities, state assets,settlements and lands cultivated by thecommunity inside the company HGUshould be made into enclaves forcommunity use.

Permanent boundary markers needed tobe put in to replace the temporaryboundary markers installed following theredrawing of the boundary by the Acehprovincial BPN office.

PT Ubertraco/Nafasindo objectedto these instructions and lodged an appeal inthe administrative court, but this appeal wasrejected in mid-2011.

Towards the end of the year andover the first months of 2012, instructionsfrom the governor for the boundary work togo ahead were issued. However the work -which involved two people each from theprovincial and district land conflict resolutionteams and two people from the company,with police security assistance - was delayedseveral times, not least because the policewere needed to provide security at the localelections in February 2012.

Meeting of TAPKAS (AcehSingkil Land ConflictAdvocacy Team)Eventually, on 21st June 2012, the boundaryposts were put in. However, it was thenational office of the BPN, not the district andprovincial offices that took charge of this.Thenew boundary was rejected by the localcommunity because it was not based on therevised boundary of 2010, which had beenagreed upon by the community and PTUbertraco/Nafasindo.This prompted a directfield investigation by the legal aid organisationLBH Banda Aceh, the Aceh Human RightsNGO Coalition, JKMA and Kontras Aceh,who formed a joint advocacy team calledTAPKAS. Their findings included:1. The original HGU concession issued in

1988 covered 10,917 hectares but this hadbeen mostly left unattended until 2004.Before the concession was issued, thecommunity had managed the forests,utilising non timber forest products such asrattan, tree resins (damar and gaharu),sandalwood, the raw materials formosquito repellent, honey, shellfish etc.When the HGU was issued to PTUbertraco, at first many people did notknow about it because there were noboundary posts. Due to the lack of markedboundaries and the land being leftundeveloped, from then on part of theHGU land continued to be used by thecommunity to harvest non-timber forestproducts and plant durian, mango, langsatand other fruit trees.

2. The permanent boundary posts were putin by the Central BPN office withoutinvolving the Singkil authorities, thecommunity or the local BPN office.Technically the permanent boundarymarkers were installed by employees ofUbertraco/Nafasindo without any BPNstaff being there (apart from for two

symbolic marker posts). Several markerswere even put in at night, for reasonsunclear.

3. The boundary markers were not put inaccording to the coordinates taken duringthe boundary revision in 2010.

4. The Singkil BPN office issued certificateswhich overlap with the disputed land: landownership rights in the name of individualsoverlap with the HGU certificates in thecompany's name.There were also proofs ofland ownership in the form of decisions onappeals from the Supreme Court.

5. The oil palm plantation land managed bythe community, as well as the areas undercultivation by the company in Singkildistrict are in an area of peatland (onaverage more than 2 metres deep) whichare an integral part of the Singkil SwampWildlife Reserve.

6. Part of the Ubertraco's HGU area iscovered by customary ownership rights ofthe indigenous Galagala people6 who haveowned it for many years under individual aswell as communal rights (as confirmed in aletter from the Galagala Raja transferringcustomary land ownership rights to theGalagala people on condition that this landcannot be traded).

7. A water source, the Lae Bungara Lake, inLentong village, Kuta Baharu subdistrict, islocated inside the oil palm plantation HGUland. Palms have been planted up to around5 metres from the edge of the lake.

8. The central BPN office has annulled thewhole resolution process undertaken bythe provincial and district governmentteams. Moreover, BPN central office hasalso declared that the map drawn up byBPN Aceh, which the result of resurveyingthe land in 2010, cannot be used because itis illegal.

Efforts to resolve the land conflict in AcehSingkil have been carried out by thegovernment, both at district and provinciallevels, but up to now, there has been noagreement between the community and thecompany involved.

The biggest problem is the conflictof interest and policy between centre andregion, where steps taken by the central BPNoffice represent a failure to respect Aceh'sautonomy.There is now a time bomb waitingto go off in Singkil because BPN central officeoverrode the decisions and agreements madeat regional level.

With the election of a new leaderin Aceh, we all hope that this conflict can beswiftly resolved and that a new leader meansnew energy to resolve conflicts in Aceh,especially the one in the Land of HamzahFanshuri.

Notes1. Aceh Singkil is known as the Land of

Hamzah Fanshuri - a well-known Ulama(Muslim scholar) during the Sultanate of

“If the government wants to issueHGU licences, it should first have alook at the situation on the ground, toavoid mistakes later on. A lot of dataused by the government is old andneeds updating.

Every activity, programme or project acompany or the government wants tocarry out which will have an impacton the community (whether this is apositive or negative impact) should gothrough a process of Free, Prior andInformed Consent (FPIC) to preventconflicts further down the line.”

Zulfikar Arma

(Notes continue bottom of next page)

17


The pro-agrofuel argument is that cropsgrown for fuels can help mitigate climatechange by reducing carbon emissions becausethey can be used instead of fossil fuels forenergy and transport. They can also fightpoverty, according to these arguments, byproviding livelihoods for farmingcommunities.

In reality, however, agrofuels aretaking a heavy toll on people andenvironment. Frequently, the impacts onsmall scale farmers, local communities and theenvironment are devastating. Many agrofuelsare also bad for the climate because carbon-rich forests and peatlands are (directly orindirectly) cleared to grow them.1 However,as with many policy developments whichpitch business and political interests againstthe environmental and social interests of thepoor, these impacts are often inaccuratelymeasured or conveniently overlooked.

EU-RED boosting the palmoil boomThe long-lived palm oil 'boom'2 has been thestaple in Indonesia's national income for overthree decades. In 2008, oil palmexports/sales/income represented 2.8% ofthe country's GDP.3 Since Indonesia'seconomic collapse in 1997-98, palm oil hasbeen a key commodity asset in PresidentSusilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s push to increaseforeign investment. Exports of crude palm oil,refined palm oil and palm kernel oil haveincreased from US$ 8.7 billion in 2007 to$20.4 billion in 2011. India, China and Malaysiaare the top destination countries for palm oilexports.4

More recently, the palm oil boomhas been boosted by market expansion ofagrofuels resulting from the European Union'sRenewable Energy Directive (RED).5 TheRED requires each EU Member State toensure that 10% of their transport fuelconsumption is generated from renewableenergy sources by 2020.6 The prospect of a

long-term lucrative European market foragrofuels has generated investor confidencein palm oil and a strong incentive forcommercial investment in land acquisition foragrofuel plantation development.7 Producingpalm oil for the global commodity marketscontinues to be an attractive economic-development pathway for Indonesia8 andgovernment targets have now been set toincrease palm oil production by 15 milliontonnes by 2020, from 25 million tonnes in2012 to 40 million tonnes.9

Agrofuels: key driver Market opportunities for bioenergyproduction are inflating a "new bubble" ofspeculative investments or landgrabs.10 TheEU's thirst for biodiesel from palm oil to fulfilEU RED targets for renewable energythreaten to drive yet more land acquisitionsin Indonesia. Over three quarters of the EU'sagrofuels consumption will be met bybiodiesel,11 20 per cent of which is projectedto originate from palm oil produced inIndonesia and Malaysia.12 In parallel, agrofuelscontinue to feature prominently in Indonesiangovernment development plans,13 with apredicted increase in biodiesel production

from 1.8 billion litres in 2012 to 2.2 billionlitres in 2013 and a conservative projectedincrease in exports to 1.5 billion litres in2013.14

Translated into land figures, over 60million hectares- an area nearly five times thesize of England - could be converted to palmoil (for both fuel and non-fuel use) andagrofuel production by 2030.15 According tothe International Land Council (2011), 60percent of grabbed lands are devoted tobiofuels.16

As Santurino et al (2012) state,“There is no consensus as to how much landhas been changing hands and on themethodologies of identifying, counting andquantifying land grabs” This is particularly thecase when trying to assess the more compleximpacts of landgrabbing in Indonesia resultingdirectly from EU demand for palm oil forbiodiesel.This is largely because palm-oil is a‘flex-crop’ with multiple markets and uses,making it difficult to separate out whethercrops like palm oil are being grown for fuel ornon-fuel markets at any one time.17 However,there is a consensus that landgrabbing isunderway and that it is significant (White etal. 2012)18 and it is evident that Europe'sreliance on biodiesel to fulfil renewableenergy targets could have significant land-useimplications. Indeed, recent evidence suggeststhat globally, two thirds of big land deals in thepast ten years are to grow crops that can beused for biofuels, such as palm oil andjatropha.19

'‘Virtual’ landgrabbing -profiteering from 'vacant'landOil palm has a history of delivering a high rateof return, making it an attractive and reliableinvestment product. The 2020 deadline forthe EU RED renewable energy targets hassparked a commercial scramble to grab vast

Iskandar Muda. Hamzah Fanshuri came fromAceh Singkil and is buried there.

2. A mukim is the Acehnese customary legalunit of governance between gampong (thelowest level of customary governance) andsub-district.

3. PT Ubertraco changed its name to PTNafasindo in 2007

4. The Muspida - Musyawarah PimpinanDaerah in Singkil includes district levelpolice, military, legal and religious leaders -DTE.

5. See http://aceh.tribunnews.com/2012/11/29/

masyarakat-tolak-patok-permanen-nafasindo6. The indigenous Galagala people are a small

'kingdom' whose territory covers part ofAceh Singkil district. They use the land tolive on and to farm.

(continued from previous page)

Agrofuels: key driver in newlandgrabbing wave

Agrofuels are often promoted by the agrofuels industry, investors and government officials as a means of providinglivelihoods for rural communities, but how does this square with the fact that agrofuels are part of the landgrabbing

problem in countries like Indonesia?

Oil palm fruit

(continued next page)

18


swathes of land, quickly. This often results infailure to gain the consent of localcommunities whose livelihoods, localbiodiversity and social and cultural wellbeingare dependent on the land. This situation isfurther exacerbated by the lack of IndonesianState policies and enforceable EU RED socialsustainability criteria to ensure that localcommunities' land rights are recognised andtheir right to give or withhold their free prior

and informed consent (FPIC) to projectstargeting their areas are respected.

Landgrabbing is also a highlyspeculative exercise which can reap significantrewards for the savvy entrepreneur. For thosewho lack the capital to implement adesignated project or who see the potentialto 'buy now, develop later', acquiring land foroil palm development can be a prosperousbusiness. This approach to land acquisitionshas been termed 'virtual-land grabbing'.21

What McCarthy et al term 'virtualland-grabs' feature a "gap between plans asstated and schemes as implemented".Companies may claim they are acquiring landfor agrofuel production, and say they arecontributing to global efforts to solve theclimate and energy crisis. In reality, large areasof land is acquired and immediately clearedthen left vacant as a capital investment forfuture development or profitable sale. Theseacquisitions are a strategy for investment riskmitigation which allows companies to pursuetheir own interest by securing the area forfuture expansion, generating up-front capital(largely through selling off the timber) andoffsetting plantations investment costs.22

Some estimates show that European firmshave already claimed over five millionhectares of land for agrofuel developmentacross the global South.23

According to John McCarthy(2012), "virtual land acquisitions associatedwith oil palm are now very extensive: by2010, 26 million ha of oil palm plantationlicenses had been issued, despite a capacityonly to plant around 500,000 ha of oil palmeach year".24 State authorities have theprovisions to remove concessions when landremains unproductive for long periods oftime, but commonly fail to use them.25

Consequently, millions of hectares of forestedor marginal land26 which is otherwiseessential as a carbon store, for biodiversityand natural resources conservation or asagricultural land for food crops, lay to waste,in some cases for up to a decade or more.27

Binding sustainability criteriaIn terms of winners and losers in theagrofuels boom, it is clear that commercialinterests come out on top. As long as foodcrops, such as palm oil, are legitimised forenergy generation, land availability for foodproduction and rural livelihoods will beundermined.

The EU RED was established whenthe impacts of first generation agrofuels onpeople and the environment were poorlyresearched, understood or anticipated. As aresult, it is fuelling the transformation of landinto a global commodity – at the expense ofclimate, environment and people. TheEuropean Commission has a responsibility tocorrect policy mistakes by introducing bindingsocial sustainability criteria for agrofuel

production and taking strong action towardsremoving first generation agrofuels from theEU’s renewable energy targets.

Notes:1. See DTE Agrofuels Update, December 2011,

http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/dte-agrofuels-update-december-2011.

2. Casson, A. 2000. The hesitant boom: Indonesia'soil palm sub-sector in an era of economic crisisand political change. Occasional Paper No. 29.Center for International Forestry Research,Bogor, Indonesia.

3. Rizaldi Boer, Dodik Ridho Nurrochmat, M.Ardiansyah, Hariyadi, Handian Purwawangsa,and Gito Ginting Reducing agriculturalexpansion into forests in Central KalimantanIndonesia:Analysis of implementation andfinancing gaps Center for Climate Risk &Opportunity Management Bogor AgriculturalUniversity 2012

4. Indonesian Ministry of Trade statistics athttp://www.kemendag.go.id/en/economic-profile/indonesia-export-import/export-growth-hs-6-digits, andhttp://www.kemendag.go.id/en/economic-profile/10-main-and-potential-commodities/10-main-commodities.

5. The Global Land Grab: A Primer. TransnationalInstitute Agrarian Justice Programme, October2012. Available from:http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/landgrabbingprimer_0.pdf.

6. Article 3, (4). Renewable Energy Directive. SeeDTE's agrofuels updates for more details onthe RED and EU policy athttp://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/campaign/agrofuels-and-oil-palm-plantations.

7. The Global Land Grab: A Primer. As above.8. Stockholm Environment Institute. Studies

reveal palm oil impacts in Southeast Asia,propose EU policy changes. 16 October 2012.Available from: http://www.sei-international.org/-news-archive/2491?format=pdf

9. Rizaldi Boer, Dodik Ridho Nurrochmat, M.Ardiansyah, Hariyadi, Handian Purwawangsa,and Gito Ginting Reducing agriculturalexpansion into forests in Central KalimantanIndonesia:Analysis of implementation andfinancing gaps Center for Climate Risk &Opportunity Management Bogor AgriculturalUniversity 2012

10. De Schutter, O. 2011. How not to think ofland-grabbing: three critiques of large-scaleinvestments in farmland. Journal of PeasantStudies, 38(2), 249-79.

11. Stockholm Environment Institute. Studiesreveal palm oil impacts in Southeast Asia,propose EU policy changes. 16 October 2012.Available from: http://www.sei-international.org/-news-archive/2491?format=pdf

12. Holt-Gime´nez, E. 2007. Biofuels: myths of theagro-fuels transition. Food First Backgrounder,13(2). Available from:http://www.food?rst.org/node/1711 [Accessed19 February 2009].

The "Jatropha hype"Jatropha, an oil-seed-producing shrub fromCentral America has recently beenfavoured as a potential alternativefeedstock in the production of biodiesel.One of jatropha's key qualities is itscapacity to grow on marginal land (see alsopage 14).Those in the business community,and government, who support theexpansion of first generation biofuels, havebeen actively promoting jatropha aspotential solution to the 'food not fuel'conflict surrounding agrofuels production.However, many of the positive attributes ofjatropha, including claims of high yieldswith low inputs, drought tolerance andpest and disease resistance, have not beenscientifically verified.20

As is the case for most agrofuelfeedstocks, assessments of the social andenvironmental impacts of jatropha areoften inadequate because they are basedon projections from extrapolations andestimates rather than neutral, independentscientific research, observations andempirical evidence.They do not sufficientlyconsider key agronomic and ecologicalfactors of the jatropha's performance as anindustrial-scale crop. Small-scale trialplantings do not provide a realistic contextin which to assess Jatropha performance asan industrial-scale crop.When planted on alarge-scale as a monoculture crop (or aspart of an inter-cropping system), Jatrophacompetes with other crops for naturalresources such as radiation (heat and lightfrom the sun), water and nutrients andthus behaves differently than in small scaleplantings. But no long-term, detailed,realistic agronomic studies have beencarried out on the yield and resourceefficiency of jatropha at the industrial scaleor within a business model.

Jatropha must be allowed ontothe agrofuels market only if it can passstringent environmental, social andeconomic tests. If it fails, the claims aboutjatropha's potential as a champion agrofuelfeedstock will indeed, be exposed ascommercial hype.

This text is based on information in:Peter Baker & Zoheir Ebrahim, Jatropha - AnUpdate Part 5: A systemic knowledge failure,CABI UK, 2012

(See online version of this article athttp://www.downtoearth-

indonesia.org/story/agrofuels-key-driver-new-landgrabbing-wave for full endnotes.)

19


How much land?Snapshots of corporate control over land in Indonesia

Many of Indonesia's wealthiest businessplayers control extensive landholdings forlarge-scale projects such as oil palm andpulpwood plantations, mining, oil and gas,logging, tourism and property. Some of thecountry's highest earning conglomerates,including the Bakrie Group and the RoyalGolden Eagle Group have interests in severalsectors which demand large areas of land.

The following snapshot pictures ofcorporate landholdings are compiled fromcompany data collected from their ownwebsites, plus additional sources whereindicated. Company information on theextent of landholdings for plantations inparticular tends to reflect the areas that havebeen actually planted, and not the extent ofundeveloped land in their 'land banks'. Theseland bank areas are often far larger than thearea already planted.

PT Bakrie & Brothers Tbk(http://www.bakrie-brothers.com) has sevendivisions, which include plantations, mining,oil and gas companies whose landholdingsare extensive.The Bakrie Group ranked 7thin Jakarta Globe's top corporate earnerstable for 2012.1

Bakrie Sumatra Plantationsmanages a total oil palm planted area of92,200 hectares, plus 11,438 hectares of‘plasma’ estate managed by smallholders plus18,921 hectares of rubber in Sumatra,Central and South Kalimantan (2011 figures).

Its coal concessions managedthrough Bumi Resources amount to187,182 hectares in Kalimantan and Sumatra,while non-coal mining concessions cover289,919 hectares in Gorontalo, Sulawesi;Central and South Sulawesi, North Sumatraand East Nusa Tenggara provinces.TheGroup also has overseas concessions inMauritania and Liberia.

Oil and gas exploration andproduction through PT Energi MegaPersada Tbk is in concessions covering anarea of more than 28,000km2 (some ofwhich is offshore) and includes coal bedmethane projects.

The group's property division,Bakrieland Development, is the largestdeveloper in Jakarta's central businessdistrict where it has developments covering53.5 hectares, and controls 25% ofapartment supply. It also has propertyinvestments in areas near the capital plus a15,000 hectare land bank in prime locationsin Jakarta, Bogor, Lampung and Balikpapan,Kalimantan.

Bakrie Group has attracted a lot ofcriticism over recent years due the CentralJava mudflow disaster, the impacts of its coaloperations at its Kalimantan mines, taxevasion accusations and the race for thenext presidency (Aburizal Bakrie isstanding).2

Wilmar: (http://www.wilmar-international.com/) as at 31 December 2011,Singapore-based Wilmar held oil palmplantations covering approximately 247,081hectares (ha) of planted area of which about74% is located in Indonesia (Sumatra,WestKalimantan and Central Kalimantan), 24% inEast Malaysia and 2% in Africa. In addition toholding land rights to plantation land, thecompany managed approximately 38,021 haof oil palm plantation under the 'plasma'smallholder scheme in Indonesia.Wilmar isthe biggest palm oil refiner in Indonesia andMalaysia, the world's biggest palm oilprocessor and seller and its largest palmbiodiesel producer.

The UK-based NGO ForestPeoples Programme notes that Wilmar has aland bank of over 600,000 hectares.Thecompany has been widely criticised fortaking over communities' lands without theirconsent, for clearing forests and illegalburning and involvement in human rightsabuses. Land disputes between Wilmar - aprominent member of the Roundtable forSustainable Palm Oil - and local communitiesare numerous, as are conflicts over the wayit treats smallholders.3

Fourth highest earner on JakartaGlobe's list,Wilmar also came worst out of500 companies in Newsweek's green rankingsfor 2012.4

Jardine Matheson:(http://www.jardines.com/) via JardineStrategic, Jardine Cycle & Carriage Ltd, PTAstra International Tbk, PT Astra AgroLestari Tbk (AAL), holds 266,856 hectaresof oil palm plantations in Sumatra,Kalimantan and Sulawesi.

Jardine Matheson is incorporatedin Bermuda, is listed on the London StockExchange, and has secondary listings inBermuda and Singapore.The companyoperates from Hong Kong.

According to Jakarta Globe,AstraInternational's predicted revenue in 2012 is$15.8 billion, up from 12.8 billion last year,making it Indonesia's highest corporateearner. Jardine Matheson's Chairman is SirHenry Keswick, who has made donations tothe UK's ruling Conservative Party.

PT AAL has been accused ofdestroying forests in the Tripa peatswamparea of Aceh.5

Royal Golden Eagle Group(http://www.rgei.com), a private companyowned by Sukanto Tanoto, has largelandholdings in agribusiness through itsAsian Agri subsidiary, and pulpwoodplantations, through APRIL.

Asian Agri has plantations in threeprovinces in Sumatra covering 100,000hectares of plantations managed by thecompany, plus 60,000 hectares ofsmallholders plantation.

APRIL's Sustainability Report for2010 states that the company manages over1.45 million hectares of forest land, includingforest lands licensed to joint-venture supplypartners. It claims that 19% of the land isconserved as natural forest and 25% isoccupied by community enclaves, communitylivelihood plantations and essentialoperational infrastructure. Meanwhile 51% ofthe forest lands licensed to APRIL Indonesiaare used to establish pulpwood plantationsof Acacia, Eucalyptus and Melaleuca species.6

Another RGE subsidiary, Sateriowns and operates 150,000 hectares offreehold plantation land in Brazil, of whichapproximately 84,000 hectares are plantedwith eucalyptus.

Meanwhile, RGE's energysubsidiary, Pacific Oil & Gas, holds threeconcession blocks in Sumatra: Jambi Merang,Kisaran - covering 2,178km2 - and Perlak inAceh.

RGE comes 10th on the JakartaGlobe's highest revenue earners' table ofIndonesian companies.Along with Indonesia'sother major pulp and paper producer APP of

20


the Sinar Mas Group,APRIL's operationshave been widely criticised for destroyingforests and taking over community land.Together APRIL and APP account for around80% of Indonesia's pulp and paperproduction.

Sinar Mas Group, led by Eka Tjipta Widjaja,holds a total planted area of 138, 959hectares through subsidiary PT SMART,according to its website.The Group is listedthird biggest earner on Jakarta Globe's 2012list.

Sinar Mas' pulp and paper businessunit APP is supplied by SinarmasForestry (SMF) which operates in Sumatraand Kalimantan.According to the company'swebsite, "SMF and its partners' projectedplantable area is around 1.4 million hectares,in which over 70% consists of denudedwasteland."7 Like APRIL,APP has beencriticised for practices that destroy forestsand livelihoods.

Like the Bakrie Group, Sinar Masalso has a property division, Sinarmas LandLtd, listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange,which invests in commercial property, hotelsand resorts in Indonesia as well as Malaysia,Singapore and China. BSD City, a satellite cityproject in West Java being developed over a6,000 hectare area is the company's majorrevenue earner. Sinarmas Land claims to holdone of the biggest landbanks around Jakarta.http://www.sinarmas.com/en/business-units/,http://us.sinarmasforestry.com/

Indonesia's Salim Group has subsidiariesoperating in food, agribusiness, real estate,hotels and resorts, infrastructure andchemical manufacturing among other sectors.Indoagri (Indofood AgriResources,http://www.indofoodagri.com/business.html), a subsidiary of Indofood, is listedon Singapore stock exchange.At the end of2011 the company held 216,837 hectares ofplanted oil palm, plus another 38,152hectares of rubber, sugar and otherplantation crops. It also lists a smallholderarea of oil palm and rubber extending to85,719 hectares.

Salim Group is second only toJardine Matheson in Jakarta Globe's list oftop revenue earners in 2012.

Indoagri's listed subsidiary, PTLonsum, has had a long and controversialhistory surrounding its operations, includingthe fatal shooting of indigenous people at aplantation in Sulawesi in 2003.8

Korindo Group: (http://www.korindo.co.id/)Korindo’s Asiki Forest Management Divisionholds 677,535 hectares plus three oil palmplantation blocks, totaling 56,217 in Papua. Itstimber plantations division holds 97,850hectares in Central Kalimantan.

Korindo's operations in Papua wereassociated with problems over land rights,access to resources and the influx of non-Papuan workers in a 2007 report byInternational Crisis Group.The Institute forPapuan Advocacy and Human Rights also

reported fatal clashes between employeesand indigenous Muyu people.9

Notes1. http://www.downtoearth-

indonesia.org/story/oil-palm-plantations-carbon-credits-papuas-forests-targeted

2. http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/pages/downloads/52-54-56_List.pdf

3. See http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/indonesian-coal-company-london-stock-exchange

4. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/22/newsweek-green-rankings-2012-global-500-list.html

5. See FPP websitehttp://www.forestpeoples.org/tags/wilmar-international) and http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/communities-force-wilmar-address-bad-practices for morebackground.

6. http://www.redd-monitor.org/2012/03/28/the-tripa-peatswamp-in-aceh-is-ablaze-despite-the-moratorium/

7. http://www.aprilasia.com/images/pdfs/APRIL%20SR.pdf (Sustainability Report2010, p.47).

8. http://us.sinarmasforestry.com/production_sfm_plantation.asp?menu=5. See Wwhatkind of land?’ box on page 14 for a note onwhy such phrases as "denuded wasteland"should be treated with scepticism.

9. http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/brief-dte-59-november-2003

the Transnational Institute - 23 April 2012,available athttp://www.grain.org/article/entries/4486-farmers-demand-the-world-bank-and-wall-street-stop-grabbing-their-lands-at-opening-of-the-bank-s-annual-conference-in-washington-dc

12. The Guardian 4/Oct/2012.13. Wall Street Journal, 6/Sep/201214. Wall Street Journal, 6/Sep/201215. Why are the FAO And The EBRD Promoting

The Destruction Of Peasant And FamilyFarming?, 15/Sep/2012. Common Statement ofLa Via Campesina - GRAIN - FoEI -Coordinadora Latinoamericana DeOrganizaciones Del Campo (CLOC) -Re:Common - World March of Women - ETCGroup - Latin American Articulation ofMovements Toward ALBA. Da Silva has also made public comments thatappear to support small-scale farming, see forexample:http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/159244/icode/.

16. World Bank:http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/2012/08/30/severe-droughts-drive-food-prices-higher-threatening-poor

17. FAO(http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/155659/icode/), World Development Movement(WDM) European Parliament vote onlegislation to regulate financial markets: textfalls short of what is needed to tackle foodspeculation, By Miriam Ross, 27 September2012, at http://www.wdm.org.uk/food-and-hunger/european-parliament-vote-legislation-regulate-financial-markets-text-falls-short-wha,accessed 1/10/12.

18. Food Price Watch, August 2012 athttp://reliefweb.int/report/world/food-price-watch-august-2012, accessed 1/10/2012.

19. See WDM,http://www.wdm.org.uk/blog/infographic-how-banks-cause-hunger. Oxfam estimated that thenumber of people without enough to eatcould soon be more than 1 billion - seehttp://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/issues/food-price-spikes. CAFOD's estimate is a billion -equivalent to the combined population of theUSA, Canada and the EU.

20. See more detailed discussion in DTE 89-90.http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/global-land-grab-phenomenon. In August 2012, the FAO urged the US tosuspend its biofuel mandate in order to curtailfood price rises - see

http://www.agrimoney.com/news/un-urges-biofuel-curbs-fearing-food-catastrophe--4945.html

21. Bali Declaration (see below).22. The Guardian 4/Oct/2012.23. See for example report in DTE 83, December

2009 http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/climate-change-impacts-voices-villages

24. http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/policy/extreme-weather-extreme-prices, accessed1/10/12

25. See WDM website,http://www.wdm.org.uk/stop-bankers-betting-food/movement-against-food-speculation,accessed 1/10/12.

26. Futures are agreements to sell a commodity ata certain price at a set time.

27. Farming Money How European banks and privatefinance profit from food speculation and landgrab, January 2012,http://www.foei.org/en/resources/publications/pdfs/2012/farming-money

28. http://www.actionaid.org.uk/103267/london_summit_pushing_global_land_grabs_and_hunger.html

29. See link to Pension funds investing in globalfarmland for food production, GRAIN, updated2011 at


(continued next page)

DOWN TO EARTH is the newsletter of the International Campaign for Ecological Justice in Indonesia. If you want to receive the newsletter on a regular basis, please fill out the form provided.We would welcome information about your work in the field of environment and development in Indonesia.

Name.................................................................Organisation...................................................................................................................Address................................................................................................................................................

The subscription is £10 a year for institutions and those organisations or individuals who can afford it. Please add equivalent of £1.50 if paying with non sterling cheque. Please make cheques payable to Down to Earth and send to Down to Earth, Greenside Farmhouse, Hallbankgate, Cumbria, UK. Email: [email protected] tel/fax: +44 16977 46266

Down to Earth is a private limited company, registered in England and Wales (no. 6241367)registered office: 111 Northwood Road,Thornton Heath, Surrey, CR7 8HW, UK

http://www.grain.org/article/entries/4479-grain-releases-data-set-with-over-400-global-land-grabs

30. For further information on Wilmar's poorhuman rights record in Indonesia see FPPwebsite athttp://www.forestpeoples.org/topics/palm-oil-rspo/news/2011/11/press-release-new-report-exposes-human-rights-abuses-wilmar-group-and DTE articles, for examplehttp://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/working-oil-palm-plantation-snapshot-one-womans-life,http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/communities-force-wilmar-address-bad-practices

31. IOI Group has been accused of illegallyclearing land, misleading the Indonesiangovernment and failing to comply with theterms of an RSPO grievance panel - seehttp://ran.org/ioi-corps-palm-oil-not-green-or-sustainable

32. Farming Money: How European banks andprivate finance profit from food speculation andland grab, January 2012,http://www.foei.org/en/resources/publications/pdfs/2012/farming-money

33. John F McCarthy, Jacqueline A.C.Vel & SurayaAffif (2012): Trajectories of land acquisitionand enclosure: development schemes, virtualland grabs, and green acquisitions inIndonesia's Outer Islands, Journal of Peasant

Studies, 39:2, 521-549.34. Land grabbing by pension funds and other

financial institutions must be stopped, Civilsociety statement on the finance of landgrabs, June 2012, FoE Europe.

35. Access for the Poor? World Bank'sinfrastructure approach under increasedscrutiny, Bretton Woods project, 3/Jul/2012.

36. Jakarta Post 5/Mar/2012.37. See for example http://www.downtoearth-

indonesia.org/story/big-plans-papua38. See DTE 91-92, http://www.downtoearth-

indonesia.org/story/investment-principles-farmland

39. For more background and a thorough critiqueof the PRAI and other standards relating tolandgrabbing, see 'Responsible farmlandinvesting? Current efforts to regulate landgrabs will make things worse, GRAIN,22/Aug/2012,http://www.grain.org/article/entries/4564-responsible-farmland-investing-current-efforts-to-regulate-land-grabs-will-make-things-worse.

40. FAO Press Release 11/May/2012,http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/142587/icode/

41. GRAIN, 22/Aug/2012, as above. The Guidelinesare available viahttp://www.fao.org/nr/tenure/voluntary-guidelines/en/

42. GRAIN, 22/Aug/2012, as above.43. World Bank: get out of land!' statement,

23/Apr/2012, as above.44. Bali Declaration on Human Rights and

Agribusiness in Southeast Asia, adopted Bali1st December 2011. Seehttp://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2011/12/final-bali-declaration-adopted-1-dec-2011.pdf

45. For an overview of Indonesia's internationalhuman rights obligations, seehttp://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/indonesias-sustainable-development-climate-change-and-human-rights-treaty-obligations

46. FAO Statistical Yearbook 2012,http://issuu.com/faosyb/docs/fao_statistical_yearbook_2012_issuu/21#

47. The Guardian 4/Oct/201248. Bali Declaration, as above, page 4. Land

classifications are, of course, politicallymotivated, and the political context whichfacilitates land-grabs also make land andtenure reforms so difficult and complex.

49. An accessible visual presentation of timeleft on key world resources can be foundat www.bbc.co.ukbbc.comfutureimgBBC-stockcheck-02.jpg.

50. See for example reports listed inCommunity & Indigenous Forest Ownership &Management: Potential to reduce forest carbonemissions, presentation by D. Kaimowitz,Ford Foundation.

Agroforest, managed by indigenous community, Sembalun.


Available now: an updated Indonesianlanguage compilation of DTE

newsletter articles on climate justiceand sustainable livelihoods.

Download from our website:http://www.downtoearth-

indonesia.org/id/

To order hard copies, please [email protected]

DTE Special Edition Newsletter No 93-94,December 2012 · involving two palm oil companies PT Sumber...

Documents

Transcript of DTE Special Edition Newsletter No 93-94,December 2012 · involving two palm oil companies PT Sumber...