Faculty of Bioscience Engineering

Academic year 2014 – 2015

Farmland Conversion in Karawang, Indonesia:

Discourse Analysis

Pinta Lizti Irene

Promoter: Prof. dr. Stijn Speelman

Master’s dissertation submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Master of Science in Nutrition and Rural Development,

Main subject: Rural Economics and Management

i

Copyright

“All rights reserved. The author and the promoters permit the use of this Master’s Dissertation

for consulting purposes and copying of parts for personal use. However, any other use falls under

the limitations of copyright regulations, particularly the stringent obligation to explicitly mention

the source when citing parts out of this Master’s dissertation.”

Ghent University, August 2015

Promoter

Prof. dr. Stijn Speelman

........................................

Author

Pinta Lizti Irene

...................................

ii

Abstract

Along with economic growth and population pressure, the demand for land increased

dramatically. Having lower rent values compared to other economic sectors, farmland notably

in peripheral areas becomes the major victim of land conversion. Its crucial values for the socio-

economic condition of farmers, environmental aspect, and food security are neglected for the

sake of the importance of residential, industrial, and other use.

Karawang Regency as the biggest producer of rice in West Java possesses the same trend of

farmland conversion. It started in the early 1990s when the Government of Karawang Regency

placed the industrial sector as a complementary economic driver together with the agricultural

sector in Regional Development Plan. As the result of this reform, raising demand for land for

industrial area due to the rapid growth of industrial sector is inevitable. During 1995-2005, there

were approximately 181.87 Ha per year farming land converted to industrial area and other land

use.

The story of controversial farmland conversion in the study area, which is located in the

Karawang regency, started in 1990. It targeted 350 Ha of farmland in three villages to become

industrial area. A landownership dispute occurred between approximately 500 villagers and a

private company. Both actors have their own storyline about the land ownership chronology.

Although the private company won the lawsuit in 2007, the villagers reject the verdict. The case

has been pending until now and is still to be reviewed by the government.

To unfold the dynamic of farmland conversion issue in the study area, how key actors respond

to land conversion was explored in the first stage using discourse analysis. The discourse of

actors towards land conversion was described, analyzed, and interpreted by this method. Desk

research from published news and other forms of media, together with semi-structured

interviews were conducted to show the language and practice of actors towards land conversion.

In the second step, constant comparative approach to compare the emerged discourses among

actors was performed to investigate the various values that exist within farmland conversion.

Such information is valuable since this study is expected to provide new insights that reflect

typical farmland conversion case in Indonesia.

iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor and tutor, Prof. dr. Stijn Speelman for his

useful comments and remarks through the learning process of master thesis. His support and

guidance help me a lot to improve this thesis.

Further, I would like to thank the respondents who were willing to share their precious views

towards this topic during the interviews. Though this sensitive topic has been discussed millions

time by other medias, they were still motivated to help the process of this master thesis.

My special thanks go to my family and partner in Indonesia who helped me technically during

the survey process and supported me endlessly especially during dull periods. Apart from that,

I would also like to thank all my friends in Belgium and Indonesia who keep motivating me to

finish this (not-endless) thesis as soon as possible.

Also, I would like to thank the “ghost editor” for her assistance in upgrading the language of

this master thesis.

I recognize that this thesis would not have been possible without the scholarship from Erasmus

Mundus Lotus III. I express my sincere gratitude to the team for letting me acquire such

valuable learning experiences in Gent University.

iv

Table of Contents

COPYRIGHT ......................................................................................................................................................... I

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................................... II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................ III

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................... IV

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................ VI

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................ VII

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. STUDY BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. RESEARCH QUESTION .................................................................................................................... 3

1.3. TOPIC .................................................................................................................................................. 3

1.4. LIMITATION ...................................................................................................................................... 4

1.5. JUSTIFICATION ................................................................................................................................ 4

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 5

2.1. LAND CONVERSION ........................................................................................................................ 5

2.2. LAND DISPUTE ............................................................................................................................... 10

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 15

3.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 15

3.2. DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AS METHOD ......................................................................................... 15

3.3. DATA COLLECTION ....................................................................................................................... 17

3.4. INTERVIEWEE ................................................................................................................................ 18

3.5. DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................ 19

4. FARMLAND CONVERSION DISPUTE IN THE STUDY AREA ..................................................... 20

4.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 20

4.2. DESCRIPTION OF KARAWANG REGENCY ............................................................................... 20

4.3. LAND DISPUTE HISTORY ............................................................................................................. 21

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................ 23

5.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 23

5.2. EMERGING DISCOURSES ............................................................................................................. 23

5.2.1. DISCOURSES IN THE VILLAGERS............................................................................................. 23

5.2.2. DISCOURSES IN THE COMPANY .............................................................................................. 34

5.2.3. DISCOURSE IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ......................................................................... 38

5.3. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................... 43

6. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 48

7. REFERENCE LIST .................................................................................................................................. 49

v

APPENDIX .......................................................................................................................................................... 56

APPENDIX 1 QUESTIONAIRE ................................................................................................................ 56

APPENDIX 2 MAP OF KARAWANG REGENCY ................................................................................... 60

APPENDIX 3 FARMLAND AREA .......................................................................................................... 61

APPENDIX 4 PICTURE OF LAND CLEARING CONDITION .............................................................. 62

APPENDIX 5 FLYER OF PODOMORO INDUSTRIAL PARK .............................................................. 63

vi

List of Figures

Figure 1 Scheme and Driving Forces of Agriculture Land Conversion ............................. .7

Figure 2 Interdependency of Land Conflict Causes ........................................................ .11

vii

List of Tables

Table 1 Categorization of Respondents in Direct Interview ............................................ 18

Table 2 Emerged Discourses between Actors ................................................................. .44

1

1. INTRODUCTION

This chapter outlines the background information for this study. It also includes the problem

statement and the research questions, as well as the motivation and limitations of the study.

1.1. Study Background

In this decade, economic growth along with population growth continues to increase especially in

developing countries. As a result of that, demand for land as a production factor or consumption good

will also increase simultaneously. As the extent of land is fixed, continuing population pressure and

economic development imply that land conversion cannot be avoided (Liu & Guo, 2014;

Dwipradnyana, 2014). Land conversion is a process of change in land use from a particular function

to another function. Having numerous advantageous factors such as strategic location (Lambin et al.,

2001) and availability of infrastructure e.g. existing road network and irrigation (Borras et al., 2012),

prime cropland becomes the common victim of land conversion.

International cases showed that rapid economic growth is usually accompanied by land use shifting

from agriculture to urban led demands such as industry, infrastructure, and residential use (Lambin

et al., 2001; Ramankutty et al., 2002) where land is put to a higher value than before. In the middle

and high income countries, arable land has been declining regularly due to physical development; in

Europe since 1975 (Caradec et al., 1999), and in The USA since 1980 (Meyer, 1995). Leitmann

(1995) in Firman (1997) reported that in Jakarta, Sao Paulo and Tunis, agricultural production was

declining substantially as much of the more fertile land had been converted to urban use.

As an agrarian country, Indonesia greatly depends on the agricultural sector. In terms of labor, one

out six Indonesian people works in the agricultural sector, of these 46% are rice farmers (Central

Bureau of Statistic, 2013). This sector also provides a main income for the majority of Indonesian

households in the village areas. Smallholder farmers mainly work on rice, soybean, corn, fruit and

vegetables, and sometimes also hardwood plantation.

Despite its importance, tremendous farmland conversion has been taking place especially on Java,

the most populated island, where the need of land for physical development is growing rapidly. The

Central Bureau of Statistics (2014) reported that during five years from 2007 to 2012, the area of rice

field decreased by 10.000 Ha from 934.845 Ha to 925.565 Ha. Land conversion was started in the

1980s when the Government of Indonesia became more open for investment. As the result of it,

paddy fields with a strategic location and extensive land occupancy situated in peripheral areas

became the sole target of land conversion.

2

Due to land conversion, the farmers, the community in general, and the government were highly

affected. From farmers’ perspectives, it led to a labor shortage in agricultural sector as well as to an

increase in off-farm activities (Wu et al., 2011).This condition is dilemmatic because on the other

side, Central Government of Indonesia mandates to protect farming land. Based on Law No 41 Year

2009 about Protection of Sustainable Farming Land, the Central Government forced the Local

Government to protect the existing sustainable farming land to be able to maintain national food

safety and food sovereignty. Moreover, the Central Government is eager to re-activate non-

productive land such as ex-mining area to become farming land. In addition to that, abundant

incentives such as physical infrastructures and subsidy for seeds and fertilizer have supported the rice

production since 1960.

The increasing farmland conversion is certainly related to the issue faced by the Local Government

and the farmers themselves. From the government side, inadequate planning, poor implementation

and failure in land development management cause more farmland conversion to happen (APO, 1992

in Firman, 1997). This is worsened by the fact that land tax and land right fee became responsibilities

of the Local Government. This stimulated Local Government to convert farming land to a more

beneficial land use.

From the farmers’ side, low income from working as farmer due to low land occupancy

(approximately 0.7 Ha per farmer), risk from crop failure at harvest due to vulnerability towards

climatic change (Naylor et al., 2007) and the high prevailing farmland prices drive them to sell their

land easily. Consequently, land conversion in the outskirt or peripheral area of large city seems to be

almost inevitable (Firman, 1997; Irawan, 2005).

Numerous studies related to the farmland conversion and land dispute in Indonesia have been

conducted, usually through case studies. They focused on the impact of farmland conversion on the

socio-economic (Irawan, 2005; Subali, 2005; Erviani, 2011; Dwipradnyana, 2014) and legal aspect

of land conflict (Rifai, 2004), and land conflict with palm oil company (Colchester, et al., 2007;

McCarthy, 2010). However, in-depth understanding of the main actors involved in farmland

conversion in disputed area got only a little attention.

This study focuses on one controversial farmland conversion case that has been occurring in

Karawang Regency since 1990. This land conversion targets 350 Ha of farming field in three villages

namely Wanasari, Wanakerta, and Margamulya Village in West Teluk Jambe District.

Approximately 500 villagers are affected by this land conversion from farmland to industrial land

use.

3

This farmland conversion becomes controversial due to a conflict of interest and agrarian issues

concerning the farmland between the villagers and Sumber Air Mas Pratama Corp. (further called as

SAMP Corp.), with the local government as a mediator. The villagers and the company, both serving

their own interest, have rigorously been disputing the ownership of the land since 1990. It becomes

the most prolonged land dispute in Karawang Regency and causes exhaustion to all related actors.

Numerous actions have been organized by both the villagers and the company. The former have

brought the lawsuit to the District Court and appealed to the Supreme Court in the early 2010s,

blocked the access to toll-road in May 2014, and staged demonstration to various government

institutions. The latter won most of the case in juridical forum, and lately in June 2014 performed

land clearing of the farmland.

Although the land clearing has been executed, the villagers asked the District Court to reopen the

case and submitted new evidences. As the land status is not yet clearly established, the National Land

Agency cannot process the land certificate and Building Right Title for the company. As a result of

this, the conversion of the farmland to an industrial zone, namely Podomoro Industrial Park has been

kept on hold until now. Besides, the villagers cannot enter the farmland anymore due to the intense

security by the company and the police.

Therefore, this research focused on a range of meanings attached to the phrase of “farmland

conversion” in the disputed land described by involved actors. Nonetheless, the majority of previous

studies on this topic focused mainly on economic and legal aspect. Through a comprehensive

investigation by using discourse analysis, several aspects were explored to acquire a clearer

understanding. At the end, this study could add some insights to the existing literatures.

1.2. Research Question

In regards to farmland conversion that occurred in the disputed land in Karawang Regency, there

were some questions that need to be answered:

(1) Which discourse(s) influence the farmland conversion inside the key actors?

(2) How do key actors respond to the farmland conversion?

1.3. Topic

Topic of this research is “Farmland Conversion in Karawang, Indonesia: Discourse Analysis“

4

1.4. Limitation

This research has some limitations regarding the data collection and analysis. First, there is a certain

degree of subjectivity in the answers of the respondents. As this research was performed in a

qualitative study, there is a high dependency on the response of the respondents. Nonetheless, the

reliability and honesty of answers cannot be ensured since the respondents tend to provide arguments

that are profitable to them. Second, research quality is highly dependent on the researcher’s skill in

interpreting the argument from the respondents. This may include personal belief that influences the

analysis and simplification of a complex situation. The third limitation is related to the sample size

of the respondents. During primary data collection, the information from the company and the local

government was relatively limited compared to that from the villagers. If the sample size was larger,

a greater insight and deeper analysis of all stakeholders might be gained.

1.5. Motivation

This research would lead to a better understanding of farmland conversion in Indonesia. The majority

of former research deals with farmland conversion with quantitative methods looking at the welfare

effect on the villagers. This research attempts to provide a more comprehensive and in-depth insight

by doing qualitative analysis and gaining the perspective not only from the villagers but also from

the other stakeholders.

5

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Land Conversion

Land is an important means for society in rural area. Land becomes a vital base for livelihood to do

crop farming, herding, or collecting fuelwood (IFAD, 2010). It determines the number of other

production factors needed and ensures certain investment for business particularly for farming

business (Caldeira, 2008). According to Grigg (1995), land also becomes the livelihood’s standard

of living which determines the amount of food supplied for subsistence farming and potential income

for business farming (IFAD, 2010). In addition, it holds socio-political value which reflects the social

status/ identity of people (Caldeira, 2008; IFAD, 2010; Borras et al., 2010), homeland and place of

ancestry value (Sumanto, 2008).

There are 45% of people living in rural areas in developing countries (Barati et al., 2014) who have

a high dependency on the land. Despite the importance of land to rural dwellers, the trend of farmland

conversion kept intensifying both in developing and developed country. According to Tan et al.

(2009), the intensity of farmland conversion in developed countries is much lower compared to

developing countries. For instance, farmland conversion in The Netherlands was 17 hectares per day

during 1996-2000, while in the Germany was 114 hectares per day in 2006. By contrast, China

experienced 802 hectares of farmland converted per day in 2004 and Indonesia had 514 hectares of

farmland converted per day during 2000-2002 (Agus & Irawan, 2006). However, this number may

depends on the availability of existing farmland areas and total land area. As the consequences of

excessive farmland conversion, an intense mix between agricultural and non-agricultural use is

commonly found in rural area (Zui, 2001).

Farmland conversion is the process by which land is converted from agricultural uses to other uses.

Azadi & Barati (2013) argued that it is not the same between one place and another because of

different drivers, trends, and intensities. Farmland is commonly targeted because it has lower

economic rent compared to other uses (Grigg, 1995; Mazzocchi, 2013). Additionally, the higher the

productivity parameters indicating high price, e.g. fertileness, good access to water resource,

developed road infrastructure, the higher the willingness of landowners to sell the land to in the land

market (Irawan, 2008).There are three parties affecting the process of land conversion, i.e. private

developers/ company, government, and landowners. The connection between all of these actors

caused land conversion processes to be complicated in character (Firman, 1997). According to Irawan

(2005), the impacts of land conversion on wetlands are permanent, cumulative, and progressive to

the nearby land.

6

Azadi & Barati’s study (2013) showed that high population density and growth, rapid economic

growth, and urbanization process are the most influential factors of farmland conversion. According

to Azadi et al. (2011), increase in economic growth will lead to change in economic structure from

agricultural to non-agricultural. This results in the development of commercial and industrial sites

attracting more people to find jobs closer to the area. In response to that, demand for housing and

other facilities will rise up and spread to the peripheral areas which are typically used for agriculture

function. Also, with rising income, demand for agricultural products will decrease parallel with an

increment of non-agricultural products (Barati et al., 2014). Hence, farmland conversion will be

triggered in order to meet the demand of non-agricultural products (Irawan, 2005).

In addition, Debolini et al. (2013) noted that farmland conversion might occur due to human activities

abandonment and marginalization of agriculture land by the farmers themselves. The same authors

and Hietel et al. (2007) admitted that too-high intensification of farmland which creates soil

degradation leads to abandonment of farmland.

According to Setiawan & Purwanto (1994) in Firman (1997) and Mazzocchi (2013), there are two

main determinants of farmland conversion i.e. external and internal factor. The former includes

industrialization, urbanization (Lichtenberg & Ding, 2008; Barati, et al. 2014), road infrastructure

development, and government policy, whilst the latter includes land productivity (location and land

potential), technology intensity, and ownership patterns, including land size, household size and

income, and structural weakness.

Hietel et al. (2007) and Lichtenberg & Ding (2008) focused their research on the socio-economic

situations of landowner that influence farmland conversion. According to Hietel et al. (2007), there

are several human-behavior components that influence the farmland conversion including (1)

demography such as population density and age structure, (2) employment and economy such as off-

farm job alternative and working outside rural area, and (3) agricultural structure such as farmland

coverage and production type. In addition, Lichtenberg & Ding (2008) noted that when villagers have

an off-farm job that is more profitable to them, there will be little incentive to invest in the farmland

as it is not highly economic to them. This is worsened by the lack of agricultural infrastructures such

as farming market, road, electricity, crop storage, and price volatility which undermine the economic

incentive for farmers. Notably for young generations, limitation of farming capacity and limitation

of labor time leads to letting farmland uncultivated.

7

Some scholars focused on the huge influence of institution and policy to farmland conversion.

According to Lichtenberg & Ding (2008), existing institutional and policy structure affects

willingness of farmers to convert the farmland and provides high incentives to the private sector for

converting farmland for urban use. For the former, difficulty in having tenure security triggers those

who have partial or unclear ownership title to under-utilize the land (Lichtenberg & Ding, 2008).

While for the latter, the government opens the investment opportunity for the establishment of

industrial area, economic development zones, or residential area through farmland conversion (Azadi

& Barati, 2013). The purpose is to promote the economic growth and raise the government’s income.

In summary, Azadi & Barati (2013) illustrated the scheme and driving forces of Agriculture Land

Conversion as in Figure 1 below. The authors pointed out five main drivers including: (1) Economic

Driver, identified as low profit and high risk of agricultural sector, (2) Social Driver, identified as

migration from rural to urban areas, (3) Political and Institutional Driver, identified as government

abandonment of farming sector, (4) Environmental Driver, focused on lack of agricultural water, and

lastly (5) Technical and Infrastructure Driver, related to development of residential, industrial area,

and transportation infrastructure. Also, according to them, the weight and effect of each driver might

be different depending on temporal and spatial profile of an area.

Figure 1 Scheme and Driving Forces of Agriculture Land Conversion

Agriculture Land

Conversion

8

During the farmland conversion, there will be land relinquishment process from the buyer and the

seller. Hui et al. (2013) focus on the particular compensation to the farmers in China as the

consequence of farmland conversion. Possessing unclear guidelines for compensation, farmers

apparently have no choice for land acquisition compensation. The compensation tends to be ad hoc

and arbitrary for farmers. Consequently, the land lost farmers who are insufficiently compensated

become financially worse off.

Land conversion creates some impacts, not only the direct impact on agricultural production and

other related variables but also on environmental aspect. Some scholars (Lichtenberg & Ding, 2008;

Cui & Kattumuri, 2010; Barati et al., 2014) acknowledged the threat of farmland conversion to the

food security. In order to obtain food security, a country must provide safe and nutritious food that

meets all people dietary needs at all times and ensure that all people have physical and economics

access to it (FAO, 2006). Hence, a country must produce sufficient food internally or partially import

it from another countries. For a country with high populations, food import cannot be considered as

a good solution to supply food since a too large dependency on the world market prices of food can

be dangerous. Therefore, most countries aim at self-sufficiency to be able to produce sufficient food

to feed the internal population. However, not all cropland losses indicate that food security is

endangered because of the difference in production capacity or soil condition. The important issue is

when the farmland conversion occurred in a productive farmland (Lichtenberg & Ding, 2008).

While in the low-middle income countries, farmland conversion is more focused on food security

issue, in the middle-high income countries the concern is more targeted to environmental issue (Tan,

et al., 2009). Converting farmland could decrease the water holding capacity of the soil due to

construction of non-agriculture land use building. In addition, Barati et al. (2014) pointed out that

farmland conversion affects climate change back and forth excessively.

Farmland conversion also impacts the farmers directly. In regards to labor force, farmland conversion

will lead to loss of labor in the agricultural sector as well as to an increase in off-farm activities (Wu

et al., 2011) and more migration from rural area to urban area (Azadi & Barati, 2013). In their study

case in China, Hui et al. (2013) found that in terms of socio-economic factors, the farmers are not

able to maintain the basic living standard without the farmland. The same authors also noted the

emerging issues namely cultural and psychological impact on the former landowners. When the

farmers do not have any job in rural and transmigrate to the city for work, their situation will be

worse when they cannot adapt to the urban character easily. In short, the impact of farmland

conversion will be different depending on the farmers. Azadi & Barati (2013) reported that poor

9

farmers with a small plot of land, the less educated, and the old ones will suffer more in the case of

farmland conversion.

Realizing the negative impacts of farmland conversion and the importance of farmland, many

countries have tried to avoid and protect agriculture land from being converted to urban uses. In

China and The US for instance, the government decrees Basic Farmland Protection Regulation to

preserve productive land from being converted to other function (Lichtenberg & Ding, 2008). If a

particular land is converted, the same amount of land in other place must be converted into farmland

in order that the total amount of basic farmland is kept stable.

Another popular farmland conversion control tool implemented in The US is the scheme of Farmland

Preservation Program which gives easement or compensation to the farmland owners. Through this

scheme, the landowners who are granted easement can continue farming in the land but are not

allowed to sell the land for conversion. Brinkman et al. (2005) and Plantinga & Miller (2013) in their

study found that this scheme is quite successful in attempts to avoid farmland conversion. Brinkman

et al. (2005) specifically noted the positive impact of the easement payment which may be used as

an extra capital investment by the farmers. Due to its high costs, however, this policy can only well

applied in the developed countries.

In addition, Irawan (2005) and Azadi et al. (2014) noted the importance of the Land Use Plan which

takes into account comprehensive consideration including socio-economic matters of the citizens and

the environmental issue. By planning, urban expansion can be directed in desired ways that can

protect the fertile agricultural land. Together with it, legal approach should be combined with the

economic approach including tax incentives and agricultural subsidies (Azadi et al., 2014). As

agricultural sector is considered as a low profit and high risk sector, intervention in the economic

drivers will encourage farmers not only to preserve the land but also to improve the farming activities.

10

2.2. Land Dispute

Land conflict is a social conflict that involves at least two parties, because of different interest and

perception in regards to the access right to the land, the right to use and manage the land, to generate

income from it, to exclude others, to transfer ownership the land, and the right to compensate it

(Wehrmann, 2008). Similarly, according to Appendini (2001) in Kim & Dorjderem (2012) land

conflict is more associated with the question of who has the right; what the right is; and how the right

to the land is handled and enforced in free market society. Additionally, Arma (2012) confirmed that

the problem of disputed land focused on boundaries, area, status, formal ownership, land right

ownership, and transfer process of land right ownership. In short, land conflict will start when the

claim towards particular land becomes multiple.

Land conflict might be triggered either between parties in the same group (family, ethnic) or different

group (civil group with other civil group, civil with state, civil with company). It can also be identified

based on the land, either state land, private land, or commonly owned land and its location in urban,

peri-urban or rural area. In the case of urban land, struggle over parcel boundaries and ownership of

right dominates the debates, while the conflict between community with company or states becomes

a common discussion in the rural area (Obala & Matyingly, 2013).

Figure 2 shows the interdependency of land conflict causes (Wehrmann, 2008). The author

comprehended diverse drivers of land conflict, which showed connection between poor condition in

society, lack of institutional performance, and opportunity for economic gain by illegal actions. The

author outlined the interconnectedness of three main drivers of land conflict namely poverty,

institutional change and change in society, demography and ecology between themselves and with

diverse unfavourable drivers that lead to a land conflict.

11

Figure 2. Interdependency of Land Conflict Causes

In the process of conflict in general and land conflict in particular, Fisher et al. (2000) in Wehrmann

(2008) elaborated phases that occurred commonly during a conflict. Firstly is the pre-conflict stage

when the conflict is hidden in general, though one or both disputants notice about the potential of a

confrontation. Further is the confrontation when the conflict is more open, and low level of violence

occurs. After that is the crisis level when the tension becomes intense and the conflict peaks. Next is

the outcome stage when both parties agree to negotiate, but the conflict is not settled yet. And lastly

is the post-conflict stage when relation between disputant becomes normal.

Land dispute brings the negative impact to both disputants and government socially and

economically. For the peasants, a land dispute whether it is peaceful or violent might lead to

displacement until death (Boone, 2012) and reduce human security (Barron et al., 2007). Conversely,

Kim & Dorjderem (2012) and Dhiaulhaq et al. (2015) described a possible positive impact that

increases the social bond between communities due to the development of collective action.

However, it is not clear whether the potential positive impact exceeds the potential negative impacts.

In specific for the case between local peasants and company, the effect in economic terms will be

faced by both of them. The former will lose the land as capital and shelter; specifically as the

production factor (Wehrmann, 2008) and will have largely reduced productivity (Deininger &

Castagnini, 2004). In addition, Kim & Dorjderem (2012) noted that land conflict furthermore affects

12

poor peasants who are financially weak and lack of education and information. While for the latter,

the unresolved land conflict may increase project’s operating cost in the short term and endanger the

future of company in the long term (Munden Project, 2012).

From the government’s perspective, unorganized and unstructured land development might increase

additional cost for infrastructure provision that will be borned by the entire society (Wehrmann,

2008). Additionally, land dispute might create political instability (Boone, 2012) and become major

barrier to development in a long run (Barron et al., 2007).

Several authors focused on the lack of constitutive and regulatory institution performance involving

land market which influences land conflict (Mudjinono, 2007 in Alting, 2013; Wehrmann, 2008;

Colchester, et al., 2007; Deininger & Castagnini, 2004; Kim & Dorjderem, 2012; Calleros-

Rodríguez, 2014). It includes the practice of land registration and land information system, rule of

law, property rights to the land, and land management. In specific, Deininger & Castagnini (2004)

and Kim & Dorjderem (2012) found a lack of clarity in the role of formal and informal implementing

agency for land administration and land legislation. Frailty of land registration and management

either intentionally or not (Hui et al., 2013) paired with the illegal action such as lobbyism and

corruption (Wehrmann, 2008; Boone, 2012; Obala & Matingly, 2013) will result in the occurrence

of land dispute. One likely explanation is that the state tends to favour the powerful actors

(Colchester & Chao, 2011; Boone, 2012; Kohne, 2014). According to Wehrmann (2008), this case

particularly happened in most developing countries where the institutions have significant functional

deficit.

In the process of defending land right, the community will go through the law channel and

contentious action (Calleros-Rodríguez, 2014). In the law channel, land politics and policy decide

which rights will be recognized by the state (Boone, 2012). In China, Hui et al. (2013) found that the

absence of independent court worsens the matter for the farmer losing land. It is worsened when the

institution does not place a legal procedural mechanism to protect local right and take account of

local interest, livelihood, and welfare in case of land dispute (Cotula et al., 2009). Further, power

inequality is common leading to prioritizing the powerful actor only. Consequently, the powerless

disputant for instance poor people (Kim & Dorjderem, 2012; IFAD, 2010) and female and widow

(Deininger & Castagnini, 2004) will lose their land (McCarthy 2010). As a result, the powerless party

will continue the litigation endlessly, until the highest level to win the case (van Leeuwen, 2010) or

must accept the result of ownership declaration by the government deliberately (Hui et al., 2013).

When the powerless is unable to influence the political and economic decision-making on the land

conflict, the complaint will lead to more violent actions (Urdal, 2004 in Barron et al. 2007).

13

In order to address a land conflict constructively, a comprehensive approach, starting from the history

of conflict, actors, and stages of conflict is crucial to be carried out (Wehrmann, 2008). The same

author noted that position, interest, and desires of involved actors should be reviewed. Calleros-

Rodríguez (2014) added that the characteristics of them in dealing and resolving land conflict also

should be taken into account. There are some approaches to transform the conflict, including

facilitation, negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and adjudication based on the involvement of third

party and time of conflict (Engel & Korf, 2005; Wehrmann, 2008). Here, IFAD (2010) noted that

addressing process of one land conflict with others cannot be equalized due to the diversity in land

character, community, norms, and practice. In this case, it is important to use appropriate approach,

otherwise more intense conflicts could occur (Engel & Korf, 2005).

A land conflict should be addressed from political, economic, socio-economic, socio-cultural, legal,

administrative, technical, demographic, and ecological context (Biezeveld, 2004; Wehrmann, 2008).

More importantly, dealing with a land conflict must be started from the core problem, if not the

existing land conflict can easily grow (Kim & Dorjderem, 2012) and new land conflicts can emerge

in other areas. As land conflict mainly occurs because of multiple of claims to particular land (Boone,

2012), institutional arrangement especially land administration and land management should be

conducted (Wehrmann, 2008). In this case, creating land deal more transparent and responsible is the

core logic to address the problem of land conflict.

In dealing with land conflict, some disputants ask for a mediator to facilitate the negotiation process

between them to achieve an agreement that meet all parties’ interest and need (Engel & Korf, 2005).

In some instances, a mediator could be a NGO, either local or international, or a government

institution depending on the disputant’s agreement. The mediator should influence the process only,

without intervening the outcome of process (Wehrmann, 2008). Dhiaulhaq (2015) also added the

importance of impartiality and neutrality of a mediator, as if it is not perceived by one conflicting

part, it may create distrust and cause land conflict longer.

Some scholars introduce pro-poor land policy and service to protect and secure the land property

right of poor people (Boras & Franco, 2010; IFAD, 2010; Boone, 2012). For instance, van Leeuwen

(2010) argued the importance of handling conflict with mediator from local institution that would be

fairer towards poor and vulnerable people compared to using the formal judicial system.

14

There is also a large variation in land conflict form and level across Indonesia. Barron & Sharpe

(2005) in Barron et al. (2009) found how conflicts are expressed seemingly driven by local cultural

behaviours and norms, economic condition, and institutional structures. The occurrence of land

conflicts in Indonesia is increasing throughout the decades. Liau (2015) reported the increase of

agrarian conflicts from 198 cases in 2012 to 369 cases in 2013 and 472 cases in 2014. Over the period

of 2004-2010 there have been 1520 agrarian conflicts on 6.5 million ha. These land conflicts are

seldom solved in an amicable way. Some cases also involved human rights abuse such as land

confiscation and expropriation (Rifai, 2004). They emerged between citizens and government,

citizens and private sector, government and government, and intra society. However, according to

Alting (2013), the majority of them happened between local government and private company versus

local people.

Barron et al. (2009) linked between the securities of land right in rural areas with violent conflicts in

Indonesia. There are three types of land ownership of agricultural land: privately used land and titled,

privately used land and not titled, and community land. With less-defined ownership right, land

conflict is apparently increasing. Besides that, there are two versions of land title, old version and

new version, each has a different significant power as ownership evidence. Many villagers still keep

the old version title, which is often presumed as partial proof only. This property right becomes a

great insecurity for villagers (Biezeveld, 2004).

Rifai (2004) noted about the Indonesia’s failure to implement rules of law influencing the occurrence

of many land disputes. He quoted the existence of three basic elements of rule of law based on

Logeman (1996): (1) guarantee of human right protection without distinction of sex, race, cultural

background, economic condition, and political conviction, (2) existence of independent and impartial

judiciary, and (3) strict adherence to the principle of legality. When the rule of law is violated by the

government itself, for instance by sided to the powerful people, it will lead to distrust to the

government, especially the legal institutions including the court system (Barron et al., 2009). It is

worsened by the fact that security and justice sector in Indonesia are corroded by corruption, and

vastly under-funded (Barron et al., 2009). As the result of that, land conflict keep continued without

any clear direction and solution.

Besides the breaking of the rule of law, Ruwiastuti (1997) as quoted in Rifai (2004) noted that land

disputes appeared to be due to the unwillingness of the Government of Indonesia to recognize

communities land right which is inconsistent with its policy to make more land available for

investment. When the ownership of land is not sufficiently clear and the data from old era has not

been updated and registered; there will be double claims on land that leads to land dispute.

15

3. Research Method

3.1. Introduction

In this chapter, the technical matters of research are explained in detail. First, the method of discourse

analysis used to answer the research question is described. Further, the technical method in acquiring

the data and overview of the interviews are explained. Finally, how the data were analysed will be

pointed out.

3.2. Discourse Analysis as Method

A discourse is defined as an ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categories which meaning is given to

social and physical phenomena, produced and reproduced through an identifiable set of practices

(Hajer, 2005). In line with this definition, Artz & Buizer (2009) in Inghelbrecht et al. (2014) stated

that a discourse exists in the minds of people and in the social network of which they belong to. It is

based on their experience and history, of which they may be conscious or unconscious, but affects

how they speak and act. According to Foucalt (1972) in Ahl & Nelson (2014), the effects of discourse

have power implication which influences thought and action to be feasible or infeasible, legitimate

or illegitimate, and also orders people.

Discourses consist of structures embedded in language (Hajer, 2005; Hardin, 2003 in McCabe &

Sambrook, 2013) that influence the articulation of individual accounts. As language, discourse might

be expressed in conversation and dialogue, debate, and in written form through official report and

discussion (Ahl & Nelson, 2014). A discourse does not refer to a discussion, but to set of concepts

that structure the contribution of participants to be discussed.

The relation between discourse and practice is close as Phillips et al. (2004) stated that practice is

always embedded in discourse, and at the same time discourse always relies on the practice.

According to Hardin (2003) in McCabe & Sambrook (2013), these practices are situated in their

social, cultural, political, and historical context.

Biezeveld (2004) stated that the community will choose a particular discourse to phrase their right

based on their interest. Therefore, it is crucial to explicitly state the setting and the social position of

the actor in characterizing discourse (Zimmerer, 1966 in Wolf & Klein, 2007). Additionally,

according to Hajer (2005), an individual may have more than one discourse drawn in their language

upon closer examination.

16

A discourse is commonly associated with a particular group of actors (Hajer, 1993). When a group

of actors share similar understanding of a particular storyline of discourse, in the context of an

identifiable set of practice, over a period of time, it is called a discourse coalition. More specifically;

the author also noted that the key actors in a discourse coalition have influence in deciding which

issues are relevant for discussion and the direction of possible solution.

The same author (2005) also focused on the discourse’s influence towards certain groups because of

power and dominance. There is the term of discourse structuration when discourse leads the way of

group or policy domain in conceptualizing the world. Another terminology is discourse

institutionalization that appears when discourse has blended in a particular institution. The same

author furthermore pointed out if discourse structuration and institutionalization appear at the same

time, it means that a certain discourse is dominant and powerful.

A discourse analysis has an analytic commitment to study discourse as texts and talks in social

practices (Potter, 2004). In particular, it does not focus only on language that constructs reality, but

also on what people do in which part of their social life (Fairclough, 2003). As a source for discourse

analysis, transcripts of common or institutional setting talk, interview, or document may be used

(Potter, 2004).

A discourse analysis consists of description, interpretation, explanation, and in some variant critique

of discourse, including their development and what consequences they have for the phenomenon

under study (Cruickshank, 2012). It generally starts from a particular discursive phenomenon rather

than a pre-formulated hypothesis (Hajer, 2005). It also avoids prior assumption of researcher towards

interviewee or discourse which might dispute the result (Hajer, 2005).

McCabe & Sambrook (2013) recommended that a good discourse analysis should contains quotations

of text and the authors should do more than just summarize themes. A discourse analysis has a deep

focus, not merely on the available content of material (Ahl & Nelson, 2014). It describes what is

included and what is not; what is implied and what is stated. As concluded by the same authors, a

discourse analysis considers data not only as a representational but more as a productive one.

17

3.3. Data Collection

In this research, the data was gathered through desk research and interviews with key actors from a

group of villagers, company employees, and government officials. Farmland conversion, particularly

in the study area, was determined as the object of data collection and analysis. The study area is

specific on the disputed area in West Teluk Jambe District, consisting of Wanasari, Wanakerta, and

Margamulya Village.

Desk research was performed in order to grasp the former story line of farmland conversion. It was

performed by analyzing secondary data, e.g. newspaper articles and reports. Some actors’ statements

were also quoted from the secondary data, however this quotations limited the sources from the

newspaper articles only. In order to get a broader idea from a policy perspective, a literature study

on local and national regulations related to farmland conversion was also executed.

The second resource is using interview results. Semi-structured and in-depth interviews were

performed in order to reconstruct the discourse which actors approached to (Hajer, 2005). Each

interview contained the same broad topics and gave the flexibility to the interviewee in providing

answers. When key information emerged during the interview, the researcher explored it by asking

more detailed explanation. In general, the interviewees were asked to describe their perception about

the farmland conversion in the study area. Further questions focused on the past and future practice

in response to farmland conversion. There was also one group discussion organized by request of

villagers from one village. The interview lasted approximately one hour and was conducted in the

interviewee’s office or house.

Informed consent was pointed out by researcher before carrying out the interviews. The respondents

were briefed about the purpose of the study, what was expected from them as respondents, their

consent for their words to be quoted, and anonymity of their name for privacy reason. Some of the

respondents asked for result of the study.

The responses from group of actors to the interview were quite different. While the villagers and

government employees enthusiastically agreed, the company employees tended to avoid giving

opinion. Their reason for rejecting the interview was either lack of man power or high peak of

business. Only after three requests did they give their permission for interview.

The data gathering process took place from January to April 2015. Specifically for the interview, it

was conducted in March 2015. The interview was taken in Indonesian language and recorded through

note taking and tape recording (for academic purpose only). Further, it was translated into English

and transcribed into full text format to be analyzed.

18

3.4. Interviewee

To bring structure in unfolding the discourse, three different groups of interviewees were analyzed

independently: villagers, company employees, and government officials. In table 1, the

categorization of respondents in direct interview is presented. Villagers are the local peasants who

claimed the farmland ownership and utilized the farmland. Interviewees were picked from three

villages, Margamulya, Wanasari, Wanakerta. The key informants of each village were chosen

through purposive sampling and snowball method. The head of the each village facilitated the

selection of representatives who were considered to have holistic knowledge of farmland conversion

and acknowledged by most of the villagers in providing answers. There were two direct interviews

and one group discussion that invited 17 villagers. During group discussion, however, only some

dominant persons communicated their opinion while the rest supported insignificantly. Nevertheless,

the results of this group discussion were consistent with those of the individual interviews.

An interview was conducted with the person in the company in charge of legal matters of farmland

ownership. Although the land dispute is with SAMP Corp., the person in charge came from Agung

Podomoro Land Corp. (further called as APL Corp.), the company that has acquired SAMP Corp. in

2012. As a complement, a short interview was also conducted with the General Affairs Manager of

SAMP Corp. While the company sample size from company was rather small compared to that of

the other stakeholders, the depth of the interview was expected to be sufficient to be elaborated.

Three levels of government were interviewed, the regency, district, and village level. From the

regency level, the interviewer had two Sub-Managers in National Land Agency in Karawang

Regency as interviewees, one from Conflict Sub-Division and Case Sub-Division. While in the

District Office, the interviewer conducted an interview with the Economic Division. Lastly from the

village level, the head of village became the interviewee. Government officials tend to delegate

interview only to one person in one institution.

Table 1 Categorization of Respondents in Direct Interview

Group Initial

Villagers A, WK, U, H, W, M

Company Employees H, R

Government Officials U, K, W, T, A

19

3.5. Data Analysis

There are two steps of analysis performed. Firstly, a desk research was conducted on secondary data.

It was performed in order to complete the information from the primary data (interviews). Here,

researcher analyzed the content of language and practice towards the farmland conversion by the

actors captured by the media. In addition, general history of farmland conversion were also taken

from the secondary data. Further, descriptive coding of the sentence stated by actors and the practice

performed were produced.

Secondly, the interviews were analyzed. To begin, the result of interview was coded into a qualitative

table. Careful attention was focused on the re-listening and interpreting of the interview results.

Similar patterns of language and behavior of each interviewee group were then selected and placed

under the same categories. Next, the results from secondary data were combined with the relevant

results from the primary data. The analysis focused on the discourse in farmland conversion, based

on actor’s perspective and past and future practice towards farmland conversion. Throughout the

process, each category was analyzed and elaborated simultaneously.

Further, discourses among actors were compared by using constant comparative approach. This adapt

the terminology developed by Boeije (2002) with focus on comparison of interviews with different

groups. The goal is to describe the variety value that exists within the subject under study. It was

conducted by looking for similarities and differences in behavior and reason. It is described in a

descriptive and explanatory way. The main questions to be responded are: what does the group of

villagers say about certain theme and what does the group of private company and/or local

government have to say about the same theme; which themes appear in the group of villagers but not

in the group of company and/or local government and vice versa; why do they see things similarly

or differently.

20

4. Farmland Conversion Dispute in the Study Area

4.1. Introduction

In this chapter, general explanation about Karawang Regency is given and the history of land dispute

is described. This will allow us to picture the background of the land dispute and to see why several

discourses occurred in this matter.

4.2. Description of Karawang Regency

Karawang is a regency of West Java Province. It is centrally located between DKI Jakarta the capital

city of Indonesia, and Bandung the capital city of West Java Province and well connected with

Cipularang toll road. In Appendix 2, a map of Karawang Regency can be found.

In terms of economy sector1: Karawang Regency has two main sectors. The first is the agricultural

sector, mainly rice farming. The regency produces up to 865.000 tons per year and is responsible for

the biggest share of rice production in West Java and also national. Even so, the contribution of

agricultural sector to the economy declined tremendously from 37.04% in 1985 to 14% in 2005

(Karawang Regency Government, 2005). The second is the industrial sector, which now occupies

13.718 Ha or 7.85% of land of Karawang Regency. In 1989, it was mentioned in Presidential Decree

No 53 about Industrial Zone Development that Karawang Regency is chosen as one of areas to

develop the industrial area. This implies that there will be more companies coming and investing in

Karawang Regency. As a result of this, the industrial sector has been dominating the Gross Domestic

Regional Product (with more than 50%) since the 1990s with increasing trend of growth. The

development of industrial activity in 2014 was focused in the Southern part of the regency: Klari,

Cikampek, West Teluk Jambe (the study area), East Teluk Jambe, Purwasari, Karawang, Jatisari,

Pangkalan, and Cikampek.

According to the Karawang Regency Government (2005), as the result of industrial area

development, during 1995-2005 approximately 181.87 Ha of farmland were converted to private

house area (1.5%), residential area (54.6%), industrial area (34.4%), and service sector (9.5%) per

year. By plotting the industrial sector together with the agricultural sector as the main economic

drivers, more farmland conversion is likely to occur.

1The information of Karawang Regency is retrieved from http://www.karawangkab.go.id/dokumen/gambaran-umum

21

4.3. Land Dispute History

The land history started in 1949 when the private land owned by NV TegalWaroe Landen (The

Netherlands Company) handed the land to the Government of Indonesia. There, the villagers were

allowed to exploit the land for cultivation and other activities after the Basic Agrarian Law of 1960.

In 1962, the land became land reform object. However, due to tragedy of the Thirtieth of September

Movement by Indonesian Communist Party2 (Gerakan 30 September Partai Komunis Indonesia) in

1965, the land reform was set on hold temporarily. After the politics condition went calmer, land

reform object was distributed to villagers with a legal decree and in 1971/1972 the land was

distributed to villagers by circulating old ownership certificate (Girik3). This reform was registered

with the label Village Letter C4. In 1970/1971, there was an instruction from the government to record

the exploited land by the villagers.

In 1974, the head of the village announced to the landowners holding Girik that Dasa Bagja Corp.

planned to rent 350 hectares land located in Wanakerta Villages5 for three years. The company paid

for the land and borrowed some of the legal ownership proofs (Girik).Three years later, the plantation

failed and the villagers started to resettle and manage the land again. When the villagers asked their

Girik to the head of the village, he could not hand them but insisted the villagers to keep working on

the land and pay the land tax. In 1986, Dasa Bagja Corp. handed over the land to Makmur Jaya Utama

Corp. which handed it over again to SAMP Corp. by legal notary in Bogor Regency in 1990.

This became the early story when SAMP Corp. started to process the Building Right Title to National

Land Agency in 1998. Because of rejections from the villagers who claimed that the land had not

been legally relinquished by them, the process was kept on hold. After the villagers voiced their

opinion to the Regency Level of House of Representatives, the Karawang Regent advised SAMP

Corp. to relinquish the land to the landowners.

2A tragedy, when six Indonesian Army General were killed in a coup d’état attempt. The army blamed the Indonesian Communist Party, resulting in a

mass killing of thousands of alleged communists especially in Java Island. The condition created social and politics instability. 3Land ownership title in Indonesia comprises two categories, traditional land title (adat land right) and certified title. A typical terminology of the

traditional title is “Girik”. Actually, Girik is not an ownership title, but only the old version of land tax bill, comparable to modern bill called SPPT-

PBB. However, Girik was considered as land title and can be the basis of transaction. Traditional land title should be converted into certified titles to

National Land Agency in order to hold a higher formal power. 4Land tax assessment paper. 5 In 1981/1982, Wanakerta Village was proliferated to 3 villages, which were Wanakerta, Wanasari, Margamulya.

22

Higher tension of opposing the farmland conversion occurred when APL Corp. acquired part of

SAMP Corp. stocks in 2012. This company is well known as a giant property developer company in

Indonesia. Since the demand for industrial area in Indonesia increased, the area claimed to be owned

by SAMP Corp. was assigned to be converted to industrial block land use.

The village leaders first tried to negotiate with the company. But as the negotiation approach failed

to solve the conflict, the representatives of the villagers further submitted a legal action against SAMP

Corp. to the Karawang District Court to defend their land right using some Girik and other legal

supporting documents. In the meantime, SAMP Corp. made a counterclaim against the villagers. The

judiciary process in the District Court was won by SAMP Corp. Further appeal from the villagers to

the High Court and the Supreme Court reinforced the previous verdict. At last, Attorney General

decided that the villagers did not own strong legal ownership to the land they claimed and legitimized

the land clearing by the company.

The peak of land conflict was erupted in June 2014 when land clearing was performed. There were

approximately 500 villagers, including “landowner”, sympathizers from nearby factories, and other

villagers from neighbouring villages striving to hamper the land clearing. In contrast, more than 4000

policemen and armies came to guard the execution. During the event, there were physical clashes

between the villagers with the police and the army. As a result, 13 villagers were arrested, in detail 9

villagers and 4 factory labours, and 10 villagers were injured. This accident filled the headlines of

Indonesian national and local medias.

More recently i.e. in March 2015, the cleared land started to be guarded by policemen, APL Corp.

security guards, and some hoodlums. Both the company and the villagers were not allowed to utilize

the land. While the company cannot start converting the land to be industrial area because of the

postponement of Building Right Title by the National Land Agency (land must be on clean and clear

condition from any unresolved land dispute case), the villagers were also strictly forbidden to utilize

the land for grazing, horticulture plantation, rice farming or place for living. The case is still pending

because the villagers have proposed for a judicial review with new evidences (novum) submitted.

23

5. Results and discussion

5.1. Introduction

This section explains the discourses that emerged from the three main actors which are the villagers,

the company that is involved with land dispute directly and the local government as a mediator. First,

the most common discourses based on the language and practice of actors are identified. The

discourses are illustrated by quoting the relevant text from interviews and articles. In the next part,

they are analyzed and explored based on the context of the actors. At the end, they are compared to

investigate the variety of values which exists within farmland conversion.

5.2. Discourse Emerged

The field visits revealed that the farmland conversion is a well-known issue which could easily be

discussed with the villagers and local government. They stated that this land conflict has taken place

for a long period and is considered as a chronic case because of unsolved condition. By contrast, the

company tended to avoid providing detailed information. Only after performing informal approach

to one key actor from the company, an interview was successfully conducted.

5.2.1 Discourse in the Villagers

The discourse analysis of farmland conversion from villagers’ side identified eight different

discourses, exemplified by citations and are discussed below:

Farmland is owned by the villagers

A persistent and widespread discourse that occurred as a consensus among the villagers is the belief

of legitimated ownership of the targeted farmland. This argument was confirmed not only by direct

owners (the name listed in the existing ownership document) but also by the heir of the former

owners. This discourse became the underlying concern which led to further act opposing farmland

conversion. This discourse was strengthened by three forms. The first was related to the certainty of

land history from the 1960s and was voiced confidently in detail. They emphasized that the land was

granted to them in 1960s and until now there was no legal land transaction/ land relinquishment.

24

“In the beginning, all of the land was Ex-Wana Landen6. After the war ended, all of the land was

returned to the state, so it should be managed by the state again. In 1970/1971, there was Klasiran7,

and my grandfather’s name was also included in there. It was measured about 6 Ha per person.

Afterwards, there was Girik Cirebon7 in 1971/ 1972. In 1974, there was Dasa Bagja Corp. that

planned to exploit the land for kapok plantation. According to the Head of Village, if they wanted to

continue the rent, they should pay more; otherwise the land should be handed back. But instead, the

land was handed over to other company” – A

“In the early stage, all land belonged to the state. But there was a process. Land perennially exploited

can be registered for ownership right. Before the independence, there was a handover between the

Government of Indonesia and the colonialist. The Tegalwaroe Landen was 5000 Ha; except the

Perhutani land which still belonged to the state. But this one is the land with ownership right we

requested earlier.” – WK

The second one has something to do with the existence of physical documents claimed as legal

supporting documents of land ownership, for instance Letter C8, Land Map, and Notification of Tax

Due (Surat Pemberitahuan Pajak Terhutang)9. These documents previously published by the

government partially indicated the land ownership. The villagers used these document used in order

to strengthen their claim about the ownership of land and fend off the suspicion from other parties.

They were convinced about their legal ownership and showed the physical documents to the

researcher. They wanted to convince the observer that the physical document was genuine not an

illegitimate one as the company alleged. The villagers were also sure that the payment of land tax

strengthened their ownership of the land as tax object, while the SAMP Corp. had not paid anything

at all.

“We have a valid proof of land ownership. This is the Letter C which indicates ownership of land. In

the past, our land was indicated in List of Tax Objected 10(Daftar Himpunan Ketetapan Pajak), now

is Notification of Tax Due. This Letter C comes out together with Girik. And until now, Notification

of Tax Due for tax object is always paid (by us)” – A.

6After Indonesia had become independent from The Netherlands colonialism on 17th August 1945, there was an asset handover from the Government

of the Netherlands to the Government of Indonesia. The farmland in earlier era was Partikelir Land Eigendom Perponding No 53 NV. Tegalwaroe

Landen and was handover from Mij Tot Exploitatie Vande to Government of Indonesia on 17th May 1949. 7 It corresponds to land administration process by KDL Cirebon in order to distribute the land. 8 It is a book that contains name of landowner, number of landowner, plot number, village class, land area, amount of land tax, sign and stamp from

head of village. Before the land management was well-maintained, land registration was not ideal. There were numerous methods in registering land;

such as Girik, Petuk, Letter C conducted by Tax Office. 9This letter indicates amount of land tax due to the tax payer. 10This list contains name of tax payer, location of tax object, tax object number, amount of tax debt per village.

25

“Here you can see the List of Tax Objected indicating the name of the villagers that own the land.

Just check the name. It is already per plot of land” – WK

The last is related to the opposition to the issue of the status of the land as state land. Their argument

attacks the company’s argument which keeps highlighted that the land is not a private land owned by

the villagers but a state land. Meanwhile, if the land was a state land, the villagers would not have

been able to exploit it from 1970s until 2014. In order to strengthen the assumption, physical

document of ownership proof is associated as legal fact that the land is not a state land.

“From the Letter C you can see the block number. If it is a state land, there will be no block number.

You see, this is the block number, this is the landowner name. The explanation is clear” – A

“This is the Letter C pointing out per name. This is land with ownership. Then how come it is

indicated as state land?” – H

“I always pay the tax every year. From 1990. Why do they indicate that it is state land?” - U

“If they (SAMP Corp.) insist that it is a state land, we show the List of Tax Objected and Letter C.”

– WK

“In my opinion, if it is state land, it will not be registered in the List of Tax Objected. If it is absolute

that they own the land, it should be exist in List of Tax Objected.” – W

Because of this discourse, the villagers started to appeal the plan of SAMP Corp. to convert the

farmland to industrial use. This discourse became the underlying concern that triggers them to

perform further actions such as seeking legal assistance including mediation, suing the company in

the District Court until Supreme Court, as well as organizing contentious actions such as blocking

the toll-road in 2014, and demonstrating in front of numerous government institutions and house

representatives of regency, provincial, and national level.

The claims made by the company are false

The ownership claim made by the company is considered full of fraud and certainly wrong. This

argument is parallel with the previous discourse that is the certainty of their land status. Here, the

villagers judged the past fraud by Dasa Bagja Corp. as the first company that rented their land and

not handed back the Girik but handed it over to another company. They also pointed out that SAMP

Corp. got the land ownership not through a formal procedure but by buying the not valid document.

This past fraud becomes the early hindrance to their ownership status, and leads to endless dispute

26

until now. This fraud showed that there had been a violation of the villager’s right as the owner of

land in the 1960s.

“So in 1974 there was Dasa Bagja Corp., and the Girik was borrowed by Dasa Bagja Corp.. They

stipulated the land rent contract. For randu, hibrida, sengon, and kaliki (name of plantation crops).

If after the first 3 years, that was 1977, the business was a success, the contract would be extended.

Otherwise, the land would be returned to the landowner. In fact, it was not a success and not

continued. But at the end they didn’t give back the Girik to the villagers, but they handed over to

another company” – A

“Yes, this land at that time was planted for randu, kapok, cashew, but it was not handed back to the

villagers. They gave it to Makmur Jaya Utama Corp.. And after that Makmur Jaya Utama Corp.did

not wrap up the case. Actually, the villagers do not want to sell it. Then Makmur Jaya Utama Corp.

gave it again to SAMP Corp. in the 1990s if I am not mistaken. There was a conflict because the

villagers never sold the land and the Girik has not been returned. It is still in the hands of SAMP

Corp.” – WK

The early fraud was likely happened because of illegal cooperation between a village official with

the Dasa Bagja Corp.. This argument is stated unclearly because it is purely a conjecture, since the

pointed person has died. Yet, this assumption considered to harm the villagers’ right as the

landowner.

“When I was in Regency Police Command, they have checked the land history. They said that in the

Village Office there was a land ownership right release. It was one sided. It was land ownership right

release between Dasa Bagja Corp. and the head of the village. It was not a land transaction with the

villagers as landowner” – A

“In 1974 the land was rent by Dasa Bagja Corp. in 3 years. After the contract ended, the head of the

village took back again the contract letter and the Girik. But not all of it. Only most of them. At that

time the head of the village was We Abu Bakar, not from this village. Because the head of village

here was Ade Sasmita. Dasa Bagja Corp. cooperated with him (We Abu Bakar), so he had the role”

- WK

Another point related to this case is the manipulation performed by SAMP Corp. in acquiring full

land ownership right from the villagers. People directly stated the fraud practice in the 2010s which

deceived them. Within the fraud story, the company asked all villagers (both landowner and land

worker) to sign blank paper in exchange for some money. Some less-educated villagers signed the

27

paper because of the money offered. At the end, that money was considered by the company as legal

‘compensation’ although the amount was far below the suitable price of the land. Consequently, the

villagers’ land ownership power was loosened and their legal power decreased.

“They gave money to everyone, the land worker and landowner. Everyone got Rp 2.000. They said

that it was a “money for working”, like a donation” – A

“So in 1992, the head of the village asked Mr. Cipto the field coordinator (from SAMP Corp.) to

solve the land ownership. He answered that he would postpone the land ownership problem, just to

pay the “money for working” first. In fact, after I took the donation money, firstly Rp 100.000,

secondly Rp 200.000, and lastly Rp 1.500.000, I read the content of receipt in the Regency Police

Command that I sold the land. In fact I signed a blank receipt. It means there was manipulation

there” - A

“They called the land workers to bring their national identity card, and paid them. They assumed

anyone who brought his/her national identity card as landowner. I kept asking them about the proof

of land right relinquishment; who was the head of the village that signed it. They cannot proof it.

One day it will be figured out. That’s why they don’t want to get involved at the village level” – WK

Poor performance of land management institution

Here, the villagers criticized the land registration and administration performance by the National

Land Agency, in particular the land certification process. The National Land Agency recommended

the villagers to certify their land in 1960s with a certain amount of fee. However, most of them

apparently could not afford the service cost. As land ownership certificate is considered as a crucial

document in providing absolute ownership proof, the villagers perceived the National Land Agency

tend to hamper them get a stronger land ownership status.

“If the National Land Agency is neutral, why does it not give us priority to obtain absolute land

ownership title? For instance with ‘no fee’ certification. If it is possible and they think it is feasible,

we ask them to do it in advance and make it as priority.” – U

“That’s true in 1984 there was a program named Pronag from the National Land Agency. There,

they gave us opportunity to convert Girik to a proper title. Although it should be a free service, they

forced us to pay for the (unofficial) administration cost. We were too poor to pay for that” – H

28

Land dispute is influenced by money power

There is a consensus among respondents that money of the company influences the government.

Unlike the previous discourse, this one cannot be proved by the villagers because they do not have

any evidence. They believe that the company showered government, notably the judiciary with

money to secure their position as the formal owner of the farmland. Although there was awkwardness

in the history of land ownership and incompleteness of ownership document from the company’s

side, the righteousness of law was influenced by money power. To make it worse, the villagers

consider their weak position in terms of money power compared to the company. Consequently, the

villagers kept losing their judiciary claim for land ownership status. Within this context, one villager

used a special metaphor, an angel, that acts based on righteousness and does not look for money.

“Everything is based on money. People don’t have money, even though (only) to pay the lawyer. So

we always lose. In contrast, the company has a lot of money. We depend on our voice only. We talked

to anyone that wants to hear us” – A

“If we could send a letter to an angel, he never looks for money, maybe he could defend us” – U

“We know about our capacity. For instance if they (Government) visit the field, we give them cassava,

banana. While when the company visits them (Government), he gives them plenty of money. Just from

that point, we lose” – M

“There is nothing free in life. If we (villagers) have money, they (Government) will response to us,

otherwise they will not.” - W

Moreover, the villagers also boldly point out the body of Government willing to accept bribery

money. It confirms their strong distrust to government officials in processing the case.

“Maybe the government officials are money-oriented. The cost for land clearing was Rp

220.000.000.000. Instead of paying the Judiciary, they should use the money to buy the land legally

from us.” – U

“Moreover, after the APL Corp. had acquired part of SAMP Corp. stocks. They are the real trouble

maker. They buy the Police” – H

“In the era 2009-2014, the Minister of State Secretariat, Yudi Silalahi and the Head of National Land

Agency Hendarman Hendardji, both of them play the same game in this case” – U

29

Breaking the rule of law

In general, the villagers questioned the law enforcement performed by the government which seems

to be far from ideal. There is also partiality in law enforcement, which treats people differently. The

independence of the courts is questioned when they handle lawsuits involving giant companies or

important figures. People believe that the beneficial results of law only apply to the rich and powerful

people. It is feared that the juridical process is totally connected with practice of corruption, collusion,

and nepotism. It happened because of lack of integrity of the government officials and judiciary in

law enforcement. Poor law enforcement probably occurred after the SAMP Corp. was acquired by

APL Corp. and afterwards the judiciary process conducted and led to poorer law enforcement.

Besides that, one respondent also noted a huge disappointment towards law enforcement and distrust

to the court and the government in general. This disappointment and mistrust led to the intention of

the villagers to take the law into their own hands. This was articulated by all participants, not only

by the generation of landowners but also by the second generation of landowners.

“We suspect the law enforcement. It does not stand for us, small people. It is like a knife, blunt against

high class people, but very sharp against low class people” – WK

“It is confusing. I don’t know what to do with our law officials. It is the time to go back to old laws.

Now, the strong is always the winner?” – U

Disobedience to principle of legality

For the villagers, the land clearing was the proof of the breaking of the rule of law. The land clearing

did not correspond with the verdict. Although there were some plots of land that remained on court

process or even won the court process, the land clearing was performed in all 350 Ha. Besides, some

plots of land that were not involved in the dispute (have clear certificate and Girik) were claimed to

belong to SAMP Corp.

“In the execution, only 49 plots should be cleared. I can show them one by one (for 49 plots). But the

reality? Everything was cleared. Both the land that could be cleared, and the land that still on

process, everything was cleared.” - A

“48 plots lost the court process, approximately 65 ha. Why did they clear everything? They bulldozed

everything.” – WK

“So there were 48 people who got the warning from the regency court. The area is approximately 65

Ha. But in fact? Everything was bulldozed.” – U

30

“In 2010, I’ve been criminalized by them. They (SAMP Corp.) argued that I grabbed the land. But

in the end, the court decided that I was not guilty. I had the copy of Letter C, I paid the tax every

year, I took care of the land. But still, my land was cleared.” – H

Besides that, the respondents also indicated that the process of land clearing was improper and broke

the regulation of execution stipulated by the government institution. The villagers should be notified

about the land clearing at least a week before execution. But they did not get any notification. Besides,

the land clearing used unclear plot map and unclear border indicator to mark the plots to be cleared.

“If they want to do execution the clearing legally, they should check which area to be executed based

on Karawang Regency Court decision. Me as the local people, including the head of village and

other villagers got no information at all. There should be announcement in the first place” – A

“The executers should have a plot map and clear border markers to see where the plots to be cleared

are. They didn’t have it. They just placed the border and cleared the land. Which plots were won by

them, which ones were still on-going law process, they didn’t care.” – WK

“They wanted to execute the clearing of 48 plots, but didn’t know the position. Land clearing should

at least involve village officials, district officials, regency officials, and a border marker should be

ready. The announcement of the land clearing was in the middle of the street and accompanied by

1200 mobile brigade. This action was just against 350 people.” – U

Aside from land clearing regulation, one respondent complained about the case processing in the

court. He questioned the court result that did not consider the proof of legal land ownership document.

“When we talked about the case in the Regency Police Command, they (SAMP Corp.) could not

prove anything about their ownership document. While we brought everything that we had. Still, we

kept on losing the case, they always won” – W

Impartiality of government institutions

The villagers also highlighted the practice of local government that aligned to the company and less

sided with them. One clear example was that the government sent a large number of policemen and

armies with excessive power in order to secure the clearing execution. Instead of protecting the

villagers, on the contrary, they attacked the villagers.

“For instance in the execution, there were how many thousands of policemen? There were

approximately 7000 people. Why did they act like that? People should be helped. In fact, it looked

like they were going to war. They didn’t want to calm the execution process. Why did they use

31

bulldozer, water cannon, and barracuda? They only faced 200-300 villagers, but they came out with

7000 people. It was too much. They are state institution!” – WK

“The government helped the company. In the execution, it was not an execution, it was a farmland

pillage. See? There were thousands of policemen helping them, however how many villagers were

there? Only hundreds. How could we win against them? They were policemen for one province, West

Java, and utilized to guard land clearing in 350 Ha only.” – A

Asides from that, the villagers also criticized the services of other government institutions at national

and local level. They resented the absence of support from the government. Formerly, they struggled

for the land ownership through the court, but they kept losing. Having a distrust of the judiciary, the

villagers voiced their opinion to various related institutions such as the Parliament and other National

Government Bodies, but until now this institutions keep turning a blind eye to them.

“We have processed this since 1990, but until now there is no clear feedback from the government”

– H

“All of illegitimate land right relinquishment; illegitimate map in 2005 had been reported. But until

now, I don’t know what happens to my report.” – U

“We have been to the House of Representatives, National Agency Land, Attorney General, National

Commission for Human Right, and the others to protest. But it did not change the situation. Because

we didn’t know what else to do then we closed the access to West Karawang toll-road. So they could

see our opinion. But what next? Nothing happens!” – U

“Three people of the District Court were transferred to other districts when they tried to help the

villagers. Afterwards, there was the District Court Decree to renew the process again. Then we were

called again, we were investigated again.” - U

Intimidation by the company

This is associated with the physical and verbal intimidation by the company both directly or indirectly

to the villagers. The objective is to threaten the villagers who defend their land rights. As informed

by the Consortium for Agrarian Reform (2014), there were around 500 hoodlums who came to the

village to threaten the villagers and one villager named Wasa was beaten. This discourse is shaped

based on prejudices towards the company, because the local community cannot prove whether the

hoodlums were sent by the company or not. Additionally, the villagers are not worried about the

likely danger posed by the intimidations.

32

“Before the land execution, it is so common to see some villagers have physical quarrel with them

(SAMP Corp.)“ - A

“I was one of their victims. Years ago I was beaten by a hoodlum, sent to jail, but now I will continue

defending my land“ –T

“A week ago, there was a small bomb thrown to the SEPETAK11 office” – Kamsir as quoted from

Tribunnews (2014)

Intimidation is not only performed in a physical way, but also by law scheme. Radar-Karawang

(2013), one of the local newspapers published a story that one former head of the village who was

sued by SAMP Corp. The complaint was that she made a copy of Regional Development Dues

Book12 (Iuran Pembangunan Daerah) showing that there was no land relinquishment. Because of

that, she was arrested. After juridical process, the court found her not guilty and she got off the jail.

This intimidation was probably meant to flip public opinion that the villagers performed fraud in

creating the ownership document.

Threat to villagers’ livelihood

The villagers associated this with the loss of source of income and workplace for livelihood.

Previously before the conversion, the farmland was used for livestock grazing and hardwood or other

crops planting area. In addition to that, land grabbing by the company also means confiscation of

personal asset, while its current price is high. In terms of social effect, this discourse seems to be less

important to the villagers.

“I lived there in the low hill. Some areas were for paddy plantation. Some plots were used for peanut,

cucumber, and cassava. Some people also lived there. After the land was cleared, we lost all of those”

– A

“I could get Rp 40.000.000 if I sold my wood (planted there). But everything was cleared. I got

nothing” – W

11 It is an local organization for farmers and fishermen in Karawang Regency. 12 It is an old version of Land and Building Tax.

33

Compensation

In relation to the livelihood effect, compensation became the underlying concern related to the loss

land that fetches a high market price. Compensation refers to the amount of money asked to the

company by the villagers for legally relinquishing the land he/she owns. This discourse implicitly

demonstrates the villagers’ eagerness to consent to the farmland conversion, if the land is legally

purchased by the company. This discourse is stated prevalently by the villagers. In addition to that,

the villagers believe that this attempt is the silver bullet to overcome late complicated land problem.

“We are not complicated for this case. We want to be paid, point. Since the beginning, that

(compensation) is what we want” – A

“Why do I always stand by this case? It is not true that we do not want to sell it (the land), we want

to, but with a fair price. Where is the buyer and where is the seller. Not like this, since the company

said they have paid it. To whom? They must pay it to the direct owners” – WK

“We hope that our struggle will have a good ending. At least there should be a certainty that if

company want our land, they show good attitude to us (give compensation)” – W

Although the villagers have insisted their aspiration frequently, they noticed that the company acted

in the opposite direction. Throughout the years, the company does not have any intention to

communicate formally with them and let alone providing compensation.

“In the transaction, the buyer tends to pay with the lower price, while the owner tends to ask the

higher price. Then there will be negotiation. But the company does not want to do that. They

persistently claimed that they have bought the land legally from the previous company. It is clear,

we don’t accept their argument” – U

“How can we solve this conflict? If the company had good attitude, they would have accepted a

mediation. But they did not. If they did, the case would have been cleared” – U

“There should be a mediation, for example an open forum. I have invited them twice to talk about it

in the village, but they never came” – WK

The villagers also stated that they are very open for a negotiation especially about the price of land.

They do not want to hamper the company if they want to buy the land legally. Despite of bad and

long history with the company, the villagers are willing to cooperate with the company. They notice

the current market price of land per square in that area but they do not expect to be paid as high as

that.

34

“Instead of further fighting this case in the court, it is better to organize an open forum. We (villagers)

exclude people that are not related directly to this case. We invite the real landowner, and the buyer.

We know that the land price is 250$ per square. We don’t expect for 50%, 10% only is enough for

us. We are just too tired of this case” - WK

“We are willing to sell it, but for a reasonable price. You know what; the normal price for land in

here is Rp 2.200.000 per square. We won’t ask for the same amount like that. At least they should

tell us their price, and if it makes sense to us, we will just have a negotiation.” – H

5.2.2 Discourse in the Company

Generally, the discourse of the company in farmland conversion was characterized by the following

aspects: farmland is owned by company, the claims made by the villagers are false, involvement of

third party, project continuity, and benefit to livelihood and regency. It is exemplified by citations

and discussed below:

Farmland is owned by the company

Legal ownership of farmland is regarded as the most important determining factor by the company.

This is because of the legal handover of land from the first company to SAMP Corp. and the constant

valid result of judiciary process starting at the regency level until the national level (Supreme Court).

Moreover after the court permitted them to perform land clearing in 2014, the ownership power of

the company increased. It is stated directly and confidently by the company’s representative. This is

a dominant and powerful discourse, because there is a discourse structuration and institutionalization

in the company’s views and attitudes. Hence, further policy of the company is not to respond to the

villagers’ objection.

“So, whoever is involved in this dispute, this land is owned by SAMP Corp.. It is a court verdict. We

do not care, even if there are 50 more people go again to the court.” – H.

“Most importantly, the land clearing land has been executed, it is legitimate. Whatever argument

people have about the land ownership, the land is owned by SAMP Corp.” – H.

“350 Hectares land in Teluk Jambe District is not a traditional land; but land ex TegalWaroe

Landen. It was acquired by Dasa Bagja Corp; from the farmers who exploited it for the kapok

plantation and was later legally handed over to SAMP Corp.” Edi Kasan, Legal Counsel of SAMP

Corp. as quoted from Gatra (2014).

35

In order to strengthen the power of land ownership, SAMP Corp. gave the villagers what is called

“social compensation”. As stated by Hersutanta, legal counsel of SAMP and quoted in Sidaknews

(2015), the money has been distributed evenly to the villagers who used to cultivate the farmland as

a compensation for the crops loss and as a social donation.

As the result of this discourse, the company kept silent for any complaints or distraction both from

villagers and medias. They had no intention to clarify it or willingness to discuss more about the

issue. By ignoring the external voice, the company focuses on the strength and validity of the court

verdict. If the company opened discussion about this sensitive topic, the court may decide

unfavorably for them on the subsequent cases.

“If we respond the villagers’ complaints, the widespread issue will keep evolving. People will ask

about the land clearing. So, as an experienced company, we will not react at all. We are an old

company; I’ve experienced cases like these for more than 35 years.” – H

“There will be no counter argument in mass media or internet from our company. Let the people

speak out. We will not respond to it. The farmland has been cleared.” – H

The claims made by the villagers are false

This discourse can be interpreted as a prejudice towards villagers’ claim to farmland ownership. It is

strengthened by two main ideas, about 1) the legality of land ownership document owned by the

villagers and 2) the farming practice. Firstly, it was judged that the document owned by the villagers

is illegitimate. The perception that a fake document can be produced easily by the village officials in

order to support villagers is widely spread. This discourse is strengthened by the fact there was one

case of document forgery processed by the court.

“There are plenty of fake Girik. If you want to create a fake Girik, it is easy. You just pay per square

meter, it will be signed by the head of village. But it will not be listed under the Letter C” – H

“(Land ownership) case in Karawang Regency is unique. If your land remains idle in one year, 2 to

5 people will come and admit that it is their land with a fake document. Thus, the land must be

guarded” – H

“This is state land, but why were there new problems? The head of The National Land Agency said

that there were complaints (from villagers). We (SAMP Corp.) went to the court. After investigation,

it was proven that Haji Dodo’s Girik was fake. It was reported to the police and as the result of it,

he was jailed for two years” Edi Kasan, Legal Counsel of SAMP Corp. as quoted from Gatra (2014)

36

“If they have legal proof, show us the copy of the certificate. We met earlier, but they (SEPETAK)

did not show the proof. They did bring some kind of paper but we did not know what was that list

about” Tasril Jamal – Public Relation Officer of Podomoro Industrial Park, as quoted from

Sidaknews (2015)

Secondly, the land is presumed not to be well-managed by the villagers. In general, if the land owned

by the farmers, there will be a good land management practice. This practice involved not letting the

land lie fallow for a long period. However, this condition reinforced the company’s assumption that

the villagers did not possess the land. In this discourse, the company did not suspect all villagers, but

only some landowners.

“If it is their land, there should be some sign of life. You can see that the land is like unoccupied

jungle.” - H

Involvement of third party

It corresponds to the existence of local NGOs and land speculators that are intervening in the land

dispute. This discourse is essential for the company, because the third party exerts great pressure to

the company in the name of the villagers. In this state, the villagers are assumed to be easily

influenced by the third party to oppose the farmland conversion by the company. Because of the

existence of third party, the dispute cannot be solved by the company, and the land conversion is

postponed. The respondent argued that the main motivation of the NGO getting involved in this case

is to gather money from the company.

“So, the NGO acts like that. They always fight against big companies if there is land conversion. In

Karawang, there is no company free from their interventions. Every company gets each turn” – H

“Their (NGO) concern is getting more money from SAMP Corp.. But we cannot tolerate it anymore.

Once we facilitate one NGO, there will be more and more NGO coming to ask for money. Well, for

now the land clearing has been performed.” – H

“The case in Karawang Regency is unique. I have a lot of experience in land acquisition in Makassar,

Medan, Batam, Surabaya, Bandung. We fight against NGO in Karawang only. They say if we are

close to the NGO, we will be OK. That’s fraud! NGO wants to guarantee land procurement, but at

the end there will be another lawsuit. Then they will leave us.” – H

“It is common to suspect that the land mafia provokes and intimidates villagers partially to deny the

juridical result” Yuliana, legal counsel of SAMP Corp. as quoted from Karawangnews (2014)

37

To this discourse, Yuliana, the legal counsel of the company recommended the government to

investigate the land mafia that is involved in this land dispute. Their existence hampers private

investments in developing the area. Besides, she also urged people to report if there is intimidation

from one party in the mediation stage (Karawangnews, 2014).

Project continuity

It corresponds to the continuity of company’s project in the disputed farmland. It is valued as

company’s commitment to reach the target of physical development. This discourse arose after the

company got strong legality in obtaining the farmland based on judiciary result.

“This land (conversion) keeps on progressing. Our plan is to build industrial area as soon as

possible. Although villagers do oration everywhere, this plan still continues.” - H

“So, this land will be developed to be Podomoro Industrial Park. The site planning is finished. Well,

land marketing to the industrial company is still ongoing” - R

“We are preparing the physical construction and managing all required permit based on existing

regulation. Development of industrial park in international level will satisfy the investor demand,

specifically in automotive, electronics, food and beverage industry and others” – Johannes Archiadi,

CEO of Podomoro Industrial Park as quoted from Karawangnews (2015)

This discourse is strengthened not only by the language, but also by the practice observed. Related

to the marketing part, two big advertising billboards about Podomoro Industrial Park were found in

the toll-road passing Karawang Regency. In addition to that, the researcher also acquired a marketing

brochure of Podomoro Industrial Park including general information and land master plan from

SAMP Corp. (Picture can be found on Annex 5).

Benefit to villagers’ livelihood and regency’s economy

This discourse is related to the potential impact of farmland utilization as Podomoro Industrial Park

after the land has been converted. This view is seen from the regency economic perspective which

affects the villagers’ livelihood as well. This argument was not stated earnestly compared to other

discourses.

“If they cooperate with us, we will help them to work as a security guard or factory labor in the

industrial area. This mutualism between the company and the villagers will increase their income.”

- H

38

“With increasing investment in manufacture sector, it will create multiplier effects in supporting

industry and supporting service as well. This activity will generate job opportunities, increase export

and people’s income, and raise local and national tax revenue” – Johannes Archiadi, Chief of

Executive of Podomoro Industrial Park as quoted from Karawangnews (2015).

“The development of Podomoro Industrial Park will bring positive benefit to local people in

Karawang. For instance employment of thousand man powers in constructing the area and later

after international level factory is already operating” – Johannes Archiadi as quoted from

Karawangnews (2015).

5.2.3 Discourse in the Local Governments

In general there are several discourses that form the basis of the argument of local government, which

are: industrialization as government policy, land is owned partly by villagers and the company,

weakness of villagers’ land ownership, poor land management system, involvement of third party,

compensation, and benefit to citizen’s livelihood.

Industrialization as government policy

This discourse is the core background of farmland conversion that taking place in Karawang

Regency. This policy held at the Regency, Province, and National level promotes industrial

development that subsequently increases the farmland conversion. This in turn causes the agricultural

contribution to the economic sector to be diminishing. The following discourse was stated by the

government at the district level only.

“There is a special policy of the local government to facilitate the conversion of farmland to become

an industrial area. It was started from the hilly land and then the farmland” – U from District Level

“The industrialization was started some years ago when there were three big companies exploiting

huge area in Karawang. Later, more companies came and converted the farmland.” - K from District

Level

39

Land is owned partly by villagers and company

This discourse corresponds to the legal ownership of farmland. However, there was a contradiction

between language of the National Land Agency and Police and the Police practice. Indeed SAMP

Corp. won most of the appeals by the villagers about the claims of land ownership, but some lawsuits

were also won by the villagers and acknowledged by the National Land Agency. In contrast, however,

the Police permitted the company to clear all 350 Ha indicating that the Police confirmed that the

company owned all that land.

“So, not all of 350 Ha was won by SAMP Corp., some plots were won by the villagers. But, the fact

that the clearing was executed in all plots is not our responsibility, ask the judiciary or the police” –

W from Regency Level BPN.

“SAMP Corp. won all the lawsuits in the District Court and the appealed ones in the Cassation. The

land clearing had a stable law power, so the judiciary allowed its execution and obliged the company

to warn the villagers 8 days before the execution” M – Head of Karawang District Court as quoted

from Karawangnews (2014).

Although some plots were already decided by the Judiciary to be owned by SAMP Corp., the National

Land Agency could not immediately give full ownership to the company (land certificate) because

the villagers kept appealing the lawsuits with new evidence submitted.

Weakness of villagers’ land ownership

This theme concerns the incertitude of the government in terms of the ownership that claimed by the

villagers. It strengthens the previous discourse mentioned above, i.e. the land is mostly owned by the

company. This discourse was not stated strongly by the government, but in a subtler way, and was

spoken at the district and regency level only.

Some points were noted by government officials to point out the weakness of the villagers. First is

that the villagers’ land ownership documents were issued by the village office years ago and were

not converted yet to the more legally binding version of the National Land Agency. The fact that

village office in the earlier era was not monitored well by the National Land Agency makes them

question the legality of the documents.

40

“The company that first owned the land let it lie fallow for a score of years. Thereafter the villagers

started to cultivate the land. Then the current company came and they said that they got the land by

a hand over from the previous company, while the villagers claimed the land is theirs. Besides that,

there were some in the village office who forged a fake document to support the villagers’ claim”. –

K from District Level

“When SAMP Corp. got the land from the previous company in the past, they didn’t bulldoze the

land. After ten years or more, when the seller of a certain plot of land has passed away, the children

were already mature, they continued the work there. Incidentally, the head of the village supported

them to use the land and created supporting information. And so, the villagers thought that the land

is owned by them” – W from Regency Level

Aside from his suspicion about legal document proof, this respondent also noted the absence of good

land exploitation practice in the study area. He pointed out that the farmland was planted with crops

which need small investment and care. In his opinion, a clear indication that someone owns a

farmland is that he/she practices a good planting system.

“If we focus on agriculture management aspect, we cannot see the good practice at all” – W from

Regency Level

“If I state that I work on the land, I must show the physical proof. What is the commodity? Is it a rice

farm or a hardwood plantation? They must show the proof. Then it is relevant between statement and

reality” – W from Regency Level

Poor land management system

Poor land management system was considered as the root problem of land dispute in the study area.

This includes land administration practice and the corresponding regulation. This discourse was

revealed by Land Administrator Agency as the core leader of land management duty.

The first point is related to the land administration practice by the government. It considers that in

the early era of independence of Indonesia, land administration system was still new. The National

Land Agency performance in organizing and registering land ownership was considerably poor

because of lack of manpower and registration system, especially at village level. As the result of it,

there might be cases of double claims to a specific land because the inventory of land ownership data

was not maintained well.

41

“In 1980s we were not good yet in land mapping, we didn’t have a real map. But now we already

have computer and GPS. How about the past era? After we created the certificate, we put it in archive

room. If it was missing, who will look for it? Now, we can check by using the GPS, we can find out

who owns the plot of land. But at that moment, we could not” – T from Regency Level

The second point is related to the weak government regulations. There is a clash between customary

land regulations and legal regulation. According to the customary land regulation, if someone has

exploited a piece of land for many years, he may apply for the ownership title. When a company that

have bought the land (either legally or not) let the land lie fallow, it may give the opportunity to the

villagers to manage the land and claim the land in the longer term. Furthermore, tricky judiciary

regulation hampers the government in solving land dispute. For instance, when the judiciary has

judged one party possessing one particular land, another party may appeal continuously if new

evidence is founded. As the result of that, land dispute cannot be solved. Some actors can take

advantage from this weakness of regulation for their own benefit.

“When the land has been exploited for some years, people can apply for ownership of that land. Even

if it is already owned by somebody else. I could say that this weak regulation can potentially create

more (land) dispute” – K from District Level

“Let’s see. Now, the judge decision is inkrah13 and land clearing has been performed. But what

happened? There is more opposition from the villagers. New lawsuits were started in District Court.

We cannot avoid it because our law allows it. Judge cannot refuse any new lawsuits from anyone” –

W from Regency Level

Involvement of third party

Respondent from the government also noted about the existence of third party that defends the

villagers and may take advantage from this dispute. The third party, an NGO or land broker, plays a

role in influencing the villagers to voice their opinion as well as in speaking on behalf of them to the

mass media. This discourse was only implied and stated secretively by the district and regency level

only. The government is supposed to be neutral and not presume negative view of their citizens.

13Inkrah comes from the word Inkracht van gewijsde, means that judge has given final decision and there should be no

more appeals.

42

“I have dealt with villagers for quite a long time, and they are not complicated. But there were some

actors that want to get involved in the name of villagers. They want to look for something that benefit

them. For instance, the local NGOs. So, there are some non-technical factors that cause the dispute

cases not to be resolved until now” – W from Regency Level

“There are some third parties that get involved in this case, for instance a land broker.” – K from

District Level

Threat to villagers’ livelihood

This discourse is associated with the loss of a workplace for land owner and land worker because of

farmland conversion. As farmland is used by the farmers and shepherds to do their the main activities,

they will lose their job. Besides that, some villagers also lose source of extra income after land is

cleared. The other impact is that the villagers, especially the old ones without good knowledge will

not be able to replace their former job in farmland with a better job. This discourse occurred at the

village and district level. It probably appears because of the close connection of government officials

with the villagers.

“In Margamulya Village, some houses were concentrated in in one area, while in Wanakerta the

houses were scattered. After the clearing execution, they lost their house. Besides, they planted

vegetable like peanut, corn, string bean that give them an extra income or hardwood tree which is

more profitable. So, after the land was bulldozed, they have no more extra income.” – A from Village

Level

“The farmers work with a hoe, they cannot used machine. The result is that they become unemployed.

While the shepherds after the land is cleared have no land anymore” – K from District Level

Compensation

Compensation corresponds to the amount of money given by the company to the villagers as a sign

of buying the land. This discourse opposed the previous discourse i.e. the land is owned by the

company. However, this discourse was remarkably stated by the government at the village level only.

It was probably because of a close relationship between the villagers and the village level

government. They tended to interact often with each other and the government officials could hear

the villagers’ honest aspiration. They could be considered as the insiders as well.

43

“I am optimist that the end of this dispute will be okay. I am so sorry for the landowners. The Village

Office hopes that there will be compensation. Years ago, they (company) said that they have given

money, but it was unclear to whom. We (Village Office) will facilitate the villagers’ expectation for

this case” – A from Village Level

5.3. Discussion

In the previous section, we presented several discourses that occurred among different actors. Our

analysis has focused both on how farmland conversion were defined and problematized by actor

groups and on the practice concerning farmland conversion. Given the different position of the actors,

formerly we assumed that the discourses would be totally different. The findings revealed, however,

some of the discourses were similar. Besides that, the actors tend to attack the opponent’s discourse

in order to strengthen their view. It can be seen that they tend to possess discourse that profits their

condition and strengthens their further argument. Aside from that, we also found some discourses

that are more dominant compared to the other discourses of the same actors.

Within one actor, it was also observed that there is an inconsistency toward a particular discourse.

For instance, a discourse occurred among local government tends to be different between an official

at the regency level and the one at the village level. Things such as work coverage responsibility,

commitment to the group, and intervention from outsiders may influence the similarities and

differences between members of an actor. In addition to that, detailed information of the same

discourse may vary widely within a particular actor. For instance, the number of policemen of guiding

land clearing and the amount of social donation acquired by the villagers.

In this part we will compare the emerged discourses between actors by using a constant comparative

approach. We will analyze the similarities and differences of the discourses of different actors

towards farmland conversion. In Table 2, we juxtaposed the discourses of the three actors.

44

Table 2. Emerged Discourse between Actors

Villagers Discourse Company Discourse Government Discourse

Industrialization as

government policy

Farmland is owned by

villagers

Farmland is owned by company Farmland is owned partly by

villagers and company

The claims made by the

company are false

The claims made by the villagers

are false

Weakness of villagers land

ownership

Poor performance of land

management institution

Poor land management

system

Land dispute influenced by

money power

Breaking the rule of law

Involvement of third party Involvement of third party

Intimidation by the company

Threat to villagers’ livelihood Benefit to villagers’ livelihood

and regency’ economy

Threat to villagers’

livelihood

Compensation Project continuity Compensation

When it comes to the villagers, the execution of farmland conversion is viewed as a major threat to

them as long as they are not acknowledged as the landowner. Surprisingly, they agree with farmland

conversion only if they acquire reasonable compensation for their land from the company. In order

to reinforce the land ownership, the villagers presented some legal supporting documents which

indicate only partial ownership (not a current land certificate), and a clear historical context. Having

seen the past fraud by Dasa Bagja Corp. and experienced manipulation by SAMP Corp., they also

believe that land ownership claimed by SAMP Corp. is purely illegal. This is worsened by the poor

government performance that in their view probably happened because of money intervention from

the company. In addition to the poor performance of land management institution and this breaking

of the rule of law by the government, the villagers were also intimidated by the company. This led to

their actions against the company and the government in the recent years.

45

On the other hand, the company considered farmland conversion as the core idea that must take place

in the near future. The farmland dispute caused Building Right Title cannot be published by the

National Agency Land and hampered the physical construction. Their confidence of owning the

farmland due to valid and consistent verdicts becomes the main motivation for them to continue the

farmland conversion process. Nevertheless, refusal to provide a detail explanation about the legal

land handover from previous company creates intense suspicion about the legality of that process.

The company acknowledged the involvement of a third party that provokes worse situation in the

farmland conversion process. Also, the company emphasized the potential benefit of the farmland

conversion for the economy of Karawang’s citizen and regency.

Farmland conversion is considered by the government as a part of its industrialization strategy. It is

not a case that should be avoided, but should be managed. Specifically for the disputed land,

unresolved land ownership becomes an underlying issue because it hampers the process of

development in the regency as well as creates a not conducive condition. The government institutions

complied with the court decision that the area of 350 Ha is partly owned by the company and partly

by the villagers, although in practice there was a tendency that they sided more with the company.

Poor land management system is considered as one of the reasons why land dispute commonly

occurred, though there is no clear willingness and commitment from the government institutions to

address this matter.

Among all the discourses, the ownership of farmland emerges as the most prominent and powerful

discourse towards farmland conversion. This discourse was prevalently spoken by all actors. Both

company and the villagers articulated this discourse in the first place, before the other discourse,

followed by their justification and explanation. This discourse is also embedded in their practice and

triggered them either to support farmland conversion or not. As predicted, the involved actors, the

villagers and company had opposing perceptions. Both of them persistently claimed the ownership

of some same plots of land backed up by their belief using their own supporting evidences, either

legal supporting documents or court verdicts. Also, in order to reinforce the land ownership claim,

each party puts the blame on the opposing party.

The government also considers farmland ownership as the most important discourse among others.

However, it was found that there are different arguments inside the government itself about who

possess the farmland, particularly between the district and regency level versus the village level. But

in general, they refer to the decision of the court as the highest authority for land dispute lawsuit, and

they have to respect and comply with it.

46

The following discourse about land management system either in practices or regulations is raised

by the villagers and the government. They believed that poor land management leads to uncertainty

of land ownership and creates the land dispute. This phenomenon aligns with Wehrmann’s (2008)

view that a poor regulatory institution drives land disputes, especially in developing countries. In this

study, the company did not seem to criticize the government work at all. Although this issue is very

crucial to be addressed in order to solve the root problem of farmland conflict, there seemed to be

less attention from the government side as a regulator. Profound changes in institutional policy and

regulations take time and require hard work and long commitment, indeed.

One specific discourse namely breaking the rule of law was stated by the villagers directly and in

consensus. This study found that the disobedience of principle of legality and the impartiality of

government institutions harm the villagers’ position. It corresponds with Rifai (2004) that specifically

linked Indonesian land dispute with the failure in implementation of the rule of law by government

institutions.

The villagers in this study were also suspicious of money issue in the farmland dispute. This probably

due to the case of former Karawang Regent who extorted Tatar Kertabumi Corp., also acquired by

APL Corp. and was sentenced to six years in July 2014 (Jakartapost, 2015). Their assumption is that

the government and the company presumably play on the same game. And together with the discourse

of breaking the rule of law, it constitutes the reason for their weakened position in terms of land

ownership and their vanishing trust in the government as well. The government which should be

perceived as neutral by all disputants in order to be a good mediator (Dhiaulhaq, 2015), in fact was

suspected of impartiality by the villagers. This is worsened by the fact that the villagers considered

themselves as poor and powerless compared to the company.

Involvement of a third party, in this case local NGO or land broker, was revealed by the company

and local government, with the same context, but of different strength. This finding partly

corresponds with Kohne’s (2014) argument that in the context of land dispute, the powerless tend to

team up with other actors in an attempt to increase the power. From the viewpoint of the company

and the local government, however, this is not only the case. They perceived the help of the NGO, as

the third party, in reinforcing the villagers’ collective action against farmland conversion only as a

means used by the NGO to take advantage of a precarious situation. Furthermore, the NGO did not

seem to have the intention to facilitate a negotiation as a third party is supposed to do (Engel & Korf,

2005). These may be the reasons that the villagers did not speak about it during interviews, although

some rumours inside from the villagers confirmed the existence of third party (Kabar24, 2014). On

the other hand, the company stated this discourse clearly and strongly, because the third party slowed

47

down their plan to resolve the case while the company wanted to start the development of industrial

area immediately. In addition, they believed that the third party is a combination between government

officials, a certain group of villagers, and the NGO that provoke villagers easily. The government, at

regency and district level mentioned it implicitly.

Intimidation by the company was raised by the villagers as the victim. In this case, they noted about

both physical intimidation and false accusation in order to threaten them not to process the dispute

case in the judiciary. Specifically for physical intimidation, Fisher et al. (2000) in Wehrmann (2008)

viewed that this land conflict is already in level of confrontation when low level of violence occurs.

Understandably, the company did not speak at all about this discourse, and neither did the

government.

The impact of farmland conversion on the livelihood, either in a positive or negative way, was a

concern of all the actors, though the description was not focused and strong. From the villagers’

perspective, farmland conversion will lead directly to their job loss and will lessen the extra income.

This finding supports Azadi & Barati’s argument (2013) that farmland conversion will unfavorably

affect the poor farmers especially in terms of economic aspect. On the other side, the company tends

to see the impact of farmland conversion as positive, because it can create multiplier effects, new job

creation and economic improvement to the regency in general. At the government side, concern about

the negative impact of farmland conversion on villagers was only articulated at the village and district

level. Their doubt about the ability of the villagers with low education level to easily benefit from

the new development of converted farmland corresponds with McCarthy’s (2010) finding.

The right to a compensation becomes the main driver for the villagers to keep enforcing their effort

in possessing the land ownership. Once the ownership is legally granted, compensation becomes an

absolute and important matter if the company plans to take over the landownership and convert the

farmland to industrial area. The idea of compensation originated from the certainty of land ownership,

was voiced strongly and in consensus by the villagers. They also saw compensation as a fast solution

to the dispute. And by compensation they meant an amount of money that fairly corresponds to the

market price, not the compensation that they called a social donation. In contrast, the company was

totally opposed to this and had no intention at all to fulfill the villagers request for a compensation.

Being open for paying compensation would mean that they acknowledge that the villagers own the

land, while they had the court decision which indicates that they are the owner. Therefore, in order

to continue the project development, they are only able to wait until the villagers give up their further

appeals. The government, in this case of the village level, also supported the idea of compensation to

the villagers, while the regency level and district level had no opinion about it.

48

6. Conclusions

This research has analyzed and compared the discourses of farmland conversion in Karawang,

Indonesia between the villagers, company, and government. As there was a huge dispute between the

villagers and the company due to the progress of farmland conversion, initially it was assumed that

there would be major opposing discourses between them. However, it was found that not only major

differences occurred, but also some similarities. The discourse analysis also found that the actors

voice arguments and carry out actions that fit best their interest in farmland conversion and further

emphasize different aspects of them.

Through discourse analysis, it was found that farmland conversion in the study area is not a fixed

terminology among the involved actors. However, a similar articulated language and attitude of all

actors confirms that the ownership of farmland is the most dominant discourse. Other discourses

identified including allegation to opposing actors, performance of land management institution,

breaking the rule of law, involvement of third party, intimidation by company, impact on the villagers

and regency, and compensation or project continuity.

It is realized that this case contains a lot of intrigues and questions about the truth and righteousness

of language. It was found that the arguments from the villagers and the company tend to be different

and opposing each other. However, the researchers’ objective is not to investigate whether each

argument is right or not, but to unfold the discourse that emerged in this farmland conversion.

For further research, there are some aspects still to be investigated. First, another actor that got

involved in the land dispute in this study, namely a local NGO, should be investigated further. It is

realized that it might be difficult to gain more data but it will result in more comprehensive ideas.

Further, it is worthy to investigate the discourses in farmland conversion published by the media, as

the media has power in influencing public opinions. Lastly, it is also important to gain deeper

information from judiciary institutions such as the court and the police. In this study, legal aspects

are not sufficiently discussed and they should be placed in the context to complete the government

discourse.

Using discourse analysis to land conversion especially in disputed land is a new approach. Legal

issues or economic impact on livelihood is commonly targeted by other scholars. Still, socio-

analytical method becomes important in order to unfold social phenomena by providing deep and

better understanding. Thus, hopefully this research would contribute to enrich knowledge about

farmland conversion notably in disputed land.

49

7. Reference List

Agus, F., Irawan, D., 2006. Agricultural Land Conversion As a Threat to Food Security and

Environmental Quality. Jurnal Litbang Pertanian 2, 90–98.

Ahl, H., Nelson, T., 2014. How policy position woman entrepreneurs: A Comparative Analysis of

State Discourse in Sweden and the United States. Journal of Business Venturing 30, 273-291.

Alting, H., 2013., Konflik Penguasaan Tanah di Maluku Utara Rakyat Versus Penguasan dan

Pengusaha. Jurnal Dinamika Hukum, 13 (2).

APO (Asian Productivity Organisations), 1992. Rural Land Use in Asia and the Pacific. Report of

an APO Symposium, 29 September - 6 October, Tokyo, Japan in Firman, T., 1997. Land

Conversion and Urban Development in the Northern Region of West Java, Indonesia. Urban

Studies, 34 (7), 1027 – 1046.

Appendini, K. 2001., Land Regularization and Conflict Resolution: The Case of Mexico. FAO, Rural

Development Division, Land tenure service, Mexico in Kim, D., Dorjderem, O., 2012. Land

Conflict And Solution Issues In Mongolia: Based On Institutional Approach. International

Review of Public Administration 2012, 17 (3).

Arma, Z., 2012. When Indigenous Peoples fight for their land rights. Down To Earth 93-94,

http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/when-indigenous-peoples-fight-their-land-rights.

Arts, B., Buizer, M., 2009. Forests, discourse, institutions: A discursive-institutional analysis of

global forest governance. Forest Policy Economy 11, 340-347 in Inghelbrecht, L., Dessein, J.,

van Huylenbroeck, G., 2014. The non-GM crop regime in the EU: How do Industries deal with

this wicked problem?. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 70–71, 103–112.

Azadi, H., Ho, P., Hasfiati, L., 2011. Agricultural Land Conversion Drivers: A Comparison Between

Less Developed, Developing, and Developed Countries. Land Degradation and Development

(22), 596-604

Azadi, H., Barati, A. A., 2013. Agricultural Land Conversion Drivers in Northeast Iran LDPI

Working Papers. United Kingdom: The Land Deal Politics Initiative, Working Paper 36.

Barati, A.A., Asadi, A., Kalantari, K., Azadi, H., Witlox, F., 2014. Agricultural Land Conversion in

Northwest Iran. Int. J. Environ. Res., 9 (1), 281-290.

Barron, P., Sharpe, J., 2005. Counting conflicts: Using newspaper reports to understand violence in

Indonesia. Conflict Prevention and Reconstruction Paper No. 25. Washington, DC: World Bank.

in Barron, P. et al., 2009. Understanding variations in local conflict: evidence and implications

from Indonesia. World Development 37 (3), 698-731.

50

Barron, P. et al., 2009. Understanding variations in local conflict: evidence and implications from

Indonesia. World Development 37 (3), 698-731.

Biezeveld, R., 2004. Discourse Shopping in a Dispute over Land in Rural Indonesia. Ethnology 43

(2), 137-154.

Boeije, H., 2002. A Purposeful Approach to the Constant Comparative Method in the Analysis of

Qualitative Interviews. Quality & Quantity 36, 391–409.

Boone, C., 2012. Land Conflict and Distributive Politics in Kenya. African Study Review 55 (1), 75-

103.

Borras, S., Franco, J., 2010. Contemporary discourses and contestations around pro-poor land

policies and land governance. Journal Agrarian Change 10, 1-32.

Borras, S., Franco, J., Gómez, S., Kay, C., Spoor, M., 2012. Land grabbing in Latin America and the

Caribbean. Journal Peasant Study 39, 845-872.

Brinkman, B., Miller, D., Nickerson, C., 2005. Impact of Farmland Preservation Programs on the

Rate of Urban Development. Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the American

Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Providence, Rhode Island, July 24-27,

2005.

Caldeira, R., 2008. My land, your social transformation: Conflicts within the landless people

movement (MST), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Journal of Rural Studies, 24 (2), 150-160.

Calleros-Rodríguez, H., 2014. Land, conflict, and political process: the case of the Lacandon

Community, Chiapas, Mexico (1972–2012), The Journal of Peasant Studies 41(1), 127-155. DOI:

10.1080/03066150.2013.873891

Caradec, Y., Lucas, S., Vidal, C., 1999. Agricultural landscapes: over half of Europe’s territory

maintained by farmers. http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/envir/report/en.

Central Bureau of Statistics. 2013. Statistics Indonesia. 2013. Jakarta.

Central Bureau of Statistics. 2014. Statistics Indonesia. 2014. Jakarta.

Colchester, M., N. Jiwan, Andiko, M. Sirait, A.Y. Firdaus, A. Surambo, H. Pane., 2007. Forest

Peoples Programme. Promised land: Palm oil and land acquisition in Indonesia: Implications for

local communities and indigenous peoples. Report by Forest Peoples Programme and

Perkumpulan Sawit Watch.

Colchester, M., S. Chao., 2011. Oil palm expansion in south East Asia: Trends and implications for

local communities and indigenous peoples. Report by Forest Peoples Programme.

Consortium for Agrarian Reform (KPA)., 2014. Mencari Keadilan dan Kepastian Hukum di Tanah

Teluk jambe Berujung Kematian. http://www.kpa.or.id/?p=3274

51

Cotula et al., 2009. Land grab or development opportunity? Agricultural investment and international

land deals in Africa. FAO.

Cruickshank, J., 2012. The Role of Qualitative Interviews in Discourse Theory. Critical Approaches

to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 6 (1), 38 – 52.

Cui, S., Kattumuri, R., 2010. Cultivated Land Conversion in China and the Potential for Food

Security and Sustainability. Working Paper 35. LSE Asia Research Centre

Debolini et al., 2013. Changes In Agricultural Land Use Affecting Future Soil Redistribution

Patterns: A Case Study In Southern Tuscany (Italy). Land Degradation & Development.

Deininger, K., Castagnini, R., 2004. Incidence and impact of land conflict in Uganda. World Bank

Policy Research Working Paper 3248.

Dhiaulhaq, A., Bruyn, T., Gritten, D., 2015. The Use and Effectiveness of Mediation in Forest and

Land Conflict Transformation in Southeast Asia. Case Studies from Cambodia, Indonesia and

Thailand. Environmental Science and Policy 45, 132-145.

Dwipradnyana, M., 2014. Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Konversi Lahan Pertanian Serta

Dampaknya Terhadap Kesejahteraan Petani (Studi Kasus di Subak Jadi, Kecamatan Kediri,

Tabanan). Thesis. IPB.

Engel, A., Korf, B., 2005. Negotiation and mediation techniques for natural resource management.

Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

Erviani, A., 2011. Dampak Konversi Lahan Sawah Terhadap Keunggulan Kompetitif Usaha tani

Beras Di Kabupaten Karawang (Studi Kasus: Desa Kondangjaya, Kecamatan Karawang Timur).

Thesis. IPB.

Fairclough, N., 2003. Analyzing Discourse : Textual Analysis for Social Research. Routledge, Oxon,

UK.

FAO, 2006. Policy Brief: Food Security. http://www.fao.org/forestry/13128-

0e6f36f27e0091055bec28ebe830f46b3.pdf

Firman, T., 1997. Land Conversion and Urban Development in the Northern Region of West Java,

Indonesia. Urban Studies 54 (7), 1027 – 1046.

Fisher, S., Abdi, D. I., Ludin, J. Smith, R., Williams, S., Williams, S., 2000. Working with Conflict.

Skills and Strategies for Action. London in Wehrmann, B., 2008. Land Conflicts A Practical

Guide to Dealing With Land Disputes. GTZ Land Management.

Foucalt, M., 1972. The Discourse on Language (L'ordre du discourse). The Archaeology of

Knowledge & Discourse on Language, Pantheon Books, New York, 215-237 in Ahl, H., Nelson,

T., 2014. How policy position woman entrepreneurs: A Comparative Analysis of State Discourse

in Sweden and the United States. Journal of Business Venturing 30, 273-291.

52

Grigg, D., 1995. An Introduction to Agricultural Geography, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.

Hajer, M., 1993. Discourse Coalitions and Institutionalisation of Practice: The Case of Acid Rain in

Great Britain.

Hajer, M., 2005. Coalitions, Practices, and Meaning in Environmental Politics: From Acid Rain to

BSE. Book Discourse Theory in European Politics: Identity, Policy, and Governance. Publisher

Palgrave Macmillan: New York.

Hardin, P., 2003. Constructing experience in individual interviews, autobiographies and on-line

accounts: a post-structural approach. Journal of Advanced Nursing 41 (6), 536-544 in McCabe,

T.J., Sambrook, S., 2013. Phychological contracts and commitment amongst nurses and nurse

managers: A discourse analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies 50, 954-967.

Hietel, E., Waldhardt, R., Otte, A., 2007. Statistical modeling of land-cover changes based on key

socio-economic indicators. Ecological Economics 62 (3-4), 496 – 507.

Hui, E. Bao, H., Zhang, X., 2013. The Policy and praxis of compensation for land expropriations in

China: An appraisal from the perspective of social exclusion. Land Use Policy 32, 309-316.

IFAD, 2010. Land tenure security and poverty reduction. International Fund for Agriculture and

Development. Rome.

Indonesia Government. Law No 41 Year 2009 about Protection of Sustainable Farming Land.

Inghelbrecht, L., Dessein, J., van Huylenbroeck, G., 2014. The non-GM crop regime in the EU: How

do Industries deal with this wicked problem?. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 70–

71, 103–112.

Irawan, B., 2005. Konversi Lahan Sawah, Potensi Dampak, Pola Pemanfaatannya, dan Faktor

Determinan. Thesis. IPB.

Irawan B. 2008. Meningkatkan effektifitas kebijakan konversi lahan. Forum Penelitian Agro

Ekonomi 26, 116–131.

Karawang Regency Government. 2005. Long Term Development Plan Year 2005-2025.

Kim, D., Dorjderem, O., 2012. Land Conflict And Solution Issues In Mongolia: Based On

Institutional Approach. International Review of Public Administration 17 (3).

Kohne, M., 2014. Multi-stakeholder initiative governance as assemblage: Roundtable on Sustainable

Palm Oil as a political resource in land conflicts related to oil palm plantations; Agric Hum Values

31, 469–480.

Lambin, E. et al., 2001. The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths.

Global Environmental Change 11, 261–269.

Law No 41 Year 2009 about Protection of Sustainable Farming Land.

53

Leitmann, J., 1995. A global synthesis of seven urban environmental profiles, Cities 12, 23-39. in

Firman, T., 1997. Land Conversion and Urban Development in the Northern Region of West

Java, Indonesia. Urban Studies 34 (7), 1027-1046.

Liau, H., 2015. Bentuk Badan Khusus Penyelesaian Konflik Agraria. Kompas.

http://sains.kompas.com/read/2015/01/19/10104331/Bentuk.Badan.Khusus.Penyelesaian.Konfli

k.Agraria.

Lichtenberg, E., Ding, J., 2008. Assessing farmland protection policy in China. Land Use Policy 25,

59–68.

Liu, J., Guo, Q., 2014. A spatial panel statistical analysis on cultivated land conversion and chinese

economic growth. Ecological Indicators 51, 20–24.

Logeman --, as cited in Creyke, R. et al., 1996. Aspects of Administrative Review in Australia and

Indonesia. Center for International and Public Law Australian National University, Canberra, 11

in Rifai, A., 2004. The Rule of Law and Land Disputes in Indonesia. Jurnal Undang-Undang dan

Masyarakat 8, 105-123.

Mazzocchi, C., 2013. Land use conversion in metropolitan areas and the permanence of agriculture:

Sensitivity Index of Agricultural Land (SIAL), a tool for territorial analysis. Land Use Policy 35,

155– 162.

McCabe, T.J., Sambrook, S., 2013. Psychological contracts and commitment amongst nurses and

nurse managers: A discourse analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies 50, 954-967.

McCarthy, J.F., 2010. Processes of Inclusion and Adverse Incorporation: Oil Palm and Agrarian

Change in Sumatra. Indonesia. Journal of Peasant Studies 37(4), 821–850.

Meyer, B., 1995. Past and Present Land Use and Land Cover in USA. Consequences 1 (1)

http://gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/spring95/Land.html.

Mudjiono., 2007. Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa Pertanahan Di Indonesia melalui Re-vitalisasi

Fungsi Badan Peradilan. Jurnal Hukum 14 (3) Yogyakarta: FH UII. in Alting, H., 2013. Konflik

Penguasaan Tanah di Maluku Utara Rakyat Versus Penguasandan Pengusaha. Jurnal Dinamika

Hukum 13 (2).

Munden Project, 2012. The Financial Risks of Insecure Land Tenure: An Investment View

Naylor, R.L., Battisti, D.S., Vimont, D.J., Falcon, W.P., Burke, M.B., 2007. Assessing risks of

climate variability and climate change for Indonesian rice agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.

U.S.A. 104, 7752–7757.

Obala, L., Mattingly, M., 2013. Ethnicity, Corruption and Violence in Urban Land Conflict in Kenya.

Urban Studies 201X, Vol XX (X) 1-17 Urban Studies Journal Limited.

54

Phillips, N., Lawrence, T., B. Hardy, C., 2004. Discourse and institutions, Acad. Manag, Rev. 29 (4),

635-652.

Plantinga, A., Miller, D., 2001. Agricultural Land Values and the Value of Rights to Future Land

Development. Land Economics 77 (1), 56-67.

Potter, J., 2004. Discourse Analysis as a way of analyzing naturally occurring talk. in Silvermann, D.

(Ed.) Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, 2nd ed. Sage, London, 200-221.

Ramankutty, N., Foley, J., Olejniczak, N., 2002. People on the land: changes in global population

and croplands during the 20th Century. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 31, 251–

257.

Rifai, A., 2004. The Rule of Law and Land Disputes in Indonesia. Jurnal Undang-Undang dan

Masyarakat 8, 105-123.

Robin Creyke, et al., 1996. Aspects of Administrative Review in Australia and Indonesia. Centre for

International and Public Law Australian National University, Canberra, in Rifai, A., 2004. The

Rule of Law and Land Disputes in Indonesia. Jurnal Undang-Undang dan Masyarakat 8, 105-

123.

Ruwiastuti, M., 1997. Community Rights in Politic of Agrarian Law, KPA Bandung in Rifai, A.,

2004. The Rule of Law and Land Disputes in Indonesia. Jurnal Undang-Undang dan Masyarakat

8, 105-123.

Setiawan, B., Purwanto, A., 1994. Proses Konversi Lahan Pertanian di Pinggiran Kota: Studi Kasus

di Daerah Pinggiran Kota Yogyakarta (Agricultural land conversion in the urban fringes: the

case of fringe areas of Yogyakarta city), Manusia dan Lingkungan, 3 (1), 79-89 in Firman, T.,

1997. Land Conversion and Urban Development in the Northern Region of West Java, Indonesia.

Urban Studies 54 (7), 1027 – 1046.

Subali, A., 2005. Pengaruh Konversi Lahan Terhadap Pola Nafkah Rumah tangga Petani. (Studi

Kasus: Desa Batujajar, Kecamatan Cigudeg, Kabupaten Bogor). Thesis. IPB.

Sumanto, L., 2008. Mediation: The Alternative of Land Dispute Resolution in Indonesia. Asia Pacific

Mediation Forum Conference 2008. Harun M. Hashim Law Centre. International Islamic

University Malaysia

Tan, R., Beckmann, V., Berg, L, Qu, F., 2009. Governing farmland conversion: Comparing China

with the Netherlands and Germany. Land Use Policy 26, 961–974.

Urdal, H., 2004. The devil in the demographics: The effect of youth bulges on domestic armed

conflict, 1950–2000. Conflict Prevention and Reconstruction Paper No. 14: Washington, DC:

World Bank. in Barron, P et al., 2007. Understanding variations in local conflict: evidence and

implications from Indonesia. World Development 37 (3), 698-731.

55

Van Leuuwen, M., 2010. Crisis or Continuity? Framing land disputes and local conflict resolution in

Burundi. Land Use Policy 27, 753-762.

Wehrmann, B., 2008. Land Conflicts A Practical Guide to Dealing With Land Disputes. GTZ Land

Management.

Wolf, S., Klein, J. 2007. Enter the working forest: Discourse Analysis in the Northern Forest.

Geoforum 38, 985-998.

Wu, J.J., Fisher, M., Pascual, U., 2011. Urbanization and the viability of local agricultural economies.

Land Economics 87 (1), 109–125.

Zimmerer, K., 1996. Discourses on soil loss in Bolivia: sustainability and the search for socio

environmental middle-ground. in Wolf, S., Klein, J. 2007. Enter the working forest: Discourse

Analysis in the Northern Forest. Geoforum 38, 985-998.

Zui., 2001. Modeling the dynamics of landscape structure in Asia’s emerging desa kota regions: a

case study in Shenzhen. Journal of Environmental Management 148, 53-66.

NEWSPAPER ARTICLE

Gatra. 2014. Sejarah Sengkata Teluk Jambe. http://www.gatra.com/hukum-1/51587-pt-samp-tanah-

teluk-jambe-bukan-tanah-adat.html

Jakartapost. 2015. Corrupt couple. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/04/16/corrupt-

couple.html

Kabar24. 2014. Aksi Tanam Jagung Rekayasa Mafia Tanah, Hambat Solusi Teluk Jambe.

http://kabar24.bisnis.com/read/20141123/78/274890/aksi-tanam-jagung-rekayasa-mafia-tanah-

hambat-solusi-teluk-jambe

Karawangnews. 2014. PT SAMP Pemilik Sah Tanah 350 Hektar di Teluk Jambe Barat.

http://www.karawangnews.com/2014/08/pt-samp-pemilik-sah-tanah-350-hektar.html

Karawangnews. 2015. Podomoro Industrial Park Karawang Siap Dibangun.

http://www.karawangnews.com/2015/02/podomoro-industrial-park-karawang-siap.html

Radar Karawang. 2013. Ratna Ningrum Bebas JPU Langsung Banding. http://www.radar-

karawang.com/2013/10/ratna-ningrum-bebas-jpu-langsung-banding.html

Sidaknews. 2015. PT SAMP Sarankan SEPETAK Tempuh Jalur Hukum.

http://www.sidaknews.com/pt-samp-sarankan-sepetak-tempuh-jalur-hukum/

Tribunnews. 2014. Warga Teluk Jambe Ingin Masalah Cepat Selesai.

http://m.tribunnews.com/regional/2014/12/08/warga-teluk-jambe-ingin-masalah-cepat-selesai

56

Appendix

Appendix 1a Questionnaire to Villagers

Respondent Background

1. Name :

2. Income from farming : %

3. Location : Village

4. Other off-farm job : (if any)

Historical Chronology

1. Please tell me the chronology of farmland ownership started from the early 1960. Please note the

important moments during that period.

2. There are different versions of historical chronology of farmland ownership occurred. Why does

it happen? What is your opinion about it?

3. What were the main causes of land dispute to occur?

Argument

1. What is your opinion regarding farmland conversion case in Karawang Regency? Why?

Probe:

a. Background

- Legal Basis: Land ownership right and regulation; land business license and regulation

b. Process

- Practice: Negotiation (interaction, agreement); participation (all related stakeholders

engagement, ability to voice the concerns); compensation (direct/ indirect compensation,

appropriateness); manipulation; social movement (strike, physical conflict)

- Actors: Characteristics; interests; power; connection; knowledge

- Value: Transparency; fairness; satisfaction; morality (physiological torture, physical

conflict)

c. Outcome

- Community level: Farmers’ livelihood (income, employment, source of food, social

arena); meaningless existing farming infrastructure

- District level: Environmental degradation (water catchment destruction, land

degradation); chance of developing small business (trickle-down effect from industry

business); additional physical infrastructures and facilities constructed by company;

potential job opportunities

- Regency level: Regency Own-source Revenue; food security; spatial planning

2. What do you think must be taken into account about the farmland conversion? Why?

3. How important/ significant is this farmland conversion to your matter?

4. What are your expectations regarding farmland conversion? Why?

Practice

1. What has been done in response towards farmland conversion case? Why?

2. How will this farmland conversion case happened in near future according to you?

3. What are the possible impact/ implication of farmland conversion to you? Why?

4. What will you do in the future in response towards farmland conversion case? How?

57

Conclusion

1. Is there something else you would like to discuss but we have not addressed yet?

2. What is the most important we have discussed in this interview?

3. Can you please summarize your view again about farmland conversion?

58

Appendix 1b Questionnaire to Local Government

Respondent Background

1. Name :

2. Title in Institution :

3. Role in Institution :

Historical Chronology

1. Please tell me the chronology of farmland ownership start from the early 1960. Please note the

important moments during that period.

2. There are different versions of historical chronology of farmland ownership occurred. Why does

it happen? What is your opinion about it?

3. What were the main causes of land dispute to occur?

Argument

1. What is your opinion regarding farmland conversion case in Karawang Regency? Why?

Probe:

a. Background

- Legal Basis: Land ownership right and regulation; land business license and regulation

b. Process

- Practice: Negotiation (interaction, agreement); participation (all related stakeholders

engagement, ability to voice the concerns); compensation (direct/ indirect compensation,

appropriateness); manipulation; social movement (strike, physical conflict)

- Actors: Characteristics; interests; power; connection; knowledge

- Value: Transparency; fairness; satisfaction; morality (physiological torture, physical

conflict)

c. Outcome

- Community level: Farmers’ livelihood (income, employment, source of food, social

arena);meaningless existing farming infrastructure

- District level: Environmental degradation (water catchment destruction, land

degradation); small business development chance (trickle-down effect from industry

business); additional physical infrastructures and facilities constructed by company;

potential job opportunities

- Regency level: Regency Own-source Revenue; food security; spatial planning

2. What do you think must be taken into account about the farmland conversion? Why?

3. How important/ significant is this farmland conversion to your matter?

4. What are your expectations regarding farmland conversion? Why?

Practice

1. What has been done in response towards farmland conversion case? Why?

2. How will this farmland conversion happened in near future according to you?

3. What are the possible impact/ implication of farmland conversion case to you? Why?

4. What will you do in the future in response towards farmland conversion case? How?

Conclusion

1. Is there something else you would like to discuss but we have not addressed yet?

2. What is the most important we have discussed in this interview?

3. Can you please summarize your view again about farmland conversion?

59

Appendix 1c Questionnaire to Company

Respondent Background

1. Name :

2. Title in Company :

3. Role in Company :

Historical Chronology

1. Please tell me the chronology of farmland ownership start from the early 1960. Please note the

important moments during that period.

2. There are different versions of historical chronology of farmland ownership occurred. Why does

it happen? What is your opinion about it?

3. What were the main causes of land dispute to occur?

Argument

1. What is your opinion regarding farmland conversion case in Karawang Regency? Why?

Probe:

a. Background

- Legal Basis: Land ownership right and regulation; land business license and regulation

b. Process

- Practice: Negotiation (interaction, agreement); participation (all related stakeholders

engagement, ability to voice the concerns); compensation (direct/ indirect compensation,

appropriateness); manipulation; social movement (strike, physical conflict)

- Actors: Characteristics; interests; power; connection; knowledge

- Value: Transparency; fairness; satisfaction; morality (physiological torture, physical

conflict)

c. Outcome

- Community level: Farmers’ livelihood (income, employment, source of food, social

arena); meaningless existing farming infrastructure

- District level: Environmental degradation (water catchment destruction, land

degradation); small business development chance (trickle-down effect from industry

business); additional physical infrastructures and facilities constructed by company;

potential job opportunities

- Regency level: Regency Own-source Revenue; food security; spatial planning

2. What do you think must be taken into account about the farmland conversion? Why?

3. How important/ significant is this farmland conversion to your matter?

4. What are your expectations regarding farmland conversion? Why?

Practice

1. What has been done in response towards farmland conversion case? Why?

2. How will this farmland conversion happened in near future according to you?

3. What are the possible impact/ implication of farmland conversion case to you? Why?

4. What will you do in the future in response towards farmland conversion case? How?

Conclusion

1. Is there something else you would like to discuss but we have not addressed yet?

2. What is the most important we have discussed in this interview?

3. Can you please summarize your view again about farmland conversion

60

Appendix 2 Map of Karawang Regency in West Java Province

Karawang Regency (red circle) is located in strategic position, between DKI Jakarta as the capital

city of Indonesia and Bandung as the capital city of West Java (yellow circle)

Source: West Java Province Official Website http://www.jabarprov.go.id/index.php/pages/id/99

BANTEN

PROVINCE

CENTRAL

JAVA

PROVINCE

WEST JAVA PROVINCE

MAP

TOLL-ROAD

TOLL-ROAD PLAN

PRIMARY ROAD

ALTERNATIVE ROAD

PROVINCE BORDER

REGENCY BORDER

LEGENDS:

61

Appendix 3 Farmland area is indicated by blue broken square sign

Source: Local National Land Agency, 2015

62

Appendix 4 Picture of Land Clearing

Some villagers that blocked one entry road to the farmland in order to hamper land clearing was shot

with water by policemen. This incident became the peak moment of the villagers’ rejection to the

farmland conversion.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSYIv5nfgN

63

Appendix 5 Flyer of Podomoro Industrial Park