THE STRUGGLE OF THE PEOPLE TO FIGHT BACK
AGAINST EXCLUSION AND RECLAIM THE ACCESS
TOWARD FORESTS
THE STRUGGLE OF THE PEOPLE TO FIGHT BACK
AGAINST EXCLUSION AND RECLAIM THE ACCESS
TOWARD FORESTS
Author:
Mia Siscawati
Noer Fauzi Rachman
Nani Saptariani
2014
THE STRUGGLE OF THE PEOBLE TO FIGHT BACK AGAINST EXCLUSION AND
RECLAIM THE ACCESS TOWARD FORESTS
Sajogyo Institute
Author:
Mia Siscawati
Noer Fauzi Rachman
Nani Saptariani
Layout:
Sugeng Riyadi
Design Cover:
Kurnianto
This research supported by Simenpuu Foundation
Sajogyo Institute
Sajogyo Institute didirikan pada tanggal 10 Maret 2005. Sajogyo Institute adalah lembaga yang bergerak dalam produksi dan layanan pengetahuan untuk kemajuan gerakan sosial dan perbaikan kebijakan agraria, dan pembangunan pedesaan di Indonesia
melalui penelitian, pendidikan, pelatihan, dan advokasi kebijakan, dengan tujuan untuk
membangun massa kritis dalam gerakan menegakkan keadilan agraria dan membangun kemandirian desa. Prof. Sajogyo merupakan salah satu pendiri Yayasan dan pemberi wakaf tanah yang berada di Jl. Malabar 22, Bogor, Jawa Barat, dengan keseluruhan
bangunan rumah dan perpustakaan beserta isinya.
Jl. Malabar No. 22, Bogor, Jawa Barat 16151
Telp/Fax: +62 251 8374048
www.sajogyo-institute.or.id
TABLE OF CONTENT
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION [1]
CHAPTER 2. CONCEPTUAL – ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK [7]
2.1. The Territorialization of the Control over
Forests [7]
2.2. The Theory of Access and Control [9]
2.3. The Power of Exclusion [10]
CHAPTER 3. THE CONTROL OF THE STATE OVER FORESTS
AND THE EXCLUSION TOWARD PEOPLE [13]
3.1. The Territorialization in the Control over
Forests in the Colonial Era [13]
3.3. The Territorialization in the Control over
Forests in the New Order Era [16]
3.3. The Territorialization in the Control over
Forests in the Post-New Order Era [21]
3.4. The “new” Forestry Business under the Control over Forests by the Government [22]
3.5. The Exclusion toward People and the Imbalance in the Control over Forest [24]
3.6. Gender Inequality [26]
CHAPTER 4. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE POLICIES AND
THE PRACTICE OF THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION IN THE ACCESS TOWARD FORESTS [31]
4.1. Colonial Era [33]
v
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
4.2. Old Order Era 1945-1966 [35]
4.3. The New Order Era [37]
4.4. Post-New Order Era [42]
4.4.1.The Revision in the Law of Forestry [42]
4.4.2.Community Empowerment Policy and Public Accesson Forests [46]
4.4.2.1. Social Forest Policies (HKM) [48]
4.4.2.2. Village Forest Policies [49]
4.4.2.3.
Hutan Tanaman Rakyat/ HTR
(People Forest) [52]
4.4.2.4. Partnership Policies [53]
CHAPTER 5. THE STRUGGLE OF THE PEOPLE TO RECLAIM THE RIGHTS OVER FORESTS: LESSONS
FROM SOUTH SUMATERA AND RIAU [55]
5.1. A Lesson from South Sumatera [56]
5.1.1.A Brief Socio-Ecological History of South
Sumatera [56]
5.1.2. The Inequality in the Control over Forest in
South Sumatera [57]
5.1.3. Using Village Forest Policy to Reclaim Forest Management Rights [60]
5.1.3.1. Background and Preliminary Process [60]
5.1.3.2.The Process of Proposing the Village Forest Permit [63]
5.1.3.3.The Complexity in the Process of
the Village Forest Permit [67]
5.1.3.4. Women and Village Forest [69]
5.2. A Lesson from Riau [70]
5.2.1.The Inequality in the Control over Forest in
Riau [70]
5.2.2. Using Village Forest Policy to Reclaim the
Forest Management Rights [73]
vi
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
5.2.2.1. Background and Preliminary Process [73]
5.2.2.2. A Long and Winding Road toward
the Establishment of Village Forest [78]
5.2.2.3. Women and Village Forest in Segamai and Serapung Village [81]
CHAPTER 6. CRITICAL REFLECTION ON VILLAGE FOREST
[87]
6.1. The Complexity in Village Forest Permit
and the Inequality in the Position of “the
people” [87]
6.2. Village Forest and the Inequality in Decision Making [88]
6.3. Village Forest and Indigenous Forest [90]
BIBLIOGRAPHY [93]
vii
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
viii
1
INTRODUCTION
S
truggle of the people over forest areas and the resources contained therein has a long history. During
the New Order, the legislation on forestry and other
related sectors supported the concept of the control over
forest areas and forest resources by the state. At the same
time, a series of policies at that time negated the existence
of indigenous peoples and other local communities that
had developed various forms of arrangement in tenure and
management of forest areas and forest resources based on
the local situation.
The legislation on forestry, which was based the
concept of the control over forest areas and forest resources by the state above, was followed by the division of forest functions. One of the main functions of the forest defined by the New Order regime was as production forest.
The policy related to production forest enabled the support
of the state toward the extension of the extraction of forests
1
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
by forest-related industries and other industries that operated based on the commodification of forests in various
regions in Indonesia. The state granted permit / license on
forest concession such as logging permit (formerly known
as forest concession / HPH) and the development of Hutan
Tanaman Industri/ HTI (timber or industrial forests). In
addition, in the legislation, the next function defined by the
state was conservation forest. The management of forest
areas allocated for conservation such as for National Parks
and Nature Reserves was in the hand of the units under the
Ministry of Forestry (now Ministry of Environment and
Forestry).
Most of the regions which were controlled by the
state and designated as state forests, which were allocated
to companies that held forestry permit / license (in the
context of production forests), and which were managed
as conservation areas were not “empty” areas. These areas were areas that had long been managed by the people,
either indigenous or other local communities. People reacted. They fought through a variety of ways. There were
a series of agrarian conflicts between indigenous peoples
with the concessionaires as well as with the government
agencies that managed conservation areas in the various
regions. Since the New Order era to the present time, the
units of government agencies and companies have usually
used various forms of violence in resolving conflicts including official security apparatus and elements of private security units.
Facing such situations, indigenous peoples in various regions in Indonesia initiated a number of resistance.
Although most indigenous resistance were led by male
leaders, women leaders also appeared in some places. In
the late 1980s, a woman from the village of Sugapa, Silaen,
North Sumatra named Nai Sinta led resistance of women
2
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
in defending their lands and territories seized by PT. Inti
Indorayon Utama (IIU), a pulp and paper company that obtained a concession from the Ministry of Forestry to open
the timber forest (Simbolon, 1998). During the period of
Nai Sinta leadership, the women of Sugapa fought one of
the largest industrial timber forest companies in Indonesia. Meanwhile, the environmental activists in Indonesia
also started aggressively launching a series of campaigns
against the destruction of forests. The main message of
the campaign was that the main actors of forest destruction were logging companies and timber or industrial forest companies (HTI). The content of the environmental
campaign was also intended to counter the discourse constructed by the government and the company, which stated
that deforestation and forest degradation were caused by
the actions of local communities who practiced intercropping. In addition to developing various forms of resistance,
including through environmental campaigns, Indonesian
environmental activists also began facilitating community
organizing groups for marginalized groups that territories
were seized by the state either through extractive concessions such as logging and timber or industrial forest or
through forest conservation (in the form of national parks,
protected forests and other protected areas).
This manuscript contains investigations on the
struggle of the people toward access to forests in Indonesia
which has taken place in various domains, including within
the policy domain. The struggle cannot be separated from
efforts to remove the shackles of tenure and forest management policies. Therefore, this manuscript also exposes a
critical review on policies related to forest tenure policies
and policies related to the access toward forests that have
evolved from since colonial era until now. To investigate
the struggle of the people against exclusion and to reclaim
3
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
access to the forest, this manuscript serves experiences
at community level in Riau and South Sumatra. The main
references used in describing the experiences in Riau and
South Sumatra are based on the reports from the research
team in the two areas.
This manuscript employs several frameworks of approaches used in the overall process of the study on the
struggle of the people against exclusion and how they reclaim access over forests. One of the approaches is the approach that puts gender, both as a cultural construction
and as an analytical concept, with class and other variables
in the dynamics of people’s struggle over forests. This approach becomes an important aspect in checking the series
of policies and actions at the community level.
This manuscript contains the investigation about
the struggle of the people’s access toward forests, which
includes a critical review on the policies of the control over
forests and that related to the access toward forests since
the colonial era to the present. To describe people’s struggle to fight back against exclusion and reclaim the access
toward forests, this paper describes the experience at the
community level in Riau and South Sumatra. Each team of
researchers in the two regions generates its own research
reports. Along with some frameworks which are used in
the overall process of the study on this topic, this paper
explores how gender, as the cultural construction and analytical concept, with class and other variables become an
important aspect in examining the series of policies and action at the community level.
The structure of this report is as follows. The first part
contains the introduction in which the writers will provide
an introduction to the background and objectives of this
study. The second part contains conceptual-analytical approach adopted both in the writing of this manuscript and
4
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
in the field research in Riau and South Sumatra. The third
part contains a discussion on the problems concerning the
access and exclusion of people toward forests. The fourth
part explores the control of the state over forests. The fifth
part contains the development of the policies and the practices of the institutionalization in the access toward forests. The sixth part contains an investigation on the forms
of the people’s struggle to fight back against exclusion and
improve the access toward forests. The seventh part, which
is the concluding remarks, exposes critically the position
of the village forest policy and other policies related to the
people’s access toward forests in the contemporary era,
especially in the era of post-Constitutional Court Decision
No. 35 / PUU-X / 2012 on indigenous forests and the enactment of the new Village Law (Undang-Undang Desa/ UU
Desa), UU Desa No. 6 of 2014.
5
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
6
2
CONCEPTUAL – ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1. The Territorialization of the Control over Forests
I
n analyzing the territorialization of the state’s control
over forests in Indonesia, we use the territorialization
concept of the state’s control developed by Peter Vandergeest and Nancy Peluso in their article on the historical analysis of the territorialization of the control toward
forests control in Thailand since the late nineteenth century (Vandergeest and Peluso 1995). The article from Vandergeest and Peluso shows how the control of the state is
territorialized within the boundaries defined politically
space and how the relation of this process to the allocation and the realization of the right of access to resources
in addition to the control of the people who use these resources is (Vandergeest and Peluso 1995, p .387). They use
the concept of Robert Sack of territoriality as a “the effort
of a person or group of people to influence or control people, phenomena, and relationships by limiting and assert
the control over a geographic area” (Sack 1986). It is about
7
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
inclusion and exclusion of people and activities in an area
which is determined by a line and limited and which is further defined by the state as an abstract space. In another
article, Vandergeest defines territorialization as “a process that is created by the state to control the people and
their activities by creating a line around the geographical
space, blocking certain people to enter the space, and allowing or prohibiting activities within the boundary of the
space”(Vandergeest 1996, p. 159).
Vandergeest and Peluso investigated the territorialization of people and resources in rural areas, particularly
in the following three processes: the territorialization of
the civilian government in rural areas in Siam/Thailand
and the state seeks to control the use of a large number of
national territory by creating boundaries and define it as
a forest (Vandergeest and Peluso 1995, p. 391). In another
article, Vandergeest emphasizes three stages of territorialization as the control of the state over forests (Vandergeest
1996). First, the state claimed that all the lands considered
‘as the property of nobody’ as the state’s property. At this
stage, the state intends to earn revenues from natural resource extraction. The next stage is to establish the boundaries of the lands declared as the property of the state to
emphasize the control of a territory by the state over the
natural resources. After the boundaries are set, the area
will be closed and the state prohibits anyone from accessing the region and the natural resources in it unless the
state gives permit or concession. The last stage of the territorialization of the state’s control over forests is when the
state launches a program that can be called ‘functional territorialization’. In the case of Thailand, this approach was
settled in 1960 by implementing a management model of
land used in the US where the state divides the forest into
a wide variety of functions based on scientific criteria of
8
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
such slope, rainfall, and soil type. The main result of this
program is the zoning of a region to regulate the types of
activities allowed in each zone (Vandergeest 1996).
The processes of such territorialization also occur
in Indonesia. The strategy of such territorialization that
have occurred since the colonial era to the present is a nonlinear process of money, is full of dynamics, and is implemented through negotiations and interactions between the
institutions of the state and the non-state actors in a period.
2.2. The Theory of Access and Control
The theory of access (to land and other resources)
focuses on who gains benefits from certain resources and
through what processes this party can take advantage of
these resources. This theory emphasizes “fokus empiris
pada berbagai situasi yang dihadapi oleh siapa yang bisa
(dan yang tidak bisa) memanfaatkan sumberdaya apa, dengan
cara apa, dan kapan (yaitu, dalam keadaan apa)” (“the empirical focus on a wide range of situations faced by anyone
who can (and cannot) take advantage of what resources, by
what means, and in what situation (ie, under what circumstances)”) (Neale 1998: 48-italic, according tothe original
manuscript quoted in Ribot and Peluso 2003). Furthermore, this theory proposes the users to trace the net of
power which allows certain parties to acquire, control, and
maintain access to certain resources. Different individuals
and different institutions can have and carry bundles and
different nets of power. Therefore, certain individuals, certain social groups, and certain institutions can have control over access to resources (directly), while other parties
(ranging from the level of the individual, the group, and the
institution) should maintain their access through the parties that have such authorization.
9
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
According to the theory of access developed by Ribot and Peluso (2003), there are several important mechanisms to acquire, control, defend, and maintain access,
one of which is the access mechanism through the rights
or known as a rights-based access (rights-based access).
Other mechanisms are categorized as structural and relational mechanisms of access, for example, the access to the
authorities, access to knowledge, social relations based access, and access through social identity (Ribot and Peluso
2003).
The application of the access theory using a feminist
perspective will help us understand how women and other
marginalized groups in the community obtain, defend,
control, and maintain access over forests. In many places,
women from different social groups have to negotiate with
their close relatives who have control over land and forest
resources. They also have to negotiate with other external
parties, ranging from companies which hold the license of
concession to the government that control over areas designated as protected areas and conservation. These parties implement forest control through various mechanisms,
processes, and social relationships.
2.3. The Power of Exclusion
The series of processes to control access over lands
and the processes of obtaining and maintaining access experienced by indigenous peoples and local communities,
especially women and other marginalized groups in it, occur through a variety of mechanisms and involve a variety
of actors who all work in the net of power that excludes
certain individuals, certain social groups, and / or certain
institutions (Hall et al. 2011).
10
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
In the book entitled “Powers of Exclusion: Land dilemmas in Southeast Asia”, Derek Hall, Philip Hirsch, and
Tania Li (2011) articulate four factors of power that make
an important contribution in the process of excluding others
from the access to lands in Southeast Asia. These four factors are: (1) regulation, mainly related to a series of laws
and regulations defined by the state; (2) the imposition by
force, either by state or non-state actors; (3) market, which
encourages the elimination or restriction of access to lands
through the price mechanism and by providing incentives
for land claims which are more individualistic; (4) legitimacy, ranging from the claims of the government to make
arrangements, either by using the economic rationality or
political considerations, to various forms of moral justification that work at the community level, such as the role of
indigenous leaders.
The power of exclusion works through a variety of
processes and a variety of actors, through both state and
natural resource exploitation based corporation, through
the policy of development, and other strategic policies
which are close to the power of market, through violence
and threats of violence against the community in the process of expropriation of lands, as well as through various
forms of legitimacy, including the legitimacy that comes
from within the community itself and / or close relatives,
referred as intimate exclusion (Hall et al. 2011).
11
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
12
3
THE CONTROL OF THE STATE OVER FORESTS
AND THE EXCLUSION TOWARD PEOPLE
3.1. The Territorialization in the Control over Forests
in the Colonial Era
T
he territorialization process in the control over forests
in the colonial period began at the time when VOC
encouraged the extraction of forest in Java since
1600 until VOC was dissolved in 1800. The process forest
extraction in Java was specifically organized to extract timber through several stages. At the first stage, during the
period of 1600-1677, VOC created various forms of agreements with local authorities, so that VOC could obtain one
sort of business license. The business license was applied
by working with local groups that produced wood as loggers in Karawang, the northern part of West Java, and the
merchants of Chinese timber in Jepara, Central Java (Boomgaard 1992).
At the second stage, during the period of 1677 - 1745,
in cooperation with certain royals and/or aristocratic
13
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
groups, VOC managed to get the rights to all teak produced
in important areas that enabled VOC to have control over
more teak regions lie (Boomgaard 1992). During this period,
VOC set some forest areas in several areas in West Java and
Central Java as their work area. In those region, VOC put
other Dutch and Europeans as supervisors for the local
corvees (called rodi labors) (Peluso 1992). Those corvees
in Java at the time were labors who traditionally worked
for free for aristocrats and nobles. The process of this relationship was closely related the control of lands by aristocrats and nobles. When the territory controlled by those
aristocrats and nobles changed to be the property of VOC,
the corvees began to be employed by VOC (also unpaid).
Various groups in the series of land and forest tenure, either the supervisors (Dutch or other European countries),
the aristocrats and nobles, or the corvees who were landless were men.
VOC not only took timber and other resources, but
they also began to control the territory of ​​their operation.
In 1619, VOC built the capital in the port city of Jayakarta
and changed its name to Batavia (now Jakarta). Over the
next two centuries, companies got two additional ports as
a trading base and saved their interests by conquering the
surrounding regions. This port remained a major concern
of trade and contributed for 18% of annual income for almost 200 years (Ricklefs 2008). Because of the problem of
corruption faced in the late 18th century, VOC went bankrupt and was formally dissolved in 1800. When VOC was
dissolved, all the propertis and debts were taken over by
the Dutch government. The territories of VOC were also set
to be the region of the Dutch East Indies which was considered as the Dutch colony (Ricklefs 2008).
The Governor General Herman Willem Daendels,
who became governor-general of the Dutch East Indies
14
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
throughout 1808-1811, set the first rules on forest management concentrated in Java in 1803. Daendels also appointed inspector general of forests and established the
Council of Forest, which consisted of five high-ranking
government officials. The inspector-generals and council
were assisted by twenty forest supervisors, each of which
coordinated with the head of loggers (called blandong).
This institution became Dinas Kehutanan Kolonial (Colonial Forestry Service or Boschwezen). In 1849, the first
professional forester, a German educated, was chosen with
a mandate to develop cultivation practices for teak forests
(Boomgaard 1992).
The Colonial Forestry Service established the Colonial Law of Forestry for Java and Madura in 1865. This law
formally adapted the approach of land tenure and the forested
area by the state. The next phase was the assertion step
in the state’s control by the enactment of the legislation
known as the ‘Domeinverklaring’ in 1870. This regulation put
all forested lands as the state’s lands except lands under
private ownership (Peluso 1992, Vandergeest and Peluso
2001 Simon 2001). Referring to the concept of territorialization (Vandergeest 1996), the establishment of Domeinverklaring was the first phase of territorialization in the
control of forests by the state.
The second phase of territorialization in the control
of forests in the colonial period occurred when the Colonial
Forestry Service (Boschwezen) defined the boundaries between farmlands and forest lands and organized the determination of the territories controlled by the state from the
forest areas. This phase created fully ‘political forests “ in
the era of the colonial state (Vandergeest & Peluso 2001).
Until then, the principle of public responsibility for the
management of resources in the interests of the Dutch government, as outlined by the Governor-General Daendels, had
15
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
been definitely set firmly in the policy of forestry. The principle that the best forest management was guaranteed by
the state management of forest land was logically led to the
establishment of a professional governmental forestry service. It’s responsibilities included controlling forest lands,
replanting open forests, developing the species of trees, as
well as improving forest management practices (Peluso
1992).
The next phase of territorialization in the control
over forests, which was a process known as’ functional
territorialization “(Vandergeest 1996), occurred when the
Dutch Colonial Forestry Service determined the area of​​
forests to other functions such as production forests and
protected forests. The territorialization processes to control forests by the state still continues until today. The following section describes how the post-colonial Indonesian
government, particularly the New Order regime that ruled
with authoritarian and militaristic approach, made policies
that strengthen the territorialization in the state’s control
over forests.
3.2. The Territorialization in the Control over Forests
in the New Order Era
Not long after the Indonesian independence on August 17, 1945, there was intense debate between the two
groups of Indonesian foresters, the seniors and the juniors.
The senior foresters, those who called themselves “foresters of 1945” because they had participated in the revolution in to fight for the independence (Soepardi 1974),
explained that the purpose of forest management in Java
focused on the long-term management approach with economic orientation. Thus, the control should be in the hand
of the government. This idea, called by the junior foresters as “old school”, was in line with “the scientific forestry”
16
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
which was developed by the colonial government with the
aim of utilizing the economic functions of forests to meet
the country’s needs and the interests of the nation in the
development. The junior foresters suggested that forest
management in the post-colonial Java should look closely
at the needs of people living in and around forests. The debate over these two different concepts continued until the
mid-1950s to mid-1960s (Soepardi 1974).
The territorialization process in the state’s control
over forests reached its peak during the New Order ruled
President Suharto. The foundation of this regime was the
political control and economic development based on natural resource extraction. To secure this process, the Soeharto’s government issued Undang-Undang Pokok Kehutanan
(The Basic Law of Forestry No. 5 1967). This law adapted
the colonial law of forestry that considered all forest areas
- except the small areas of private forest lands - was the
property of the state and therefore, should be managed under the system which is regulated by the state.
Certain articles in the Basic Law of Forestry describe
the concept of territorialization in the control over forests
by the state, especially the first phase of territorialization
(i.e. the determination of certain areas into state forests)
and the second phase of territorialization (the determination of the boundaries). Article 1, subsection 1 of the Basic
Law of Forestry No. 5 of 1967 states that “forest” is a field
of trees that grows on the whole as a communion of biological nature with the natural environment and that is established by the Government as a forest. Article 1, subsection 4 of this law states that “forest areas” are certain areas
determined by the Minister to be maintained as Permanent
Forest. Article 2, which states on forest ownership, defines
two categories of forests: the state forests and the private
forests. State forest is a forest area and forest growing on a
17
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
land without the rights of ownership. Private forest is forest
growing on a land with the rights of ownership. Article 5,
Subsection 1 of this law confirms the territorialization in
the control over forests by the state by stating that “all forests
in the territory of the Republic of Indonesia, including the
natural resources contained in them, are controlled by the
State.” The state’s control over forests is further emphasized by Subsection 2 of the same Article. This subsection
states that “The right to control of the state in Subsection 1
gives the authority to: (a) Establish and organize the planning, allocation, provision, and use of forests in accordance
with their functions in providing benefits to the people and
the state; (b) regulate forest management in a broad sense;
(C) determine and regulate the relations between people
or legal entities and forests and also regulate legal acts on
forest”(Rachman and Siscawati 2013).
Following the enactment of the Basic Law of Forestry
of 1967, the Indonesian government established a policy
of forest land use known as Tata Guna Hutan Kesepakatan/
TGHK (Forested Land Use Agreement). This policy was
determined by consensus established by the Government
Regulation No.33 of 1970 and formalized in a series of
the Regulations of the Minister of Agriculture in 1980 and
1981. Based on TGHK, forest area was allocated to: (1) production forest, intended to be extracted to support the export of timber and industrial forest (64.3 million hectares);
(2) protected forest (30.7 million hectares); (3) conservation areas and forest of nature reserve (18.8 million hectares); and (4) forest production that can be repurposed
(26.6 million hectares). The deadline for the compliance
of TGHK was planned in 1985. With the support from the
projects sponsored by the World Bank at that time, the Department of Forestry launched the process of demarcation
toward forest lands as the realization the TGHK policy. The
TGHK policy governing the allocation of forest areas into
18
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
certain functions clearly implemented the third phase of
the territorialization in the control over forests stated by
Peter Vandergeest in the study of forest in Thailand (Vandergeest 1996) as functional territorialization.
TGHK served as a legal reference for the extraction of
forest, especially in the islands outside Java. By using this
policy, especially in the part about the allocation of production forests, the Department of Forestry had licensed
the “concession” to the logging companies, both private
and state-owned enterprises, known as Hak Pengusahaan
Hutan /HPH (forest concession rights) which began in the
1970s. Through this process, the New Order extended its
control over the extraction of forest resources, particularly
concerning to timber with very high economic value, to islands outside the islands of Java and Madura (also known
as the outer islands). By applying the wood-based extractive forestry and granting licenses of forest lands to logging
companies both private and state-owned companies during 1970s and early 1980s, the New Order regime facilitated the process of large-scale forest exploitation. Woods
produced from this process were mainly exported as logs.
Most companies that received logging concessions were
closely linked with the military institutions (such as the
military cooperative) or the high-ranking military officers
(Dauvergne 1997: 71-72).
In the mid-1980s, the large-scale extraction process
began to cause damage of forests and reduction in the
production of wood, especially woods with very high economic value. At the same time, foreign investments came
to support the development of wood-based industries such
as plywood. In 1980, the government changed its forestry
policy by introducing a ban on the export of logs and encouraging the development of plywood industries. Until the late
1980s, Indonesia was the largest plywood producer in the
world and won seventy-five percent of the world market.
19
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
Entering the era of 1990s, offers from foreign investments to develop pulp and paper industries intensified. During this period, the Ministry of Forestry began to
license “the development of timber or industrial forests”
(Hutan Tanaman Industri/ HTI) to private companies and
other SOEs (state-owned enterprises). Many companies
flocked to apply for HTI. The main factors that triggered
the increase for the HTI license was the subsidies and access to forest lands as the location of HTI. This easiness also
encouraged the majority of private companies applying for
a license for timber forests to get free woods from clearcutting process which was part of land clearing in the area
that would be developed into timber forests and to obtain
financial aid provided by the government (Kartodihardjo
and Supriono 2000).
The situation mentioned above, particularly the poor
control of large-scale operations poorly managed, the noncompliance of the concessionaires to the principles of sustainable forestry, the lack of law enforcement, the overcapacity of plywood industries, and reforestation which was
hardly conducted were resulted in a very rapid exploitation of primary forests (Hurst 1990). The deforestation
during the period of 1982 and 1993 reached extraordinary
number, which was 2.4 million hectares per year (Bobsein
and Hoffmann 1998). Massive forest fires at the end of the
New Order were the culmination of the process of deforestation and forest degradation. Different from that opinion
stated by the government that the forest fire was caused
by shifting cultivators, forest fire at that time was actually
driven by a large number of burning done by the parties
in the areas of land clearing in timber or industrial forest
areas (HTI) and in the palm oil plantation areas which the
construction began to be conducted by converting forests
(Siscawati 1998).
20
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
3.3. The Territorialization in the Control over Forests
in the Post-New Order Era
When the New Order regime lost its power, marked
by the resignation of President Soeharto in May 1998, the
territorialization was not automatically terminated. The
new law of forestry, The Law of Forestry No. 41 of 1999,
unfortunately, continued this approach. In terms of the
definition of ‘forest’, it was different from previous law (i.e.
The Basic Law of Forestry No. 5 of 1967) which interpreted
a forest area as simply a place covered by trees. The Law of
Forestry No. 41 adopted the ecosystem approach. Article 1
of the Law of Forestry No. 41 of 1999 states that “Forest is
the unity of ecosystem in the form of landscape which contains biological resources, which is dominated by trees in
their natural environment, and which cannot be separated
one to another.” However, this law adopts a relatively conventional approach in viewing the ecosystem where people
do not become the part of it.
In defining “forest area”, Article 1 of the Law of Forestry No. 41 of 1999 refers to “a particular area designated or
established by the government to be maintained as permanent forest.” Based on the status of forest, Article 5 of the
Law of Forestry No. 41 of 1999 confirms that there are two
categories of forest: state forests and rights-based forest.
State forest refers to a forest in the land without rights over
the land. Another category is rights-based forest which
refers to a forest with rights over the land. This category
is usually translated as private forest. However, Article 1
of the Law of Forestry No. 41 of 1999 does not explicitly
state this category as private forest (Rachman and Siscawati 2013).
This law recognizes the existence of indigenous forests categorizes them as state forests. Article 5 of this law
states that “state forests as referred to in subsection (1)
21
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
letter a, may be in the form of indigenous forests”. Subsection 3 of the same article states that “The government sets
the status of forests as referred to in subsection (1) and
subsection (2); and indigenous forests are set as long as in
reality the related indigenous peoples still exist and their
existence is recognized “. All the articles show that the Law
of Forestry No. 41 of 1999 do not refer to the claims made
by the indigenous peoples that their customary forests had
existed long before the modern country called Indonesia
was born. Moreover, the Law of Forestry No. 41 of 1999 has
not recognized the rights of indigenous peoples over forest
land and resources contained in it (Rachman and Siscawati
2013).
3.4. The “new” Forestry Business under the Control
over Forests by the Government
Along with the development of the ecosystem approach
in forest management in Indonesia, which was started
since the end of the New Order, various parties began to
build the discourse on the development of the environmental service – based forest resource management approach (“environmental services”). The development of
this discourse could not be separated from the discourse
on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and
Forest Degradation/ REDD) as well as the discourse of carbon trading at the international level. The Department of
Forestry responded to various discourses by developing
policies and programs adopting the approach. One of the
steps taken was to establish policies on giving concession
of ecosystem restoration to private companies and SOEs.
The policy was firstly determined by the Ministry of
Forestry in 2004. At that time, the Ministry of Forestry set
22
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
Hutan Harapan (Harapan Rainforest), which was located in
two provinces, namely South Sumatra and Jambi, as a concession area of forest restoration firstly set in Indonesia.
The area of Harapan Rainforest was set in the former concession area (HPH), where most of the lands were located
in the district of Sorolangun. The concession permit holder
was PT. REKI under the consortium of three institutions,
namely Burung Indonesia, The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and Birdlife International.
However, a study conducted by the researchers of Sajogyo Institute shows that the manager of the ecosystem
restoration area of Harapan Rainforest inherited the condition where there was ambiguity on agrarian boundaries
between that region with other surrounding regions. There
were also problems of administrative boundaries between
villages in the region. This condition triggered various
agrarian conflicts between actors in various arenas (public,
government, and private sector) (Mardiana 2014). Besides,
in the forest area designated as an area of ​​ecosystem restoration, there were indigenous peoples, local community
that had existed for long time, and groups of migrants with
their living activities which were also derived from the
availability of lands and forests in the region. The presence
of the ecosystem restoration concessions continued the
expropriation of the living area of the communities, which
previously had happened in the period when the control
over the land-region was in the hand of companies holding
the concession of HPH. Round-by-round of the expropriation of land and people’s living area had created poverty,
low levels of education, community health, and other social
crises. The women and marginalized groups among indigenous peoples, local communities and immigrant communities bore a heavier social impact (Siscawati and Rachman 2014).
23
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
Although a variety of problems in the area of ​​ecosystem restoration of Hutan Harapan began to burst to the
surface and became public discourse, this did not deter the
other investors. In 2009, the Ministry of Forestry received
a number of applications of forest ecosystem restoration
in some other areas covering two million hectares of forest
area (Birdlife International 2010).
3. 5. The Exclusion toward People and the Imbalance in
the Control over Forest
The series of forest and forestry policies in Indonesia since the colonial period to the present time have
made a significant contribution to the reduction of forest
areas and perpetuated the inequality in forest tenure. The
latest data said that the total of state forest area was 136
million hectares remaining. Of the area, it was mentioned
that the permanent production forest covered an area of​​
about 34 million hectares, and the production forest management was in the hands of 537 companies that received
permit of logging concessions, timber or industrial forests
and the restoration of ecosystems. In addition, there was
a production forest that could be converted to other uses,
covering an area of ​​about 20 million hectares (Ministry of
Forestry). The area was accessed more by the companies of
palm oil plantations and mining by asking permit to manage this area (for either plantation or mining). Meanwhile,
until now, less than 2 million hectares have been allocated
by the government to be managed by community groups
through social forestry schemes (Village Forest, Hutan Kemasyarakatan/ HKM (Social forest), Hutan Tanaman Rakyat/ HTR (People’s forest).
Areas which had obtained permit from the government for social forestry had not provided space for women
and marginalized groups to participate actively. Even in
24
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
some places, community groups that hold the social forestry permits (in some schemes as mentioned above) marginalized women and other marginalized groups. Furthermore, social forestry schemes had not really touched the
marginal families, including women the head of household
(Siscawati 2009).
The issue of exclusion of people from forest areas,
mainly related to the unrecognized existence of various
community groups and their living areas, was constantly raised by activists of social movements since the late
1980s. The long struggle of the activists started showing a
good result when the government issued official information about the existence of villages in the region and on the
edge of the state forest.
The data of identification of village forest issued by
Ministry of Forestry in 2007 (covering 15 provinces) and in
2009 (covering 17 other provinces) showed the total number of villages in the state forest was 25, 863 villages. The
State Ministry of the Development Acceleration Program
for Disadvantaged Regions (P3DT) in 2009 showed that
the percentage of poor families living in village forest was
more than twice of the percentage of poor families in Indonesia. In April 2013, the Minister of Forestry stated that
21 percent of people living around forests were poor. However, there was no significant change in the policy related
to forests and forestry. Ninety-seven percent of state forest
management license was in the hands of corporations.
The villages located in and around state forests had
a variety of conditions. According to Myrna Safitri (2012),
there are three types of village based on location and access to
the forest: a) a village that the settlement area and management area are in the forest / concession area; b) a village
that part of the settlement area and the whole management area are in the forest / concession area; c) a village
25
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
that the whole settlement is on the edge of forest area/ surrounding forest area, but the whole management area is in
the forest / concession area. Based on the history of forest
tenure, Safitri (2012) identifies that there are at least three
types of villages: a) villages existed in forest areas prior to
the designation of the region, due to the policy of colonial /
national government or traditional way; b) villages existed
after the designation of forest areas; c) villages existed before the change of function of the area / the expansion of
designated area.
3.6. Gender Inequality
Examine in depth the statistical data of rich areas (or
formerly rich) which was rich of forest resources, but the
control of land, territories, and resources was in the hands
of the state and the management was in the hands of corporate or government institutions. Most of the region not only
had a fairly high level of poverty but also had low education
levels, and low levels of health. Furthermore, these areas
were areas that had fairly high levels of gender inequality.
Here is one of many stories that illustrates various forms of
gender inequality that occurred as a result of the exclusion
of the people in forest tenure. 1
Banang was a ten year old girl who lived in a betang
house (long house) in an indigenous village in the remote
area of Kapuas Hulu, West Kalimantan. At that time, she
was in the fourth grade of primary school. She had a noble
dream: to become a teacher. Banang’s friend named Galu, a
little girl who lived next door in betang home, wanted to be
a midwife. However, it seemed that curving road blocked
their dreams. It was not impossible that they stopped af1
The story was narrated by Mia Siscawati in a manuscript entitled
“Negara Mangkir” prepared for Inkuiri Nasional Masyarakat Adat
(the National Inquiry of Indigenous Peoples) in 2014.
26
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
ter completing their primary school. Their older sisters
only went to primary school and married at a very young
age. When they were at the same age as Banang and Galu,
they had high dreams. Unfortunately, numerous obstacles
tackled their dreams. To go to the nearest high school, it
took six-hour to commute (to go and back) every day. Although the school did not charge for school fees, their families were too poor to pay for travel expenses or the cost of
boarding house. Their families were also not ready if the
daughters continued their education for various reasons.
The tradition to marry daughters at a very young age repeated again. The similar future would become a barrier
for Banang and Galu.
The parents of Banang and Galu, and also the parents
of other little girls, their best friend, had to fight against
poverty and the difficult life in their own hometown. An
indigenous village that should have abundant forest resources and other natural resources such as jungle, old orchards, including tembawang (mixed garden containing a
variety of fruit trees and other timber tree), rubber plantations, fields, vegetable gardens, and river. Those agrarian
resources had been managed by the villagers since the previous generations and had become the sources of life. Local
knowledge, tradition, and customary law became the foundation in organizing and managing the sources of life. The
women in the village had its own knowledge and important
role in managing the sources of life. However, the people of
the village did not have power over the sources of sources.
The state set the whole area of ​​indigenous peoples
living in the village as a state forest area that served as production forest. The Ministry of Forestry gave permit for utilization of natural timber forest products (formerly known
as forest concession rights/ HPH) to companies. As time
went by, the permit was granted to several different com27
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
panies. The arrival of logging companies changed the order
of life in the village. Women and men could not cultivate
the fields, different types of gardens, and forest resources
contained within the scope of their traditional territories
as usual. As a result, their fields could no longer meet the
needs of food for their families. The destruction of forests
due to logging by the companies made the women find it
difficult to look for a variety of forest plants that had become the source of food and medicine. They could no longer access their own gardens, including rubber plantations,
mixed garden containing a variety of fruit trees and timber.
The gardens were previously the source of the family livelihood. Life became more difficult when a family member
was ill and required medical expenses. Some families began to be trapped in debt to the loan shark who came from
outside the village. The closed access to the living space and
the sources of life in it as well as the environmental damage
put the villagers into poverty. Women from poor families,
including women as the head of household, teenagers and
girls had a more vulnerable position. Young girls and girls
from poor families were also vulnerable to persuasion to
wander out of the village to be child labors. They were also
at risk of becoming victims of woman and child trafficking
that started growing.
To survive, some adult men worked as cheap labors
for the company, some went outside the village for a living, and some others speculated by trying to go deep into
the jungle to scavenge timber forest products remaining.
The men that went for working for a long time increased
the burden of women. The situation was more complicated when the villagers started having more problems with
the company. The problems then developed into conflicts
which were responded by the company with violent approach that threatened the safety of the residents of the
28
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
village. Poverty and social injustices that occurred with it,
the marginalization and the exclusion of women that were
perpetuated by those two things, and agrarian conflicts
put women, including adolescents and girls, in a position
which was more vulnerable to gender-based violence.
Similar stories, with different variants, scattered in
many indigenous areas in the country which were set unilaterally as state forests where the control was in the hands
of the Ministry of Forestry. Examine in depth the statistical
data of rich areas (or formerly rich) which was rich of forest resources, but the control of land, territories, and resources was in the hands of the state and the management
was in the hands of corporate or government institutions.
Most of the region not only had a fairly high level of poverty
but also had low education levels, and low levels of health.
The statistical data on education and health in 2012 in the
district where Banang and Balu lived showed that the average time for school was 7 to 8 years. It meant that the people in that district could only study until the first grade of
junior high school. There were 6.65 percent of the people
above 10 years old who were illiterate. The level of illiterate
women above 10 years old was higher than the men in the
same age group. The same statistical data (2012) showed
the high percentage of women who married at young age,
which was 30.34 percent for 16-18 years old and 6.75 for
under 15 years old. The health of female reproduction in
that district was also low. Even, there was a rise on the
maternal mortality due to birth in the last four years. The
neonatal death rate, the mortality of the newborn babies
that live for 28 days after they are born, was also quite high.
Similarly, it happened to 29 days old and 11 months old
babies. West Kalimantan Province was one of the provinces in which the maternal mortality rate due to birth was
higher than the national rate in 2012. Two other mortality
29
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
rates, the neonatal and the mortality of 29 days old and 11
months old babies, were also high. The other districts in
this province were recorded as areas rich of forest resources
but had high rate of the three types of mortality. Besides,
this province was one of the provinces with fairly high rate
of woman trafficking.
What is the meaning of the data above? First, the data
show that poverty, social injustice, and gender inequality
in indigenous areas in which their communities depend on
forest and other agrarian resources have strong relation
with the imbalance in land tenure that is perpetuated by
the state legislation.
30
4
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE POLICIES AND
THE PRACTICE OF THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION IN THE ACCESS TOWARD FORESTS
A
discussion of forest management policies by the
people today cannot be separated from the discussion
about the Law of Forestry No. 41 of 1999, including
the discussion of the Constitutional Court Decision on the
Case Number 35 / PUU-X / 2012 which is a response from
the Constitutional Court (MK) on a lawsuit filed by AMAN
to the Constitutional Court to conduct a judicial review toward the Law of Forestry No. 41 of 1999.
The core of the Law of Forestry No. 41 of 1999 is not
so much different from the previous law of forestry (Basic
Law of Forestry No. 5 of 1967), which is about the control
of the state over forest areas and the control of the state
over the management of forest areas and forest resources
contained in the areas. In other words, the state becomes
the main subject in the control of forest areas as well as in
the control over the management system of forest land and
forest resources. However, the Law of Forestry No. 31 of
31
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
1999 starts placing people as a party that has some limited rights over forests. The Law of Forestry No. 41 of 1999
puts the community as: a) a party that will be guaranteed
to benefit from forest tenure by the state (Chapter 1 Article
3); b) a party that has rights to enjoy the quality of the
environment resulted by forests (Chapter X of Article 67
Subsection 1); c) a party that may take advantage of forests
and forest products in accordance with the valid legislation
(Chapter X, subsection 2); d) a party that is able to know
the forest allotment plan, forest product utilization and
forestry information; provide information, advices, and
considerations in forestry development; and monitor the
implementation of forestry development, either directly or
indirectly (Chapter X, Article 67, Subsection 2).
In addition to began including some limited rights
for the community, the Law of Forestry No. 1 of 1999 also
includes the obligation of the community as follows: a) the
obligation to participate in preserving and maintaining
forest areas from disruption and destruction (Chapter X,
Article 69). It is also stated that people participate in the
development in the field of forestry (Chapter X, Article
70, Subsection 1). The obligation for society is accompanied by the government’s obligation in which the government “shall encourage the participation of the community
through various activities in forestry which are effective
and efficient” (Chapter X, Article 70, Subsection 2).
Although the Law of Forestry No. 41 starts listing
some limited rights for communities in forest management, this law does not include a special mandate for the
government to develop a policy on forest management by
the people. The term indigenous peoples and indigenous
forests are included in the Law No. 41 of 1999. However,
the status of indigenous forests is still considered as state
forest.
32
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
When the government began to develop a policy on
forest management by the people through Government
Regulation No. 6 of 2007 which was then revised into No. 3
of 2008, the space provided for the people is rights on temporal access to manage state forests through social forest
schemes (HKM) and Village Forest. After some time, the
other scheme was developed, people’s forests (HTR) and
Partnership. Actually, this policy is more accurately described
as a policy of access over forests.
The development of a series of government policies
that provide space for forest management by the people
has its own journey which cannot be detached from the history. This chapter contains the investigation of the development progress of the policy on the forest management by
the people, which actually contains policies on unfettered
access over forests by the state as the control of power over
forest areas and the management system of forest areas.
Like the previous chapter, we explore the progress of the
policies since the colonial period, remembering that the
policy at the present time is still affected by the legacy of
the substance from colonial government policy substance.
4.1. Colonial Era
As already mentioned in chapter 3 of this manuscript,
in the early 19th century, Daendels, who at that time served
as the Governor General of the Dutch colonial government,
formed Dienst van het Boschwezen (Forestry Service) and
issued Peraturan Pemangkutan Hutan di Jawa (the Regulation for Forest Management in Java) that used the approach
of “control by the state” in which, in one of them, it was
stated that “The Forest Management is the domain of the
state and is conducted solely in the interests of the state”
(Soepardi 1974, Peluso, 1992, Simon 2001). This regulation, then, was developed into forest management laws in
33
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
Java and Madura issued in 1865, which was called Baschordonantie voor Java en Madoera 1865 (The Law of Forestry
for Java and Madura 1865) and followed by the regulation
of Domeinverklaring 1870 claiming that forest land without
private rights was the domain of the state (Peluso 1992).
With a set of rules based as the above, the Forestry
Service (Boschwezen) made political and administrative
boundaries for forest area and agriculture and began to
build teak forests for the benefit of economic exploitation
by applying the principles of “modern” forestry. The activities of utilization of forest resources by local communities
that had previously mastered, lived, and managed forest resources were considered as the violation of law since then.
They were regarded as wood thieves and forest dwellers.
The subsistence activities of utilization of forest resources
were responded with violence, punishment, and giving
fines by colonial forestry service.
In order to improve forest protection from the interference “theft” of timber and reduce the cost of production,
the colonial forestry service began to involve local people
as laborers such as in the process of harvesting timber (Peluso 1992) 2. Besides, the colonial service also exploited
local community in plantation development which began
in 1873 through the activity known as intercropping. Colonial foresters who developed intercropping, Buurman van
Vreeden, conducted experiments in Tegal and Pekalongan
by using palawija (second crops planted in dry land) with
teak (Perum Perhutani 1996).
2
Most of the laborers worked as blandong (laborers working as loggers).
34
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
4.2. The Old Order Era 1945 – 1966
After the independence of Indonesia, in which the
management of teak forests in Java was then managed by
Perhutani (the state forestry company), the implementation of intercropping system continued. Post-independence period was also characterized by the formation of the
Department of Forestry under the Ministry of Agriculture
which then in 1964 turned into the Department of Forestry. Several years later, based on Presidential Decree No.
170/1966, the status was restored to the Director General
of Forestry under the Ministry of Agriculture.
The development of thoughts about the concept of
forest management by the people in the post-colonial period occurred during the war of independence until the
early post-colonial or early Old Order era. That period was
a period where there was a debate among senior foresters
and junior foresters in terms of forest management objectives in Java. The debate was based on two different purposes. On the one hand, forest management objective was
directed toward long-term management of the economic
orientation. This objective was in line with the concept of
“traditional” forestry (the concept of scientific forestry developed in colonial era) which was intended to take advantage of the economic functions of forests for the benefit of
the state and which would then be used to build the nation.
This objective also needed to be aligned with the application
of the principle of conservation by protecting watersheds.
The senior forester thought that only state institutions could facilitate the balance of forest utilization (for
both economic and ecological purposes). This opinion at
the time was referred to as the concept of “old ideology”
(Soepardi 1974b). On the other hand, at that time people’s
need for housing and firewood and land for agriculture and
livestock began to emerge. Junior foresters who adhered
35
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
to the spirit of nationalism found that the needs of people
living in and around forests needs should be fulfilled. According to them, the forest management planning in this
post-colonial period was supposed to pay attention to
these aspects. The concept that had the people-based spirit
was referred to the concept of “new ideology” (Soepardi
1974b). However, the debate between the two groups of
foresters found no meeting point.
As the reaction to the debate, one junior forester
named Soekowijono established Youth Movement of Forestry
in November 1945, and served as its chairman. The movement proposed the establishment of Sarekat Buruh Kehutanan/ SARBUKSI (the Union of Forestry Workers). Although the union was not established by the members of
the Communist Party, the ideas initiated by Soekowijono
tended to be radical in comparison with other members
who had the orientation on forest management concept
“old ideology” (Soepardi 1974b).
The debate between the two concepts of forest management continued. Manuscripts containing notes on the series
of discussions in the First Indonesian Forestry Congress
held in 1955 which was published in the Rimba Ambassador forestry magazine had included debate on the concept of community forests. However, whether the debate
had led to the issue of tenure and recognition toward forest management systems developed by the people requires
further study. It was likely that the thoughts about developing a community-based forestry models were strongly developed in 1950s and in the early 1960s, remembering that
those times were the golden era of the development of concepts and practices on the side of the people (populism).
Nevertheless, since the concept of community-based was
then associated with communism, it was probable that the
manuscripts containing people-based thoughts were de36
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
stroyed by the New Order regime or hidden by the author
and his relatives during the early reign of the New Order
regime to avoid repressive actions from the security forces
of this regime.
4.3. The New Order Era
As discussed in the chapter on the control of forests,
the New Order period was a period in which Indonesia entered a period of development influenced by the neo-classical economic paradigm and modernization. Based on this
paradigm, the New Order government set the Basic Law of
Forestry (UUPK) No. 5 in 1967, which confirmed the approach “control by the state” previously adopted by the colonial government. The establishment of the UUPK was followed by the ratification of Law No. 1 of 1967 concerning
the Law of Foreign Investment and the Law No. 6 of 1968
on Domestic Investment. Those three laws became the
foundation for the beginning of the exploitation process of
forest resources outside Java intensively through the provision of Hak Pengusahaan Hutan/ HPH (forest concession
rights) to the state and private companies, both foreign and
domestic private sectors. The HPH and the Hak Pemungutan Hasil Hutan/ HPHH (the Rights for Forest Extraction)
was specifically regulated in the Government Regulation
No. 21 of 1970.
Forest management in Java in the New Order was
conducted with a similar approach to the colonial period.
Until the late 1960s, plantation management in Java was
done with intercropping system, by using low cost of planting, and by labors from the communities around the forests. In 1972, the effort to involve the community in the
forest development program was known as a prosperity
approach. The program aimed at restoring the potencies
37
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
and functions of forests and improving the welfare of the
community. Activities carried out were mass intensification of intercropping, special intensification of intercropping, intercropping model of MA-MA (Magelang-Malang),
developing firewood, planting bulrush, beekeeping business, construction of clean water supply and check dams.
The program was organized through a partnership between the Mantri of Forestry (officials of forestry) with the
head of the village (MA-LU program) (Perum Perhutani,
1996). This prosperty approach was clearly influenced by
the paradigm of development at that time which was based
on economic development.
In 1982, Perhutani started program Pembangunan
Masyarakat Desa Hutan /PMDH (Forest- Village Community Development Program). The community engagement
was increased by the formation of Kelompok Tani Hutan/
KTH (Forest Famer Group) which was a forum for discussion between farmers and Perum Perhutani (Forestry Service). In the activities of PMDH, the people were introduced
to agroforestry system, the model of forest and agricultural
crop cultivation in the same land with the general goal of
obtaining agricultural products and forest products simultaneously or sequentially. This limitation was abstracted
from the definition of agroforestry by King (1978) as the
first director of ICRAF (International Center for Research
on Agroforestry). In 1984, the concept of social forestry
(PS) was integrated into the model PMDH. This concept
emphasized the engagement of the community in forestry activities, which was reflected in the planning system
which implemented a bottom-up process in addition to the
top-down (Perum Perhutani, 1996).
The statement of Perhutani in the 1996 report was
interesting to be explored in terms of the word chosen to
describe the role of communities in forest management was
38
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
“engage” not “involve” or even “empowered.” The choice of
the word in the report supported the statement from Peluso (1992 ) which states that the efforts of the state forest
enterprise, during both Dutch colonial and post-independence aims to put the forest villagers as laborers in forest
management.
The New Order Government considered that the experience of the social forestry programs developed by Perhutani was quite successful. The Department of Forestry,
then, tried to adopt social forestry concept to be applied
in the concession system (HPH) outside of Java. HPH Bina
Desa started to be developed based on the Decree of the
Minister of Forestry No. 69 of 1991. The program was then
turned into PMDH (Forest-Village Community Development)
through the Decree of the Minister of Forestry No. 69/ 95 jo
the Decree of the Minister of Forestry Decree No. 523/ 1997.
Other policies related to public participation in forest
management developed during the New Order was the Decree of the Minister of Forestry No. 622 / Kpts-II / 1995
on Pedoman Hutan Kemasyarakatan (The Guidelines for
the Social forest (HKM)). In this decree, HKM was defined
as “the activities of the government in managing forests
according to their functions by engaging the community”.
There was a little progress in this policy compared to the
previous ones, where the participation of the communities
in forest management was not recognized, even in many
cases the people were repressively evicted from the forest
area. However, if we look at the definition of the KKM in
this Forestry decree, the role of the government was still
dominant in appointing and determining which communities could participate. While the people themselves were
placed as parties that were engaged in the management of
forests and only entitled to collect and utilize non-timber
forest products.
39
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
The space for public participation was extended by
the Decree of Menhutbun (Minister of Forestry and Plantation) No. 677 / Kpts-II / 1998. In this decree, HKM was defined as a state forest reserved and designated by the Minister to be developed by the local community with the goal
of sustainable forest utilization. In this decree, the communities, that in previous decree were only engaged, in were
given the rights to exploit the forest either for themselves
or for being cultivated if they had formed cooperatives. The
concession was granted by the Decree of the Minister of
which the authority could be delegated to the Regional Office of Forestry. The Decree of the Minister of Forestry was
then refined into the Decree of Menhutbun No. 865/1999.
The difference with the previous decree was the replacement of the term “exploitation” with “utilization”. Besides,
this decree gave the authority to the people to conduct
independent operational arrangement in forest management. It could be seen from the definition of this decree
concerning HKM, “State forests which are reserved and
designated by the Minister to be used by local people with
the authority to conduct independent operational arrangements in sustainable forest management”.
During the New Order era full of repressive actions
against the spirit of democracy (because it was considered
being influenced by communism), it was recorded that
there were three decrees of the Minister of Forestry which
were quite “progressive” at that time. The first was the Decree of the Minister of Forestry No. 251 of 1993 which required concessionaires (HPH holders) to allow indigenous
peoples to gather forest products in the area of HPH for fulfilling their subsistence needs. The second was about the
Decree of the Minister of Forestry No. 622/1995 on HKM
which granted limited rights to the communities for managing state forests. The third was the Decree of the Minis40
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
ter of Forestry No. 47/1998 on Kawasan Daerah Dengan
Tujuan Istimewa/ KDTI (Regional Areas with Special Purpose) Repong Damar Krui. International research institute
for agro-forestry (ICRAF) and some non-governmental organizations such as LATIN and WATALA had an important
role in the process of determining the Decree of the Minister of Forestry on KDTI Repong Krui Damar. The activists of
the organizations managed to convince the Minister of Forestry of Indonesia, Soeryohadikusumo, whom they invited
to go around Krui region by helicopter and went directly
into the field to establish legal protection for Damar Krui
Repong region. In one occasion of interview conducted by
Mia Siscawati in 20073, Djamaludin Soeryohadikusumo acknowledged that the step that he took at that time was politically risky considering the decree he issued had no legal
basis if it was associated with the Basic Law of Forestry No.
5 1967. According to Djamaludin, he dared to do so in the
belief that Krui people had succeeded in developing sustainable management system of repong damar their management sustainably, and he saw the need for the government to give legal, so that the system was not forced by the
outside parties (Siscawati 2012). Not long after he established the Decree on KDTI Repong Krui Damar, President
Soeharto removed Djamaludin Soeryohadikusumo as the
minister of forestry.
3���������������������������������������������������������������
The interview was conducted by Mia Siscawati in 2007 in her research for her dissertation.
41
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
4.4. Post-New Order Era
4.4.1. The Revision in the Law of Forestry
The efforts to amend the Basic Law of Forestry had
actually started in the New Order. However, since forestry
was not only a technical or economic problems but also related to political issues, such efforts took nearly a decade.
After Soeharto stepped down, the government in B.J. Habibie period continued and made serious efforts to keep
the House of Representatives (DPR) approved the draft of
revision for the new Law of Forestry before the 1999 election. At that time, the Habibie government received pressure from various parties, but in fact, the greatest pressure
came from multilateral institutions, especially the IMF and
the World Bank because the reform in the forestry sector
was one of the main prerequisites for the cash.“4
For the need to formulate the draft of the Law of
Forestry, the Department of Forestry formed two working
teams. The first was the Komite Internal Departemen Kehutanan (Internal Committee of the Department of Forestry).
The second was the Komite Reformasi Perkebunan dan Kehutanan/ KRPKP (Plantation and Forestry Reform Committee) consisting of academics, NGOs, and government
representatives as well as representatives of the forestry
industries. Indigenous peoples and forest managers from
local communities were not represented in this committee.
4
The attention of IMF to the forestry issues was merely intended to the effort
to increase the contribution of the forestry sector toward economy through
various policies such as the abolishment of the monopoly in wood trade;
the transfer of the reboisation fund control and state-owned forestry enterprises to the minister of finance; the auction system of wood processing
concession; the introduction of bonds; the increase of costs and taxes for
timber industries (see DTE bulletin No.40).
42
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
When the final draft of the law was published in
March 1999 (to be submitted to the House of Representatives), the draft of the revision of the law did not describe
the agreement with the stakeholders formulated in the
consultation process. The manuscript also did not have the
spirit contained in the slogan from the Minister of Forestry
(Muslimin Nasoetion) that was “the forest for the people”.
Many people, especially the civil society considered that the
Ministry of Forestry apparently just wanted to ensure that
the status-quo was not disturbed. As the result, civil society
groups did “resistance” against the final draft. Various civil
society groups agreed to use Forum Komunikasi Kehutanan
Masyarakat/ FKKM (the Communication Forum for Social
forestry) as one of the main vehicles to facilitate the work
of the activists, progressive academics, representatives of
indigenous peoples, and local communities as well as representatives from a variety of other organizations. FKKM
actively formulated the alternative draft for the revision of
this Law, organized a series of public debates, and lobbied
to the House of Representatives.
Unfortunately, the House of Representative proceeded
to the promulgation of the new Law of Forestry. The World
Bank as one of the multilateral institutions that urged the
Indonesian government to reform the forestry sector as a
condition of granting a loan did not consider the wave of
resistance from the civil society and continued their plans
to provide second forest policy reform loans (PSRL-II) and
sectoral adjustment loans (For SAL) (Down to Earth, August 1999).
Responding to the ratification of the Law of Forestry
No. 41/1999, it seemed that the civil society, in general,
was “divided” into two. The first group saw that this law
did not provide the authentic legal foundation for the development of social forestry, which could really protect the
43
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
human rights of indigenous peoples and local communities
in relation to the management of land and forest resources
in it and which was included in their living space.
The second group saw that although the law was not
perfect, this law actually contained about social forestry or
social forestry (although more were listed in the explanation of the articles and subsections of this law). With the
basis of this argument, this group believed that the Law of
Forestry No. 41/1999 was supposed to be able to be used
as a reference for the Indonesian government in the postreform to conduct concrete steps to realize the social forestry
and social forestry.
According to the second group, although in the Law
No. 41/1999 there was no text that mentioned the term of
social forestry or social forestry, this group found that if examined in more depth and thorough, the Law No. 41/1999
stated (contents) about social forestry in 10 (ten) chapters
of the entire fifteen (15) chapters in this Law. Here are the
excerpts from the manuscript written by Muayat A. Muhshi
(2005) that we believed represented the views of this second
group.
The definition of social forestry is contained in four
(4) principles of forestry administration and is contained
in 2 (two) of 5 (five) objectives of forestry. The existence
of social forestry is very explicitly mentioned especially in
the explanation of the principles of democracy and justice
(paragraph 2) which state that: Every forestry administration should provide equal chances and opportunities to all
citizens according to their ability, thereby increasing the
prosperity of the people. In Article 3, the purpose of the
forestry administration is clarified again that the purposes
of ‘forestry administration in clause (d) and (e), are: (d).
Improving the ability to develop the capacity and community empowerment which are participatory, equitable, and
44
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
environmentally sound, so that they can create social and
economic resistance due to external changes. (E). Assuring
the fair and sustainable distribution of benefits.
In Chapter II of the Status and Function of Forests, we
can see a model of social forestry in the explanation of Article 5 subsection (1) on the definition of Indigenous Forests, Village Forests and Social forestry (HKM). Indigenous
forests are state forests in which their management was
given to Indigenous Peoples (rechtsgemeenschap) (paragraph 1). Village forests are state forests managed by the
village and used for the welfare of the village. (Paragraph
3). Social forests are the state forests in which their primary utilization is to empower the community. (Paragraph
4). Although it is not implied, the definition of social forests
(HKM) appears once again in Chapter IV Forestry Planning
in the explanation of the Fifth Section on the formation of
Forest Management Area, Article 17 subsection (2). Article 17 states that: The formation of forest management
area at the unit level is conducted by considering the characteristics of the land, type of forests, function of forests,
condition of watersheds, socio-cultural factor, economic
factor, the institutionalization of local communities including indigenous people, and the government administrative
boundaries. While the explanation of Article 17 subsection
(1) paragraph (3) is: management unit is the smallest forest
management unit based on the its primary function and
designation, which can be managed efficiently and sustainably
such as Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Lindung/ KPLH (protected forest management unit), Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Produksi/ KPHP (production forest management unit),
Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Konservasi/ KPHK (conservation forest management unit), Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Kemasyarakatan/ KPHKM (social forest management
unit), Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Adat / KPHA (indige45
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
nous forest management unit), and Kesatuan Pengelolaan
Daerah Aliran Sungai/ KPDAS (watershed management
unit), this issue is supported in the explanation of Article
17 subsection (2) paragraph (1) that states: In determining
the formation of the management area at the management
unit level, it should also consider the relationship between
people and forests, aspirations and traditional wisdom of the
society (italics by the author).
4.4.2. Community Empowerment Policy and Public Access
on Forests
The group that had the view that Law No. 41 of 1999
contained about social forestry also argued that this law
had a fairly concise content of the participation, recognition, and respect for the rights of the community. This group
also argued that textually, the concept of participation, recognition, and respect listed in this law was blurred and
seemed like it was only accessory and complement. Nevertheless, Law No. 41/1999 was considered by this group
had laid the legal foundation on forest utilization in order
to empower the community. The arrangement on that matter could be found in the explanation of Article 5, subsection 1 of the Law of Forestry. In part, it is said that state
forests with the primary purpose to empower the public
is given the term of social forestry. The explanation part of
Article 5 subsection 1 also mentioned about village forests
are “state forests managed by the village and utilized for
the welfare of the village” (Siscawati and Mushi 2008).
Community empowerment policy was developed to
be a part of the policy on forest governance, forest management, and forest utilization. It was reflected in the Government Regulation (PP) No. 6/2007 on Forest Governance
and Formulation of Forest Management Planning and Utilization of Forest, which was later revised to PP 3/2008.
46
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
Although both government regulations were not specific
rules about community empowerment, both Government
Regulations No. 6/2007 and 3/2008 stated that the empowerment of local communities were primarily intended
to improve public welfare through the fair and optimal utilization of forest resources. Based on the regulations, local
community empowerment is the duty of central, provincial, and district / city government; in which the implementation is the responsibility of Kepala Kesatuan Pengelolaan
Hutan/ KPH (the Head of Forest Management Unit).
Those two government regulation stated that the
rural community empowerment could be implemented
through three schemes, namely social forestry, village forest, and partnerships. The three schemes could be held in
all forest areas except conservation area where the community empowerment model will be governed by a separate regulation. To implement community development
schemes mentioned earlier, the Ministry of Forestry issued
the Decree of the Minister of Forestry No. P.37 / MenhutII / 2007 on Social forestry, the Decree of the Minister of
Forestry No. P.49 / Menhut-II / 2009 on Village Forest, and
the Decree of the Minister of Forestry No. 39 / Menhut-II
/ 2013 on Local Community Empowerment through Forestry Partnership.
Community empowerment policies developed with
reference to the regulations above were designed to be an
umbrella of various rural community empowerment programs that had been held in several directorates, both Rehabilitasi Lahan dan Perhutanan Sosial/ RLPS (Directorate
General of Land Rehabilitation and Social forestry), Perlindungan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam/ PHKA (Directorate General of Forest Protection and Conservation of Nature), and
Bina Produksi Kehutanan/ BPK (Directorate General of Forestry Production)(Working Group Pemberdayaan 2010).
47
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
4.4.2.1. Hutan Kemasyarakatan/ Social forest Policies
(HKM)
As mentioned earlier, social forestry policies started to be developed since the end of the New Order. In the
Post- New Order era, after the new Law of Forestry replaced UUPK of Forestry No. 5 of1967, the Decree of the
Minister of Forestry and Plantation No. 677/1998 jo No.
865/1999 on Social forest was refined and replaced by the
Decree of the Minister of Forestry No. 31 / Kpts-II / 2001
on the implementation of Social forest(abbreviated HKM).
In this decree, what was meant by HKM was state forest
with forest management system that aimed to empower
local communities without disturbing the main function.
Community with cooperative institutions had the rights of
HKM management through permit issued by the regent after the Minister established social forest management area
in the district. Permit granted included two phases, namely
a temporary license (3-5 years) and the definitive license
(25 years).
When various parties waited the Ministry of Forestry
to follow-up the Decree 31/2001 on the Zoning Procedures
of HKM, the government set Government Regulation No.
34 of 2002 on Forest Governance and Forest Management
Planning, Forest Utilization, and the Use of Forest Area. In
this Regulation, it was said that empowerment was intended to improve the ability of community organizations in
forest utilization (Article 51 subsection 1). In addition, this
regulation also said that to achieve empowerment, it could
be done through social forestry (Explanation of Article 51
subsection 1) (Siscawati and Muhshi 2008).
In the midst of confusion in the arrangement of HKM
(in the Law No. 41/1999; Decree 31/2001; and Government Regulation No. 34/2002) and the obscurity of HKm
zoning procedures, the government issued the Regulation
48
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
of the Minister of Forestry (Permenhut) No. P.01 / 2004 on
Local Community Empowerment in and/ or around Forests
in the Context of Social forestry. In this Regulation, Social
forestry is a system of forest management on state forest
and private forest which gives the opportunity to the local
community as primary actors and/ or partners in order to
increase the welfare and realizing the sustainability of forests.
This regulation only sets definition, goals, objectives, principles, guidelines, strategies and related parties. The publication of the regulation has risen dualism rules that have
caused confusion at the level of the Regional Government
(Siscawati and Muhshi 2008).
4.4.2.2. Village Forest Policies
If we examine the Law of Forestry, the term ”village
forest” is included in the Law of Forestry No. 41 of 1999,
not in the article or the subsection but in the explanation.
It was in part of the explanation for Article 5, subsection
1. Article 5 of the Law of Forestry No. 41/1999 was on the
Status of Function of Forest. Subsection 1 of Article 5 stated
that “based on the status, forests consisted of: a. state forest,
and b. private forest”. In the explanation, it was stated that
“the state forests managed by the village and used for the
welfare of the village called village forest.”
Beside listed in the explanation part of the Law of Forestry No. 41 of 1999, the main reference of village forest policy was Government Regulation (PP) No. 6/2007, which was
later changed to Government Regulation No. 3/2008. Both of
these regulations mentioned the main purpose of village forest as follows: 1) the management and protection of state
forest area that had not been managed by timber companies
(in terms of production forest) or government agency (in
this case, it was protected forest); 2) state-sponsored community empowerment through village-based institutions.
49
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
Both government regulations on village forest mentioned in the beginning “that in order to empower communities in and around forests and realize fair and sustainable
forest management realize, state forests can be managed
for the welfare of the village through Village Forest”.
The Government Regulation on the village forest
uses the concept of state control over forest by using Law
No. 41 of 1999 as the main reference. It can be seen in the
part where the government regulation includes definitions of forests and state forests as follows. “Forest area is
a particular area designated or established by the government to be maintained as permanent forest.” On the other
hand, state forest is intended as a “forest in a land which
is not burdened with rights over the land.” In the government regulation, village or called by other names, hereinafter is referred to the unity of the legal community that
has boundaries and that has the authority to regulate and
manage the interests of the local community, based on the
origin and local customs recognized and respected in the
Government system of the Unitary State of the Republic of
Indonesia. “Furthermore, village forest in the government
regulation is“ a state forest managed by the village and
used for the welfare of the village and has not yet burdened
with permits / rights. “
The operation of the village forest concept was developed in the form of specific policy on village forest which is
in the form of the Regulation of the Minister of Forestry No.
P.49 / Menhut-II / 2008 on Village Forest. General Regulations of the Minister of Forestry regulate the establishment
of village forest working area (the criteria of the area and
procedures for establishing the working area), facilitation
process (goals, objectives, implementations, types), village forest management rights (procedure for requesting
the rights), license for utilization of Timber or Industrial
50
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
Forest Products/ IUPHHK in Village Forest, the rights and
obligations of the right holders, village forest working plan,
reporting, supervision and control, and sanctions.
In addition, in the regulation of the Minister of Forestry No. P.49 / Menhut-II / 2008, there are some basic
matter in the village forest management which were regulated, namely: 1) Village Forest Area is state forest area
that serves as the protected forest and/ or production forest with the criteria that it has not been burdened with the
rights or permits and in village administrative area concerned; 2) Village Forest Area is designated by the Minister
of Forestry with the proposal from Regent / Mayor based
the on an application from the head of a Village; 3) Rights
for village forest management is granted to village institution formed by the village (village community) through village regulations; 4) village institution is social institution
defined by village regulations.
Source: Policy Brief published by the Working Group of Empowerment (2010)
entitled “Questioning the Infrastructure of Social forest and Forest Village
Programs: Toward the Acceleration and Expansion
Figure 1. Licensing Procedures of Village Forest
51
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
4.4.2.3. Hutan Tanaman Rakyat/People’s forest (HTR)
People’s forest (HTR) is forest (plantation) in the
area of ​​production forest and built by community groups
to improve the potency and quality of production forest by
applying silviculture in order to ensure the sustainability
of forest resources. As mentioned earlier, the policy of HTR
refers to Government Regulation (PP) No. 6 of 2007.
Allocation and determination of the area of HTR is
made by the Minister of Forestry in unproductive production forests without license / other rights and preferably
located close to the forest product industry. According to
the PP No. 6 of 2007, the allocation and determination of
the area of HTR was made by the Minister based on the
proposal of KPH or appointed official. However, in the Regulation of the Minister of Forestry No. P. 55 / Menhut-II /
2011 on Procedures of Application for License of Timber
Forest Utilization in HTR , which was later revised to the
Regulation of the Minister of Forestry No. No.P.31 / Menhut-II / 2011, the Ministry of Forestry can be pro-active in
preparing the allocation of HTR area. Allocation and determination of HTR area by the Minister of Forestry will be
submitted to the Regent / Mayor. Regent / Mayor then disseminate to the village concerned about the allocation and
determination of the HTR area. Socialization can be done
by Regent / Mayor by using NGOs in Central, Province or
District or City.
The subjects of HTR IUPHHK holder are an individual or cooperative. Cooperative is a cooperative in the scale
of micro, small, medium, and which is built by the people
who live in or near forests. To support the development of
HTR and HTI, the Department of Forestry and the Ministry
of Finance has formed Badan Pembiayaan Pembangunan
Hutan/ BP2H (Forest Development Funding Agency). For
the service in the assistance area for the development of
52
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
HTR, it will be through Badan Pembiayaan Pembangunan
Hutan Produksi/ BP2HP(Production Forest Development
Funding Agency). IUPHHK-HTR holders have the rights to
conduct activities based on the license, access to get funds
to finance the development of HTR, guidance and technical education, and opportunities to the marketing of forest
products.
The area of ​​HTR is not more than 15 ha (fifteen
acres) for each household of applicant or for cooperatives,
the area is adjusted to the ability of the business. The area
of HTR should be in the location specified by the Minister.
Plants generated from IUPHHK in HTR are the assets of
the license holders, and can be used as collateral as long as
their business license is still valid.
Utilization of timber in HTR includes land preparation, seeding, planting, maintenance, harvesting, and marketing. Utilization of timber in HTR can be: similar plants;
and plants of various kinds. Type of one species staple crops
is a woody forest plants that consists of only one species
and its varieties. The type of various species staple crops is
various types of woody forest plants combined with annual
woody crops, or other types specified by the Minister.
4.4.2.4. Partnership Policies
At first, the policy of partnership referred to PP No.
6 of 2007. Article 99 of the Government Regulation said
that empowerment of local communities could be implemented through a partnership if the forest area concerned
had been granted permit for forest utilization; or the forest
area concerned had been given forest management rights
to state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in forestry department.
One model proceeded was PHBM Perhutani that conducted
profit sharing of products with farmers.
53
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
Regarding that people often did not have bargaining
power in facing companies, this PP required Minister, governor, or regent / mayor in accordance with their authority, to facilitate the formation of partnerships between local
communities and forest utilization license holder or rightsholders of forest management. The partnership was done
by agreement between forest utilization license holder or
rights-holders of forest management with local communities. Empowering local communities through partnerships
did not alter the authority of forest utilization license holder or rights-holders of forest management to local communities.
In addition to Article 99, there is another chapter in
the PP No. 6 of 2007 that accommodates the utilization of
timber from rehabilitation conducted by the community,
Article 42 on Hutan Tanaman Hasil Rehabilitasi/ HTHR
(Forest from Rehabilitation). However, in this PP, the opportunity to utilize timber forest products from rehabilitation is wide open not only to the local community. The
opportunity is also given to the potential actors such as
BUMN, BUMS, BUMD (state-owned, private-owned, village
owned enterprise), Cooperatives or individuals.
In 2013, the government established a separate government regulation on partnership, PP No. 39 of 2013 on
Community Empowerment through Partnership. This government regulation requires that each company of forest
concessionaires to develop partnership.
54
5
THE STRUGGLE OF THE PEOPLE TO
RECLAIM THE RIGHTS OVER FORESTS:
LESSONS FROM SOUTH SUMATERA AND RIAU
S
ocial forestry policies set by the government were
responded differently by non-governmental organizations that worked side by side with indigenous
peoples and local communities in gaining recognition for
the management of forest resources with struggle. Some
considered that the social forestry policy did not give space
for recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities over their territory and forest resources
management in the management area. Outside the organizations that had a critical view of the social forestry policy,
there were organizations considering that the social forestry
policy was the bridge that could be used strategically to realize the process of the recognition toward the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities as a whole in the
future.
This chapter contains lessons and important notes
about the process of the people’s struggle in taking over the
rights of forest by using the benefits of village forest policy
55
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
in South Sumatra and Riau. This report was compiled by
the research team of Wahana Bumi Hijau in South Sumatra
and YMI in Riau through a research on village forests managed by Sajogyo Institute in cooperation with Simenpuu.
5.1. A Lesson from South Sumatera
5.1.1. A Brief Socio-Ecological History of South Sumatera
The landscape of South Sumatra is divided into several areas of ecology. Musi River, a major river crossing it, has
an important role in ecologically dividing the landscape of
South Sumatra. Musi River separates South Sumatra into
upstream (Uluan) and downstream (Iliran). Uluan is the
upland of upstream of rivers that empties into the Musi
River in the hills of Bukit Barisan Sumatra until the area of
Bengkulu. On the contrary, Iliran area is a lowland area, rivers,
swamps, valleys, which is the area of the downstream of
the Musi River (WBH, 2014).
Beside having an important role in the creation of ecological areas in South Sumatra, Musi River, which empties into
the city of Palembang, also connects and tightens the dynamics
of the community of Southern Sumatra from Ulu to Ilir.
Musi River and its great tributaries are known as the
‘Batang Hari Nine’ and connect the regions of Uluan and Iliran. In addition, the river in which during the rainy season
can be reached until the upstream, at first, was the main
mode of transportation and had a great influence for the
community development of South Sumatra (WBH, 2014).
The location of Palembang as the mouth of the Musi
River has put this city as the center of all the crops that
come from regions around it since the time of the Srivijaya
kingdom and the Sultanate of Palembang. The agricultural products include rubber latex, coffee, jelutung, cotton,
resin, and so on. From the uluan, through the waterway, by
56
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
using the ‘roda lambung’ (a kind of traditional boat), the
crops and forest products were carried to Iliran and collected in the city of Palembang.
5.1.2. The Inequality in the Control over Forest in South
Sumatera
South Sumatra is one area in Indonesia where the
control of the state over forest resources and other natural
resources through a process called by Rachman (2013) as
“negaraisasi” (the process of including something as the
property of the state) has been actively underway to the
present time. The process of “negaraisasi” happens by setting policies that support national policies affirming the
control of the state over forest resources and other natural
resources. It negates the system of marga (clan) which previously became a reference to indigenous peoples in South
Sumatra. The policies are used as the basis for derivative
policies for natural resource management which is extractive and even exploitative, wrapped by the frame of
“sustainable development”. It can be seen from the mission
of the Province of South Sumatra related to the utilization
of natural resources, namely “Utilizing the mining and energy resources (fossil and renewable) in a smart, wise, and
prudent way for the interest of the people”. The purpose of
the mission is to realize the South Sumatra to be “a region
sustainable in supplying energy resources through the utilization of coal, petroleum, natural gas, geothermal energy,
methane gas and renewable energy”. From the perspective
of the creator of South Sumatra vision and mission, the mission is an important part of the efforts to realize the vision
of the province, namely “The Prosperous and Leading South
Sumatera with Its Intelligent – Cultured People “. In other
words, the concept of development in South Sumatra rests
on the extraction of natural resources. At the level of de57
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
velopment planning, especially planning on local revenues,
the local government of South Sumatra tends to encourage
the increase of local revenues through land and forest sectors (WBH, 2014).
The management of production forests in South Sumatera is mostly conducted by license holders in the form
of Ijin Usaha Pemanfaatan Kayu Hutan / IUPHHK (the license of timber utilization enterprise). IUPHHK for natural
forest is 2 units covering 60,800 ha, while the activities of
Pembangunan Hutan Tanaman Industri / HTI (the development of timber or industrial forests) in South Sumatera has
been started since 1989. During 2003 – 2012, there were
19 (nineteen) license holders of IUPHHK-HTI with the area
of concession 1,337,492 hectares.
South Sumatra is one area that most of the forest
areas are allocated for timber or industrial forest. The Department of Forestry issued the permit of timber or industrial forest concession covering an area of ​​approximately
1.3 million hectares from 1.7 million hectares of production forest in South Sumatra. This license was held by 19
companies (The Department of Forestry, 2012). The development process of timber or industrial forest also gives a
major contribution to the destruction of forests in South
Sumatra. WALHI of South Sumatra says that 60 percent of
the 3.7 million hectares of forest in South Sumatra are estimated to be damaged. However, this situation does not
deter the ambitious plan of the local government of South
Sumatra to build two pulp and paper companies that have
the production capacity of 2 million tons of pulp per year.
One of the plants, PT Oki Pulp and Paper Mills is a company
that relies entirely on foreign financing (Siscawati and Rachman 2014).
On the other hand, small-scale forest tenure for the
community through the scheme of Hutan Tanaman Rakyat/
58
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
HTR (People’s Forest), Hutan Desa/ HD (Village Forest),
and Hutan Kemasyarakat/ HKM (Social Forest) was very
limited. The area for People’s Forest in the province of
South Sumatra was​​16, 230 ha, located in three districts.
For Village Forest, until March 2014, there had been 23 proposals with 51, 707 hectares of the total area of ​​the Village
Forest. Of the total area of ​​the proposal, the area that had
the status of Penetapan Areal Kerja/ PAK (The Determination for the Working Area) was 14, 738 hectares. The next
scheme, the Social Forest (HKM), there were 9 HKm with​​
9,507 hectares of the proposals, and the area with PAK was
856 hectares. These data indicated that the state forest in
South Sumatra proposed to be managed by the scheme of
HTR, HD, and HKM was only 5.5 percent of the total state
forest area managed through the scheme of natural forest
extraction and timber or industrial forest (IUPHHK HA and
HTI). The inequality in forest concession became more apparent from the data of the area proposed for HD and HKm
that had already gained the status of PAK which was only
1.1 percent of the total IUPHHK HA & HT in South Sumatra
(WBH 2014).
Meanwhile, in the province of South Sumatra, there
are 699 villages located in and around the state forest, either as production forests or as protected forests. The area
of the state forest proposed to be managed by the scheme
of social forest has not been balanced with the number of
villages located in and around the state forest. Some indigenous peoples and local communities living in these villages
rely on forest resources and natural resources as the source
of living. They develop various patterns of forest resource
and other natural resource management in that area. However, the forestry policy and other related policies about
the control of the state over forest put indigenous peoples
and local communities in these areas as forest squatters.
59
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
In other words, the actions of community-based forest resource management are regarded as a criminal act. Various
problems arise as the result of the criminalization. Thus,
the recognition of the existence of these villages, the recognition of the management of forest resources by the people,
and the recognition of the rights of the people over forest
resources (including the territories and forest-based sources
of livelihood contained therein) become an urgent need.
5.1.3. Using Village Forest Policy to Reclaim Forest
Management Rights
5.1.3.1. Background and Preliminary Process
The situation faced by South Sumatra Province,
which is one of the provinces in Indonesia which most of
the areas are burdened with permit of forest and management for the companies, while the management areas of
the people are limited, becomes the background for Wahana
BUmi Hijau (WBH) in pursuing community-based forest
management initiative through Village Forest scheme.
Muara Merang village, which is one of the villages
proposed to obtain the Village Forest permit, is located
on the mouth of Merang River, precisely located in Bayung
Lencir Sub-district, Musi Banyuasin District, South Sumatra
Province. Muara Merang is fed by not Merang River but
also Bakung, Rengas, Durian Condong, Nibung, and several
other tributaries. These rivers have become the witnesses
of indigenous peoples of Muara Merang called Suku Anak
Dalam (SAD), or local people call them Wong Kubu, exploring the area. Migrants strated coming to Muara Merang
around 1970. The village began to develop because of the
arrival of some logging companies including PT. Bumi Raya
Utama Wood Industries (BRUI) and PT. Success Sumatra
Timber (SST) in 1979. The existence of these concession
60
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
companis triggered the community to do logging activities
(bebalok). The woods then were sold to the logging companies (WBH 2014).
The writers suspect that the logging activities done
by the community was actually driven by the HPH concession holders with the aim to reduce the cost of production
in the area of ​​production forest which the concession license was already in their hands. Furthermore, the manuscript of WBH (2014) explained that the information about
the presence of logging companies (HPH and the opportunity to sell their woods to the concessionaires (HPH) at
that time began to spread to other areas so that in the early
1980s, people started coming to this area for logging activities, and some others sought employment in the existing
concessionaires.
Then in the next stage, in 1984, Muara Merang Village
became the location for the program from Social Departement which was housing and infrastructure development
for people in remote areas. This program was a government program in order to develop approximately 50 units
of settlements (houses). The presence of this program encouraged the arrival of migrants. They began to settle permanently in Muara Merang Village. The arrival of the settlers started to disturb the Community of Suku Anak Dalam
(Kubu tribe) as the original inhabitants of this area, where
in their daily life, this community could not fully make social interaction with migrant communities. This prompted
most of them back into the forest to continue their habit for
one generation to another.
For further development, in the early 1990, the area
became an open area where a time, sawmill factories started to develop. In 1998, it was even more crowded with the
arrival of plantation companies and road and bridge construction projects through P3DT Program (Development
61
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
Acceleration Program for Disadvantaged Regions). At that
time, the access of roads began to open.
At the end of 1999, concession permit for concession companies was expired, and in the next stage, in the
2000s, palm oil plantation companies and timber and industrial companies (HTI) began to grow Forest. Furthermore, there were companies that applied for a business
license for Carbon absorption and storage (IUP RAP and
PAN Carbon) covering an area of ​​21,780 hectares (ha) in
2013. The development of Muara Merang encouraged the
presence of migrants from other areas in South Sumatra
province more such as Ogan Komering Ilir, Ogan Ilir, Banyuasin, Musi Banyuasin, Musi Rawas, and Palembang. There
were also migrants from Java, Jambi, Medan, and South
Sulawesi (WBH 2014).
Muara Merang region consists of ± 69 percent of production forests, leaving ± 31 percent for Alokasi Penggunaan Lain/ APL (Other Allocation Uses). Seventy-four
percent of the APL has become concession of plantation,
leaving 26 percent for the community, including housing
and riverbanks, or 8 percent of the total area of ​​Muara Merang Village (WBH 2014).
In Muara Merang Village, there are several sub-village, one of which is Pancuran Sub-village. This sub-village
is an area in Muara Merang that citizens have a fairly high
level of dependence on land and forest resources. Pancuran
is inhabited by groups of migrants. The history of Pancuran
Sub-village was originated from some people of Bayung
Lencir and Sekayu that sought for forest products such as
latex from Jelutung, gaharu, resin, and other products. Over
time, around 1995, the potency of jelutung latex and other
forest products started to decrease because many of the
tress were logged by HPH and illegal loggers. Thus, in the
period, the newcomers took the initiative to conduct land
62
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
clearing for forest rubber planting. Until 2004, the number of people who had lived and opened up lands for rubber plants had reached ± 120 households, so Sub-village
III, named Pancuran, was formed in Muara Merang village,
which is located in the area of Lalan
​​
Production Forest Lalan (WBH 2014).
In general the livelihoods of Muara Merang, which
formerly relied on the forest sector, agriculture, and river
fisheries, gradually turned into plantation workers in line
with the rise of plantations in Muara Merang. People in
Pancuran Sub-village, who formerly relied on timber and
non-timber, as well as farm laborers, shifted into plantation
farmers.
5.1.3.2. The Process of Proposing the Village Forest
Permit
Community-based forest management plan in Muara
Merang Village in the location of production forests inhabited by the society, has existed since 2006. The plan for the
management of Peat – Swamp Forest area, Merang- Kepayang, Musi Banyuasin District, South Sumatra Province was
formed by the officials of Banyuasin. It included one point
of the community empowerment by applying the concept
of community-based forest management in the areas of the
production forest which were occupied by the people such
as in Muara Merang, Kepayang, and Muara Medak.5
5
Dokumen Rencana Pengelolaan Kawasan Hutan Rawa Gambut
Merang - Kepayang, Kabupaten Musi Banyuasin, Provinsi Sumatera
Selatan, formed by the government of Musi Banyuasin District involving other elements. Wahana Bumi Hijau (WBH) was involved as
the element of Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat (self – reliance institution).
63
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
The people who occupied Lalan production forest
more or less had understood the functions of the forest
area defined by the government. Labeled as squatters by
the law of forestry had shaken their guts to build a life in
Pancuran. Besides, there would be the expansion of timber forest (HTI) of Hutani Rimba Mas company which was
done very soon. It worried the people of Pancuran.
Life must go on. Hope came in the form of new rule
on the PHBM. ‘New Thing’ named the Regulation of the
Minister of Forestry No. P.49 / Menhut-II / 2008 on Forest
Village issued September 2008 began to be socialized in
Muara Merang.
Wahana Bumi Hijau (WBH), an agency of Non-Governmental Organizations, which had long been involved in the
formulation of the plan on the management of Merang –
Kepayang Peat – Swamp Forest and and also some other
community development activities in Muara Merang also
socialized the PHBM policy and assisted the process of proposing Forest Village.
The officials Muara Merang Village welcomed the
idea of Pancuran as Village Forest. The proposal on the Village Forest of Muara Merang was submitted to the Regent
of Banyuasin by the officials of Muara Merang on February
27, 2009. In the process of proposing HD of Muara Merang,
the coordination was carried out with related parties in the
District Government of Musi Banyuasin and South Sumatra
Province. However, the scheme of Village Forest which was
based on the Regulation of the Minister of Forestry No. P.49
in 2008 and enacted in September 2008 was a “new thing”,
even for the government at the district level of Musi Banyuasin and South Sumatra Province when the it was proposed
to the Regent of Musi Banyuasin in February 2009.
Most of the local government assumed that facilitating the proposal of Village Forest in Pancuran inhabited by
64
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
the people who had open a plantation was the same with
facilitating squatters.
It seemed that the district and province still thought
that it was like the business proposal in the forest area. The
question on the Village Forest which did not contribute to
the regional revenue arose in the licensing application process from the local government. It was found not only in
South Sumatra but also in some other areas such as Jambi
and other places. Hence, the role of local government that
was responsible to facilitate the licensing process and to
strengthen Lembaga Pengelola Hutan Desa (The Institute
of Village Forest Management) was certainly not going
well, and the function of ‘public servant’ in terms of PHBM
scheme was limited.
Similarly, the socialization process in the society conducted by WBH and the coordination in the process of proposing the Village Forest of Muara Merang were initially
performed in a very limited scope, at district and provincial
levels.
It was realized that, in the same area, the proposal
for the extension of Timber Forest Concession by RHM
company had been piled up in the Ministry of Forestry. The
giant of HTI, Sinar Mas Group located in the Southern Pancuran had built roads across Pancuran, and the activities of
transporting timber and heavy equipment had passed Pancuran. The fear of the displacement by HTI had long been
a nuisance that haunted the nap of the people in Pancuran.
Finally, the moment which was relieving came. The Regent
of Musi Banyuasin issued a letter of recommendation on
the Village Forest of Muara Merang in 5,000 ha with SK. No.
52212/1452 / DFS / 2009 dated on May 18, 2009.
The recommendation from the Regent of Musi Banyuasin on the Village Forest of Muara Merang was posted to
the Ministry of Forestry. The hope of the people in Pancuran
65
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
grew bigger with the recommendation of the Regent although the shape of the Village Forest was still vague. Only
what was written in the Village Forest Regulation was explicable.
The picture of the Village Forest of Muara Merang
was increasingly apparent when the verification team of
the Ministry of Forestry came to Pancuran on November
21, 2009. It was satisfying that the Village Forest of Muara
Merang was recommended into 5,800 hectares.
The Institute of the Village Forest Management
(LPHD) of Muara Merang began to conduct self improvement by performing the training to strengthen the institution with WBH. The coordination with the Forestry Office
of Musi Banyuasin District and South Sumatra Province
was done more intensely. Likewise, the communication
with the Ministry of Forestry was strongly organized with
the partner of WBH at the national level.
The Decree on the Pencadangan Areal Kerja / PAK
(The Determination for the working area) of the Village
Forest of Muara Merang was issued on January 21, 2010.
The Minister of Forestry issued this decree with No. 54 of
2010 with an area of 7,250 hectares. The submission of the
decree was conducted at the Presidential Palace by Indonesian Vice President, Boediono. The euphoria of our success
belonged to us: the people of Pancuran, the government of
Muara Merang, the district government of Musi Banyuasin,
the government of South Sumatra Province, and of course,
the assisting agency of the Village Forest of Muara Merang
and Wahana Bumi Hijau.
The PAK from the Ministry of Forestry which was
pleasing and made us proud was just the beginning of the
PHBM scheme. Several studies were conducted by WBH
together with the LPHD of Muara Merang associated with
socio-economic and ecological conditions as well as the
66
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
constraints and potentials in the Village Forest of Muara
Merang. It was conducted in order to prepare Rencana Kelola
Hutan Desa / RKHD (Village Forest Management Plan) of
Muara Merang which would be one of the prerequisites to
continue the licensing process of Hak Pengelolaan Hutan
Desa / HPHD (The Rights of the Village Forest Management) of Muara Merang to be submitted to the Governor of
South Sumatra.
5.1.3.3. The Complexity in the Process of the Village
Forest Permit
The submission of SK PAK HD of Muara Merang on
January 21, 2010 was in the last minutes of 100 day performance of Kabinet Indonesia Bersatu II (the name of the
second term cabinet in the Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono
era). Not only once that the Goddess of Fortune came to
Pancuran. The planning for planting 1 billion trees in Jatiluhur in November 2010 was an important moment for
the submission of the HPHD of Muara Merang to the Regent
of Banyuasin and the LPHD of Muara Merang. In addition
to the submission of the HPHD, the Minister of Forestry,
Zulkifli Hasan, also handed to the Determination for the
Working Area to Regent Bantaeng , and the license of Hutan Kemasyarakatan / HK (the social forest) was submitted
to Regent Ngada Marianus, and Lambertus Dewa, a farmer.
The permission process of the Village Forest of
Muara Merang was quite faster than other places in South
Sumatera. It seemed that it was important to look at the
other village forest proposals such as the Village Forest of
Kepayang and Muara Medak in Musi Banyuasin District,
South Sumatera which was also assisted by WBH, but they
also needed a very long time in waiting for the confirmation of PAK from the Minister of Forestry.
67
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
The proposal from the people and the letter from the
Head of the Office of Forestry in Musi Banyuasin District
on the technical consideration of the Village Forests of Kepayang and Muara Medak were from January 2010, and the letter of recommendation from Banyuasin Regent was dated
January 25, 2010. Furthermore, both proposals of the Village Forest were already verified on March 17 to 20, 2010
with the recommendation of 6,000 hectares for the Village
Forest of Kepayang and 10,900 ha for the Village Forest of
Muara Medak.
After more than three years, the Ministry of Forestry
finally issued the Decree on PAK of the Village Forest of Kepayang with SK Number: SK.54 / Menhut-II / 2013 dated
on August 23, 2013 with the area of 5.170 ha. However, the
proposal of the Village Forest of Muara Medak had not received the PAK from the Minister of Forestry, and there was
no partial or complete rejection toward the proposal.
The other HD proposals in South Sumatera were initiated by BP DAS Musi, and the District Office of Forestry
experienced uncertainty on the PAK from the Ministry of
Forestry. Similar to the 5 proposals of the HD recommen-ded
by the Regent of Muara Enim in October 2011 which had not
achieved the PAK until around 2.5 years, the proposal of HKm
from Lahat District also experienced the same condition.
The licensing process which was long and convoluted also occurs in most proposals of the PHBM in Indonesia. It was not in accordance with Perdirjen No. 10/2010
for HKm and Perdirjen No. 11 / Th. 2010 for Village Forest
which states that the permission of PAK only takes 60 days
for HD and HKm. The uncertainty was not only related with
the long process of PAK. The people proposing PAK also often asked; Does the proposal face the obstacle? If so, what
is it? Or is it rejected? Moreover, if it was asked to the relevant government, they did not have a clear answer.
68
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
5.1.3.4. Women and Village Forest
The migrants in Muara Merang Village, including
Pancuran Sub-Village, were the people of a social group that
saw lands as their potential source of livelihood that could
be cultivated to support their needs. They flocked from various areas and stayed here. The men brought their families.
Their wives moved to the place they had not known before
as a form of obedience to their husband.
Most women around the Village Forest of Muara Merang had the activities as the housewives in general such as
cooking, taking care of children, doing household chores,
and some other things related to the activities in the household. In addition, some women around the Village Forest
tried to help improving the economic condition of the family.
Those whose husband worked as a rubber farmer went to
the plantation to obtain sap everyday from morning to afternoon. After that, they would do their activities as housewives.
Most of those women were unaware about the preparation, licensing process, the implementation, and the
management of the Village Forest. They only knew about
the location of the Village Forest. Throughout the preparation until the management of the Village Forest, women
were excluded. They only served as coffee makers and caterers in the meeting. According to one of the administrators of the Institute of Village Forest Management (LPHD),
women were rarely involved in meetings because women
were considered as obedient people who tended to follow
what their husband said. When her husband had said A,
she would obey her husband.
Village Forest became a new term that they heard at a
glance when their husband were in discussions. There was
a curiosity about what the Village Forest is. The opportunity to ask when their husband came home from a meeting
on the Village Forest was considered ineffective since they
69
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
were afraid that their husband would become emotional
because of the questions. They had ever asked husband,
and the husband said, “Come on, you do not understand.”
There was no attempt to explain from their husband, and
women were also reluctant to ask more questions, so that
the curiosity on the Village Forest was forgotten.
When the women were asked why they did not want
to participate in the meetings, they said that they felt inferior for not having a good education diploma. Besides, they
also illustrated that they had social jealousy toward some
other women in their sub-village who had a high school
diploma, who was selected by the community leaders to
attend meetings. “How can we grow while we have never invited to the meetings because our education is low. They [the
community leaders] always choose the nearest people with
high education [high school] to go to the meetings”, said one
of the women in this sub- village.
5.2 A Lesson from Riau
5.2.1. The Inequality in the Control over Forest in Riau
Riau Province has a total land area of ​​8.9 million
hectares. The control of most of the lands in Riau is in the
hands of the state (in the form of forest area and non- forest
area). The management of these lands are dominated by
logging companies through concessions (HPH), timber or
industrial forest concessions (HTI), ecosystem restoration
concessions, palm oil plantations, and mining companies
that obtain concession permits from the government.
More than sixty percent of land areas in Riau are designated as state forest area. There is a dynamic in terms
of forest area in the province. In 2011, based on the Decree
of Planology General of Forestry on behalf of the Minister
of Forestry Number SK.7651 / Menhut-VII/ KUH / 2011,
70
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
about 7.1 million hectares of lands in Riau province are
designated as forest area. In 2014, based on the Decree of
Minister of Forestry No. 673 / Menhut-II / 2014, there is a
change in the designation of forest areas into non-forest areas covering approximately 1.6 million hectares, a change
in the function of forest areas in ​​approximately 717 thousand hectares, and the designation of non-forest areas into
regional forest area of ​​about 11 thousand hectares in Riau
Province.
In the next development, responding to a letter from
the governor of Riau related to the results of assessment on
the change in the designation and functions of forest areas in
the proposed revision of Riau spatial plan, in 2014 through
the Decree 878 / Menhut-II / 2014 obout the Decree of
the Minister of Forestry on forest area in Riau Province, it
is determined that the forest area in this province covers
approximately 5.4 million hectares (5,499,693 acres to be
exact). The details of the function of the forest area are as
follows: i) Nature Reserve Area (KSA) / Conservation Areas (KPA) / Buru Park, covering an area of ​​approximately
633,420 hectares; ii) Protected Forest (HL), covering approximately 234,015 hectares; iii) Limited Production Forest (HPT) covering an area of 1,031,600
​​
million hectares;
iv) Permanent Production Forest (HP) covering 2,331,891
hectares; v) Production Forest that can be converted (HPK)
covering an area of ​​1,268,767 hectares.
Data collected by the Yayasan Mitra Insani (YMI) and
several other civil society organizations in Riau showed
that in 2014 there were 50 companies granted HTI permission with the concession area of ​​1,657,051 hectares,
6 companies granted HPH permission with the extensive
concession area of 308,248 hectares, 1 company granted
the HHBK-HT license with the concession area of 21,620
​​
hectares, 1 company granted permission of Ecosystem Restora71
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
tion with the concession area of 20,226 hectares, 692 hectares for the permit of People’s Forest (HTR), and 2 villages
obtaining permission and recognition for Village Forest
with the area of ​​4,226 hectares. On the other side, Hak
Guna Usaha/ HGU (Utilization Rights) which was a license
for plantation in the non-forest area was given to 153 plantation companies with the concession area of 2,130,886
hectares (Rahmawati and Hashim 2014).
The series of the data above clearly indicate the inequality in forest concession. The areas which are controlled
by the state in the form of forest and non-forest area, that
the management is controlled by companies that obtain a
concession license from the government, are very large. On
the contrary, the areas which obtain a license to be managed by the people through social forestry scheme are very
limited.
The areas designated by the state as state land, particularly as forest area and non-forest area are not the uninhabited areas. The data from Riau Forestry Service mention that there are at least 71 villages located in the forest
areas and as many as 361 villages located on the edge of
the forest areas. Indigenous peoples and other local communities live in these villages. Most of them have been in
the areas since some generations before. The zoning of
their living space into the forest area and non-forest area
that the control is in the hands of the state, and that the
management is in the hands of companies through various
concession permits has aroused conflicting claims over the
land in these areas. The conflicting claims over the land
lead to agrarian conflict.
According to the Forum Komunikasi Pemuka Masyarakat
Riau/ FKMPR (Communication Forum of Riau Community
Leaders) and Scale-up institution, agrarian-based conflict
in Riau occur between communities and forestry indus72
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
tries, communities with conservation areas and community with plantation industries. In 2008, there were at least
24 conflicts in 85,771 hectares, whereas in 2010, conflicts
occurred in the area of 230,492 hectares of land with production forest status, in the area of ​​28,000 hectares in protected areas and conservation, and in the area of ​​84,079
hectares with HPL or plantation status. In 2011, the conflicts were dominated by the plantation sector with the
number of 16 conflicts in 39,246 and the forestry sector
with 14 conflicts in the area of ​​262,877 hectares (Rahmawati and Hasyi 2014).
5.2.2. Using Village Forest Policy to Reclaim the Forest
Management Rights
5.2.2.1. Background and Preliminary Process
The conditions in which Riau is a province in Indonesia
that most of the regions are burdened with forest and land
management license for companies and the fact that there
is no area that is officially allocated by the government for
the community so that they can continue their own forest
management have underlain Yayasan Mitra Insani (YMI) in
pursuing community-based forest management initiatives
through Village Forest scheme. Together with Jaringan Kerja
Penyelamat Hutan Riau/ Jikalahari (Riau Forest Rescue
Network and Telapak Badan Teritori (BT) Riau, in 2010,
YMI proposed village forest for the people of Segamai Village, Teluk Meranti Sub-district and Serapung Village, Kuala
Kampar Sub-district, Pelalawan District, Riau Province.
After going through a long and winding journey for
about four years, on March 8 2013 along with the event
100% Indonesia Hijau Damai organized by Greenpeace Indonesia taken place at Gedung Arsip Nasional Jakarta ( in the
National Archive Building in Jakarta), Indonesian Forestry
73
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
Minister, Zulkifli Hasan symbolically handed over the Decree of the Village Forest License. In that event, the Director of YMI, Zainuri Hashim said that “The Village Forest is
the evidence of efforts to fight for the rights of communities to manage forest resources. This initiative should be
expanded to address that forests are not only for companies as what has happened”. 6
The long and winding journey in the submission process of Village Forest proposal began in May 2010. The
process ran after YMI conducted a review on the chance
of access toward forest management for the people. Based
on this study, there was an indication that the HPHPT area
of Agam Sempurna located in the area of ​​27,000 hectares
in Pelalawan was not extended after 35 years of operation.
This area is located in the administrative area of ​​4 villages,
Teluk Meranti, Pulau Muda, Segamai, and Serapung. Segamai and Serapung became the first two choice with the
consideration that the situation in those two villages were
more conducive than the other two villages (Teluk Meranti
and Pulau Muda) in terms of agrarian conflict which rose since
the issuance of the concession license of PT RAPP in 2009.
Serapung and Segamai village are villages with people who have a very high association with forest resources.
Forest products such as timber and non-timber in the forest around the villages were utilized by people to sustain
their daily needs such as for housing, boats, household appliance, and even for health and social ceremonies. The ties
between communities with forest resources have brought
the village communities in Segamai to develop ideas on the
need to ensure the community about forest management.
Furthermore, the community leaders of Segamai village
6
The news on the consignment of the Decree of Village Forest can be
seen on: http://gurindam12.co/2013/03/09/menhut-serahkanizin-hutan-desa-pertama-di-riau/#sthash.EH2UaAKN.dpuf
74
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
that began to know about the village forest schema from
the series of discussions facilitated by YMI started to consider the need to make sure the authority of the village in
forest management.
The Regulation of the Minister of Forestry No: P.49
/ Menhut-11/2008 concerning village forest provides the
opportunity and space for people to be able to manage the
forest area. The community of Segamai village, especially
the leaders, both formal and informal, captured that regulation on village forest provided opportunities that could be
used for the purpose of recognition toward forest management done by the people of Segamai Village. Then they also
assumed that this opportunity was in accordance with the
conditions of availability in the existing forest areas, particularly in the administration area of ​​Segamai Village. One of
the leaders, the Edi Saritonga who served as the chairman
of the BPD and a primary school teacher in Segamai Village
said that at the first time when the idea of village forest
was proposed, he and some community leaders discussed
about the motivation which was to reclaim the remaining
land so that it was not controlled by companies (Rahmawati and Hashim 2014). Furthermore, Edi Saritonga who
was also one of the key figures in the Institute of Village
Forest Management (LPHD) in Segamai said:
“I was one of the pioneers of that agreement. When
there is an opportunity for us to have our land, it
should be seized. The mindset of the people begins to
open. The less the existing forest the more difficult to
get a timber, especially if the land is already owned by
a company. Even entering the area and taking any wild
plant will be considered as stealing”(Edi Saritonga,
May 22, 2014 in Rahmawati and Hashim 2014)
75
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
The reason so that land was not controlled by the
company rose in the mind of the people not only in Segamai village but also in Serapung Village. The existence of
the area without license which was ex-concession area of
PT Sampoerna Agam became one chance to free the land
from the company. It was stated by Lauzar, the village secretary of Serapung.
“I just think just simple, rather than taken by the company, it is better if we hold the license. Second, We have
a big expectation that by having the forest, it helps to
fulfill our need of wood. The people in Serapung are
very dependent since in general, their livelihoods come
from wood, for example, to build houses and make
ships. “(Lauzar, May 24, 2014, in Rahmawati and
Hashim 2014)
The head of Serapung Village newly elected after the
establishment of village forest, Mr. Saifullah, had wise reason
to accept the idea of ​​village forest. Although he had just
served as the head of village in Serapung and did not participate in the struggle to fight for village forest permit, but
he also agreed with the village forest that had been initiated by the previous village head. The existence of the village forest meant to rescue the rest of the forest for future
generations of Segamai Village. He believed that village forest someday could be used to lift the economy of the people. However, the most important thing for the head of this
village was to have in which the management rights of the
village forest were in the hands of the communities not by
outsiders (Rahmawati and Hashim 2014).
The process of discussion conducted by the people
on Segamai and Serapung Village took place on various occasions, both formal and informal. The series of meetings
76
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
held in the village of Segamai eventually converged on a
deliberation conducted in the office hall of Segamai Village.
The deliberation resulted in a collective agreement to submit a proposal on the village forest to the regent of Pelalawan and the Ministry of Forestry (Rahmawati and Hashim
2014). In the deliberation held in Segamai Village, as well
as in a series of earlier discussions, there was almost no
involvement of women. The whole process seemed to be
dominated by men from the elite group, the men who became either formal or informal leaders. From the narrative
presented by Rahmawati and Hashim (2014), it was also
unrevealed how far involvement of men from non-elite
groups was.
After this deliberation, precisely in October 2010,
a few male figures of Segamai village began the preparation process of documents in two villages. A series of trips,
discussions and meetings, comparative studies, and approaches to local authorities conducted in a marathon. After the deliberations, the village represented by the head
of Segamai Village, Riduan, sent a proposal letter to make
Segamai village as village forest to the regent of Pelalawan
District and the Ministry of Forestry. The letter was also
sent to the Governor of Riau Province, the chairman of the
regional house of representatives (DPRD) of Pelalawan
District, Forestry Service of Riau Province, Forestry Service of Pelalawan District, the head of Teluk Meranti Subdistrict, and environment and community watcher institution (Riau, National, and International) (Rahmawati and
Hashim 2014).
A similar process occurred in Serapung Village. After
a series of discussions, on Wednesday, October 20th, 2010,
precisely at 14:00 pm, the people of Serapung Village held
a deliberation in the Village Hall of Serapung. It was explained in a manuscript written by Rahmawati and Hashim
77
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
(2014) various village officials along with other segments
of society associated with Serapung Village were also present in that occasion. The deliberation also discussed about
the proposal of Village Forest that would be submitted to
the Regent and the Minister of Forestry. From the meeting, a consensus was achieved that the people of Serapung
agreed with the proposal of the Village Forest. Although
not mentioned in detail in the manuscript written Rahmawati and Hashim (2014), with the reference at the end of
the text that said on the lack of involvement of women in
the process, it was almost certain that the deliberation was
also dominated by men of an elite group.
As wha t had been done by the people of Segamai
Village, the people of Serapung Village also sent a letter to
the governor of Riau Province and the Minister of Forestry
with the carbon copy notation to the chairman of Riau regional house of representatives (DPRD), the chairman of
Pelalawan DPRD, Forestry Service of Riau Province, Forestry Service of Pelalawan District, the head of Kuala Kampar Sub-district, and environment and community watcher
institution (Riau, National, and International).
5.2.2.2. A Long and Winding Road toward the Establishment of Village Forest
One component in the process of the establishment
of village forest was a field inspection by the verification
team. In the field inspection, the verification team would
look at the condition of the field which is proposed to be
Village Forest. The verification team would also conduct a
series of discussions with various parties.
Related to the establishment of Village Forest in Segamai Village, the Ministry of Forestry formed a verification team consisting of eight people where each of them
were derived from Directorate General of BPDASPS, Di78
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
rectorate General of Forestry Planning, Forestry Service
of Riau Province, BPDAS of Indragiri Rokan, and Forestry
Service of Pelalawan District. The verification team would
conduct an inspection in August 2011.
The verification process was conducted in several
steps. One of them was through the collection of data and
information on the prospective location of Village Forest of
Segamai. It was carried out based on the secondary data
which became the reference of the working area of the Village Forest. The next step was a discussion with relevant
agencies such as BPDAS of Indragiri Rokan, Forestry Service of Riau Province, and community care organizations,
Yayasan Mitra Insani (YMI), that worked in Segamai Village. For more detailed information, the verification team
also conducted Focus Group Discussion (FGD) with the
relevant parties and directly involved community leaders
from Segamai Village (Rahmawati and Hashim 2014).
Studying the record of a series of verification process in Segamai Village written by Rahmawati and Hashim
(2014), there were no records regarding the involvement
of women from different woman groups (including women
as the head of households) and the representatives of other
marginalized groups (including men from the families
without lands). Furthermore, there was no information on
whether the verification process also explored the social
data of the community, including tracing the social conditions faced by women and other marginalized groups.
The result of the verification on the region proposed
as Village Forest in Segamai was used by the verification
team to analyze the proposed area of Village Forest. The assessment was specifically conducted toward the status and
functions of the proposed forest, whether it was in accordance with Regulation of the Minister of Forestry No: P.40 /
Menhut-II / 2010 Jo Number: P.14 / Menhut-II / 2010 and
79
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
P.53 / Menhut-II / 2010 on Village Forest, which is a state
forest with the function as permanent production forest.
The verification process also checked whether the location
also bore no other rights or permits which were still valid
to be given to other parties (such as logging concessions,
etc.). The verification result also indicated that in order to
meet the needs of rural communities in their daily life, they
depended on the existence of surrounding forest areas for
agriculture, farming, and so on. It showed the people and
their forest in Segamai could not be separated. In addition,
people were also committed to the restoration of ecosystems, carbon trading, environmental services, and nontimber forest product collection without logging natural
forests. This was demonstrated through the forest management plan that would be harmonized with the management
plan of KPHP Model Tasik Besar Serkap in Palawan District
and Siak, and RT/RW in the province or district. One more
thing, the verification process also confirmed the intensive
community assistance since 2007 by non-governmental
organization, Yayasan Mitra Insani. The overall verification
result was quite helpful as a consideration in the determination of the working area in the Village Forest of Segamai
(Rahmawati and Hashim 2014).
The verification process was also performed in the
area of Serapung Village proposed as Village Forest. Some
components verified and analyzed were almost the same
as the verification components in Segamai Village, except
the topography and the coverage of land in Serapung Village which was relatively flat / sloping compared with Segamai village. The overviews on Serapung Village gathered
by verification team said that forest area in Serapung Village proposed a production forest area was approximately
​​
2000 hectares. Similar to Segamai Village, Serapung village
is located in the area of ​​peat swamp forest with 2-4 meters
80
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
in depth. The forest area was a former secondary forest
concession of PT Agam Sempurna. The area nominated as
Serapung Village Forest abutted onto to a protected area of
mangrove in the north. In the south, it abutted onto the logging concessions (IUPHHK HT) of PT Mitra Hutani Jaya. On
the other hand, in the east, it abutted onto IUPHHK HT of
PT Satria Perkasa Agung, while in the west, it abutted onto
IUPHHK-HT of Triomas FDI and proposed areas of Segamai
Village Forest (Rahmawati and Hashim 2014).
Like the verification process in Segamai Village, the
record of the verification process in Serapung Village also
showed no involvement of women from different woman
groups (including women as the head of households) and
the representatives of other marginalized groups (including men from the families without lands). Similar to Segamai Village, the verification process of Serapung Village
also did not have any related to the question information
on whether the verification process also explored the social data of the community, including tracing the social conditions faced by women and other marginalized groups.
5.2.2.3. Women and Village Forest in Segamai and
Serapung Village
From the records on the series of processes related
to the establishment of village forest in Segamai and Serapung Village, starting from the formulation of the agreement, the proposal, the verification process, until the official establishment, it can be learned that the involvement
of women and other marginalized groups in the series of
processes related to the formalization of Village Forest was
very limited. Rahmawati and Hashim (2014) noted that the
male figures, both formal and informal leaders, in both villages who actively involved in the process of obtaining the
license for Village Forest considered that all matters con81
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
nected to the process were convoluted and time consuming
so that it would be better to be performed by men.
The fact that women were not involved in the whole
process related to the establishment of village forest and
as the views of the key parties involved in the preparation
of Village were not in line with the social reality in both
villages which indicated that women from different social
groups in these two villages had a relationship with land
and a variety of forest products and also had particular
roles in the management of land and forest resources.
Women from different social groups in Serapung Village actually had bigger power the traditional order and
social life. They had roles as people who not only took
care of the household needs but also took part to fight for
the economy of the family. Creativity through generations
performed by women of Segamai should be reckoned. Although they were simple and did not demand many things
in the system of village administration, but they had activities which were done not only for spending their free time
but also for financial support. The works they did had become a custom done by women. The works were weaving
mats, coconut peeling, working on pinang (areca palm),
and making roof of thatch leaves (Rahmawati and Hashim).
Although women in both villages clearly had various
forms of relationships with the land and forest resources
as well as various forms of roles in the management of land
and forest resources, these roles were considered part of
the domestic roles of women. Income derived by women,
especially women in the village who had skill of weaving
pandan mats, coconut peeling, working on pinang, and
making roof of thatch leaves seemed to be just considered
as additional income.
82
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
The role of women in land and forest resources
placed into the domestic realm contributed to the exclusion of women in the series of processes related to Village
Forest in Segamai and Serapung. Another thing which was
also as important as the reality in these two villages where
there was no involvement of women in the series of processes related to Village Forest was the situation in which
women were not substantially involved in activities in the
public and in the decision-making. The formal and informal
leaders in both villages had a strong view that the position
of women was in the domestic domain, and the all issues in
the public domain were for men.
Although the information available about the role of
women in Sugapa Village in land management was very
limited, from the manuscript written by Rahmawati and
Hashim (2014), it can be see that the women of a certain
social group involved in land management, especially in
corn planting season twice a year. In corn planting season,
the men relied on women to plant the corn seeds in the
land that had been prepared. The main reason for this was
that women were considered more painstaking. At harvest
time, the ones harvesting were the women. Meanwhile,
the men usually contributed to carry the corn picked by
the women and clear the plantation before it was planted
again. In addition to planting in their own plantation, the
women in Segamai Village also helped relatives and neighbors in Segamai and received wages from their work.
On the other hand, from the limited information
about women in Segamai village, there was information
about a group of women with a certain social background
who had a very limited role in land management. This
group worked more on domestic matters. It was more likely that this group was the women from middle-upper class
in the village. Further investigation was needed to find out
83
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
who they were, their background, and how their positions.
There was a possibility that this group was a group mentioned by the men, both formal and informal figures, in
which the role was in domestic matters. Deeper investigation was certainly required to determine how the tradition
and the complexity of the reality in the field affected the
view of the male figure.
Rahmawati and Hashim (2014) mentioned that the
majority of activities related to public affairs in the village
Segamai were handled by the men which also happened in
the activities connected to the preparation of Village Forest.
It was expressed by Kasmawati, a housewife who lived in
RT 4 of Segamai village.
“We know that there was a village forest because the
Minister of Forestry has ever come here, and the people
of YMI also often come here until we know some people
who come here, but we do not know specifically what
they are doing here,” (Kasmawati, May 2014 in Rahmawati and Hashim 2014).
Kasmawati also said that she and the women in Segamai Village wanted to know more about Village Forest and
to be involved in the activities held by the village officials.
She said,
“We also belong to the community of this village. If we
are informed about the meetings held by the guests related to village forest here, we also want to come.”
The main problem of the women in Serapung Village
was almost the same with the problem of the women in the
village Segamai. They were not involved whenever the men
had discussions on social problems that occurred in the vil84
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
lage. Rahmawati and Hashim (2014) noted that it was because of the position of women which was considered only
complementary to men. Women had not been considered
as equal partners whose views needed to be heard. However, these records needed to proceed with further investigation on how views on the position of women and men
in different social groups, whether based on social class,
ethnicity, age, educational background, and so on. The view
that placed women only in the domestic matters attached
more likely in the elite group compared with the non-elite
group.
Rahmawati and Hashim (2014) also explained on the
fact that the women were not involved in the series of discussions in Serapung Village, including in the preparation
of Village Forest, was also caused by the low educational
level of the majority of women in Serapung Village.
85
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
86
6
CRITICAL REFLECTION ON VILLAGE FOREST
6.1. The Complexity in Village Forest Permit and the
Inequality in the Position of “the people”
L
essons learned from South Sumatra and Riau show
the complexity of the process of Village Forest Permit.
The complexity of the process occurred in various levels.
At the level of formal regulations, the process of Village Forest permit required more than 25 stages (often referred to
as “table”). These long stages resulted in the complexity of
the process of the permit. As the result, the process of the
Village Forest took a long time.
Studies conducted by Kelompok Kerja Pemberdayaan
(Working Group of Empowerment in 2010 supported by
Kemitraan (Partnership for Governance Reform) indicated
that the process of Village Forest Permit was slow and took
a long time due to the following factors: a) the number of
stages in the process or the number of “table” which was
about 29 “table”; b) the reviewing process of the supporting
87
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
documents from the manuscript of the proposed village
forest than ran slowly; c) the poor coordination between
the units in the Ministry of Forestry; d) lack of resources;
e) lack of knowledge about the Village Forest at provincial
and district levels; f) lack of local government funds; g) the
limited availability of basic map in the form of digital maps.
Moreover, actually, the complexity of Village Forest
Permit also showed that the position of the people, in this
case, the people of certain villages proposing for the Village
Forest for their village area, was still marginal. It meant
that the people of the village were still not regarded as a
party that the need became the main priority. In comparison with companies that applied for a business license in
which they gained greater attention, the villagers who proposed Village Forest in order to escape from poverty and
at the same time impoverishment they were facing were
still underestimated or not even considered. Meanwhile,
the big companies with various forms of corruption-collusion-nepotism (KKN) in their business licensing process
and in terms of tax payments related to their businesses
were continually given the opportunity to continue their
involvement in the management of state forest areas.
6.2. Village Forest and the Inequality in Decision Making
The process of the establishment of Village Forest
was filled with a series of steps of making decisions. From
the lessons in South Sumatra and Riau, it can be learned
that in all stages of the decision-making process, elite
groups in society had a greater role or even dominated.
The involvement of non-elite groups or representatives of
ordinary citizens from different social groups at the village
level was still limited.
88
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
The involvement of women from different social
groups (including elite and non-elite) in villages proposing
village forest in South Sumatra and Riau was also very limited or it could be said almost nothing. For the case in Riau,
the former PKK chairman of Serapung Village, Ida (34) who
was currently not in that position and domiciled in Selat
Panjang said:
“It’s known that the women here had low educational level. Many did not complete primary school. I, although at that time accompanied the village head
(currently not served-red) to Jakarta in the reception
of village forest permit, also do not really know about
village forest. I just know that there is a forest that
becomes the rights of the villagers. Concerning the
regulatory issues, legislation and other details, I do not
know, “said Ida, beginning of May 2014.
Ida’s narrative was interesting to investigate further,
mainly related to two things, namely i) the link between
lack of education of women and the marginalization of
women in socio-cultural context as well as the impoverishment caused by the inequality of land tenure, forest resources and other agrarian resources: ii) the representation of women in a series of decisions about Village Forest,
which was, in fact, closely related to women’s living space.
Regarding the representation of women in the series
of decision-making on village forest, Ida’s statement that
she did not really know about village forest was very interesting to explore further. This was because Ida was not
presented in the ceremony of symbolically giving license
on Village Forest by the Ministry of Forestry in Jakarta on
March 8, 2013. The photos of the event published in various media, both printed and electronic media, included the
89
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
presence of Ida. For the readers who obtained the information only by studying the news and did not know the
real situation, the photos showing the presence of Ida in
the event could be translated by the readers as a symbol of
the presence of women and the symbol of women’s participation. However, the reality behind the event as described
by Ida, unfortunately, did not represent the true reality. Ida
was involved at the end of the process, which was at the
symbolically official handover ceremony of village forest license by the Minister of Forestry, but Ida was not involved
in the series of the previous processes. Further investigation on the background of Ida’s involvement that appeared
as the symbol of women’s involvement and on who proposed and took a decision on the presence of Ida was still
needed.
6.3. Village Forest and Indigenous Forest
Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara/ AMAN (Alliance
of Indigenous Peoples of the Archipelago is one of the organizations assuming that the series of social forestry policies (including policy on Village Forest) set by the government is not in accordance with the demands of indigenous
peoples, which is the recognition of indigenous peoples’
rights including the rights to indigenous territories, the
rights of natural resources found in the region, as well as
the rights to organize and manage indigenous territories,
their natural resources, and other sources of life.
AMAN is completely aware that there are many sectoral laws in Indonesia, especially the Law of Forestry No.
41 of 1999 that does not recognize the rights of indigenous
peoples of Indonesia and has been used by the Ministry
of Forestry to legalize the claims over indigenous territories as part of the state forest. Therefore, AMAN decided to
challenge the articles and the Law of Forestry No. 41/1999
90
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
and practices of the government institutions that included
indigenous territories in state forests. The formal submission for judicial review of the legislation was proposed by
AMAN and the two members of indigenous community,
Kasepuhan Cisitu of Lebak, Banten and Kenegerian Kuntu
of Kampar Kiri-Riau, to the Constitutional Court on March
19, 2012. The submission of the judicial review by AMAN
on a number of articles in Law No. 5/1999 on Forestry was
based on the Law of 1945 (amended in 2002) which recognized the cultural identity and traditional rights of indigenous
peoples as the basic of human rights (Rachman and Siscawati, in press).
Before the Constitutional Court issued the Decree on
the Case Number 35 / PUU-X / 2012 (hereinafter referred
to the Decree of the Constitutional Court 35) in which the
Court determined that indigenous forests are no longer
classified as state forests, with the reference to the Law of
Forestry No. 41 of 1999 the Government of Indonesia developed various policies that provided a space for people
to participate in managing state forests. In addition, the
government also developed a policy to strengthen forest
management by the people on lands (Law No. 41 of 1999
referred to it as “hutan hak” (private forest)). However, a
space for people’s participation in forest management is
still limited by the concept on the control over lands and
forest resources by the state, which at last, gives a lot of
restrictions for the villagers, especially indigenous peoples.
91
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
92
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara (AMAN). 2002. Satukan Langkah Menuju Kedaulatan Masyarakat Adat.
Jakarta: AMAN.
Arendt,H. 1968. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York:
Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich.
Arizona,Y. 2010. “Satu Dekade Legislasi Masyarakat Adat:
Trend Legislasi Nasional tentang Keberadaan dan
Hak-hak Masyarakat Adat atas Sumber Daya Alam di
Indonesia (1999-2009).” Kertas Kerja Epistema No.
07/2010. Jakarta: Epistema Institute.
Bobsien, A. dan E. Hoffmann. 19998. ‘Plantations and Fores
Fires in Indonesia.’ Makalah yang dipresentasikan
dalam “11th Internasional NGO Forum on Indonesian
Development Conference on Democratization in the
Era og Globalization”, Bonn,4-6 Mei.
Boomgard, P. 1992. “Forest Management and Exploitation
in Colonial Java, 1677-1897.” Forest & Conservation
History 36 (1): 4-14. DOI: 10.2307/3983978.
Davidson, J.s., D. Henley, dan S. Moniaga, Penyunting. 2010.
Adat dalam Politik Indonesia. Jakarta: Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia dan KITLV-Jakarta.
93
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
____. 2010. “Dilema Zaman Kolonial: van Vollenhoven dan
Perseteruan antara Hukum Adat dan Hukum Barat di
Indonesia.” Dalam Adat dalam Politik Indonesia, disunting oleh J.S. Davidson, D. Henley, dan S. Moniaga,
57-76. Jakarta: Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia dan
KITLV-Jakarta.
De Angelis, M. 1999. “Marx’s Theory of Primitive Accumulation: A Suggested Reinterpretation.”Diakses pada
4 Oktober 2012.http://homepages.uel.ac.uk/M.
DeAngelis/PRIMACCA.htm.
Fauzi, N. 1999. Petani & Penguasa: Dinamika Perjalanan
Politik Agraria Indonesia. Yogyakarta: INSISTPress,
Konsorsium Pembaruan Agraria (KPA), dan Pustaka
Pelajar.
Gaventa, J. dan R. Tandon, Penyunting. 2011. Globalizing
Citizens: New Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion.
London dan New York: Zed Books.
Gouwgioksiong. 1961. “Law Reform in Indonesia.” Rabels
Zeitschriift fur auslandisches und internationals Privatrecht 26: 535-553.
Notonagoro. 1972. Politik Hukum dan Pembangunan Agraria di Indonesia. Jakarta: Pantjuran Tudjuh.
Rachman, N.F. 2011. The Resurgence of Land Reform Policy
and Agrarian Movements in Indonesia. Disertai. University of California.
____. 2012a. Land Reform dari Masa ke Masa. Yogyakarta:
Tanah Air Beta.
____, S.R. Mary, Y. Arizona, dan N. Firmansyah. 2012. “Kajian
Kritis atas Peraturan Menteri Agraria/Kepala Badan
Pertanahan Nasional Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang
Pedoman Penyelesaian Permasalahan Hak UIayat
Masyarakat Hukum Adat.” Kertas Kerja Epistema No.
01/2012. Jakarta: Epistema Institute.
94
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
Safitri, M.A. 2010. “Legislasi Hak – Hak Masyarakat atas Tanah dan Kekayaan Alam dalam Peraturan Perundang
– Undangan Nasional Indonesia: Model, Masalah, dan
Rekomendasi.” Dalam Masa Depan Hak-Hak Komunal atas Tanah: Beberapa Gagasan untuk Pengakuan
Hukum: Rekomendasi Kebijakan, 15-35. Jakarta: Van
Vollenhoven Institute, Universitas Leiden dan Badan
Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (Bappenas).
Siscawati, M. dan A. Mahaningtyas. 2012. “Gender Justice:
Forest Tenure and Fores Governance in Indonesia.”
Dalam The Challenges of Securing Women’s Tenure
and Leadership for Forest Management: The Asian Experience, disunting oleh M. Buchy et al. Washington,
D.C.: Rights and Resources Initiative.
Siscawati,M. 2013. “Memahami Disposesi dan Kuasa Eksklusi dalam ekspansi Perkebunan Kelapa Sawit Melalui Tutut Perempuan.” Naskah dalam Kursus Agraria Sajogyo Institute dan Tema “Perubahan Agraria
di Beragam Tempat Komoditas Global”, Bogor, 10-17
September.
Sodiki, A. 2012. “Konstitusionalitas Masyayrakat Adat dalam
Konstitusi,” Makalah dalam “Simposium Masyarakat
Adat: Mempersoalkan Keberadaan Masyarakat Adat
Sebagai Subjek Hukum”, Jakarta, 27-28 Juni.
Van Vollenhoven, C. 2013. Orang Indonesia dan Tanahnya.
Yogyakarta: Sekolah Tinggi Pertanahan Nasional
(STPN), Sajogyo Institute, Perkumpulan untuk Pembaharuan Hukum Berbasis Masyarakat dan Ekologis
(HuMa), dan Tanah Air Beta.
95
The Struggle of the People to Fight Back against Exclusion and
Reclaim the Access toward Forests
96