eTask 4: Village Boundary Setting Final Report Support ... · PDF file2013 Prepared for: ... 875 15th St., NW Washington, D.C. 20005 Submitted by: Abt Associates Inc. 4550 Montgomery

eTask 4: Village

Boundary Setting

Final Report

Support Services for

Land Use Planning,

District Readiness,

Strategic

Environmental

Assessment and

Related Preparatory

Activities for the

Green Prosperity

Project

in Indonesia

Contract # GS10F0086K

Second Draft for MCC

Review and Comment

21 October20 November

2013

Prepared for:

Millennium Challenge

Corporation

875 15th St., NW

Washington, D.C. 20005

Submitted by:

Abt Associates Inc.

4550 Montgomery Avenue

Suite 800 North

Bethesda, MD 20814

In Partnership with:

ICRAF, Indonesia

URDI, Indonesia

T

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting Contract # GS10F0086K

Abt Associates Inc. i

Table of Contents

Abbreviations, Acronyms and Glossary of Key Terms................................................................ iii

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. v

1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Scope of Work ................................................................................................................................................. 3

1.2.1. Policy Review ......................................................................................................................................... 3

1.2.2. Likelihood Assessment of Implementation of Participatory Village Boundary Setting .................... 3

1.2.3. Understanding Local Values and Stakeholder Involvement ................................................................ 3

1.2.4. Developing the Draft Guideline ............................................................................................................. 4

1.2.5. Initial Presentation, Feedback and Revision ......................................................................................... 4

1.2.6. Adoption and Capacity Development in Village Boundary Setting .................................................... 4

1.3. Methodology .................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.4. Report Structure .............................................................................................................................................. 6

2. Policies on Villages and Village Boundary Setting in Indonesia........................................ 7

2.1. Indonesian Villages over Time .......................................................................................................................... 7

2.2. Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous Territory .................................................................................................. 9

2.3. MOHA Policy Framework for Village Boundary Setting ............................................................................. 10

2.4. Interface between Village Territory and Governance Status of Land........................................................... 17

2.5. Villages in District Spatial Planning ............................................................................................................... 20

2.6. Policy on Land Dispute Settlement ................................................................................................................. 21

3. Village and Administrative Territorial Boundary Setting .................................................. 23

3.1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 23

3.2. Merangin District ............................................................................................................................................. 23

3.3. District of Muaro Jambi ................................................................................................................................... 25

3.4. Villages in West Sulawesi ............................................................................................................................... 27

4. Towards Participatory Village Boundary Setting .................................................................. 31

4.1. Participatory Mapping Practices ..................................................................................................................... 31

4.1.1. International Best Practices in Participatory Mapping ........................................................................... 31

4.1.2. Participatory Mapping in Indonesia ......................................................................................................... 36

4.1.3. Lessons Learned from Participatory Mapping ........................................................................................ 38

4.1.4. Use of Technology in Participatory Mapping ......................................................................................... 39

4.2. Village Boundary Setting Practices Based on Permendagri No. 27 Yearof 2006 ....................................... 40

4.2.1. Village Boundary Setting in the Districts of Merangin, Muaro Jambi, Mamasa and Mamuju ........... 40

4.2.2. Tebo District in Jambi Province............................................................................................................... 41

4.2.3. Ogan Komering Ilir, South Sumatra ........................................................................................................ 42

4.2.4. Study on Village Boundary Setting by University of Gajah Mada ....................................................... 45

4.2.5. Lessons Learned from Village Boundary Setting ................................................................................... 45

4.3. Important Factors in Participatory Village Boundary Setting ....................................................................... 46

4.4. Lessons Learned From Village Boundary Setting ......................................................................................... 51

4.5. Lessons Learned from Regional Boundary Setting........................................................................................ 54


Abt Associates Inc. ii

5. Conclusion and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 56

5.1. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................ 56

5.2. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................ 59

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................ 64

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1. Conceptual model of Green Prosperity ........................................................................................................ 1

Exhibit 2. Regulations on villages over time ................................................................................................................ 8

Exhibit 3. Flow of village boundary setting concept .................................................................................................. 11

Exhibit 4. Territorial boundary demarcation guide (Permendagri No. 27 Yearof 2006) ......................................... 13

Exhibit 5. Delineation and Demarcation of Village Boundaries ............................................................................... 14

Exhibit 6. Territorial Boundary Map (Permendagri No. 27 Yearof 2006) ............................................................... 15

Exhibit 7. Provisional list of Local Governments adopting Permendagri No. 27 Yearof 2006 .............................. 16

Exhibit 8. Sungai Tebal on the border of Tuo and Nilo Dingin Villages ................................................................. 24

Exhibit 9. Boundary of Tuo Village and Nilo Dingin Village in Sungai Tebal ....................................................... 25

Exhibit 10. Boundary of Tuo Village and Nilo Dingin Village in Sungai Tebal ..................................................... 26

Exhibit 11. Elementary school (SD) in Sungai Beruang ............................................................................................ 27

Exhibit 13. Buttuada Village in boundary dispute between Mamasa District and Mamuju District ...................... 29

Exhibit 12. Expansion of Leko Village in Rantebulahan Timur Sub-district, Mamasa District ............................. 29

Exhibit 14. Land Expansion in Polo Camba Village, Pangale Sub-district, Mamuju District ................................ 30

Exhibit 15. Differences in land use and land occupancy ........................................................................................... 32

Exhibit 16. Stages in Traditional Land Use Study ..................................................................................................... 33

Exhibit 17. Stages in Native Lands Methodology ...................................................................................................... 35

Exhibit 18. Sample sketch map made by a community ............................................................................................. 35

Exhibit 19. Final map produced by Nambluong (Papua) community using Native Lands Methodology .............. 36

Exhibit 20. Participatory Mapping stages in Indonesia .............................................................................................. 37

Exhibit 21. Sample village map attached to District Regulation (Perda) of Muaro Jambi ..................................... 41

Exhibit 22. Technical and social capacity of boundary setting personnel ................................................................ 46

Exhibit 23. Types of village boundary dispute ........................................................................................................... 50


Abt Associates Inc. iii

Abbreviations, Acronyms and Glossary of Key Terms

ADD Alokasi Dana Desa – Village Fund Allocation

Afdeeling government territorial unit in Dutch East Indies era

AMAN Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara (Indonesian Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance)

APBD Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah – Regional Budget

APBN Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Negara – State Budget

Bappeda Badan Pembangunan dan Perencanaan Daerah – Regional Development

Planning Board

BPMPD Badan Pemberdayaan Masyarakat dan Pemerintah Desa – Office for the

Empowerment of Rural Communities and Village Government

BPN Badan Pertanahan Nasional – National Land Agency

cartometry delineation of boundary lines on map

CORS Continuously Operating Reference Station

Desa village; smallest territorial unit that has autonomy to manage itself

DPR Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat – House of Representatives

GIS geographical information systems; a computer based spatial information

processing system

GP Green Prosperity

GPS global positioning systems; a coordinate determination system on earth surface

using navigation satellites

JKPP Jaringan Kerja Pemetaan Partisipatif – Participatory Mapping Network

JRSP Jaringan Referensi Satelit Pertanahan - Land Satellite Reference Network

HPH Hak Pengelolaan Hutan – Forest Concession

Inpres Presidential Instruction

Kecamatan Sub-district; government territorial units to coordinate a number of villages

Kemendagri Kementerian Dalam Negeri – Ministry of Home Affairs

KMAN Congress of Indonesian Indigenous Peoples

Landsat earth observation satellite owned by United States

MCA-I Millennium Challenge Account – Indonesia

MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation

MOHA Ministry of Home Affairs

MSF Multi Stakeholder Forum

NGO non-governmental organization

Formatted: Spanish (Spain, InternationalSort)


Abt Associates Inc. iv

OKI Ogan Kemering Ilir

Onderafdeeling government unit in Dutch East Indies era

PBD Panitia Batas Daerah – Regional Boundary Committee

Pemda Pemerintah Daerah – Local Government

Pemdes Pemerintah Desa – Village Government

Pemkab Pemerintah Kabupaten – District Government

Perda Peraturan Daerah – Local Regulation

Permen Peraturan Menteri – Ministerial Regulation

Permendagri Peraturan Menteri Dalam Negeri – Minister of Home Affairs Regulation

Permeneg Peraturan Menteri Negara – State Minister Regulation

Permenhut Peraturan Menteri Kehutanan – Minister of Forestry Regulation

Permen PU Peraturan Menteri Pekerjaan Umum – Minister of Public Works Regulation

PIR Perkebunan Inti Rakyat – Nucleus Estate and Smallholder Scheme (NESS)

PLUP participatory land use planning

PP Peraturan Pemerintah – Government Regulation

PTPN Perseroan Terbatas Perkebunan Nusantara – state-owned plantation company

RDTR Rencana Detail Tata Ruang (Detailed Spatial Plan)

RTRW Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah (Regional Spatial Plan)

RUU Rancangan Undang-undang – Draft Bill

SAD Suku Anak Dalam

satellite imagery visual recording of the state of the Earth taken by earth observation satellites

SPOT Earth observation satellite owned by French

TNI Tentara Nasional Indonesia – Indonesian National Army

UPT Unit Pemukiman Transmigrasi – Transmigration Settlement Units


Abt Associates Inc. v

Executive Summary

The team’s study of the four starter districts (Merangin, Muaro Jambi, Mamuju and Mamasa) found

that developments in village border setting have been very slow because village boundaries are not a

top priority in these districts. Meanwhile, there has been rapid investment in the villages. Unclear

village borders would affect the implementation of investment and development plans because the

issue has the potential to increase tensions among the actors involved. This results in a lack of spatial

certainty (which is present when spatial planning is done properly) and spatial equity (which is

present when the local community is given a prominent role in spatial planning).

A lack of spatial certainty can lead to high economic, social and environmental costs for those

involved. Local communities would be the most affected, because these costs can be beyond their

capacity to bear. Clear and well-documented village delineation in the country’s territorial system is

needed in order to address this issue. However, the brief assessment conducted in the preparation of

this report and other studies show that clear boundaries generally exist in areas maintaining strong

customary laws. However, knowledge of these customary boundaries is not generally found in

documents, but in oral agreements known only by a few elders. Without concerted efforts to transfer

this knowledge to the next generation, the information will be lost, and no one will know the

boundaries agreed in the past.

The Task 4 (Village Boundary Setting) team under the District Readiness Assessment (DRA) – a

project which aims to provide input for the preparation of the Green Prosperity (GP) program in

Indonesia – was assigned to review developments in village boundary setting in Indonesia,

particularly in the provinces of Jambi and West Sulawesi, and to develop guidelines for participatory

village boundary setting. The team was tasked with preparing village boundary setting guidelines for

use at the district level, which will be used to implement Participatory Land Use Planning (PLUP).

The PLUP guidelines, which are a separate attachment to this report, are intended to enhance the

village boundary setting guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA), particularly

those contained in MOHA Regulation (Permendagri) No. 27 Yearof 2006 on Delineation and

Confirmation of Village Boundaries. The guidelines also incorporate international best practices in

participatory mapping that are being carried out by NGOs in various parts of Indonesia. The

guidelines were developed in consultation with local governments and NGOs in four starter districts –

Merangin and Muaro Jambi in Jambi province, and Mamasa and Mamuju in West Sulawesi – which

are stakeholders in the Green Prosperity project. It is intended that the guidelines can become a GP

methodology for village boundary setting and community mapping that is legally recognized and

enacted in each district.

Before developing the guidelines (which are an Appendix to this report), the DRA Task 4 team

conducted a policy review and study on the boundary setting practices of both government agencies

and NGOs, especially in the four starter districts. The study also looked at the possibility of

participatory village boundary setting being conducted, especially by identifying technical,

institutional, administrative and legal support for village boundary setting, and assessing institutional

capacity to implement the boundary demarcation process in a transparent, participatory, inclusive,

accountable, responsive and timely manner. The study involved tracking the secondary information

(research reports and media articles), reviewing applicable legislation, and holding focus group


Abt Associates Inc. vi

discussions and in-depth interviews. The team then developed the Guidelines for Participatory Village

Boundary Setting as a separate attachment to this report. The team presented a preliminary draft of

these guidelines at the Multi-Stakeholder Forum (MSF) held in each of the four districts. The team

also received input from MCC and MCA-I, which was incorporated in the preparation of this report

and the guidelines.

Currently, the government is focusing on provincial and district boundaries in its boundary setting

program, most likely to ensure proper territorial administration. However, when investments reach the

village level, clear village boundaries become crucial. Consequently, village boundary setting should

be given equal weight in the boundary setting program.

The study also found that, provided there are clear boundaries between villages, the district and

provincial boundaries will also become clear. This suggests the need for a breakthrough that can

accelerate the village boundary setting process. Such a breakthrough can overcome current obstacles

such as the time required and the high costs involved. By using participatory mapping and involving

many parties, boundary mapping can be done more efficiently and can be more participatory.

The team found that Regulation No. 27 Yearof 2006 focuses on technical mapping issues and fails to

pay adequate attention to the social issues involved in village boundary setting. Village boundary

mapping cannot be treated as merely a technical activity that is carried out by mapping technicians –

the process is much broader than cartography, as it involves social aspects that are often complex.

A key social factor in the village boundary setting process is the history of the village’s

establishment,1 which will determine the degree of complexity in reaching agreement on the village

boundaries. There are two common ways in which villages can be formed – genealogically and non-

genealogically.

Genealogical villages are usually old villages inhabited by people with strong kinship ties over many

generations. These villages generally have customary rules and a clear territory that is based on those

rules. In other words, these villages are inhabited by indigenous peoples with indigenous territories,

whether still intact or already divided into several villages by central government edict in the New

Order era. (This commonly occurred after the imposition of standardized Javanese-style village and

territorial re-organization of rural regions to facilitate access to public services and exploitation of

resources.)

Non-genealogical villages are villages whose inhabitants have no particular kinship ties. These

villages may be based on recent expansion or transmigration, or local rural occupations. Villages can

also be a mixture of the two types, where people who have kinship ties migrate and mix with other

people.

Whatever the background to the village’s formation, indigenous territorial integrity needs to be

considered when village boundary setting is being undertaken – whether by MCA-I under the GP

program or by any other organization. So, for the purposes of the GP program, the maps resulting

1 The histories of villages in Indonesia are strongly linked to migrations into uninhabited areas or areas in which

other communities have previously established settlements or claims. The second scenario tends to complicate

the territorial and tenurial rights of the communities involved. Most village histories are passed down orally

from generation to generation through repeated storytelling. With the rapid social and cultural changes

occurring in rural areas, particularly the introduction of television, storytelling has begun to disappear,

jeopardizing the continued transfer of oral knowledge in rural communities.


Abt Associates Inc. vii

from village boundary setting projects will provide indicative and informative indigenous territorial

boundaries for the maps of village administrative boundaries (It is beyond MCA-I’s authority and

remit to provide an authoritative indigenous boundaries map).

Given the social complexity involved in village boundary setting, the separate guideline attempts to

add a social component, chiefly during the village boundary delineation stage. To that end, the

guideline incorporates aspects of large-scale participatory mapping as an input to Regulation No. 27

Yearof 2006. Participatory mapping is at the core of the village boundary delineation process, while

the activity stages set out in the MOHA Guideline on Village Boundary Delineation and Demarcation

(published as an Annex to Regulation No. 27 Yearof 2006) are the core of village boundary

demarcation.

While the Native Lands mapping methodology is primarily intended for mapping large regions of up

to 2,000,000 hectares in size and with 20-25 communities, this guideline is also intended for mapping

sub-districts and indigenous territories. This approach is expected to reduce the time and cost

involved, while also reducing the likelihood of conflict arising. An advantage of the Native Lands

methodology is its emphasis on the community’s spatial use. This is very useful for people in

adjoining villages to understand the control of land between them, as it places them in a more

informed position when negotiating the boundaries of their villages. This is important, as there is a

strong tendency for rural communities to consider tenure boundaries as the same as village

boundaries. There is also a tendency for the delineation of village boundaries to be seen as the act of

putting up fences in territory that customarily had no boundaries. Such action is only likely to increase

the potential for conflict to arise.

Under this methodology, a number of non-technical tasks (i.e. non-cartographic tasks) need to be

conducted. These include raising funds, managing the funds, organizing people at each activity stage

(including holding workshops and going into the field), logistics (travel, food, and lodging),

communicating with various parties at villages and government level, and managing teams at events.

While cartography remains a critical component, it is one of many. The biggest issue is how all of

these components can be combined and managed. There is always a strong temptation to embark on

the activity as quickly as possible, before the field work has been done. As soon as the idea of village

boundary setting arises, there will always be some people who want to go ahead immediately. This

urge must be restrained until a strong activities management team has been formed and other key

components have been established.

To accommodate community land use, the less well-known MOHA Regulation 51 Yearof 2007 can

be used as an entry point for village boundary setting, together with the district spatial planning

approach used by the GP Program. This regulation encourages a bottom-up decision making process,

which can reduce disputes over land use and tenure. While some villages are located in state

forestlands, the current policy should be reviewed carefully through documentary research, including

the pros and cons of the bottom-up planning process. There also needs to be an appreciation that the

local community is not a single entity with particular interests; the interests of the impoverished,

families led by women, landless peasants, and others, all need to be considered.

Boundary setting will be implemented whenever new villages are formed or villages change status to

become kelurahan. In fact, as explained earlier and based on existing experience, district boundaries

at the lower level are actually also village boundaries. Consequently, district boundary setting may

also indirectly be village boundary setting, especially in areas that are also district or provincial

boundaries. Once village boundary setting has been completed, the sub-district, district and provincial


Abt Associates Inc. viii

boundaries will also be complete. Going forward, districts and provinces need to prioritize village

boundaries first. Any funding from the state budget for district and provincial demarcation should

therefore also be allocated to village boundary setting.

Undertaking and expediting village boundary setting activities requires support from various parties.

The parties involved in this regard will be the district government concerned, MCA-I, NGOs and local

communities. The district government (particularly the Governance Division and/or BPMPD) needs

to have strong political will to obtain the funds, expertise, and guidance. MCA-I, under the GP

Program, can provide the funds and expertise needed to assist the district governments selected and

the local communities. For their part, indigenous and religious leaders can help with consensus

building to reach agreement on the village boundaries. NGOs with relevant experience of the issues

can also support the process through both social and technical work. Various institutions at the district

level have the requisite technical skills, including Bappeda, the Forest Service, the Department of

Agriculture, the Land Agency, and other agencies.

To fill the gaps (and occasional lack of harmony) in national policy, local governments typically

regulate land issues in more detail through local regulations (Perda) or a Decree (SK) of the District

Head (Bupati). Local regulations that delegate district government authority to the village government

may cover, among other things, forest boundaries, zoning, and the collection of revenue from land and

natural resources. There are differences in practice between districts, and there is a need to identify

which communities and NGOs in which districts have experience in setting village boundaries.


Abt Associates Inc. ix

Recommendations

1. To follow up the Green Prosperity Project MoUs that have been signed between MCA-I and the

four starter districts, each Bupati should adopt the GP-PLUP VBS/CM methodology by issueing

a decree instructing the Governance Division to implement Article 6(e) of the MoU by

implementing the GP-PLUP VBS/CM methodologyto undertake village boundary setting

activities in accordance with Regulation No. 27 Year of 2006 in all villages of falling within the

selected sub-districts (kecamatan). A bupati decree is more reasonable with the GP Project’s

timeframe, as it takes less time and more straightforward in issuing it, rather the ideal status of

district regulation (peraturan daerah) that can take months to complete. This Bupati should issue

another decree to decree will also establish a Village Delineation and Demarcation Committee to

supervise and certify the MCA-I VBS/CM exercise. This is in line with Article 7 points c and d

of Permendagri No. 27 Year of 2006, which gives this team the authority to undertake and

implement village border boundary setting and to supervise village boundary demarcation

activities. To implement the MCA-I VBS/CM methodology, The village boundary setting and

community mapping activities will be technically implemented by consultants, hired by MCA-I

would hire consultants to coordinate implementation, ensure that the village boundary setting

and community mapping results meet the guidelines in terms of technical rigor and participation

and is cost effective.

2. The village boundary setting process as stipulated in Regulation No. 27 Year 2006 begs an in-

depth evaluation. The regulation Permendagri No. 27 of 2006 should take into consideration may

even need to be significantly revised to achievea greater social rigor, primarily by elaborating the

consensus-building and participatory aspects, while and simplifying the cartographic rigor to

enable the district governments to more effectively implement it with due to their limited

resources in terms of expertise, equipment and funding. The GP PLUP VBS/CM methodology to

be developed by MCA-I, based in part on the description, findings and recommendations

contained in this report, could assist MOHA in developing a new policy and regulations which

are based on broader experience in implementing village boundary setting under the GP PLUP

Activity.

3. The GP PLUP VBS/CM methodology needs to be piloted in order for MCA-I and the local

government and village representatives in the starter districts to better understand the

methodology. A pilot study can reveal the complexity of the issues and challenges faced, as well

as any weaknesses that may still arise and the time and cost required to complete the process.

The piloting should be done in one selected sub-districts in each four starter district by taking

into consideration the variety of geographical conditions, particularly the terrains, and high

investment potentials for investment under the GP Program. Based on a rapid assessment and

interviews with government officials in charge of village boundary setting completed during this

study, the sub-districts recommended as pilot locations in each starter district are Sungai Tenang

(Merangin), Taman RajoKumpeh (Muaro Jambi), Kalumpang (Mamuju), and Sumarorong

(Mamasa).

4. There is a need to integrate VBS/CM and Regional Spatial Planning using the policy on Village

Territoryrural areas regulated in Law No. 26 of 2007 on Spatial Planning and its implementing

regulation, MOHA Regulation No. 51 of 2007 on Community Based Rural Area Development.

PLUP approach employed by MCA-I could enlighten the district governments as to why the

integration is substantial and how it is implemented. One also needs to bear in mind that Law

Formatted: Font: Italic


Abt Associates Inc. x

No. 19 of 2013 on Protection and Empowerment of Farmers provides that security for farmers

over family-based agricultural land should be set out in the spatial plan, while Village Territory

is not regulated in any Government Regulation. To that end, we recommend that MCA-I propose

that the government issue a single GR covering all three aspects, i.e. on the role of VBS/CM in

Village Area Planning, covering the five functions set out in Law No. 26 of 2007, including

empowerment of the rural population and protection of land areas with perennial food crops, as

outlined in the RTRW or RDTR.

5. As the VBS/CM methodology is implemented, different types of disputes may arise, including;

boundary disputes, land use disputes, and land tenure disputes. Based on the analysis completed

in this study, MCA-I should establish anfacilitate alternative dispute resolution (ADR)

mechanism to accompanywithin the implementation of VBS/CM. The characteristics of this

mechanism should be that it is community-level, extrajudicial, voluntary, and produces written

agreements. Rather than being imposed by MCA-I or local government, itThe mechanism should

is be based on willingness to enter the process and acceptance of the results voluntarily. As far as

possible, a customary settlement mechanism should be used to reach agreement, since such a

mechanism can better ensure the continuity of the agreement.

6. As VBS/CM is implemented it will be important to should identify the potential causes of

boundary, land use and land tenure disputes. Early on in the process in a given sub-district and/or

village, disputes should be grouped those that are: (a) potentially non-problematic, (b)

problematic but easily resolved, or (c) problematic and difficult to resolve. From this grouping,

the problems can be located geographically and the technical work can be undertaken in the non-

problematic areas first. Waiting for all disputes to be resolved first will inevitably delay progress

in VBS/CM in the village and subdistrict.

7. As presented, this methodology is not limited to village boundary setting, but alsoVBS/CM

methodology must includes mapping of critical natural and cultural resource areas and land uses

within the boundaries of the villages. Collecting accurate information and mapping these natural

and cultural resources and land use areas contributes to an understanding of the limits of a

community’s claims, and therefore facilitates not only the village boundary demarcation process

itself but enables the community to use these resource areas in a sustainable manner and to

protect them from future development. In addition, the resulting maps can be used directly for

village level spatial, economic and physical development planning. More effective participatory

spatial planningcan thus be conducted immediately after the VBS/CM is completed. Where there

is no boundary dispute, planning activities can be carried out without waiting for confirmation

through a Bupati decree. Completing VBS/CM in a district, sub-district or village can therefore

become an essential part of the rural area spatial planning process and in-turn provide spatial

certainty to the communities involved.

8. Local governments will need toshould strengthen or reaffirmand improve the capacities aof the

government unit responsible for VBS/CM assisted by MCA-I. Based on the experience in the

four starter districts, responsibility for VBS/CM should fall to the government unit at the

Regional Secretariat or Community and Village Government Empowerment Agency (BPMPD),

particularly the Village Government Division. As VBS/CM becomes a priority for the local

governments, government officers should be appointed to oversee the planning and technical

supervision of the VBS/CM process within a given district. Technical implementation of the

VBS/CM process itself should continue to be assigned to competent and specialized consultants

and contractors through competitive procurement processes as opposed to hiring technical

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.2", Hanging: 0.1"


Abt Associates Inc. xi

experts and equipping each local government unit with specialized survey, mapping and

peripheral equipment. It is recommended that MCA-I consider, as part of the GP PLUP Activity,

to provide local governments representatives with contract management training, basic training

on the technical, legal and administrative aspects of the VBS/CM process and training in the

management and use of the data resulting from the VBS/CM process. Government officials can

be selected or appointed from among civil servants who have the competence or undertake the

specific training mentioned. These institutional capacity building efforts should be combined

with the training to be included under Task #3 of the overall DRA Study which is focused on the

use of geographic information in spatial planning and land use licensing and permit issuance and

enforcement process. Going forward, officials responsible for planning and supervising VBS/CM

will need to coordinate with other officials in charge in village planning to ensure that VBS/CM

activities can be conducted simultaneously with the village spatial planning process. For both

both VBS/CM and spatial planning, the responsible government units should cooperate with

NGOs experienced in participatory mapping, and collaborate with and support village boundary

setting initiatives of other national and provincial government agencies. This type of

collaboration would be very helpful in accelerating the expansion of VBS/CM within the districts

selected for the GP Program and throughout the country.

9. MCA-I should advocate that MOHA and the governments of the provinces and districts where

the GP Program operates should conduct VBS/CM simultaneously with the regional boundary

setting process (at sub-district, district and provincial levels) in places where the boundaries of

these administrative units overlap. Adopting this approach would be more time and cost-effective

and would enhance the effectiveness of consensus building among the various actors (i.e., the

local communities and regional governments concerned).

10. MCA-I should ensure that the consultants on VBS/CM proposed methods to increase the

inclusiveness and applicability of the geospatial data and maps used by the communities and the

district government. This approach would ensure that local communities have ownership of the

process and results of VBS/CM, and would help them more effectively plan rural economic

development . A map of the village (preferably one in three-dimensional form) could be prepared

and displayed in an easily accessible location, such as the office of the village head, the village

hall, or another public place. In addition to being a medium for village planning, such a map can

also be an educational tool for the younger generation to better understand the village and its

resources. This map can record the community’s knowledge of their territory, and of the changes

that occur in the village. Meanwhile, the district governments would have access to the maps,

and could simultaneously promote transparency, by developing a geo-portal and other means of

disseminating information on the development plans resulting from using these maps.

11. MCA-I should support the local government in making a presentation to the people in the

villages being mapped, clarifying that the administrative boundaries are not constrained by

concessions or state forestlands, and do not affect land ownership rights. Rather, an easy-to-

understand mechanism and process for land administration needs to be applied in the community

to ensure their security of land use and support clarity of land ownership.

12. In identifying and financing land-based renewable energy and natural resource management

investments through the GP Program, an important element is that the investments should focus

on villages that have either already affirmed or are in the process of affirming and demarcating

their boundaries. If the VBS/CM Process has not yet been carried out in a certain geographic

area, potential and selected investors could be requested by MCA-I to collaborate with the


Abt Associates Inc. xii

district and village government to facilitate the completion of the VBS/CM process or

incorporate the implementation of the process within their investment proposal.

13. Local governments should encourage and support VBS/CM initiatives to be undertaken by non-

government parties such as NGOs at the request of the communities themselves. The district

government may therefore seek to develop coordination and monitoring mechanisms that are

jointly formulated and agreed with the NGOs and, for their part, the NGOs should agree to

implement the MCA-I GP PLUP VBS/CM methodology.

14. A breakthrough is needed to address the issue of the official national topographical map scale

being much smaller (1:50.000) than that required for village boundary setting (at least 1:10,000).

The first option is to look for a larger scale base map. If a larger scale base map is not available,

one can be compiled of the area using various existing data combined with data acquisition and

in-field measurement to serve as the base for the VBS/CM process. It is clear from similar

experiences in Indonesia and throughout the world that some portion of the boundary delineation

process will need to be done through field survey methods. However, where boundary areas are

inaccessible; the cartometric process will need to be used. In cases where village boundaries are

delineated through a mix of both field survey and cartometric processes, the resulting maps and

geospatial data bases mnust use cartographic means and geospatial feature codes to differentiate

the different source of the boundaries. Clearly, to compile a more detailed base map for use in

the VBS/CM process, in many cases high resolution imagery will be need to be acquired. When

satellite imagery is used the data must be processed and the resulting maps must be designed and

presented in a manner that is easily understood by the community. A second option, especially

useful for the collection of imagery of the critical natural and cultural resource areas within the

village is the use aerial photography with appropriate technology including unmanned aerial

systems. Based on these photos, a working map can be compiled using computerized

photogrammetric techniques.

15. At the national level, UKP4, BIG, MOHA, the Ministry of Forestry, and BPS all have the

potential to accelerate the VBS/CM and more importantly make use of the detailed geospatial

data that will result from the process. These ministries and institutions could provide both

technical support and perhaps funding, integrated with other boundary setting activities. For

example, the Ministry of Forestry is currently conducting accelerated forest demarcation, which

can be extremely useful in reducing disputes and improving the effectiveness of natural resource

management if effectively integrated into VBS/CM. BIG is able to train technical agencies and

NGOs in the region while also providing supporting technical data to speed up the base mapping

process. In turn, the regional governments and NGOs should share their maps (including the

maps of village boundaries) with BIG as a part of the One Map Policy initiated by the Indonesian

Government. Such data sharing would include protocols governing issues of ownership of and

consent to use the maps (including the maps produced and owned by local communities).

16. The GP Program should support a study on a regional approach to indigenous communities and

villages that are not accustomed to an exclusive territorial approach (i.e. managed by the

communities themselves), with management being undertaken jointly with another community

(inclusive) – this would include Orang Rimba in Jambi. A formula is needed for state protection

of community-owned business from large-scale business, and for state protection of natural

resources from seizure by other community groups. Applied anthropology studies are needed to

find a suitable formula to use for scaled development projects and policies in the future.


Abt Associates Inc. xiii


Abt Associates Inc. 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

Unclear village boundaries are a common problem in Indonesia. This gives rise to a lack of spatial

certainty – i.e. good formal spatial planning – and spatial equity, which would give the local

community a decent place and position in spatial planning through the inclusion of a map of

settlements and rural areas in the spatial planning map. This is an important issue for the Green

Prosperity (GP) Program – being one of the Compact projects under a grant from the Millennium

Challenge Corporation (MCC) to the Indonesian government – as both spatial certainty and spatial

equity are enabling conditions for project implementation.

Exhibit 1. Conceptual model of Green Prosperity

The GP program aims to alleviate poverty by increasing access to reliable clean energy in rural areas

through renewable energy projects and improved management and utilization of natural resources

sustainably. Thus, the project investment plan will tend to be more land-based. In that regard, this

project uses a Participatory Land Use Planning (PLUP) approach. The project believes that village

boundary setting is an important element and in many ways is the first step in the process of

participatory spatial planning at the village level. Clear and indisputable boundaries provide a basis

for rural land use planning, mapping of land ownership boundaries, and the right use of communal

villages, as well as the integration of spatial data at the national, provincial, and district level with

“reality on the ground”. This activity is expected to “empower rural communities and provide

participatory spatial assurance and support for mapping and geographically determining the village

settlement and its territory including its natural resources”. (Heryawan, 2012)



To ensure this can be done in the four project starter districts (Merangin, Muaro Jambi, Mamuju and

Mamasa), the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between Millennium Challenge

Account–Indonesia (MCA-I) and all four districts includes a clause on village boundary setting.

Article 6(e) in the MOU requires the provincial and district governments to “facilitate activities to

determine the administrative boundaries, including, among others, (i) the location of large and small

settlements in villages, (ii) the development of appropriate guidelines for participatory village

boundary setting using the applicable process and best practices (international best practices) by

providing a real role for women and vulnerable groups, and (iii) mapping and demarcation of village

boundaries in the sub-districts of potential project regions by considering the direction from the local

government and financial support and technical assistance from the Green Prosperity Project”.

Therefore, Task 4 of the District Readiness Assessment (DRA) Project was assigned to review the

development of village boundary setting in Indonesia, particularly in the provinces of Jambi and West

Sulawesi, and to develop guidelines for participatory village boundary setting.

The purpose of this report is to present a village boundary setting guide at the district level, which can

be used in implementation of PLUP. The spatial plan resulting from this process is needed in order for

a district to obtain funding under the GP scheme. The guidelines in this report endeavor to enrich the

village boundary setting guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA) in MOHA

Regulation (Permendagri) No. 27 Yearof 2006 on Delineation and Demarcation of Village

Boundaries. However, since a village is also part of a district and a province, Permendagri No. 1 of

2006 on Guidelines for Regional Boundary Demarcation (as amended by Permendagri No. 72 of

2012) also applies and has heavily influenced the development of this guideline. This guideline also

adapts international best practices implemented by many NGOs in various parts of Indonesia. It was

developed in consultation with local governments and NGOs in the four starter districts – Merangin

and Muaro Jambi (in Jambi), and Mamasa and Mamuju (in West Sulawesi) – as stakeholders in the

GP project. This report also provides recommendations on approaches to using this generic guide,

which can be legally recognized and enacted in each district.

The guidelines developed for this report combine several aspects. First, the guidelines follow standard

cartographic techniques (including the use of new spatial technologies such as GPS, GIS, and satellite

imagery) to comply with the MOHA rules. Second, the guide encourages meaningful participation by

stakeholders – including women and other vulnerable groups – in order to be accepted at the village

level. This approach is intended to facilitate community participation in the development of a low-

carbon economy and sustainable management of natural resources, and reduce dispute. Third, this

guideline can also adapt international best practices already being applied throughout Indonesia,

spearheaded by NGOs.

For the district, the new guidelines ought to be easily managed and applied in the field, so that the

village boundaries can be determined by the community, the boundaries can be drawn geographically,

and marked physically with boundary pillars (demarcation) in the field. This report covers the

recommended approach for adopting general guidelines that can be legally recognized and

enforceable in each district, as part of the process of village government administration, land

administration and spatial planning.



1.2. Scope of Work

The activity components expected to be undertaken by the team are listed below.

a. Associating with relevant communities and stakeholders, NGOs in the four starter districts

with a proven track record in effective village boundary setting, national and local

government officials, particularly the Ministry of Home Affairs and the regional Government

Bureau, on the procedures and implementation of boundary mapping, and recommendations

for improvement. Relationships include meaningful consultation with and representation of

NGOs working with marginalized groups.

b. Working with the above mentioned stakeholders to prepare a district level guideline

(procedures and technical standards) for participatory village boundary setting to determine

and affirm the village administrative boundaries. This guideline is in line with applicable

government procedures and incorporates best practices of international and local NGOs,

including the process of geo-referencing for the same base maps that use a national

coordination reference frame, and the use of recognized standard mapping procedures. The

guideline includes criteria for meaningful involvement of women and other vulnerable groups

to ensure participation of all stakeholders.

c. Completing the guideline for participatory boundary delineation and demarcation based on

responses from a broad and inclusive range of stakeholders, including the Multi-Stakeholder

Forum (MSF).

d. Facilitating the acceptance of this guideline by the relevant district institutions.

e. Facilitating the use of this guideline in rural development planning and project planning, such

as agriculture and forestry, education, health, social cohesion, etc.

The DRA team then translated this scope of work into several activities, as set out in the Inception

Report and discussed below.

1.2.1. Policy Review

As mentioned above, there is a need to review all relevant government regulations at the national,

provincial and district levels to provide a clear legal basis for this guideline. Public policies reviewed

include regulations that directly regulate village boundary setting, especially from MOHA, and

regulations that affect the existence of the village and its boundaries, especially from the Ministry of

Forestry, Ministry of Public Works, Ministry of Agriculture, and Ministry of Energy and Mineral

Resources.

1.2.2. Likelihood Assessment of Implementation of Participatory Village Boundary Setting

This study identifies the technical requirements, institutional, administrative and legal arrangements

related to village boundary setting, and assesses the institutional capacity of the implementing unit

(such as a Government Unit) to carry out the boundary setting process in a transparent, participatory,

inclusive, accountable, responsive and timely manner. The appropriate technical and operational

support (satellite imagery, consultants, and equipment) required to perform this task are identified, as

well as the appropriate time frame for the district.

1.2.3. Understanding Local Values and Stakeholder Involvement

Over the last 20 years, many local, national, and international NGOs have conducted area mapping

with the community, including vulnerable groups. NGOs can be considered as both a stakeholder and



a critical resource in the development of the village boundary setting guideline and its implementation

in the next phase of the GP Project, particularly as related to participatory spatial planning.

After reviewing all relevant government regulations at the national, provincial and district levels, the

team identifies and consults with relevant NGOs and other stakeholder groups in each starter district,

as well as central and local government officials involved in the boundary mapping procedure and its

implementation. This report also receives input from the Task 3 Team (on Needs Assessment in Land

Use and Spatial Planning) and the MSF. This consultation is used to identify and understand the

current procedures and best practices in village boundary setting, as well as to identify the areas where

it can make improvements in the process, increase community participation in village boundary

setting, and facilitate land use planning in a participatory manner, leading to low-carbon economic

development and sustainable natural resource management.

1.2.4. Developing the Draft Guideline

Based on the introduction and comparison of the input stage of each starter districts, the DRA team

drafted the participatory village boundary setting guideline at the district level in order to determine

and affirm village administrative boundaries.

This guideline was developed in accordance with existing government procedures and combines it

with the best practices of international and local NGOs, including geo-referencing to the base map

commonly used and associated with the national coordinate reference frame and using recognized

standard mapping procedures. This guideline includes concrete criteria in order to involve women and

other vulnerable groups significantly in an effort to ensure balanced participation of all stakeholders.

1.2.5. Initial Presentation, Feedback and Revision

The draft guideline is presented and discussed with the same stakeholder groups and government

officials that were involved in the introduction stage. Through a feedback process and continual

revisions, including additional consultation during the MSF, the final version of this guideline was

designed, for adoption by the relevant local government agencies, the MSF in each starter district,

MCC and MCA-I. Input from diverse stakeholders and inclusiveness were the keys to finalizing this

guideline.

1.2.6. Adoption and Capacity Development in Village Boundary Setting

Once this guideline is complete, the Team will facilitate its adoption by relevant institutions as part of

the land use planning and development planning process at the village level.

1.3. Methodology

In preparing this report, including the Village Boundary Setting Guideline in the Appendix, the

authors used several methods: tracking secondary information (research reports, media articles, and

applicable legislation), focus group discussions, and in-depth interviews. Secondary information was

collected primarily on the history of the boundaries, the administrative area boundaries (province,

district, and village), and boundary disputes and their resolution. This tracking was primarily done to

prepare the team members on the issues and areas to be visited, and on the boundary setting initiatives

and studies in various regions.



Before conducting the field visit, the team reviewed the existing regulations, namely:

Regulation of Minister of Home Affairs No. 1 Yearof 2006 on Regional Boundary Demarcation

Guidelines (amended by Minister of Home Affairs Regulation No. 76 Yearof 2012)

Regulation of Minister of Home Affairs No. 27 Yearof 2006 on Village Boundary Delineation

and Demarcation

Regulation of Minister of Home Affairs No. 28 Yearof 2006 on Village Establishment,

Liquidation, Integration and Village Status Change into Ward (Kelurahan)

Regulation of Minister of Home Affairs No. 51 Yearof 2007 on Rural Area Community-based

Development

Regulation of Minister of Public Works No. 16 Yearof 2009 on Guideline on District Spatial

Planning

Regulation of Minister of Forestry No. 47 Yearof 2010 on Forest Boundary Governance

Committee and No. 44 of 2012 on State Forestlands

Regulation of Minister of Agriculture No. 26/Permentan/OT.140/2/2007 on Guideline for

Plantation Business Licensing

Regulation of Manpower and Transmigration No. PER.15/MEN/VI/2007 on Setting Up

Transmigration Settlements

Government Regulation No. 23 Yearof 2010 on Mineral and Coal Mining Business Activities

Based on the preliminary information obtained, the team contacted NGOs that have conducted

participatory mapping to obtain a more complete picture and look for sites that could be visited to

understand the territorial and boundary concepts in the regions. At the national level, the NGO

contacted was the Participatory Mapping Network (JKPP). In Jambi, the NGOs contacted were

WALHI Jambi, CAPPA, Indonesian Conservation Community WARSI, Tiga Beradik Institute,

AGRA Jambi. In West Sulawesi, the team contacted the Investigation Agency for Agrarian and

Human Conflict (LIKA-HAM) in Mamuju. Based on these inputs, the team visited several villages in

the four starter districts. In Merangin District, the team visited and had discussions with indigenous

leaders and village government officials (all men) at Tuo hamlet (Berangin Tinggi sub-district and

village). In Muaro Jambi, the team visited the village of Tanjung Lebar (Bahar Selatan sub-district)

and Pondok Meja village (Mestong sub-district). In Mamasa District, the villages visited were

Lakahang (Tabulahan sub-district), Osango (Mamasa sub-district), and Leko Sukamaju (Mehalaan

sub-district). In Mamuju, the team interviewed residents and village officials of Buttuada (Bonehau

sub-district), Polo Camba (Pangale sub-district), and Pasapa (Budong-budong sub-district).

Focus group discussions (FGDs) conducted in the four starter districts helped obtain a preliminary

picture of the issues and key stakeholders identified in village boundary setting. The FGDs took place

in Merangin on February 12, 2013, in Muaro Jambi on February 18, 2013, in Mamasa on March 19,

2013, and in Mamuju on March 26, 2013. Based on the information obtained from these discussions,

the team conducted in-depth interviews with the government agencies responsible for village

boundary setting (especially the Government Unit of the Regional Secretariat), NGOs conducting

participatory mapping, and indigenous leaders. In Merangin District, the team interviewed

representatives of WARSI, Tiga Beradik Institute, Sub-division of Lands and Boundaries at Regional

Secretariat, and the Village Community and Government Empowerment Board (BPMPD). In Muaro

Jambi, the team interviewed representatives of Yayasan Setara, Subdivision of Land and Boundaries

of Regional Secretary, and BPMPD. In Mamasa District, interviews were conducted with AMAN



Kondosapata and the Government Unit of the Regional Secretariat, while in Mamuju only the

Government Unit of the Regional Secretariat was interviewed.

All information collected and several participatory mapping methods were reviewed and became the

basis for the team to draft a report, including the Village Boundary Setting Guideline. Once the design

was completed, the team presented the draft to the MSF for input. However, because of the limited

time available and the diversity of participants, the input obtained tended to focus on whether the

method was adequate, and obtaining confirmation and additional information on the field findings.

More in-depth input could only be generated from presentations to MCC and MCA-I. Based on all

these inputs, the team prepared this report.

1.4. Report Structure

Following the Introduction, the next section of this report is a Policy Review. This report also has

several attachments, including the aforementioned Village Boundary Setting Guideline. In this

chapter, we have described the purpose, scope and methodology of this report. Chapter 2 covers the

history of village governance in Indonesia as a manifestation of the paradigm shifts in territorial

organization and policies related to village boundaries and village spatial planning. Chapter 3

discusses the history of the division of the four districts where the study was conducted for this report,

and the problems they face today. Chapter 4 discusses the development and methodology of

participatory mapping (at both international and national level) and the implementation of regional

and rural boundary setting policies. Chapter 4 also discusses the survey and mapping capacity of local

governments and NGOs. Chapter 5 sets out the team’s conclusions and recommendations.



2. Policies on Villages and Village Boundary Setting in Indonesia

2.1. Indonesian Villages over Time

Desa (village) is the generic name for the smallest socio-political autonomous unit in Indonesia,

which has long and diverse history in various regions. Generally this unit starts with the unification of

a number of families to organize and manage social relations among them and with surrounding

groups, based on their distinct cultural values. These units have certain norms, structure, and

mechanisms which they develop and/or are influenced by foreign cultures (mainly Indian, Arabic and

European). Desa is the common name for this unit in Java, while in other regions it has a different

name – Gampong in Aceh, Huta in Batak land, Nagari in Minangkabau, Kampung/Binua in

Kalimantan, Marga in the southern part of Sumatra, Lembang in Tana Toraja, Negeri in Maluku, and

Yo in Sentani. These units change from time to time with changes in the political constellation from a

local to a global level, either voluntarily or by compulsion. Sutoro Eko (2008) gives a very good

description of these changes, especially during the colonial era.

According to Eko (2008, page 5), before the colonial era, each of these units was a self-governing

community, since it was “a local community organization that had territorial boundaries, was

inhabited by a number of people, and had traditions to manage itself.” They could be very

independent without outside influence or under the influence of small kingdoms in this archipelago,

because generally they “had their own government managed autonomously without hierarchy-

structural bond with higher structure” (Eko 2008, page 6). Nagari, for example, is “a ‘small republic’

that has its own autonomous government and is based on community” and has “democratic

government elements: legislative, executive and judiciary” (Eko 2008, page 6). Next, Eko (2008, page

6) stated that: “such autonomous system is the main characteristic of tribal society for the purpose of

self-defense and preserving the values of each Nagari, with a focus on diversity.” These units are now

called masyarakat adat (indigenous community), which is discussed later.

This autonomy was disrupted when the Dutch East Indies penetrated these units, as “the starting point

of state establishment, exploitation and marginalization of villages,” eventually taking control of land

and labor in the villages (Eko 2008, page 8). From that moment on, heads of villages were responsible

to the colonial government and complied with the published colonial regulations. In

Regeeringsreglement (published in 1854), Desa – called inlandsche gemeenten – selected its own

leader, who had to be endorsed by the regional head (resident), and had the right “to manage and to

take care its own household by referring to regulations issued by Governor General or Regional

Head (resident)” (Eko 2008, page 9). The colonial government then stipulated that a village was a

legal entity called volksgemeenschap (known today as masyarakat hukum adat, or customary law

community) that could own assets. This perspective was carried over into independence, as stated in

Article 18 of (the original) 1945 Constitution.

During the Old Order era, the volksgemeenschap term was changed to Desapraja, as then stipulated in

Article 1 of Law No. 19 of 1965 on Desapraja, as a transitional form to accelerate the formation of

Third Level Regions throughout Indonesia. In this law, Desapraja is defined as a “legal community

unit with certain area boundaries, having the right to manage its own households, select its leader,

and possess its own assets.” This law was not meant to form new Desapraja but to preserve existing

units. However, this law opened up the possibility of merging and splitting existing Desapraja.

Unfortunately, this law could not be effectively enforced, and after the New Order government took



over in 1966, it replaced it with Law No. 6 Yearof 1969. Nevertheless, Law No. 19 of 1965 tried to

standardize the village government and impose control on villages from the higher district-level

(second level) and provincial-level (first level) governments.

Systematic standardization occurred under the New Order with the enactment of Law No. 5 Yearof

1979 on Village Government. This law eliminated the indigenous village structure and functions.

Although the village was still considered a distinct legal community, this law trimmed down village

authority to that of government administrator under an imposed structure. This can be seen in the

definition of village under this law as: “an area inhabited by a number of people as a community unit

that also includes a legal community unit that has the lowest government organization directly under

the Camat (sub-district head) and has the right to manage its own households within the Unitary State

of the Republic of Indonesia”. Many studies have explained the socio-cultural damage caused by this

law.2

The fall of Suharto opened up a strong wave of reforms, including demand for decentralization. To

accommodate this, the Indonesian parliament (DPR) ratified Law No. 22 Yearof 1999 on Regional

Government. In this law, a village is defined as “a legal community unit that has the authority to

manage and govern local community interests based on local origin and traditions recognized in the

National Government system and occurring in the District territory.” Thus there was an intention to

restore village autonomy, since the village is recognized as the smallest territorial unit with a

substantial degree of autonomy in governing the community and resources within its jurisdiction.

Now, the other names for Desa could also be used again. Nevertheless, it was still strongly implied

that village government was merely a small part of local government. In 2004, this law was replaced

by Law No. 32 Yearof 2004 on Regional Government, which tended to reduce the degree of

autonomy of regional government.

Exhibit 2. Regulations on villages over time

Period Title and content

1800-1899 Regeeringsreglement 1854 village is responsible to Dutch East Indies government

1900-1942 - Inlandshe Gemeente Ordonantie (1906) acknowledge village as

- Hoogere Inlandsche Verbanden Ordonantie volkgemeenschap

Buitengewesten (1931)

1942-1945 Osamu Seirei No. 7 (1944) village under control of Japanese military

1945-1965 - Law No. 14 Yearof 1946, complemented by Law No. 1 of 1948

- Replaced by Law No. 19 Yearof 1965 on Desapraja – also acknowledged village as

volkgemeenschap (having tradition and origin)

1966-1998 Law No. 5 Yearof 1979 standardization of village, still recognized village as a legal

community unit

1998- Law No. 22 Yearof 1999

Law No. 32 Yearof 2004 on Local Government

President Regulation No. 72 Yearof 2005 on Villages

recognized the unit of legal

community, tradition and

origin

Law No. 32 Yearof 2004 introduced a few changes to the definition of a village: “legal community

unit that has territorial boundaries and the power to manage and to govern local community interest

based on local origin and traditions that are recognized and respected within the unitary state of the

Republic of Indonesia”. This law also recognized the use of various terms for “village” in many

2 Example: R. Yando Zakaria. 2000. Abih Tandeh: masyarakat desa di bawah rejim Orde Baru. Jakarta: Elsam.



regions. This law has a variety of derivative regulation in the form of Government Regulations (GRs),

Ministerial Regulations (MRs), and Regional Regulations at provincial and district/city level.

These derivative regulations still seem unable to reflect fully the autonomy held by villages. This can

be clearly seen in GR No. 72 Yearof 2005 on Villages, which implies that the village government is

responsible not only to its community members but also to the Indonesian government through the

Head of District (Bupati) or Mayor. Furthermore, MOHA has issued a number of regulations to unify

and control village government functions. Village governments’ tasks include performing public

service on behalf of the government, as regulated in Article 2 of Permendagri No. 28 Yearof 2007 on

Village Establishment, Liquidation, Integration and Village Status Alteration to “Kelurahan”. This

article states: “The establishment of a village aims to improve public services to accelerate

actualization of community welfare.” These policies imply ambiguity in passing autonomy to the

village. This can be a problem due to different interpretations in the field. The definition of village

implies an autonomous territorial unit, while the details of the legislation on villages treat it as merely

an administrative unit under the state government.

The Indonesian government and parliament are currently discussing a draft village law mandated by

Article 18B of the amended 1945 Constitution, to emphasize recognition and respect for customary

law community units (kesatuan masyarakat hukum adat) and to reorganize the village setting. That

background turns the definition of a village into a “unity of the legal community that has boundaries

and is authorized to manage and take care of the interests of local communities, based on rights of

origin, tradition, socio-cultural of the local community insofar as they still exist and are in

accordance with societal development and principles of the Unitary State of the Republic of

Indonesia”. However these proposed articles re-emphasize the government administration role. At the

time of writing, the discussion was still going on, with both government and parliament wanting the

law to be ratified in 2013.

2.2. Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous Territory

After these reforms, the political deadlock occurring during the New Order era has changed. The

relationship between the state and its people has been reorganized, including the demand to restore the

authority of rural communities to manage themselves. This claim later developed into an indigenous

peoples movement3 that led to the Congress of Indigenous Peoples of the Archipelago (KMAN) in

March 1999 and the establishment of the Indonesian Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance (AMAN). The

participants in the Congress define indigenous peoples as “communities that live based on the origin

of their ancestry for generations in an indigenous territory, which has sovereignty over land and

natural resources, where social and cultural life are governed by customary law, and where

indigenous institutions manage the sustainability of their people’s life”. This definition affirms the

importance of indigenous territories to the lives of indigenous peoples. Indigenous territory is the

central component for indigenous peoples, being an important foundation for their rights and a core

part of their identity. Not surprisingly, at KMAN IV in Tobelo (North Maluku), AMAN made

indigenous territories one of the key issues. AMAN’s 2012 profile notes:

“Indigenous people inherit the right to control, manage and use the land and all other

natural resources in indigenous territories in accordance with our own indigenous wisdom

3 ”Indigenous Peoples” is the term being used by the social movement to re-establish the rights of original rural

communities. In the state law, the term used is “customary law community”.



respectively. Indigenous territories, which in and on them contain agrarian resources such as

land and diverse natural resources, are an integral part of the indigenous peoples’ life.

Indigenous territories are not only seen as a source of economic and community viability, but

also an identity; identity is an existence that is contained in the social, cultural and spiritual

value system, which is passed down from generation to generation. With these values,

indigenous peoples continue to maintain and preserve their indigenous territories.”

Although territory is very important to indigenous peoples, and although indigenous land has been

recognized by the Constitutional Court as not being state forest, in its Decision No. 35 of 2012, as yet

there is no clear implementing regulation on the legal status of indigenous territories under Indonesian

law.

Currently, there are only two laws that can be used as a reference: State Minister for Agrarian Affairs

Regulation (Permeneg) No. 5 Yearof 1999 on Guidelines for Land Settlement Issues Involving

Customary Law Communities, and Law No. 32 Yearof 2009 on the Protection and Management of

the Environment.4 The Agrarian Regulation places more emphasis on resolving overlapping claims on

indigenous land through the issuance of local regulations by the related local government, following a

research process on the facts concerning the existence of indigenous peoples. Furthermore, as

mentioned in Article 5 paragraph 2 of this regulation, communal land can be “described in base map

of land registration by affixing a cartography sign and, if possible, describe its boundaries, and

record it in the land register.”

Meanwhile, Law No. 32 Yearof 2009 commissioned the Government and Local Government to

establish and implement “policy on the recognition procedures for the existence of indigenous

peoples, local knowledge, and the rights of indigenous people concerned with protecting and

managing the environment” (Article 63). In that regard, the Ministry of Environment (MOE) has

published a guide containing an inventory of indigenous peoples to record their existence and their

indigenous rights and wisdoms (MOE, 2011). One criterion for the existence of indigenous peoples is

“a group of people who have lived for generations in a particular geographic area (KLH 2011,

p.17). For this reason, indigenous territory is one of the indicators recorded in the MOE database. But

it is not clear whether an indigenous territory map is required during this inventory process. It is also

not clear to what extent the results of this inventory could encourage the recognition and protection of

indigenous peoples, including their customary lands, from the state.

2.3. MOHA Policy Framework for Village Boundary Setting

MOHA has issued several policies requiring villages to set their boundaries. The main policy is

contained in MOHA Regulation No. 1 of 2006 on Guidelines for Regional Boundary Demarcation, as

recently amended by Permendagri No. 72 of 2012, and Permendagri No. 27 Yearof 2006 on

Delineation and Demarcation of Village Boundaries.

4 In formal legal terminology, the term used is masyarakat hukum adat (“customary law community”), as

mentioned in the 1945 Constitution.



OR OR OR

Source: Sri Handoyo, 2003

Permendagri No. 27 Yearof 2006 defines village boundaries as “a jurisdictional territorial boundary

separating the area of government administration that falls under the authority of a village from other

villages”5. Thus, the term only refers to the administrative jurisdiction boundaries, not a socio-

political unit (territory). As outlined in Article 2, the regulation’s goal is “to provide legal certainty

for village boundaries on the land and be a reference for conducting boundary delineation and

demarcation activities in an orderly and coordinated manner.” This means that the focus is land

boundaries, with an absence from the regulations of any coastal boundaries. It also means that the

5 Indonesian language version: “batas wilayah yurisdiksi pemisah wilayah penyelenggaraan urusan

pemerintahan yang menjadi kewenangan suatu desa dengan desa lain”

Existing

TOPOGRAPHICAL

MAP

TERRESTRIAL

SURVEY METHOD

PHOTO

GRAMETRICAL-

METHOD

PHOTO/IMAGERY

INTERPRETATION

METHOD

Geometric

Requirements as

Base Map

List of Natural Boundaries

resulting from

Border Delineation

Agreement

List of Boundary

Coordinates resulting

from Joint

Delineation

BASE MAP

For

VILLAGE BOUNDARY MAP

DRAFTING

Village Boundaries

to be

VILLAGE BOUNDARY

MAP

Technical Specifications

of Map Drafting

Exhibit 3. Flow of village boundary setting concept



village does not have jurisdiction over marine areas. The smallest territorial unit with such jurisdiction

is the district or city (as stipulated in Article 18 of Law No. 32 of 2004).

MOHA also requires a district regulation (peraturan daerah or Perda) for the creation of a new

village or the liquidation or unification of villages to include a map of the new village in order to

“accurately define the village boundary” (Permendagri No. 28 Yearof 2006, Article 5 point g).

MOHA distinguishes between boundary delineation and boundary demarcation. As stipulated in

Permendagri No. 27 Yearof 2006, delineation means determining the boundaries on a map, while

demarcation is done by marking boundaries on the ground. Below are the definitions of these two

terms in the Permendagri:

● Delineation is “a cartometric village boundary delineation process on an agreed base map”

● Village boundary demarcation is “a field implementation process of placing the signs/marks

of village boundaries based on the delineation results”

With this definition, delineation is a legal process (consensus) to establish an agreement between

neighboring villages, while demarcation is a technical process that translates the agreement into

boundary markers and geodetic coordinate points. Building consensus on boundaries often takes a

long time, so the delineation phase needs special attention. Unfortunately, this distinction is not

expressed in the Permendagri, either in the body of the regulation or in its attachments. The emphasis

is evident from the components of each stage.

In this regulation, boundary delineation consists of research on boundary documents, determining the

base map used, and cartometrically making the boundary lines on the base map (Article 3). The

components found in the regulation do not accommodate adequate social features for reaching

agreement on the boundaries. Instead, the delineation phase tends to be extremely administrative in

nature, mostly dealing with documents, rather than social issues. Meanwhile, boundary demarcation

includes the stages of determining boundary documents, boundary survey, installation of boundary

markers along the boundary, measurement and positioning of the boundary markers, and mapping the

boundary (Article 4 paragraph 1). This shows that the Permendagri places far greater emphasis on

technical issues.

However, these technical aspects are very rigorous, with three types of fieldwork: boundary surveys,

installation of permanent boundary pillars, and surveying of permanent boundary pillars (with a

highly-accurate geodetic technique). Such fieldwork would be very costly, with high costs for labor,

construction materials and transportation as well as expensive geodetic surveying equipment. The

high cost of boundary setting would inhibit district governments from following the provisions of this

regulation, especially when they have limited budgets and place boundary setting as a low priority in

the district budget.

Village boundary setting activities include several stages, as shown in Exhibit 3. Similar activities

also occur in district and provincial boundary setting as described in Permendagri No. 1 of 2006 on

Guidelines for Regional Boundary Demarcation (later amended by Permendagri No. 76 of 2012

because implementation was considered too slow). In the district and provincial boundary setting,

there is no longer any boundary delineation process, since it is considered adequate from existing

documents. But village boundary setting has not yet been widely implemented, making boundary

setting problematic in the field. To date, only a few local governments have regulations (usually local

regulations) on village boundary setting, as shown in Exhibit 7. Some local governments even still



apply the Instruction of Minister of Home Affairs No. 24 Yearof 1990 on Village and Kelurahan

Boundary Delineation and Territorial Mapping.

Based on Permendagri No. 27 Yearof 2006, a Village Boundary Delineation and Demarcation Team

is established by a Decree of the Bupati/Mayor to determine the village boundaries in a District/City.

This team will coordinate with the District/City Boundary Demarcation team. Membership of this

village team consists of elements from relevant technical agencies coupled with elements from: (a)

Sub-district; (b) Village Government, and (c) community leaders from adjacent villages. The elements

of the relevant technical agencies are: (a) Governance Unit; (b) Bappeda; (c) Land Office (d) Land

and Building Tax Office; (e) Department of Public Works; (f) Department of Spatial Planning; (g)

City Planning Office: and (h) others.

Regional

Boundary

Demarcation

Measuring

Border

Tracking Land

Sea

Map Drafting

Document

Coastal Lines

Document

Boundary

Demarcation

Team

Central PBD

Team

Provincial

PBD Team District/Municip

ality PBD Team

Measuring

Map Drawing

Regulation, base map, supporting documents

Taking the coordinates points from the work map

Cartographic method, filed survey, list of

coordinate points

Developing the draft of boundary map,

compilation of RBI map in digital format, adding

information

Regulation, base map, supporting document

Identification of base map cartometrically

Start from coastline to the sea based on equal

distance principles

Face to face with 24 miles distance from the sea,

by getting 1/3 parts from shore line to the center

line

Face to face 12 miles by getting 1/3 parts of shore

line to the center line

The distance is 2 times 12 nautical miles, by

circular measured with 12 nautical miles wide

Developing the draft of boundary map,

compilation from RBI maps in digital format

adding information

Conduct filed survey

Coordinating among provinces and

districts/cities

Prepare Minutes of agreement

Conduct verification on boundary demarcation

result

Exhibit 4. Territorial boundary demarcation guide (Permendagri No. 27 Yearof 2006)



Determining village

border

Preparing Map

Agreement

Boundary Delineation

and Demarcation Team

Sub-districts

Villages

Community Leaders

Institutions:

Governance Division, Bappeda, Land

Office, Land & Building Tax Office, Public

Works Department, Spatial Planning

Department, Urban Planning Department,

etc.

Inventory

Study

Planning and implementing village boundaries

Technical Supervision

Plan Dissemination

Funding proposal

Reporting

Tasks

Endorsement of village

boundaries

Village boundary minutes

of meeting Boundary

markers

Bupati Decree

Dispute settlement Head of sub-district

(Camat)

District (Kabupaten)

Bupati/Mayor

In one Sub-district

In different sub-district

Resolution if no

agreement reached

Adjacent to sea/lake

Considering origin rights and local tradition

Exhibit 5. Delineation and Demarcation of Village Boundaries



Type of Boundary Map

Process of drafting

village map

Endorsement of

map

Preparing village

boundary documents

Result of boundary delineation from base map

(village expansion)

Result of boundary demarcation, result of field

measuring

Verification result conducted by district/city

team

Situation map (1:1,000 & 1:10,000)

Other documents

Verification

result

Approved by

village head

Derivation of existing map

Endorsed by

Bupati

Printing

Village boundary map

Agreed list of determination/installation of village

boundary markers

Data on Boundary survey

Approved list of research on village boundary

documents

Exhibit 6. Territorial Boundary Map (Permendagri No. 27 YearOf 2006)



Exhibit 7. Provisional list of Local Governments adopting Permendagri No. 27 Yearof 2006

Province District/City Regulation Number Subject Compliance with

Permendagri

27/2007

Technical

guideline in the

format of

Funding

source

Jambi Tebo Local Regulation

9/2007

Delineation and Demarcation of

Village Boundary

Entirely Bupati

Regulation

District Budget

South

Sumatra

Empat Lawang Local Regulation

13/2009


Village Boundary

Entirely Supplement District Budget

Lahat Local Regulation

1/2008


Village Boundary


Ogan

Komering Ulu

Timur

Local Regulation

27/2007


Village Boundary


Bangka

Belitung

South Bangka Local Regulation

46/2011

Guideline on Delineation and

Demarcation of Village Boundary


West Java Governor

Regulation 44/2012



Entirely None Village Budget

Central Java Purworejo Local Regulation

9/2012



Entirely Supplement Local Budget

(APBD)/village

budget

West

Kalimantan

Sambas Local Regulation 1/

2009

Villages Partial None Unclear

Central

Kalimantan

Seruyan Local Regulation

24/2006

Delineation of village boundary Using old

regulation

None District Budget

or other source

Maluku Ambon Local Regulation

17/2008

General Guideline of Country

Territorial Boundary in Ambon

City

Entirely + marine

boundary

None City Budget &

(APBD) &

state budget



These rules may have to be changed soon, as the DPR is now discussing the aforementioned Bill (RUU)

on Villages, which is expected to be completed in 2013. If the current draft is passed, there are some

important implications for existing villages, especially in the reorganization of the village. For example,

while Government Regulation No. 72 Yearof 2005 on Villages requires a minimum village population in

Sumatra and Sulawesi of 1,000 people, the Bill requires a minimum population of 5,000. Thus, existing

village boundaries would need to be rearranged. This will not be easy, and disputes are likely to arise.

Once the village boundaries have been determined, the explicit legal status of land in the village needs to

be established. This is an important topic in the current discussion on the draft Bill on Recognition and

Protection of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Civil society, including indigenous community, tries to

obtain protection, respect and fulfillment of people's rights on land as a means to ensure security of

ownership over their land in supporting their livelihoods. However, thousands of villages are within or

overlap with state forestlands, where settlement is prohibited, as are agricultural activities. This weakens

the safeguarding efforts mentioned above, especially since 134 million ha (70%) out of Indonesia's

landmass (190 million ha) is made up of state forestlands.6 In addition, many plantations and mining

concessions also overlap with village areas. Thousands of these concessions are also in state forestlands,

with the status having been altered or a borrow-and-use license having been issued by the Ministry of

Forestry. Other overlapping uses include transmigration settlement developments located within many old

(indigenous) villages.

2.4. Interface between Village Territory and Governance Status of Land

The Ministry of Forestry (MOF) has claimed that state forestlands under its control total more than 134

million hectares. However, state forestlands that have been officially designated as “forest land” by a

decree of the Minister of Forestry total only about 14 million hectares (MOF, 2011), while most of the

rest is still at the appointment and/or mapping stage. The Director General of Forestry Planning stated that

in 2012 the forest area that had already been delineated accounted for 75% of the total area, but that an

official letter on forest area delineation had not yet been received for around 60,000 km2. A key reason for

this was that mapping has not yet been done for the entire outer area of the forest boundary.

A joint study conducted by the Central Bureau of Statistics and the Directorate General of Forestry

Planning of the MOF in 2007 and 2009 identified about 30,000 villages that partially or wholly overlap

with state forestlands, but there were no clear village or forest boundaries or limits. On the other hand,

MOHA has not clarified the status of villages located within state forestlands.

As yet there are no regulations on protection of community land located inside state forestlands (Safitri,

2010). Even the existing regulations tend to remove the rights of indigenous communities in, for example,

state forestlands. Article 1 paragraph 6 of the Forestry Law (Law No. 41 of 1999) expressly states that

"adat forest is state forest located within the territory of indigenous people." Since adat forests do not

have any ownership documents, this article revives domein verklaring – an act by the Dutch government

claiming that land without proper documents is state land – which had previously been removed by Law

No. 5 of 1960 on Basic Agrarian Principles. This policy was recently overturned by the Constitutional

6 The status of state forestlands does not mean that the lands have actual forest stands, since they can be barren

lands, agroforests, smallholding farms, and even settlements. Therefore, the term has a strong notion of tenurial

status.



Court (No. 35/PUU-X/2012), which, in a judicial review filed by AMAN and two indigenous

communities, stated that adat forest is not state forest. However, this does not mean that adat forests are

automatically excluded from the state forests, as the ruling confirms that recognition of indigenous

community requires a set of conditions, including a district regulation (peraturan daerah). Responding to

the ruling, the Minister of Forestry issued a Circular No. SE.1/Menhut-II/2013 concerning Constitutional

Court Ruling No. 35/PUU-X/2012 dated May 16, 2013, addressed to the Governors, the Bupatis/Mayors

and the Chief of the Forest Service throughout Indonesia. It asserts that the determination of adat forest

remains on the Ministry of Forestry, “as long as the existence of the indigenous community has been

enacted through a district regulation (peraturan daerah) based on the outcomes of a research by an expert

team.” So far there appears to have been no official action on this Circular across the country, including

the starter districts.

Another issue in the Forestry Law is a contradiction relating to determining state forestlands. Article 1

paragraph 3 states: “Forest area is a specific area determined and or established by the government and

its presence to be protected as permanent forest”. In contrast, Article 15 of the same law requires a

complete holistic process in designating state forestlands, namely: appointment, boundary setting,

mapping, and delineation.

Thus, a forest area can have full legal status once it has been determined. In practice, only about 10% of

the designated forest has legal confirmation status. But the government has already given permission for

state forestlands without legal confirmation of their status, while the people who utilize the forest are

being convicted and labeled as “forest encroachers”. Moreover, the confirmation process only recognizes

a claim for the land in the form of documents (written), which means this process disregards claims citing

a community’s oral tradition.

Lastly, the delineation process is heavily dominated by government agencies, particularly those related to

the forestry sector, as evidenced by the composition of the Boundary Setting Committee stipulated in

MOF Regulation (Permenhut) No. 47 Yearo 2010 on Forest Area Boundary Setting Committee.

Meanwhile, the people living in the designated forest area are only represented by the related village

head. The same Permenhut also gives the Director General of Forestry Planning the authority to make a

decision on the Minutes of Boundary setting if the Committee cannot agree on the minutes within 64

days. Such definition and practice should also accommodate both the licensing administration and

protection of the community's rights.

For many years, the government carried out policies and forest management practices in the regions with

questionable legality. In a resolution on a petition for judicial review of the law on determining state

forestlands (No. 45/PUU-IX/2011), the Constitutional Court removed the phrase “and/or” from Article 1

point 3. The consequence is that a new forest area can only have permanent legal status if the MOF has

stipulated it in a decree. This resolution raises a debate on the status of existing state forestlands, which

are mostly still at the appointment status, and on the concessions granted over such areas.

Responding to the Constitutional Court ruling, the Minister of Forestry issued Permenhut No. 44 Yearof

2012 on Gazettement of State Forestlands to address the legality of state forestlands that have been

designated. The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has also coordinated efforts to address the

slow demarcation process of state forestlands. In March 2013, KPK signed a Memorandum of

Understanding for a Joint Action Plan on the Acceleration of Indonesian Forest Area Gazetting with 12



Ministries and State Institutions7. At the time of writing, this initiative has translated into 93 action plans

between 2013 and 2016, including a revision to Government Regulation No. 44 Yearof 2004 on Forest

Planning with respect to the delineation of state forestlands. This action plan includes drafting policies

and standards for forest area delineation, which will be stated in a Joint Regulation of the MOF, MOHA

and the Head of the National Land Agency (BPN), including policy on settlement of village boundaries

intersecting with or located entirely within state forestlands, as well as on the land status.

Another major overlapping designation is plantation concessions, particularly oil palm plantations. After

the timber boom ended, plantations have become the new economic driver in various regions. To

facilitate the development of the plantation industry, parliament has passed Law No. 18 Yearof 2004 on

Plantations. This Law is considered to be very protective of the interests of the business community, but

detrimental to small farmers and rural communities. As a result, land disputes with plantation companies,

particularly oil palm plantations, now dominate land disputes in this country, and have even led to human

rights violations.8

Regulation of the Minister of Agriculture No. 26/Permentan/OT.140/2/2007 on Plantation Business

Licensing Guidelines, which implements Law 18 of 2004, states that estates larger than 25 hectares

should have a Plantation Business Permit (IUP). This regulation allows a company to control up to

100,000 hectares in the palm oil industry and 150,000 hectares in the sugar cane industry, while rubber

and coconut industries, which are also popular commodities, may only have up to 25,000 hectares per

company. With limited land available, plantation land requirements are being met by converting most of

Indonesia’s forests into plantations. As of December 2010, the MOF had processed applications to release

nearly 9.5 million hectares of forest land for plantations. In January-May 2013, the MOF released

110,804 hectares of forest land for oil palm plantations (in Kalimantan and Papua) and reserved 431,315

hectares for oil palm plantations (in Kalimantan) and sugar cane (in the Aru Islands, Maluku)

Another land use that has a major impact on village areas is mining. Mining has become one of the main

industries for economic activities in Indonesia. After several changes, the legislation applicable to the

mining industry is Law No. 22 Yearof 2001 on Oil and Natural Gas and Law No. 4 Yearof 2009 on

Mineral and Coal Mining. Of the two types of mining regulated under these two laws, mineral and coal

mining requires large areas of land, especially for open pit mining. This therefore presents the greatest

risk of land disputes. The regulations on land use in the industry also have an impact on rural areas.

Chapter XVIII of Law No. 4 Yearof 2009 states that mining concessions (in the form of Mining Business

Permit Areas, People's Mining Areas, and Special Mining Business Permit Areas) are not a form of land

ownership. However, Part Four of GR No.23 Yearof 2010 on Implementation of Mineral and Coal

Mining Production requires Production Operation IUP holders to install boundary signs/marks on their

concession areas (Region Mining Permit/WIUP) within six months after the license is obtained, and these

7 http://dkn.or.id/2013/07/11/nkb-12-kementerian-daan-lembaga-tentang-percepatan-pengukuhan-kawasan-hutan-

indonesia/, accessed July 31, 2013

8 For a better understanding on this issue, please see, among others, joint report of Human Rights Commission and

Sawit Watch (Anon. tt) and Sirait report (2009).

http://dkn.or.id/2013/07/11/nkb-12-kementerian-daan-lembaga-tentang-percepatan-pengukuhan-kawasan-hutan-indonesia/

http://dkn.or.id/2013/07/11/nkb-12-kementerian-daan-lembaga-tentang-percepatan-pengukuhan-kawasan-hutan-indonesia/



must be completed before the start of production operations9. This could have an impact, as the markers

in forested areas prohibit people from entering the concession. Moreover, most mining concessions

published in recent years are forest lease areas. As of April 2013, the Ministry of Forestry had issued 396

lease permits for exploitation activities covering a total area of 386,415 ha, and 501 permits for

exploration activities covering a total area of 2,677,731 ha.

One other overlapping issue which has implications for the region and village life is the transmigration

program, which requires a large area to be taken from original village areas. Regulation of the Minister of

Manpower and Transmigration No. PER.15/MEN/VI/2007 on Preparation of Transmigration Settlements

states: “Transmigration Area is a stretch of land in a cultivated area which is located in an autonomous

administrative area, consisting of the construction of transmigration villages, rural villages around

settlement areas, and potential areas for transmigration settlement development and potential for

superior commodities which are connected in a single network of roads so as to encourage the growth of

economic centers.”

The same regulation also mandates transmigration development regional planning, with potential areas

for development of transmigration settlements with a capacity of at least 9,000 households. If each

household gets an area of two hectares of land, the land to be prepared will cover at least 18,000 ha. Such

an area could cover several villages. Land acquired for transmigration settlements then receives a

Certificate of Management (HPL) which is generally broken down into ownership titles for households.

This disappoints indigenous peoples, whose land is distributed freely with only a little left for them. As is

the case with other development activities, discussed here, the land being developed for transmigration

settlements consists of state forestlands. As of December 2010, the MOF had processed the release of

state forestlands for 687 settlement units with a total area of 1,529,051.04 ha.10

Except Mamasa district,

all starter districts in GP Project have been provided lands for transmigration program, particularly in the

form of nucleus estate scheme for palm oil industry. Transmigration sites in Merangin district were settled

mostly in 1980s, in Muaro Jambi in 1990s, and in Mamuju district since 1980s. Today Mamuju district

still receives new transmigrants. In March 2013, for example, the Ministry of Forestry has allocated 1,200

ha of state forestland in the district for transmigration settlement, which needs further study before the

actual letter of release is issued. The Ministry of Manpower and Transmigration aims to develop a

network of transmigration sites to become a growth center called Kota Terpadu Mandiri (Self-sufficient

Integrated Municipality).

2.5. Villages in District Spatial Planning

Law No. 26 of 2007 on Spatial Planning (especially Part Five) covers Spatial Planning for Rural Areas.

Spatial planning has the following contexts: (a) empowering rural/village community; (b) preserving the

quality of the local environment and its buffer zones; (c) conservation of natural resources; (d) preserving

9 This Government Regulation assigned to the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources the authority to prepare

the guide on WIUP border signs, but as of the date of writing, the guideline had not yet been issued.

10 This is already regulated in Regulation of the Minister of Manpower and Transmigration No. 23/Men/XI/2007 and

Minister of Forestry No. P.52/Menhut-II/2007 on Release of Forest Areas in the Context of Transmigration

Implementation.



local cultural heritage; (e) protection of perennial food agriculture territory to ensure food remains

abundant; and (f) maintaining a balance between rural and urban development. These rural areas can be in

one sub-district or district, or cross-administrative in nature (district or province). This should be

regulated further in a GR, but none has been issued yet. There is, however, a Permendagri regulating

these matters.

A regulation that includes villages in the spatial planning process is Permendagri No. 51 of 2007 on

Community-based Rural Area Development, which encourages participatory village spatial planning and

can be transplanted into the process of development planning meetings. In contrast, the policy of the

Ministry of Public Works (being the main spatial planning agency based on that law), which is expressed

in Regulation of the Minister of Public Works (Permen PU) No. 16 of 2009 on Guidelines for Preparation

of District Spatial Plans, does not require the inclusion of rural areas in spatial planning documents.

Instead, it only regulates village/rural areas in the context of the spatial planning structure in the

infrastructure development plan of the related district. Given the importance of the village’s role in spatial

planning and the high level of potential dispute, rural areas need to be included in the document, and in

the discussion of the District Spatial Plan (RTRW), to ensure that villages have a clear legal status in the

framework of the Spatial Planning Law.

To introduce rural areas to spatial planning, it is necessary to put special effort into approaching both

MOHA and the Ministry of Public Works so that the two ministries can reach a common understanding

on the issues. This would lead to clear guidance on how to classify villages in the rural area category.11

2.6. Policy on Land Dispute Settlement

In response to the increasing prevalence of land disputes, the Government of Indonesia has issued a

number of regulations. In 2012, Law 7 of 2012 on Social Conflict was passed. This law contemplates

boundary disputes, disputes over natural resources, and deployment of natural resources that is not evenly

distributed. The law also prioritizes indigenous mechanism, with the state mechanism being applied if no

agreement can be reached (Article 41). Another policy issued by the government is contained in

Presidential Instruction (Inpres) No. 2 of 2013 on the Handling of Domestic Security Disturbances, which

allows the government to use military force under police coordination to resolve disputes – an approach

that could potentially lead to human rights violations.

In response to the Presidential Instruction, the Coordinating Minister for Politics, Law, and Security

Affairs (Menko Polhukam) has prepared a National Integrated Action Plan for Domestic Security

Disturbances consisting of 36 action plans, a substantial portion of which are devoted to land disputes and

natural resources. This action plan includes settlement of regional boundary dispute, dispute settlement

for land and natural resources issues, acceleration of implementation of participatory forest area

delineation, settlement of current status of villages/cities (including territory of indigenous communities),

limiting forest and plantation area concessions, and dispute area mapping. This effort had already begun

11

ICRAF and its partners have introduced this theme in the spatial planning process in Sanggau District (West

Kalimantan). The materials from this activity could be used as a reference for discussion with MOHA and the Ministry of Public Works.



in two provinces (Jambi and East Kalimantan), which already have a MOU with the REDD++ Task Force

and will continue by implementing the action plan.

Some local governments are aware of the importance of handling disputes due to the increasing amount of

land-based investment. Jambi Provincial Government, for example, has commissioned the National and

Political Unity Agency to review and to resolve any existing conflicts (Governor Regulation No. 31 of

2008). However, institutional effectiveness and mechanisms still need to be reviewed.

Regardless of the skepticism that may arise, the existing regulations and mechanisms provide a basis for

the settlement of disputes over village boundaries. This is in addition to the indigenous mechanism, which

should be prioritized and be more readily accepted by rural communities.



3. Village and Administrative Territorial Boundary Setting

3.1. Introduction

This chapter first describes the history and condition of the villages in the districts of Merangin, Muaro

Jambi, Mamasa, and Mamuju, which are the starter districts in the Green Prosperity (GP) Project. We

then review the experience of administrative territory boundary setting in the four districts, including

district and provincial boundary setting, in order to get an overview of the opportunities and challenges

faced.

3.2. Merangin District

Merangin district was established by Law No. 54 of 1999 on the Establishment of Sarolangun District,

Tebo District, Muaro Jambi District, and Tanjung Jabo Timur District. Previously those districts were part

of Sarolangun Bangko District using the old name when the district was still incorporated with Bungo

Tebo District in 1956. In 2005, it is recorded there were 162 villages (Desa) and 8 kelurahan in this

district. Statistics of 2010 recorded there were 24 sub-districts consisting of 213 villages (Desa) and 9

“kelurahan”.

In Merangin District, which is in the highlands around Mount Masurai, the smallest of social and political

units in the past were referred to as hamlets or kampong, which were originally built along the river. At

that time, the residential area often moved and each area had its own name. The move can be caused by

wild animals (such as elephants and tigers), disease (such as the plague of leprosy), or residential

development due to the creation of new rice fields far from the village of origin. To manage themselves, a

number of kampong or hamlets created a federation. Based on interviews in the Banyan Tinggi village,

before the colonial period this federation was called “alam” and led by a “pamuncak”, who also

functioned as an indigenous leader.

In running the government, the pamuncak was assisted by a number of officials. Pamuncak Alam Sungai

Tenang, for example, was assisted by “Depati” and “rio” who led the hamlet or kampong. The central

government was in Koto Tapus (Jangkat). The federation was made up of 22 hamlets, so it was quite

difficult to manage. Then the Federation was divided into three: Pungguk Enam, Koto Sepuluh and

Pngguk Sembilan. The hamlet federation in the highlands then formed a larger federation called Luak

XVI, consisting of 16 federations. In the region that is now Merangin District, there were six federations:

Sungai Tenang, Serampas, Peratin Tuo, Sangrahan, Tiang Pumpung, and Renah Pemberap. In the area

that is now Kerinci District, there were 10 federations. In determining their territory, the people in this

area used the cucur ao guling batu concept, which means that a community is determined by the direction

of the river flow where the community lives.

The arrival of modern states changed the political constellation in the surrounding highlands. The first

change came from the Dutch Government which resulted in name changes from “federation” to “marga”

(margo in Merangin dialect) and the leader being called “pasirah”, the same name that is used in South

Sumatra. These “margo” were part of the Bangko onderafdeeling residing in Residentie Djambi. At the

time of independence, these “margo” became part of Siau Jangkat sub-district. After the enactment of



Law No. 5 of 1979, margo was converted to “Kecamatan” or sub-district led by a Camat, who was a civil

servant appointed by the Bupati (District Head). Thus, the pasirah lost their position and power. Dusun or

Kampung were transformed into Desa (village), led by a head of village. With this policy, the government

merged Margo Sungai Tenang and Margo Serampang into Kecamatan (sub-district) Jangkat with its first

district office located in Koto Tapus and later moved to the village of Muara Madras. Meanwhile, Margo

Tuo Peratin, Margo Tiang Pumpung, and Margo Sangrahan merged into Kecamatan Muara Siau, with its

government center in Muara Siau. In 2005, Lembah Masurai sub-district was established with its capital

in Pasar Masurai village, which took some of the sub-district of Muara Siau and Jangkat areas whose

origin was the region of Margo Peratin Tuo, part of Margo Sungai Tenang, and Margo Tiang Pumpung.

In 2007, Kecamatan Sungai Tenang was re-established, consisting of most of the region of Margo Sungai

Tenang, and Kecamatan Tiang Pumpung, consisting of the Margo Tiang Pumpung region.

Although there was an effort to standardize the villages, customary law still applied. Villagers then

divided up roles to regulate their social life. Village government managed the government administration,

while the elders (nenek mamak) acted as indigenous stakeholders who perform customary law, including

dispute resolution among villagers and between villages.

Like indigenous communities in many places, the margo region boundaries are natural boundaries,

especially rivers and hills or mountains. In Merangin District, the history and margo boundaries have

been handed down from generation to generation in a poem called tambo or tembo. At the time of the

Malay Jambi Sultanate, this tembo was written in a placard using Malay Arabic alphabet. This placard is

now often called tembo. After the establishment of a village, village boundaries have not been determined

definitively. Clear boundaries are limited to the road, which becomes the responsibility of each village to

take care of. Some NGOs (such as Tiga Beradik Institute) have helped map village boundaries, but only

for a few villages. One reason for the unclear village boundaries is the community’s reluctance to assert

these boundaries, because they still use the margo boundaries.

Sungai Tebal is an area which is very spacious, with plantation estates, in Lembah Masurai Sub-

District. Coffee farmers mainly open up land in the former concession area of PT Injapsin and PT

Sarestra II, which ceased to operate in 1998. Most of them are migrants from South Sumatra,

Bengkulu, Lampung, or Java. Currently there are approximately 15,000 residents in the region.

Complications arise because the area is located on the boundary between Tuo village and Nilo Dingin

village, which is an old village that was originally part of Margo Pratin Tuo. In 2004, the majority of the

area, called Sipurak Hook, was forced to change its status by the Ministry of Forestry to become part

of the Kerinci Seblat National Park (TNKS). With a diminishing area of forest, the communities of Tuo

village proposed the northwest of their region, adjacent to the National Park of Kerinci Seblat, as

forest villages in the former forest concession. However, this forest no longer existed since being

converted into coffee plantation. Tuo village communities had already conducted the participatory

mapping of their administrative boundaries, but it could not be completed since, during the boundary

survey with Nilo Dingin village, the activity was opposed by the Sei Tebal community.

Source: Gusdi Warman (Director of Tiga Beradik Institute), Syahrul (Indigenous/Adat Leader of

Dusun Tuo)

Exhibit 8. Sungai Tebal on the border of Tuo and Nilo Dingin Villages



Exhibit 9. Boundary of Tuo Village and Nilo Dingin Village in Sungai Tebal

3.3. District of Muaro Jambi

Muaro Jambi District was formerly part of Batanghari District and became Muaro Jambi district in 1999,

along with three other new districts in Jambi. The region encircles the city of Jambi. Like most coastal

and downstream river areas, the district's population varies with the number of immigrants. To understand

the original history of the village, this report specifically addresses the changes in the socio-political unit

and the dynamics faced by Orang Dalam or Orang Batin Sembilan, which are suspected to have Malayan

roots.

The Batin Sembilan today are known as Suku Anak Dalam (SAD) or Kubu by outsiders – a connotation

which is very degrading. Their original territories were spread across nine tributaries: Bulian River and

Singoan River, which empty into Batang Hari River; Jebak River, Pemusiran River, Telisak River,

Sekamis River, Jangga River, and Burung Antu River, which empty into Batang Tembesi River; and

Bahar River, which empties into Lalan River (which itself empties into South Sumatra Province). This

region is now spread among the districts of Sarolangun, Batanghari and Muaro Jambi.



This tribe may have been nomadic initially, hunting and gathering as a group, but then settled and

established village life as a social unit as part of the tribe. Unfortunately, information on the socio-

political structure in this tribe varies depending on the sources. Rian Hidayat (2012, p. 72) states that

before the influence of the Sultanate of Jambi and the Dutch government, hamlets were collectively led by

four persons – Datuk Tuo, Tuo Tahu, Tuo Khusyuk and Tuo Tengganai, with the last title bearer acting as

leader. The hamlets were part of a tribe led by a Patih (governor). While Mr. Roni (hamlet chief of

Sungai Beruang in Tanjung Lebar village) reports that the leader of the hamlet was the kampong chief,

under coordination of Temenggung at the village (Batin) level. The Dutch government then changed the

structure of government. The Temenggung turned into Pesirah (who live in the city), underneath there

was Jenang (kampong chief), then there were the Krio as indigenous stakeholders. Another source, Mr.

Mugiono, says that in the Dutch era the village was called Kampung and led by Depati and Mangku

(Indigenous StakeholdersLeader), who handled indigenous rights. Depati was in charge of external

relations, such as with the Dutch Government.

The Dutch government entered Batin Sembilan territory mainly for petroleum drilling. They encouraged

the indigenous people to settle there by introducing the rubber plant. The biggest changes occurred with

the New Order, with the arrival of commercial logging companies, Transmigration Nucleus Plantations

(PIR Trans) schemes, and oil palm plantations. Consequently, the Batin Sembilan indigenous territory has

fragmented, and there is even an old village whose territory is split by transmigration villages and oil

palm plantations.

Tanjung Lebar village is one of the older villages in the Batin Sungai Bahar area. It was first inhabited

from around 1911 or 1913. The establishment of this settlement apparently received strong support

from the Dutch Government, which was developing a large-scale petroleum industry, and there are still

plenty of oil drilling activities today. At that time, the region was known as a kampong. Because some

people faced transportation problems, in 1961 Bujang invited people to clear the land and build

settlements on the banks of a large river, which was later named Tanjung Baru (now the center of the

village government). In the early 1980s, the government gave three forest concessions (HPH) to PT

Tanjung Asa, PT Suka Rimba, and PT Asialog for logging timber in the forests in the batin

regionterritory. Some of their territory became oil palm plantation concessions with the Trans PIR

scheme for PTPN VI in 1982 and PT Bangun Desa Utama (BDU) in 1987. The Trans PIR program

established 22 residential units, which are mostly located in the village of Tanjung Lebar. BDU became

was renamed PT Asiatic Persada in 1992. In 2010 the MOF provided ecosystem restoration

concessions in the former PT Asialog land, whose concession had expired in 2007, to PT Restorasi

Ecosystem Indonesi (REKI). Thus, the village area territory was fragmented. The hamlets that still

remain are: Tanjung Lebar, Tanjung Mandiri, Pangkalan Ranjau, Sungai Beruang, Mangkubangan,

and a hamlet in the concession area of PTPN VI. Sungai Beruang hamlet is now located in the middle

of PT Asiatic Persada’s concession. The issue is further complicated because the boundary between

Batanghari District and Muaro Jambi District is in the concession area, but the two district

governments have not yet been able to reach an agreement. Batanghari district, as the ‘parent’ district,

claims that the concession area of PT Asiatic Persada belongs in its jurisdiction, while Muaro Jambi

District has built a public elementary school in the hamlet of Sungai Beruang.

Source: Roni, Head of Sei Beruang hamlet; Mugiono, former head of Tanjung Lebar village

Exhibit 10. Boundary of Tuo Village and Nilo Dingin Village in Sungai Tebal



At its inception in 1999, Muaro Jambi had six sub-districts. When this report was being written, that

number had increased to 11 sub-districts (150 Desa and five Kelurahan). Mestong sub-district, covering

an area of Orang Dalam at Sungai Bahar, is now divided into 3 sub-districts: Mestong, Sungai Bahar and

Sungai Bahar Selatan.

Coordinate: (2o5’16.4”S, 103o24’58.4”E)

3.4. Villages in West Sulawesi

West Sulawesi is generally located in Tanah Mandar, which is a collection of geographic ethnic

communities originating from areas that are now in the districts of Polewali Mandar, Mamasa, Majene,

Mamuju and Mamuju Utara. The territory was once a confederation of 14 small kingdoms joined in Pitu

Ulunna Salu (Seven Hulu Upland Kingdoms) and Pitu Babbana Binanga (Seven Coastal Kingdoms) with

the parent kingdom being the kingdom of Balanipa, which is now located in Tinambung Polewali Mandar

sub-district (Polman). Each kingdom was led by a Tomakaka and aAll kingdoms united under the

Alamungan Batu di Luyo pact.12

Pitu Ulunna Salu is a federation led by Tabulahan, Aralle, Mambi, Bambang, Rantebulahan, Matangnga,

Mala'bo, and Tabang. Later this federation established agreements with Karua Babbana Binanga (Eight

River Estuary) which consists of Mesawa, Ulu Manda, Sondoan, Panetean, Mamasa, Osango, Orobua,

and Tawalian. Both federations later referred to themselves as Kondosapata Wai Sapalelean. This region

is now largely part of Mamasa district. Communities in this region can be classified as West Toraja

12 This federation was later named Kondosapata Wai Sapalelean.

Exhibit 11. Elementary school (SD) in Sungai Beruang

Formatted: Portuguese (Portugal)



people. Each is led by a Tomakaka.13

The format of kingdoms in society led to stratification in the social

system into the nobility, the wealthy, warriors, and servants.

During the Dutch colonial era, West Sulawesi province was Afdeeling Mandar, which was divided into

four regions, called Onderafdeeling: Majene, Mamuju, Polewali and Mamasa. The area of Pitu Babbana

Binanga was part of three Onderafdeeling in coastal areas. Meanwhile, the seven kingdoms (Pitu Ulunna

Salu) in the highlands became part of Onderafdeeling Mamasa. The small kingdoms in this period were

referred to as autonomous regional districts self-governing territories (zelfbestuurende landschappen/self-

governing territories). In around 1950, the four Onderafdeeling became three districts, with

Onderafdeeling Polewali and Mamasa merging into Polewali Mamasa District. At that time, the district

was changed to kecamatan (sub-district).

With the Reform era, elites in the former territory of Afdeeling Mandar encouraged the establishment of

Mandar province, which once existed in the 1960s, and this was established by Law No. 26 of 2004. Prior

to that, the people of former Onderafdeeling Mamasa demanded the establishment of their own district,

which was duly authorized by Law No. 11 of 2002, in conjunction with the establishment of Palopo

municipality. However, this new district ignited a dispute in the community because the people in the

sub-districts of Aralle, Tabulahan and Mambi, who were mostly Moslem, wanted to continue to be part of

Polewali Mamasa district (whose name later changed to Polewali Mandar district). This conflict escalated

and broadened in 2003 and 2004, causing major displacement and three deaths. One impact of this

conflict was the separation of people from one village that had different religions into two separate

villages.

In 2001 Mamasa district had only four sub-districts, but in 2002 this became 10, and in 2004 the number

rose again to 15. At the time of writing, Mamasa district had 17 sub-districts with 182 wards and villages

(Desa and Kelurahan). The rapid increase in the number of villages was apparently caused by the desire

to obtain government subsidies through the Village Fund Allocation (ADD), and the increase in the

number of electoral districts, as well as a way to resolve sectarian conflict. In early 2013, 43 new villages

were established under Mamasa District Regulation No. 1 of 2013 on the establishment of new villages,

following the expansion of villages in the district.

Unfortunately, this expansion seemed to be forced and possibly exaggerated, leading to a variety of

problems, including village boundary disputes. Moreover, these expansions did not include the village

boundary maps required under Permendagri No. 28 of 2006 on the Establishment, Deletion and Merger of

Villages and change of status of Villages to Kelurahan (Article 3 point a), even though the village

concerned had submitted its sketch map in the proposal to establish new villages. For example, in the

expansion of Leko and Leko Sukamaju villages, the administrative areas and populations were very

difficult to identify and administer separately since they were randomly blended. Moreover, from a

government administrative perspective, these villages belonged to two different sub-districts

(Rantebulahan Timur and Melahaan), while geographically they are only located within one sub-district

area (Rantebulahan Timur). Local Regulation No. 1 of 2013 stated that Leko Sukamaju village was the

expansion of Salukonta village, which is already in the territory of Mehalaan sub-district.

13 Because of Dutch influence, this title changed to Parenge’, and the person bearing this title was selected by

colonial powers so they would cooperate.



Mamasa district’s boundaries with other districts in the province of West Sulawesi have been determined

by Permendagri No. 15 Yearof 2005. But in fact there is a continuing dispute over the boundaries with

Mamuju district (in Tabulahan sub-district) and Polewali Mandar district (in Messawa sub-district).

In 2012, Mamuju district consisted of 16 sub-districts with 145 villages, 10 kelurahan and 2

Transmigration Settlement Units. However, with the formation of Mamuju Tengah district, which was

passed by Law No. 4 of 2013, the number of Mamuju sub-districts and villages fell to 11 sub-districts, 91

villages and 10 kelurahan, since five sub-districts (Pangale, Tobadak, Budong-budong, Topoyo, and

Karossa) now belong to the new district (Mamuju Tengah).

The land splitting issues faced in Mamasa district and Muaro Jambi district can also be found in Mamuju

district. Polo Camba village in Pangale sub-district is split into two due to the need to expand the area of

agricultural land available to its households.

Exhibit 13. Buttuada Village in boundary dispute between Mamasa District and Mamuju District

Buttuada village is a village in Bonehau sub-district, Mamuju district that is adjacent to Lakahang village, Tabulahan

sub-district in Mamasa district. This village is one of the villages on the boundary between Mamuju and Mamasa

districts, but until now the exact boundary between the two districts is still disputed. Buttuada is new territory opened

by Tabulahan and surrounding residents, especially now known as the Gandang Dewata village in the 1950s, and

became a village in 2001. In 1987, the village chief of Buntu Malangka successfully established an agreement that

the boundary between Mamuju district and Polewali Mamasa district would be Salu Batu (a river). After the formation

of Mamasa district in 2002, the Government of West Sulawesi province, in collaboration with Wirabuana Regional

Military Topography (Topdam), conducted the first district boundary setting in January 2006. In the same year, two

gold mining companies conducted gold exploration in the area.

In 2010, the regional boundary demarcation team put the Main Boundary Pillars on the banks of the river on the

Mamasa district side. This raised an issue related to the right to use the river. The Buttuada residents claimed that

the main part of the river was within their jurisdiction, so they were entitled to a levy on sand quarrying from the river.

Lakahang residents objected to the pillar’s position because it meant they lost the right to the river. The two villages

also have different versions of the boundaries. According to Lakahang residents, the district boundary is Salu Batu up

to Bonehau river, and goes along the edge of this river, while Buttuada villagers claim that the district boundary starts

just before the Salu Batu estuary and then goes up to the hill.

Sources: (Chief of Lakahang village), Alfian (Chief of Buttu’ada village), Malora P. Lamba, and Politin Wetanda

Leko and Leko Sukamaju villages were inhabited by approximately 70 households. The expansion of

Leko and Seko Sukamaju villages was based on a conflict over the establishment of Mamasa District.

Other than that, this expansion was intended to meet the number of villages in the expanded

Mehalaan sub-district. Consequently, the Leko Village area was divided into two villages – Leko and

Leko Sukamaju – with Leko Sukamaju being part of Mehalaan sub-district. However, the population

and its territory are administratively located in the same area. Even the residents of the two villages

are randomly intermingled, making it difficult to determine the administrative boundaries. The proposal

for this expansion was not accompanied by a map of the administrative area.

Source: Interview with Octavian D (Head of Village of Leko Sukamaju)

Exhibit 12. Expansion of Leko Village in Rantebulahan Timur Sub-district, Mamasa District



Exhibit 14. Land Expansion in Polo Camba Village, Pangale Sub-district, Mamuju District

Camba Polo village is located in Pangale sub-district in Mamuju district. Polo Camba village is an

expansion of Lumu village in Budong-Budong sub-district and Poloreng Transmigration Settlement Unit

(UPT) in Kalukku sub-district, which was formerly a semi-spontaneous UPT formed in 1989 before the

expansion of Pangale sub-district. During the UPT Polo Camba expansion, the land needed was

insufficient for 250 people since each household should get two hectares of land. So 100 families were

moved to the land of Kuo village area, across from Polo Lereng village. Today Polo Camba village has a

territory that is split by other villages. Cambal Tunggal hamlet and Pebe’dekan village are located north

and west of the village of Polo Lereng and east of Lamba Lamba village, while Camba 2 hamlet is located

to the east of Polo Lereng village and north of Kuo village.

Source: Interview with former village head of Polo Camba, M. Saleh



4. Towards Participatory Village Boundary Setting

This chapter discusses the extent to which participatory village boundary setting can be implemented in

the four districts where the study was conducted for the purpose of this report. It also contains the study

team’s findings on local circumstances and stakeholder engagement in village boundary setting. Including

a review of and lessons learned in participatory mapping (both internationally and within Indonesia), this

chapter also looks at implementation and lessons learned on regional and village boundary setting based

on MOHA policies.

4.1. Participatory Mapping Practices

Participatory mapping has become a global movement and is known by various names by referring to a

similar type of mapping: counter-mapping, participatory land use mapping, participatory resource

mapping, indigenous occupancy and land use study, indigenous mapping, community mapping, cultural

mapping, aboriginal mapping, ethno cartography, participatory GIS (PGIS), public participation GIS

(PPGIS), etc. The movement began in Canada in 1973 when the Inuit people asked the government to

map out the area they wanted to manage themselves. A study was conducted by a number of consultants

to collect oral histories, memoirs of European nations, and archaeological excavations. The study report

was published in 1976. Since then, the movement has become global, and includes Indonesia.

Participatory mapping activities first took place in Indonesia in 1992 in East Kalimantan, to determine the

boundaries of a conservation area that intersected with the territory of the Dayak community. As a

movement, participatory mapping encourages recognition of the knowledge of local people and their

rights over their land plot. A publication of a UN agency, the International Fund for Agricultural

Development (IFAD), hinted this in the following quote: “participatory mapping can become an essential

tool in enabling these marginal groups to better represent and communicate this relationship to the land –

in order to support relevant and sustainable development and to increase their potential to secure rights to

their resources and lands.” (IFAD 2010, p. 6)

The term “participatory mapping” also refers to a mapping method. In this method, people are expected to

become mapmakers and map users at once, or, as stated by Stone (1998, p. 54), “mapping of, by and for

the community.” Such statements imply a more participatory nature. This method grows from

participatory methods, such as participatory rural appraisals (PRA) or participatory village studies, which

emphasize dialogue in the conception process, and try to translate the local/original knowledge into

cartographic maps. This method emphasizes “the transparency and inclusiveness of all members of

society” (IFAD 2010, p. 6). It is rapidly spreading due to the opportunities arising from the development

of spatial technologies. GIS and GPS navigation are becoming more common, cheaper and easier to use,

making it easier for people to achieve their goals themselves, without needing a professional cartographer.

The role of outsiders in this method is more as a facilitator than as a surveyor or cartographer.

4.1.1. International Best Practices in Participatory Mapping

This section describes some of the popular mapping methodology used in many countries around the

world.



Traditional Land Use Study

Although it is called a study, actually this method is traditional area the mapping of traditional area

carried out by indigenous peoples in Canada – known as First Nations – in Canada. This method was first

used for the mapping of the Inuit people, who were undergoing some changes. As outlined by Tobias

(2000), the core of this methodology is collecting the biographies into a map (biography map) which

includes land use and residential area (land occupancy). This is achieved via interviews with several

people who are considered most knowledgeable about the area, mainly the elders (both men and women),

while their activities’ locations are then plotted on a topographic map. The definition of a biography map

is the territory explored and used by a person for hunting, fishing and important plants, farming and

living. Thus, the land use map will be larger than the land occupancy map. All maps from each interview

were collected and digitized to determine land use and land occupancy of the indigenous people. Land

occupancy is the traditional territory for an indigenous people, because of the intensity of use and the

highest degree of control.

Exhibit 15. Differences in land use and land occupancy

(Source: Tobias 2000, p.3)

This methodology produces highly detailed information on the use of land and natural resources in a

society. With the interview process, translation (if using indigenous native language), and transcription,

this method is time consuming. Managing the information collected is also quite complicated, especially

the recording and storage of the results of the interview transcripts.



Exhibit 16. Stages in Traditional Land Use Study

(Source: Tobias 2000, p.10)

GIS with Public Participation (Public Participation GIS, or PPGIS)

This methodology was developed in the mid-1990s as a response to criticisms of the use of GIS

technology in the formulation of public policy, which tends to be technocratic and top-down. The initial

idea for this approach evolved among urban planners in the United States to encourage democratization of

the technology so that it could reach common citizens. Among geography experts, similar criticism also

emerged, especially concerning social issues such as production, access, and use of the information and

maps that were made and produced, as well as the space concepts used in these maps.

In an article reviewing PPGIS, Sieber (2006, p.503) states that PPGIS is “a unique approach for

engaging the public in decision making through its goal to incorporate local knowledge, integrate and

contextualize complex spatial information, allow participants to dynamically interact with input, analyze

alternatives, and empower individuals and groups.”



In general, this methodology assumes that “the system would place ordinary people in a position to

generate and analyze geo referenced spatial data and integrate multiple realities and diverse forms of

information … [that] would in turn enable broader public participation in environmental and public

policy decision making.” (Rambaldi, 2010, p.2)

As described by Weiner et al (2002), this approach has several models, namely: systems managed directly

by the people, systems managed by the research or educational institution (either alone or with the

community), and internet-based systems (web-based mapping).

Since this is a GIS-based methodology, the use of computers and access to electricity is essential. In

addition, GIS operating experts are also needed. Thus, this methodology is widely used in urban areas.

For use in rural areas, the urban support facilities are still needed.

Participatory Three-dimensional Mapping (P3DM)

This methodology was first used in Thailand, and then became very popular in Asian countries, especially

in the Philippines. This methodology basically involves making a relief map based on topographic maps

filled jointly by the community using existing spatial information in their memory (mental map) on their

needs and interests. Or, to use the language of Rambaldi (2010, p. 3), the resulting maps are “scaled 3D

models by merging spatial information (i.e. contour lines) with their location-specific knowledge”.

Because the latitude and longitude are also shown on the map, the geo-referenced data can be transferred

into GIS. Thus, “3-dimensional mapping is a method for bringing the potential of GIS closer to rural

communities and for bridging the gap that exists between geographic information technologies and

capacities found among marginalized and isolated communities who are frequently dependent on natural

resources.” (Rambaldi, 2010, p. 3). The resulting map can be displayed in a public place and can always

be used to discuss and plan activities in the village.

Native Lands Methodology

This methodology was developed by the Center for the Support of Native Lands and has been performed

since 1992 in several Latin American countries, Cameroon, Papua New Guinea, and Indonesia (Chapin &

Threlkeld, 2009). In principle, this method tries to transfer the land use sketch maps made by the

community onto topographic maps by using aerial photography or satellite imagery as a reference. This

method can be used to map a relatively wide area (up to 20,000 km2) with 25-30 communities of various

ethnicities. It is a participatory process and uses appropriate yet simple technology at the community

level. This method greatly emphasizes the process, and ultimately the process of making maps together is

just as important as, if not more important than, making the map itself. In addition, it involves a close

collaborative relation between the community and cartographer (mapmaker), encouraging a two-way

learning process. Ultimately the resulting map will combine local knowledge and cartography.



Exhibit 17. Stages in Native Lands Methodology Stages in Native Lands Methodology

Field

Preparation

(4 – 6 months)

First

Workshop

(4-5 days)

Second Workshop

(10-14 days)

Second Field

Work

(1-2 months)

First Field Work

(1-2 months)

Third Workshop

(7 days)

Map Printing

• Establish the Mapping Team (Management, Cartography)

• Selection of Kampong Researcher

• Visit to government agencies

• Dissemination of mapping plan to each community

• Information in map and mapping

• Discussion on methodology

• Selection of the category of area use and symbols used in the map

• Training for making the sketch map

• Drafting the sketch map of area use

• Finding information on kampong history

• Visit of cartography team supervisor

• Transfer the sketch map of area use into cartographic standard map using

the help of satellite images/aerial photo

• Check the map to determine the information need to be explore

• Checking the map draft by each community

• Find other necessary information

• Refinement of map draft based on information from the kampong

• Discussion on map draft and printing

• Develop map plan

• Map printing

Exhibit 18. Sample sketch map made by a community



Exhibit 19. Final map produced by Nambluong (Papua) community using Native Lands Methodology

4.1.2. Participatory Mapping in Indonesia

The Participatory Mapping Network (Jaringan Kerja Pemetaan Partisipatif/JKPP) is a national network

for participatory mapping which since 1996 has mapped more than 3.5 million hectares in more than 400

rural areas, managing areas, and indigenous territories. Some members of JKPP and the Participatory

Mapping Service Node (which was established with the support of JKPP) have used Permendagri No. 27

YearOf 2006 as a reference, although they have not fully implemented it.



Many variations of the participatory village mapping stages have been designed for several regions, but in

general the stages are as follows:

1) Introduction of ideas on participatory mapping to the community, especially by conducting

informal discussions with indigenous leaders and community leaders.

2) If this idea is accepted, there will usually be a request from the community to conduct

participatory mapping to members of JKPP. Then the facilitator of participatory mapping

(facilitating activist) will hold preparatory discussions to prepare for the community meetings,

including determining who will be the organizer and who will be invited.

3) Workshop on Planning for Participatory Mapping. This activity establishes the importance of

participatory mapping, the formulation of participatory mapping objectives, what kind of maps

will be drafted, area identification, working team, and activities planned, including funding. In the

area identification, workshop participants will make sketch of the intended area, including the

area’s boundaries. This sketch is then discussed in general with the whole community, including

the invited representatives of adjacent villages. If no boundary agreement is reached, then a

special team will resolve the area boundary issue with the adjacent village. If a boundary

agreement can be reached in the workshop, a joint field inspection can be arranged. If the

schedule for the field inspection cannot be determined yet, another meeting will be scheduled to

Participatory Mapping (PM) Stages in Indonesia

Endorsement

Workshop on the result

Data

Verification

Data

Processing

Non spatial data collection ( history of origin, local policies,

PSDA model, etc. )

Spatial data collection (survey circling the border

using the GPS etc. )

PM Planning Meeting ( Formulation of the objective, area

definition and land use, work plan, working group, funding, etc. )

Sociali zation on PM result

Use of PM result

Dis cussion on PM initiative

Building the

consensus on

border

agreement

PM

Training

Exhibit 20. Participatory Mapping stages in Indonesia



set the inspection date. In some regions, even before the participatory mapping workshop for

village-level is conducted there is pre-meeting of the kampong/hamlet. The results of this pre-

meeting are taken to a Planning for Participatory Mapping workshop at the village level.

4) Training for participatory mapping team. The goal is for a participatory mapping team selected

by and from the community to have the knowledge and skills needed to draft a map. Training

covers field data collection (social and spatial), use of equipment, data processing and

representation. The training usually lasts 3-7 days.

5) Other preparatory activities such as preparation of logistics, negotiating the boundaries, and

socializing with government and others.

6) Field data collection. The community, especially the participatory mapping team, will go into the

field to identify boundaries, important places, and use of land, using GPS. There will also be

interviews to understand the regional history, type of land use, indigenous rules and others.

7) Data processing, cartography and verification. This activity is done repeatedly until the map is

considered correct.

8) Workshop on results. Similar to the planning workshop, the entire community and representatives

of the adjacent community are invited. Usually government officials from the sub-district level

are also invited. This activity discusses the results of the participatory mapping. If an agreement

has been reached, the formal agreement letter will be prepared.

9) Handover of finished map by the team to village governments. This activity can be done

simultaneously, but if there are matters that still need to be resolved, they should be resolved first.

The participatory mapping model discussed above is also used by some NGOs in Jambi, including Warsi,

Jambi Farmers Union (PPJ), Walhi Jambi, Tiga Beradik Institute, SSS Pundi, Alliance of Indigenous

People (AMAN), Cappa, Gita Buana, and others. The differences appear to be in the approach to the

region to be mapped. For example, AMAN does indigenous territory, PPJ uses a community managed

area approach, Walhi maps the managed territory and rural areas. The equipment used is generally GPS

navigation using an RBI base map with a scale of 1:50.000. In West Sulawesi, participatory mapping had

only been conducted once, in Kalumpang sub-district (Mamuju district), but this has not yet resulted in a

final map.

4.1.3. Lessons Learned from Participatory Mapping

Since participatory mapping has been used for 20 years, many lessons have been learned. Several years

ago JKPP published a book that reflects on the implementation of participatory mapping in various places

in Indonesia (Pramono et al., 2009). One of the most important things is that participatory mapping is a

form of democratization of technology that allows the general public with a basic knowledge of mapping

to make a map to describe their knowledge and interests. The assumption that ordinary people cannot

make a map has already been proven wrong. This is an eye-opener for government officials, who often

lack respect for the ability of rural communities.

The second lesson is how to value participation. In many cases, participation means mobilizing more

materials and labor, as in many government projects, with a low level of participation. The mapping



process itself tends to be too dominated by the mapping facilitator. One of the issues is the

implementation of participatory mapping activities places too much emphasis on mapping techniques,

such as the survey process and the accuracy of the map, while the social preparation process is not

handled optimally. This is due to, among other things, excessive emphasis on the map as an end result

rather than an organizing tool. This issue may arise when the total number of maps becomes the target in

donor-funded projects. As a result, the mapping process is conducted in a rush to meet the target, so

communities involved in the mapping process cannot properly understand the purpose and process of

mapping or how to use the map later on. Although the community does not implement all of the mapping

stages, they do need to understand the purpose, process and use of the maps so that they have control over

the mapping activity.

Another problem is that participatory mapping activists tend to work with the elite of the village,

especially men. This may not be intentional, since at the introduction stage they tend to interact with the

head of village and his staff, and indigenous leaders, who are generally old men. So it is not surprising

that there is dominance in the men's elite in the mapping process, while women tend to provide the meals

as passive participants in the meeting. The opinions and interests of groups of non-elite and youth groups

are heard less, if not non-existent.

Furthermore, the participatory mapping approach commonly used in Indonesia only covers a small area,

such as a kampong or village. As a result, although it has been in place for 20 years, only 3.9 million

hectares have been mapped using this method, while changes in land use for commercial activities occur

very quickly. Efforts to reduce the risk of overlapping claims will be difficult unless there are also efforts

to accelerate the process. It should be remembered that acceleration should not sacrifice the quality of the

community’s participation. There needs to be an effort to develop a method that covers a wide area and

ensures the participation process goes well, while accommodating the interests and input of women, youth

and marginalized groups.

Finally, the maps generated from the participatory mapping program do not receive government

recognition or follow-up since there is no legal basis for the maps made by institutions that are not

government agencies and holders of mapping permits or licenses, even though the extent of the mapped

region is quite large, and the maps have been produced to cartographic standards.

Nevertheless, many communities are already using the maps they produce to preserve their land or plan

development in their area. JKPP has even made a detailed plan of spatial planning at sub-district level in

some regions.

4.1.4. Use of Technology in Participatory Mapping

The technology used in participatory mapping in Indonesia follows developments in spatial information

technology. Initially, the method involved the use of a compass and a measuring tape. With easier use of

GIS and unfettered access to GPS, the method is now taking advantage of both these technologies. GPS

Navigation has already become one of the standard tools in participatory mapping. And with the

availability of satellite imagery, whether paid or free, more and more groups are using remote sensing

technology in their activities. High-resolution satellite imagery (with a pixel size of less than or equal to 4

meters) is increasingly available in the market.



The reference maps being used range from topographic maps issued by the Bureau of Topography of the

Army to the Topographical Map issued by Bakosurtanal, maps created by satellite imagery (such as

Landsat and Alos PALSAR), Google Earth, and Bing Map. Satellite imagery is commonly used in

participatory visual analysis conducted to identify land cover and land use types with the community.

JKPP had done this in several regions, including Sungai Sambas, Sekadau and Kapuas Hulu (West

Kalimantan), among others.

Satellite imagery is also very helpful to accelerate the process of participatory mapping since it allows the

creation of more accurate land use maps. This is especially useful when the mapping region is very broad.

In Papua, for example, the Nambluong people, who have a very wide territory, have been greatly helped

by satellite imagery. Conventional methods would take great time, effort and cost. Satellite imagery can

also be used for small area coverage (under 5,000 Ha) as has been done in participatory mapping in Lela

and Trimandayan villages in Sambas district (West Kalimantan). This was chosen because the area

consists of turf/peat moss with bushes, making it difficult to traverse the terrain.

JKPP has also taken advantage of this technology by combining satellite imagery, maps and the earth

survey map and several other thematic maps in large-scale mapping in Kapuas Hulu district, West

Kalimantan. Using the Native Lands method, people make a sketch map of land use through in-depth

discussions in the villages. The completed sketch maps are discussed with the community and then

cartometrically transferred with the help of satellite imagery, the topographical map and other secondary

thematic maps in order to generate an area map in a shorter time, while still applying participation and

deep social processes.

4.2. Village Boundary Setting Practices Based on Permendagri No. 27 Yearof 2006

4.2.1. Village Boundary Setting in the Districts of Merangin, Muaro Jambi, Mamasa and Mamuju

At the time of writing, there were no local regulations governing the delineation and demarcation of

village boundaries in the four starter districts that are the focus of study for this report, since this was not

considered a priority. Of the four districts, only Muaro Jambi has conducted village boundary setting. By

2013, Muaro Jambi District had conducted boundary setting for 32 villages out of its 150 villages and five

kelurahan. However, this program did not fully apply the technical requirements mandated in

Permendagri No. 27 Yearof 2006 because of limited funding and equipment. The boundary setting has

been conducted in new villages, expanded villages, and several villages that have become kelurahan.

New villages are mostly former Transmigration Settlement Units that later became villages. For the new

villages and expanded villages, a local regulation (Perda) and an area map have already been published.

Anther initiative supported by BPMPD is to encourage villages to map village potential, one of the

outputs being a village boundary and land use map. In 2013, BPMPD will try to obtain a Bupati Decree to

endorse these maps as an official village administrative zone.14

Other than BPMD, villages in Mestong

sub-district initiated their own village boundary mapping using the services of a researcher from the

University of Jambi. Mapping activities were carried out through a survey, and then the data were

inputted into satellite imagery (Landsat and SPOT). The resultant map has never been reported to BPMD

(since the village considered it not to be part of the BPMD program, and only a local initiative) although

14 Interview with Jamhur, secretary of BPMPD Muaro Jambi



the unit is aware of the map. But in Mamuju District, Mamasa District and Merangin District, as yet there

have been no village boundary delineation and demarcation activities facilitated by the district

government.

As mandated by Permendagri No. 27 Yearof 2006, the District Government of Muaro Jambi requires that

the village expansion be accompanied by a sketch and boundary agreement. After that, the BPMPD will

visit the village and invite the adjacent villages. All incoming documents will be reviewed by the

BPMPD. If there is no basic argument from the people, then the government will not conduct any

boundary setting activities. Therefore, the village should first have an agreement before it can propose

any village expansion. BPMPD will then review the completeness of the minutes of agreement among the

adjacent parties. Based on these documents, the BPMPD will decide whether there is any potential

dispute. It will also review the reasons and arguments for the village expansion, including the investment

plan for the area.

Exhibit 21. Sample village map attached to District Regulation (Perda) of Muaro Jambi

4.2.2. Tebo District in Jambi Province15

Tebo district is the only district in Jambi that has a regulation on village boundary delineation and

demarcation, namely Local Regulation (Perda) No. 9 of 2007. The substance of this Perda is no different

15 Taken from interviews with Legal and Governance Unit of District Secretariat of Tebo and Community

Empowerment & Village Governance Board



than Permendagri No. 27 Yearof 2006. It is intended to (1) strengthen and reinforce Permendagri 27 of

2006, and (2) prepare a local policy in case boundary delineation and demarcation is carried out in the

future, and in case of any village expansion. The initiative for this Local Regulation came from the local

government, and was assigned to the Government Unit assisted by the Legal Unit of Regional Secretariat.

Unfortunately, this regulation has not yet been implemented. it also requires a district level regulation for

implementation, which has not yet been drafted. During an interview, it was revealed that this local

regulation has not been implemented due to funding limitations. In addition, there are still many

unfinished district boundaries, so funding has been prioritized for district boundary setting.

The expansion of new villages requires definitive village boundaries on a map. The government facilitates

this map-making, but implementation has not been as described in local regulations. According to

information from the village head, the mapping team came on the agreed day and together with the

community they directly noted down the boundaries. No documentary research process was conducted,

there was no delineation of the base map to be used, and there was no cartometric delineation of the

boundary lines on the base map.

4.2.3. Ogan Komering Ilir, South Sumatra

The district government of Ogan Kemering Ilir (OKI) commenced village boundary delineation and

demarcation in 2008. The government unit assigned to implement this activity is the Regional Boundary

Setting Subdivision (Sub Bagian Penataan Batas Wilayah) of the Governance Division of the District

Secretariat. The BPMPD is involved especially when the village concerned is a newly created village that

uses a government subsidy to the village (Alokasi Dana Desa/ADD) for the exercise. This activity is a top

priority in the district because village boundaries are a potential source of dispute these days with a lot of

investment coming into the district. Despite its importance, the district government did not issue a district

regulation (bylaw) on village boundary setting, as it considered Permendagri No. 27 Yearof 2006 to be

sufficient.

Since 2010, village governments in the district have actively requested to have their boundaries set,

whereas previously the initiative had come from the government. The district government is now

overwhelmed with such requests, and is not able to meet them due to budgetary restraints. To illustrate

this point, boundary setting exercises were carried out in 25 villages in 2010, 20 villages in 2011, and 18

villages in 2012, while there are only plans for seven villages in 2013 because of limited funds. For

villages that have not requested boundary setting for their jurisdiction, the district government has sent

officials to disseminate the program.

The importance being given to village boundary setting in the district is illustrated by the efforts being

made to build the capacity of village heads to independently carry out the exercise. First, training on the

delineation process has been arranged for a number of village heads, village secretaries, and civil servants

from their units, in cooperation with the Geodesy Department of the Engineering Faculty of Gajah Mada

University (UGM) in Yogyakarta. However, this training was considered insufficient to address the needs

of the trainees. Second, the Regional Boundary Setting Subdivision acquired a number of hand-held GPS

units, planning to place the units in subdistrict offices so that the villages could take turns in using them.

But so far no village has used them independently. The subdivision eventually took back the units.



While adopting Permendagri No. 27 Year of 2006, the actual process of village boundary setting in the

district has been somewhat different. A particular village proposed the boundary setting projects to the

Bupati, acknowledged by the sub-district head. The Bupati handed over the proposal to the Governance

Division, which in turn gave it to the Regional Boundary Setting Subdivision. A proposal for village

boundary setting also came from BPMPD for newly created villages and for changes in the status of

villages to wards (kelurahan). The proposal was accommodated and included in the district’s proposed

budget plan for the next fiscal year. The actual number of villages facilitated would depend on budget

approval from the district parliament, which prioritized villages with high potential for disputes. The

Regional Boundary Setting Subdivision then notified the village governments that had received funding

and visited the villages to disseminate the boundary setting Plan.

With the start of the new fiscal year, the Bupati formed a Village Boundary Delineation and Demarcation

Team by issuing a decree, based on a proposal submitted to the Bupati by the Regional Boundary Setting

Subdivision through the Head of Governance Division. The team is chaired by Assistant I (Governance)

of the District Secretariat, and its members are the Head of Governance Division, Head of District

Planning Office, Head of Land Office, Head of BPMPD, Head of the Legal Division of the District

Secretariat, head of the subdistrict concerned, village head, village BPD head, and several community

leaders. There is no fixed number of community leaders stipulated by Permendagri No. 27 Yearof 2006,

so the village can select any number of people.

For the delineation phase, the sub-district head (Camat) facilitated consensus building on the boundaries

between adjoining villages within the same sub-district. But if the boundaries were also sub-district

boundaries, then the Head of the Regional Boundary Setting Subdivision facilitated the process. The

document review required by Permendagri No. 27 Yearof 2006 was rarely done. Instead, the team visited

the village and focused on collecting stories about the boundaries. The cartometric process (i.e.

delineation of boundaries on the map) was never carried out, mainly because of the limited information

on the map. The team then went straight to boundary surveys on the ground, which eventually led to a

map of village boundaries. The boundary survey took between two and seven days, depending on the

extent and complexity of the terrain.

Prior to the survey, the team asked the villagers to prepare their version of the boundaries. This

knowledge was usually held by community leaders in the form of place names. Village boundaries

generally used the boundaries of marga (a territorial organization during the Dutch colonial era, like

margo in Merangin), which were welcomed by the communities in the district. The information was then

transferred onto a sketch map. Sometimes the villagers had difficulty producing sketch maps.

Next, the team held a village meeting to discuss the survey. At the meeting, representatives from

adjoining villages were also invited to reach a consensus on the boundaries. Where they could reach

agreement, they continued the process by scheduling the survey. Where they could not reach agreement,

the team facilitated a settlement procedure. If the dispute could not be resolved, the team took the case to

the integrated team formed by the Bupati through a decree. (Dispute settlement is discussed later in this

section.)

The demarcation phase began with boundary surveys and the installations of interim boundary markers.

The survey involved officials from the Regional Boundary Setting Subdivision, community leaders, the

governments of the village concerned and the adjoining village. The survey lasted between two and seven



days, depending on the terrain. Some parts of the district are swampland, which can be inaccessible. The

team used hand-held navigational GPS units (i.e., Garmin GPSMAP 78csx) operated by an official from

the Regional Boundary Setting Subdivision to read the geographical coordinates along the boundary path,

including the position of the interim boundary markers installed during the survey.

The Regional Boundary Setting Subdivision input the village boundary coordinates into GIS. However,

where the office did not have in-house expertise, digitization was contracted out. During map production,

the subdivision used topographical maps as the base maps along with Google Earth. The resulting maps

had scales of up to 1:50,000, so did not comply with Permendagri No. 27 Yearof 2006, which requires a

scale of 1:5,000 or 1:10,000. The main reason for this was that no topographical maps on such a scale had

been produced by the Geospatial Information Agency for the district.

After the village boundary map was produced, the district government installed permanent pillars.

However, with a limited budget, a village could only have a maximum of 10 boundary pillars at IDR

1,000,000 per pillar. The pillars were installed on sites considered to be important. If additional pillars are

needed, their cost must be borne by the village. The size of the pillars was in accordance with

Permendagri No. 27 Yearof 2006, but no brass plates were affixed to them. The surveying party for this

stage consisted of a surveyor and members of the Village Delineation and Demarcation Team, including a

surveyor from the Land Office (BPN) who observed the work and did not take any coordinate readings.

After installing the permanent boundary pillars, the team took the geographical coordinates of the pillars

using the hand-held navigational GPS units. Afterward, photographs were taken of the pillars together

with the representatives of the adjoining villages, as evidence, along with the exchange of minutes of the

activity (berita acara) between the adjoining villages. The district government did not conduct the

geodetic surveying required by the regulation, since no equipment or in-house expertise was available.

Hiring a third party to do this would be costly. Furthermore, an accuracy of 3-4 meters using the

navigational GPS units was sufficient, since the boundary pillars could be identified easily.

Boundary disputes that cannot be resolved by the Sub-district Head and Sub-unit Head for Boundary

Setting will be handled by an integrated dispute settlement team chaired by the Vice Bupati. There are

three sub-teams within this team. The sub-team for boundary dispute settlement is led by the Head of the

Governance Division and includes representatives from the police, district parliament, judiciary unit, and

other relevant agencies. The team was only established in 2011, and effectively began working in 2012.

Disputing parties will be summoned to submit their arguments by plotting their claims on a base map or

sketch map. Then team then conducts a survey with the disputing parties to identify the area of

overlapping claims.

The resulting map will be submitted to the integrated team. The team usually then begins mediating the

settlement by talking to each disputing village in order to reach agreement on village boundaries. During

this process, several community meetings are usually held. If both parties refuse to budge from their

positions, it is usually recommended that the matter be taken to the Bupati to decide, assuming both

parties agree. So far, no dispute has required a Bupati decision.



4.2.4. Study on Village Boundary Setting by University of Gajah Mada

The Geodesy Department at the Engineering Faculty of UGM is one research and education institution

that has undertaken village boundary setting. Some lecturers from this department have facilitated the

delineation and demarcation of village boundaries. One village surveyed by UGM is Kauman village in

Karang Rejo sub-district, East Java. In 2014, this institution will facilitate boundary setting around

campus, in cooperation with Bakosurtanal. It also facilitates training on village boundary setting for Ogan

Komering Ilir District and Kutai Kartanegara District. Boundary delineation and demarcation refers to

Permendagri No. 27 Yearof 2006. The equipment used for the delineation is GPS Navigation while for

demarcation they use Single Frequency Geodetic GPS.

They also facilitate the delineation and demarcation of village boundaries, such as in. One village being

facilitated is Kauman village in Magetan district, East Java (Ma’ruf et al., nd). During implementation,

the research team had a problem with availability of the map. The existing village map is on a scale of

1:5,000, while the existing topographical map is on a scale of 1:25,000. In addition, they found that

boundary delineation on maps (cartometric) cannot always be conducted, because it must be accompanied

by a field survey.

In an interview for this report, three lecturers stated that in their view, Permendagri No. 27 Yearof 2006,

especially its appendix, is very technical and too burdensome for villages to carry out.16 The demarcation

stage is particularly complicated and detailed, making it too costly and time consuming. The sign/mark

positioning surveying of boundary markers alone requires special skills that cannot be mastered in 3-10

days. As a result, the quality of participation will decline. They consider that the most important thing is

building a consensus on boundaries in the delineation stage, which is the core process in village boundary

setting. While the demarcation stage is important, as long as the boundary has been determined, the

installation of the pillars can be much simpler and self-reliant, while still technically acceptable from a

geodesy perspective.

4.2.5. Lessons Learned from Village Boundary Setting

Village boundary delineation is a process of consensus building regarding the boundaries set out in an

official agreement and maps of the administrative boundaries of a village. The process is conducted in

several stages. Boundary village demarcation is a process of field implementation by marking the village

boundaries based on the results of the delineation process, using boundary markers/signs.

For provincial and district boundaries, the delineation process is not regulated by any policy – only the

delineation itself is covered. Delineation of a given administrative regionprovince and or district are is

defined in the law on the its establishment of related provinces and districts. In reality, the delineation of a

district or province has not gone very smoothly, and the maps produced have many shortcomings.

Accordingly, the activity of boundary demarcation has been carried out in conjunction with consensus

building on boundary areas, especially by involving neighboring villages and understanding true

conditions in the field.

16 Interview with Ir. Sumaryo, M.Si; Ir. Gondang Riyadi, Dipl. Car., MT. and Bilal Maruf, ST, MT.



4.3. Important Factors in Participatory Village Boundary Setting

Technical Capabilities

Boundary setting activity is a consensus building activity and a technical process to draw up an agreement

using mapping techniques. Based on this activity, the unit that facilitates the activity is at least able to

facilitate the deliberation process to reach an agreement between the neighboring parties. At a glance, this

may seem simple, but based on experience it is not an easy task. The facilitators in mapping process need

to develop their capacity in order to review documents; they must understand the story histories of the

boundary, the community characteristics (which may differ between neighboring parties), how to avoid

making the dispute worse, and so on. If the village is established based on origins, it is likely to have clear

boundaries. But if the basis of village establishment being facilitated is not as solid, facilitation skills

become critical.

Other important skills needed include the ability to technically translate an agreement into an areavillage

boundary sketch map, how to make boundary delineation cartometrically, how to use technical

equipment, and standard map drafting skills. Demand for data integration requires that the village map be

produced in a digital format. So a good GIS officer specialist is needed for field data processing and

preparation of field work maps derived from images and other maps. Standard technical requirements for

mapping are not difficult to achieve. From the JKPP experience, many villagers are able to take

coordinates using GPS and draw them manually onto a map if they are trained and assisted.

The availability of technical and social personnel for boundary setting in Jambi and South Sulawesi is

described in Exhibit 22.

Exhibit 22. Technical and social capacity of boundary setting personnel

Component Social Capacity Technical Capacity Remarks

Government Unit of Boundary Setting,

BPMPD (Muaro Jambi

only)

Unit of Boundary Setting,

BPN, Bappeda, Forestry

Department, BPMPD

(Muaro Jambi only)

Experienced in

performing boundary

setting especially

district, provincial

and forest boundary

Other than

government agencies

Jambi: Walhi, Cappa,

LTB, Warsi, FFI, SSS

Pundi, Gita Buana,

AMAN (UKP3), Agra,

Jambi University

National: JKPP

Walhi, Cappa, LTB,

Warsi, FFI, SSS Pundi,

Gita Buana, AMAN

(UKP3), Agra, Jambi

University

National: JKPP

Experienced in

conducting

participatory mapping

in indigenous

territories, villages

and community

managed areas

(village farm and

forest)

West Sulawesi: None

Regional: Participatory

Mapping Service Node

in South and Central

Sulawesi

National: JKPP

West Sulawesi: None

Regional: Participatory

Mapping Service Node in

South and Central

Sulawesi

National: JKPP

Formatted: English (United States)

Formatted: English (United States)



Referring to Permendagri No. 27 Yearof 2006, the delineation and demarcation of village administrative

boundaries should use geodetic methods (either equipment or methods). In the four starter districts, there

are currently only a few government institutions that have Geodetic GPS, while the NGOs still have no

access to such equipment.

In Merangin district, the equipment is only owned by BPN, Bappeda and the Forestry

Department, in limited numbers and for work unit purposes only. Several government institutions

have GPS navigation equipment: Plantation and Forestry Department (5 units), Local

Development Planning Board (4 units), Land Office/BPN (1 unit), Local Environment Board (2

units), Public Works (6 units), and Mineral and Energy Resources Department (1 unit).

In Muaro Jambi district, the equipment is owned by BPN, Bappeda, the Forestry Department and

the Governance Unit. BPMPD currently only uses equipment personally owned by one of its

staff. Equipment includes Electronic Total Station owned by BPN (1 unit), GPS Navigation (8

unit) and GIS software.

In Mamuju district, the Land Office has two compasses, two geodetic GPS, 100 GPS navigation

units, and 4 pieces of total station. In addition, the Forest Department has 16 GPS navigation

units.

In Mamasa district, the departments that have the equipment are the Department of Energy and

Mineral Resources (4 GPS navigation units) and Forest Department (12 GPS navigation units). In

addition, the Land Office has a total station and GPS navigation unit.

However, based on the experience of some areas, this limitation is not a significant constraint on village

planning delineation and demarcation. In OKI district, for example, the use of GPS Navigation (Garmin

78s type) is considered sufficient for current needs, up to boundary demarcation. The reason they do not

have the capability to buy the equipment and provide technical personnel, even if this task is contracted

out, is that local financing capacity is not sufficient. In addition, the boundary markers and signs are

usually seen or easily found in a four-meter radius in accordance with the level of accuracy of this

equipment. For areas not accurately detected, this can be overcome by taking more auxiliary points.

Moreover, the extent of the area does not affect the private ownership status.

Institutionalization

In the districts of Merangin, Mamuju and Mamasa, the authority for village boundary setting is in the

hands of the Land Affairs and Boundary Setting sub-unit at the Governance unit of the District

Secretariat. While in Muaro Jambi district, this government unit is only authorized to handle boundary

setting at the district and sub-district level. For villages, the authority is given to the village governance

unit of the Community Empowerment and Village Governance Agency. In practice, Muaro Jambi district

is more productive in organizing village boundary setting than Merangin, Mamuju or Mamasa. In the

other three districts, the coordination process should be easier, since they are under one institution.

In conducting village boundary setting, Muaro Jambi BPMD employs various forms of creativity without

breaking any rules. The village boundary setting that led to legislation was carried out within the

framework of the expansion and improvement of village status. But for villages that are non-expansion

villages, boundary setting is conducted under development of village potential. This village potential is

required to include the village territorial map because to plan village potential one needs to clearly



understand where that potential is. Thus, the villages that are conducting this activity will also do the

village area boundary mapping established under an agreement among adjacent villages. In the next stage,

BPMPD will perform village boundary delineation activity based on the village territory map drafted by

the village. This agreed upon village map then only needs to be submitted to the Bupati for a decree to be

issued, following verification and preparation of the minutes of agreement. This simultaneous boundary

setting costs much less than conducting village boundary delineation activities village by village.

Community Participation

Actively involving the community living in the region is the most important thing in boundary setting

activity, because in reality they are the most knowledgeable and interested parties in that area. From

previous experience in boundary setting, what is considered as community participation is limited to

village government staff and community leaders. In fact, many people need to be involved, including

women and young people. Women are also very important in agreeing their village boundaries while

young people are successors who should have some knowledge of the area to be agreed upon. Limited

time and funding are some of the inhibiting factors in the socialization process, which should involve a

greater community element.

Active community involvement in village boundary setting has been widely practiced by NGOs, one of

which is the Participatory Mapping Network. Members of this network do much facilitation in indigenous

area and village area boundary setting.

Funding

In all starter districts, the budget provided for the village boundary setting is very small. Sometimes the

budget proposed in the local budget draft (RAPBD) is deleted from the final local budget (APBD). In

addition, most focus is on the completion of regional boundaries (provinces and districts) and more

emphasis is placed on infrastructure development (in new districts such as Mamasa). In Muaro Jambi,

funds are budgeted based on the BPMPD activities package. The components of the package include:

socialization that produces an agreement, transportation costs (including transportation costs for the

community involved), and making the boundary markers (signs) in line with the existing regulations. For

the 2012 budget, the district only budgeted IDR 150,000 per sign, which was not sufficient.

Since none of the four starter districts have a mapping expert, they ask the Land Office or Army

Topographic Directorate to conduct regional boundary setting. Unfortunately there are no clear standard

fees for boundary setting issued by MOHA or the local government. The only standard fee available is for

BPN. Under GR No. 13 of 2010 concerning Types and Tariffs on Non-Tax State Revenues Applicable

within the National Land Agency, the cost for boundary measurement is IDR 3,500,000 per sign/marker.

Base Map Scale

One issue in Permendagri No. 27 Yearof 2006 with respect to village boundary delineation is the use of

cartometric techniques. Based on experience, agreement on boundaries cannot always be reached by

using cartometry. It really depends on the scale of the information available on the map being used. The

cartometric process actually helps facilitate formulation of a boundary agreement and speeds up the

delineation process, since it does not need to be done. In applying the cartometric process, the map scale

will determine the level of accuracy of the information, in addition to the characteristics of the region and

the characteristics of the boundary area in the field.



In Sumatra, especially in rural areas, the only topographic map available is on a scale of 1:50,000. In the

islands of Java, Bali and Nusa Tenggara, only 1:25,000 scale maps are available. For the 1:50,000 map,

the available information is at 25 meter intervals. For a river, a line on the map that is 0.1 mm wide will

reflect a 5-meter wide river. But many of these rivers are not identified, and may be only portrayed as

estimates based on the terrain shape depicted as contours. This also applies to roads, which most likely

will not be depicted on a topographic map.

This problem arises in several village boundary mapping activities. The UGM research team faced this

problem when conducting the Kauman village boundary setting described earlier. Similarly, the

experience of JKPP in broad scale mapping of Kapuas Hulu in West Kalimantan using 1:50,000 scale

map made it very difficult to draw the boundaries, especially on sloping areas. But in the experience with

Dayak Pitap, almost all cartometric processes could be carried out since the regional characteristics are

similar to a watershed area, with mountain ridges and a large river as the boundaries.

Cartometric processes will be easy to do if the village boundaries are natural boundaries of a significant

size that are suitable for the map scale available, such as a mountain ridge with 25 meter intervals or a

river at least 5 meters wide, when using a 1:50,000 scale map. For predominantly flat areas, though, it

will be difficult to use cartometric process, because there is unlikely to be sufficient interesting

information to draw the boundary lines of the village. Another factor is the size of the village area. If the

village is around 5,000 ha, it would take up around 10x20 cm on the map. With coverage like this, a

surface map on a scale of 1:50,000 will provide very limited information on actual field conditions.

Village Governments and Non-Government Institution Initiatives

Based on the findings, the existing government institutional arrangements are not sufficient to address the

need to accelerate village boundary setting. Moreover, these units also have many other responsibilities.

For technical mapping work in Jambi and West Sulawesi provinces, the provincial government is still

using staff from the Land Office and Topography Military Region. Yet NGOs actually have good

potential to help accelerate the process of village boundary setting. For example, in Jambi, NGO

facilitators have conducted participatory mapping in five villages in Merangin district.

Several village boundary setting activities were initiatives of the village or indigenous community,

facilitated by NGOs, especially in Merangin. Walhi Jambi has completed the facilitation of village

boundary mapping in at least five villages. Tiga Beradik Institution (LTB) has facilitated village boundary

mapping in three villages, including minutes of agreement. There are still other NGOs, such as SSS

Pundi, Warsi, FFI, and AMAN, which are also facilitating village area participatory mapping. In Muaro

Jambi, some villages in Mestong and Bahar sub-districts have conducted boundary setting, facilitated by a

researcher.

Judging from existing initiatives and experience, boundary setting could actually be completed more

quickly. The maps drafted based on a community initiative should be immediately accommodated and

endorsed with legal status based on Permendagri No. 27 Yearof 2006. Some of the issues or disputes on

village boundaries could be resolved with government support. There is also the case of a village head

who did not support a community initiative to conduct village boundary setting. Village heads generally

do not dare to support them unless there is a direct order from a higher level of government (and a

budget). Sometimes the village head consults the sub-district and district level government on such a

community initiative. If approved, at least by the head of sub-district, the village head will then support



the initiative. Thus, district and sub-district governments should provide opportunities and clear policy on

citizen initiatives facilitated by NGOs. Resources of NGOs in terms of technical and non-technical

facilitation can be used by district governments to accelerate completion of village boundary setting.

Boundary Dispute Settlement

Boundaries are the intersection area of claims over space. Consequently, dispute often arises over where a

claimed area ends. Based on current findings, new or planned investments can lead to dispute on village

boundaries. Where previously village boundaries were not considered important, when there are

investment plans, the village becomes important and needs to be controlled. Land previously worthless

will increase in value. Sometimes even government staff in the village will try to claim the largest area of

land possible.

In all starter districts, land-based investment has great potential, especially in forest-related industry,

plantations and mining in rural areas, and in residential development areas of a city. While not all districts

currently have large-scale land-based investment (e.g. Mamasa district), referring to the regional spatial

plan (rencana tata ruang wilayah - RTRW), the potential for investment becomes an important pillar of

development planning in the future. In Muaro Jambi, which surrounds the city of Jambi, potential housing

development is one area of investment that will thrive for several years to come. Accordingly, if area

boundary issues are not resolved, this is sure to lead to potential boundary disputes. For housing

developments, specific locations in the district and city will directly affect the selling price. Boundary

areas that have become plantations, timber estates or mining locations will change the landscape and

remove natural boundary markers. Consequently, when boundary setting is carried out, the lack of natural

signs will make village boundary delineation more difficult. This is when dispute settlement becomes

important.

Based on visits to several locations in Jambi and West Sulawesi and discussions with several NGOs and

local government officials, the team found eight types of disputes relating to rural areas requiring

attention in formulating the guidelines for Village Boundary Setting (Exhibit 23).

Exhibit 23. Types of village boundary dispute

Village

Government

Indigenous

Community

Immigrant Nomadic

Community

Village

government

1 2 3 4

Indigenous

Community

2 5 6 7

Immigrant 3 6 None 8

Nomadic

Community

4 7 8 None



Dispute types 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are clearly identified and there are remedies being done to prevent them

turning into open conflict. While dispute types 4, 7 and 8 (relating to nomadic or semi-nomadic

communities, such as Orang Rimbo in Jambi or To Bunggu in West Sulawesi) will require a better

understanding through in-depth study.

Findings in the four districts where this study was conducted show no specific institutions responsible for

mediating or resolving the dispute over territorial boundary, even though boundary dispute is a potential

casualty if not properly resolved. Handling boundary disputes in the four districts is still left to the

territorial boundary setting team, particularly the Governance Unit at the Regional Secretariat. There is no

institutionalized mechanism supported by policy on boundary dispute settlement.

In Ogan Komering Ilir district, the boundary setting team is only assigned to resolve minor disputes that

can be resolved by deliberation. For boundary disputes beyond their capacity, a special team has been

established by the Bupati to resolve such disputes. If boundary setting needs to be done, the government

should prepare the institution and mechanism for dispute settlement before any fatalities. The model for

boundary dispute settlement can adapt the indigenous dispute settlement models existing and functioning

in the community.

There are currently dispute settlement institutions in the community that use the customary law

mechanism. From interviews with several sources and consultations at a series of MSFs, settlement of

disputes through indigenous institutions is widely accepted because it is cheap and fast or simple.

However, because this kind of law is issued in the oral tradition, the decision is generally not recorded in

writing. In addition, judicial decisions of indigenous customary courts do not have formal juridical power,

despite being accepted by the community.

Examples of the institutionalization of boundary dispute settlement include initiatives in Osango village

(Mamasa district). The village government there has established an agency called the Council of Village

Peacemakers (DPD) through a village regulation. This agency collects and involves various elements of

society, particularly indigenous stakeholders, and serves to mediate and resolve various boundary

disputes, both within the village and with neighboring villages.

4.4. Lessons Learned From Village Boundary Setting

Origin of village. Genealogically formed villages usually have a clear boundary agreement since the

territorial boundaries were agreed a long time before, and some have distinctive regional concepts. Based

on the history of village formation in the starter districts, many villages were formed with a low level of

territory clarity. In the village formation in the 1980s, some settlements/kampong with a sufficient

population became villages. However, the establishment of these villages was not accompanied by a clear

delineation of the village boundaries. In Merangin, there is a concept called cucur ai guling batu, which

means the area where the community should live is determined by the direction of the flow of river water.

Some areas in Jambi have “tembo” which is the authority to regulate and manage an area with certain

restrictions. Transmigration settlement units were placed among the old villages by the governments of

the Old Order and the New Order without the consent of the indigenous peoples of the ancestral villages.

The ancestral villages considered these transmigration villages to be only settlements and agricultural

land, not separate villages.



Formation of new administrative units. Formation of new district requires a sufficient number of sub-

districts. Likewise, the formation of a new sub-district requires a minimum number of villages. As a

result, the formation of new district encourages the inception of new villages in order to meet the district

requirements or for other purposes. There are also several other reasons to establish a new village. First, a

village or settlement that has a significant population will be wooed by politicians. For example, if a

village should belong to a certain province or district, but is considered to have political value, it may

attract much interest. Second, villagers may want to get a larger portion of government subsidies in the

form of the Village Allocation Fund (Alokasi Dana Desa – ADD). Third, some cases of village expansion

are based on a horizontal conflict from the past. (Separation of the village is a way to minimize potential

dispute, a solution that may not last long because the potential for dispute is still there.)

Village formation that is not accompanied by village boundary setting may create confusion over village

administrative boundaries. These conditions can complicate the process of territorial boundary setting. If,

for example, an indigenous territory consists of several kampong which are later determined to be a

village, territorial boundaries between villages may not be considered important. Residents can manage

their land anywhere in accordance with customary rules without worrying about administrative

boundaries. So when village boundary delineation is being conducted, they may feel that their livelihoods

will be disrupted. But village boundary setting is not always carried out in the four districts in this study.

Even when it is, the map will not be developed geodetically, as mandated by Permendagri No. 27 Yearof

2006 (as in Muaro Jambi district), or it may be just a sketch map (as in Mamuju district). The

establishment of 43 villages in the district of Mamasa under Local Regulation No. 1 in 2013 did not

include a single map.

Unclear boundaries. Village boundaries tend to be unclear, increasing the potential for dispute among the

villages. Most definite limit is the limit on road maintenance responsibilities placed on the curb. Most

accepted boundaries are indigenous adat boundaries or government unit boundaries from the colonial era.

Unfortunately, community and indigenous leaders are rarely involved in the implementation of boundary

demarcation, especially pertaining to the boundaries of customary lands. However, when there is a

dispute, indigenous leaders are engaged by the boundary setting team.

Lack of community understanding. The main problems were usually encountered are a lack of time for

the introduction of project among the communities, so information and discussions with the adjacent

communities are insufficient. Sometimes there is resistance from the people residing in boundary areas,

some even try to threaten the surveying party.

Community participation. The field officers are well aware of the importance of involving the

community in the area to be delineated. Provincial boundaries will naturally be related to the village

boundary. Actually, the people living on the boundaries are the ones who would know what may have

been agreed between adjacent communities. In addition, they are the ones who know most about

conditions in the area. But in practice, while it has been agreed to jointly conduct site visits for the

purpose of boundary setting, there are always some groups that cannot come.

Fear of loss of property rights and access. A common assumption in a community whose area is being

delineated is that boundary setting will remove their ownership and access, especially to buildings, land

and natural resources in the region. Even when socialization and dissemination have been conducted by

the team, there are still many people who do not understand. In many instances, people assume that the



boundaries of land ownership must be in one government’s administrative territory. This happens not

only in the four districts in the study, but also in various regions in Indonesia. As a result, agreement on

boundaries is often difficult to achieve. In some cases, agreement on cartometric boundary delineation can

be achieved, but during boundary demarcation in the field, the landowners on the boundaries withdraw

their agreement. Moreover, the construction of new settlements on a city’s boundaries or in a new city can

cause land prices to soar, as happened in an area of Muaro Jambi district located on the boundary with

Jambi city, and in Mamasa on the boundary with the district capital. Residents want to be part of a city

area in order to get a higher price for their land.

Concerns on the complexity of land administration. People are worried that when a parcel of land

becomes part of a different administrative region, the Certificate of Land Ownership (title deed) should be

administered in that area, or there must be a change in the title deed. Another concern is when a parcel of

land now located in two administrative jurisdictions, could cause the division of the deed into two deeds.

Land administration involves money and time – a concern for landowners.

Concerns on accessibility and government attention. Community groups in a delineated area often try to

be part of a certain administrative area, although administratively they actually belong to a neighboring

area. One reason could be accessibility to the center of government services, as this will affect the time

and cost of administration and government services. Government attention to regional development is

also a key factor in influencing people to choose to be resident of a particular region.

Regional boundary relates to pride. Regional boundaries are considered a part of regional pride, so

sometimes the evidence regarding territorial issues could be obscured simply by pride.

Too rigid in drawing up boundaries. One of the stages in the delineation and demarcation of regional

boundaries is describing an interim agreement on the boundaries in a map. This map is then used by field

workers as a reference for mapping. In that map, some area boundaries are drawn in a straight line,

whereas actual conditions may be different. This happens because the field workers follow the reference

map as it is, regardless of field conditions. This occurred during the field marking of the boundary area of

Muaro Jambi District and Jambi City in Muaro Kumpeh village. If a straight line drawn on the map is

applied in the field inflexibly, a house may need to be divided because it is now located in two districts.

Terrain conditions in boundary area. The area where the boundary signs/markers need to be installed is

often difficult to access or infrequently accessed, since natural boundaries usually take the form of

mountain peaks, steep areas or wetlands that are difficult to reach. For example, in the case of boundaries

in South Sumatra, about 32 km cannot be accessed because it is swampland, where the terrain is too

difficult. The Team from Central, South Sumatra and Jambi Governments dared not pass through the

terrain and eventually agreed on what had been drawn in the reference map.

Data on Regional Boundary Plan. The data management on the outcome of regional boundary plans is

not yet well coordinated. Most of the data is still stored by the executive officer and other employees.

This becomes a problem when the officer or employee is transferred to another unit. The problem is that

there is no clear mechanism on how the data should be transferred or explained to a new officer.

Coordination among team members. In boundary setting implementation, many elements are involved.

But due to lack of coordination, there are many boundary maps prepared by one institution that differ



from each other. Moreover, each has its own activities and plan, so sometimes it is difficult to find the

perfect time to bring all the team members together. None of the four starter districts have any technical

staff for surveys or mapping in the local government unit in charge of managing village boundary setting.

They also do not have proper equipment and tools. The existing equipment and tools are private property

of officers and staff in charge of planning tasks (as in the case in Merangin District).

4.5. Lessons Learned from Regional Boundary Setting

In conducting boundary delineation and demarcation, several problems and obstacles are encountered in

the field.

Documents used for boundary setting. The documents used in the boundary setting consist of documents

related to area boundaries, topographical maps and other reference maps, satellite images and other

supporting documents. In Jambi, the widely used documents are topographical maps with 1:100,000

scales published by the Dutch Indies Government in 1934. These maps are also commonly used in

Sumatra. The information contained in the maps is quite complete, and the boundaries shown on the map

are close to the existing boundaries. These maps are then used as a reference in tracking boundaries in the

field. In West Sulawesi, the topographical map used is the one published by the Topography Directorate

of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Indonesia in 1993. For the community, documents or stories

regarding the regional boundaries (such as Tembo in Merangin District) are still used as a reference in

determining regional boundaries. But there is often no conformity between the regional boundaries in the

community’s version (such as margo) and the topographical map, with many maps also being inconsistent

(e.g., on the boundary between Merangin District and Kerinci District).

Costs of boundary markers. The estimated cost for installing the boundary markers/signs, based on

experience, is around IDR 5 million per signmarker. Boundary sign installation costs in mountainous

areas can be up to four times as much as for those installed on flat terrain. The cost of

transportation/freight is one of the hardest things to estimate, particularly in an area with limited

transportation means or challenging natural conditions. From the Merangin District experience, boundary

area demarcation costs are around IDR 2.5-3 million per km, not including the installation of boundary

markers/signs, while the installation cost can reach IDR 3 million per signmarker/pillar.

Boundary disputes are a concern in both provinces where the starter districts are located. In Jambi

Province there are several areas that are disputed, for example Berhala Island is being contested between

Jambi and Riau Islands (Kepri). Based on Permendagri, Berhala Island is part of Jambi. Jambi argues that

historically the Berhala Island was strongly linked to Jambi because there is the grave of Datuk Berhala,

who is known to be of Jambi origin. But in terms of development, some buildings have been constructed

by the provincial government of Riau Islands. As a result, the provincial government of Riau Islands

requested a judicial review on the Permendagri to the Supreme Court, which decided that the island

belongs to Riau.

In the province of West Sulawesi there are still some disputed areas. For example, there are disputes with

South Sulawesi Province (in Polewali Mandar District and Mamuju District), with Central Sulawesi

Province (in North Mamuju District), and with East Kalimantan Province (Balabalakang Islands). Many

efforts have been made to solve these disputes by involving MOHA.

Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Italic






Capacity of district governments in boundary setting. The resources for boundary setting, especially for

measuring, still depend on Land Office personnel, as the technical officer. The non-technical phases of

measurement can be carried out by other teams. So far there have been no problems in involving the Land

Office as technical personnel. Other potential personnel can also be utilized, such as personnel from

Bappeda, the Forestry Department and other technical departments.




5. Conclusion and Recommendations

5.1. Conclusion

Progress in village boundary setting has been slow, as explained in the study results for the four districts

(Merangin, Muaro Jambi, Mamuju, and Mamasa) in Chapter 4. This is because village boundaries are not

a high priority in these four districts. Meanwhile, investment has entered the villages fast. Unclear village

boundaries can spur dispute between communities and investment and/or development projects, as well as

horizontal dispute among adjacent communities. Such condition produces a great risk to

investment/development scheme. Secured village boundaries are thus crucial to enable the security of

investment. MCA-I has a large stake in this regard, because it will develop GP Finance Facility to

commercial and non-profit entities in selected districts to help mobilize greater private sector investment

in renewable energy and sustainable land use practices. It is where village boundary setting/community

mapping can substantially contribute in identifying these investments, supporting the sustainability of

these investments and protecting the land use and land cover as well as the rights of the villagers.

Clear boundaries generally exist in areas that still have strong indigenous rules. These are generally found

in oral agreements known only to a few elders. If there is no special effort to transfer this knowledge to

the next generation, it will be lost and no one else will know the boundaries based on the old agreement.

On the other hand, the government still does not consider village boundary setting to be a priority,

preferring to focus instead on provincial and district boundaries. This study clearly shows that when there

are clear boundaries between all villages, then the district and provincial boundaries can be settled at the

same time. This suggests that there needs to be a breakthrough to accelerate village boundary setting. This

breakthrough can overcome obstacles such as the time required and the high costs involved. Using

participatory approaches, boundary mapping can be done less expensively and more quickly especially

when the process involves many parties.

Regulation No. 27 Yearof 2006 focuses on technical mapping issues (cartographic rigor) and does not pay

sufficient attention to the social issues involved in village boundary setting. Village boundary mapping

cannot be treated as merely a technical activity that is carried out by mapping technicians – the process is

much broader than cartography, involving social aspects that are often complex. Furthermore, while the

current requirement for geodetic accuracy of 5 cm may be appropriate when surveying land parcels for

land administration processes, when it comes to territorial boundaries, a degree of accuracy of up to 1

meter is more appropriate. In the case of Ogan Komering Ilir district, village boundary setting projects

only partially followed the technical components and specifications of Permendagri No. 27 Yearof 2006,

as the district government found complying with the technical rigor required to be too costly. Meanwhile,

village boundary setting exercises that are socially rigorous still require considerable elaboration in the

regulations. For these reasons, MCA-I is developing a village boundary setting and community mapping

process (VBS/CM) and associated guidelines which both hold to appropriate technical rigor and include

the participatory processes and societal interaction needed to ensure buy-in of the communities

themselves as well as that of adjacent communities.



A key social factor in the village boundary setting process is the history of the village’s establishment,

which will determine the degree of complexity in reaching agreement on the village boundaries. There are

two common ways in which villages can be formed – genealogically and non-genealogically.

Genealogical villages are usually old villages inhabited by people with strong kinship ties forged over

many generations. These villages generally have customary rules and a clear territory that is based on

those rules. In other words, these villages are inhabited by indigenous peoples with indigenous territories,

whether still intact or divided into several villages by central government edict during the New Order era.

Non-genealogical villages are villages whose inhabitants have no particular kinship ties. These villages

may be based on recent expansion or transmigration, or local rural occupations. Villages can also be a

mixture of the two types, where people who have kinship ties migrate and mix with other people.

Whatever the background to the village’s formation, indigenous territorial integrity needs to be

considered when village boundary setting is being undertaken – whether by MCA-I under the GP

Program or by any other organization. For the purposes of the GP program, both customary territorial

boundaries (even if only indicative) and village administrative boundaries need to be mapped

simultaneously through a participatory process which combines the technical aspects with the social

aspects.

Given the social complexity involved in village boundary setting, the accompanying guideline attempts to

add a social component, chiefly during the village boundary delineation stage. To that end, the guideline

combines the process of large-scale participatory mapping developed by the Center for the Support of

Native Lands (which combines the use of sketch maps and satellite imagery) with mapping based on

Regulation No. 27 Yearof 2006. Participatory mapping is at the core of the village boundary delineation

process, while the activity stages set out in the MOHA Guideline on Village Boundary Delineation and

Demarcation (published as an Annex to Regulation No. 27 Yearof 2006) form the core of village

boundary demarcation. The result is a combined village boundary setting and community mapping

process, or VBS/CM methodology.

While the Native Lands mapping methodology is primarily intended for mapping large regions of up to

2,000,000 hectares in size that are home to 20-25 communities, the accompanying guideline is also

intended for mapping sub-districts and indigenous territories. This approach is expected to reduce the

time and cost involved, while also reducing the likelihood of dispute arising. An advantage of the Native

Lands methodology is its emphasis on the community’s spatial use. It is very useful for people in

adjoining villages to understand the control of land between them, as this places them in a more informed

position when negotiating the boundaries of their villages. This is important, as there is a strong tendency

for rural communities to consider tenure boundaries the same as village boundaries. There is also a

tendency for the delineation of village boundaries to be seen as the act of putting up fences in territory

that previously had no physical boundaries. Such action is only likely to increase the potential for dispute

to arise.

Under this methodology, a number of non-technical tasks (i.e. non-cartographic tasks) need to be

conducted. These include raising funds and managing the funds17

, organizing people at each activity stage

17 Under the MCA-I Green Prosperity Project funding for implementing the VBS/CM methodology has been

provided through a combination of MCC Compact funds of the Participatory Land Use Planning Activity

(PLUP) and funding from local and regional government agencies.



(including holding workshops and going into the field), logistics (travel, food, and lodging),

communicating with various parties at village and government level, and managing teams at events.

While cartography remains a critical component, it is one of many. The biggest issue is how all of these

components can be combined and managed. There is always a strong temptation to embark on the activity

as quickly as possible, before the fieldwork has been done. As soon as the idea of village boundary setting

arises, there will always be some people who want to go ahead with it immediately. This desire must be

restrained until a strong activities management team has been formed and other key components have

been established.

To accommodate the mapping of land use and critical community natural and cultural land use areas, the

less well-known MOHA Regulation No. 51 Yearof 2007 can be used as an entry point for village

boundary setting, together with the district spatial planning approach used by the GP Program. This

MOHA regulation encourages a bottom-up decision making process, which can reduce disputes over land

use and tenure. While some villages are located in state forestlands, the current policy should be reviewed

carefully through documentary research, including the pros and cons of the bottom-up planning process.

There also needs to be an appreciation that the local community is not a single entity with particular

interests – the interests of the impoverished, of families led by women, landless peasants, and others all

need to be considered.

This study shows that the priority of village boundary setting in the starter districts are for newly formed

villages or villages change status to become kelurahan. Such individual village boundary setting slows

the process of reaching secured boundaries for all villages in a given district. A more systematic approach

should be employed by having village boundary setting in a larger scale with a larger mapping unit. .

This scale-up approach will be more cost-effective in conducting both the social processes and technical

works. Therefore, once village boundaries have been determined, the sub-district, district and provincial

boundaries will also be complete. Going forward, districts and provinces should prioritize village

boundaries first. Any funding from the state budget for district and provincial demarcation should

therefore also be allocated to village boundary setting.

Undertaking and expediting village boundary setting and community mapping activities requires support

from various parties. The responsible agencies will need to mobilize and coordinate their existing

capacities. Indigenous and religious leaders can help with consensus building to reach agreement on the

village boundaries. NGOs with relevant experience of the issues can also support the process through both

social and technical work. Various government agencies at the district level have the requisite technical

skills, including Bappeda, the Forest Service, the Department of Agriculture, the Land Office and other

agencies and the involvement of these governmental organizations is required by the MOHA regulations.

To fill the gaps (and occasional lack of harmony) in national policy, local governments typically regulate

land issues in greater detail through district regulations (Perda) or a Bupati Decree. Local regulations that

delegate district government authority to the village government may cover, among other things, forest

boundaries, zoning, and the collection of revenue from land and natural resources. There are practical

differences between districts, and there is a need to identify which communities and NGOs in which

districts have experience in setting village boundaries.



5.2. Recommendations


four starter districts, each Bupati should adopt the GP-PLUP VBS/CM methodology by issuing a

decree to implement Article 6(e) of the MoU to undertake village boundary setting activities in

accordance with Regulation No. 27 of 2006 in villages of theselected sub-districts (kecamatan). A

bupati decree is decree is more reasonable with the GP Project’s timeframe, as it takes less time

and is more straightforward in issuing it, rather the ideal status of district regulation (peraturan

daerah) that can take months to complete. Bupati should issue another decree to establish a

Village Delineation and Demarcation Committee to supervise and certify the MCA-I VBS/CM

exercise. This is in line with Article 7 points c and d of Permendagri No. 27 of 2006, which gives

this team the authority to implement village boundary setting and to supervise village boundary

demarcation activities. The village boundary setting and community mapping activities will be

technically implemented by consultants, hired by MCA-I .


four starter districts, each Bupati should issue a decree instructing the Governance Division to

implement Article 6(e) of the MoU by implementing the GP-PLUP VBS/CM methodology in

accordance with Regulation No. 27 Year 2006 in all villages falling within the selected sub-district

(kecamatan). This decree will also establish a Village Delineation and Demarcation Committee to

supervise and certify the MCA-I VBS/CM exercise. This is in line with Article 7 points c and d of

Permendagri No. 27 Year 2006, which gives this team the authority to undertake and implement

village border setting and to supervise village boundary demarcation activities. To implement the

MCA-I VBS/CM methodology, MCA-I would hire consultants to coordinate implementation, ensure

that the village boundary setting and community mapping results meet the guidelines in terms of

technical rigor and participation and is cost effective.

18.2. The Permendagri No. 27 of 2006 should take into consideration a greater social rigor, primarily by

elaborating the consensus-building and participatory aspects, and simplifying the cartographic rigor

to enable the district governments to more effectively implement it due to their limited resources in

terms of expertise, equipment and funding. The GP PLUP VBS/CM methodology to be developed by

MCA-I, based in part on the description, findings and recommendations contained in this report,

could assist MOHA in developing a new policy and regulations which are based on broader

experience in implementing village boundary setting under the GP PLUP Activity.The village

boundary setting process as stipulated in Regulation No. 27 Year 2006 begs an in-depth evaluation.

The regulation may even need to be significantly revised to achieve greater social rigor, primarily by

elaborating the consensus-building and participatory aspects, while simplifying the cartographic

rigor to enable the district government to more effectively implement it with limited resources in

terms of expertise, equipment and funding. The GP PLUP VBS/CM methodology to be developed by

MCA-I, based in part on the description, findings and recommendations contained in this report,

could assist MOHA in developing a new policy and regulations which are based on broader

experience in implementing village boundary setting under the GP PLUP Activity.

19.3. The GP PLUP VBS/CM methodology needs to be piloted in order for MCA-I and the local

government and village representatives in the starter districts to better understand the methodology.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.3", No bullets ornumbering

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.2", Hanging: 0.1", Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style:1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Right +Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"



A pilot study can reveal the complexity of the issues and challenges faced, as well as any weaknesses

that may still arise and the time and cost required to complete the process. The piloting should be

done in selected sub-districts in four starter district by taking into consideration the variety of

geographical conditions, particularly the terrains, and investment potentials under the GP

ProgramThe piloting should be done in one sub-district in each district and high potential for

investment under the GP Program. Based on a rapid assessment and interviews with government

officials in charge of village boundary setting completed during this study, the sub-districts

recommended as pilot locations in each starter district are Sungai Tenang (Merangin), Taman

RajoKumpeh (Muaro Jambi), Kalumpang (Mamuju), and Sumarorong (Mamasa).

20.4. There is a need to integrate VBS/CM and Regional Spatial Planning using the policy on rural areas

regulated in Law No. 26 of 2007 on Spatial Planning and its implementing regulation, MOHA

Regulation No. 51 of 2007 on Community Based Rural Area Development. PLUP approach

employed by MCA-I could enlighten the district governments as to why the integration is substantial

and how it is implemented. There is a need to integrate VBS/CM and Regional Spatial Planning

using the policy on Village Territory regulated in Law No. 26 of 2007 on Spatial Planning and its

implementing regulation, MOHA Regulation No. 51 of 2007 on Community Based Rural Area

Development. One also needs to bear in mind that Law No. 19 of 2013 on Protection and

Empowerment of Farmers provides that security for farmers over family-based agricultural land

should be set out in the spatial plan, while Village Territory is not regulated in any Government

Regulation. To that end, we recommend that MCA-I propose that the government issue a single GR

covering all three aspects, i.e. on the role of VBS/CM in Village Area Planning, covering the five

functions set out in Law No. 26 of 2007, including empowerment of the rural population and

protection of land areas with perennial food crops, as outlined in the RTRW or RDTR.

21.5. As the VBS/CM methodology is implemented different types of disputes may arise, including;

boundary disputes, land use disputes, and land tenure disputes. Based on the analysis completed in

this study, MCA-I should facilitate alternative dispute resolution (ADR) within the implementation

of VBS/CM. The characteristics of this mechanism should be that it is community-level,

extrajudicial, voluntary, and produces written agreements. The mechanism is based on willingness to

enter the process and acceptance of the results voluntarily.Based on the analysis completed in this

study, MCA-I should establish an alternative dispute resolution mechanism to accompany the

implementation of VBS/CM. The characteristics of this mechanism should be that it is community-

level, extrajudicial, voluntary, and produces written agreements. Rather than being imposed by

MCA-I or local government, it should be based on willingness to enter the process and acceptance of

the results. As far as possible, a customary settlement mechanism should be used to reach agreement,

since such a mechanism can better ensure the continuity of the agreement.

22.6. As VBS/CM is implemented it will be important toshould identify the potential causes of boundary,

land use and land tenure disputes. Early on in the process in a given sub-district and/or village,

disputes should be grouped those that are: (a) potentially non-problematic, (b) problematic but easily

resolved, or (c) problematic and difficult to resolve. From this grouping, the problems can be located

geographically and the technical work can be undertaken in the non-problematic areas first. Waiting

for all disputes to be resolved first will inevitably delay progress in VBS/CM in the village and

subdistrict.



23.7. As presented, this methodology is not limited to village boundary setting, but also VBS/CM

methodology must includes mapping of critical natural and cultural resource areas and land uses

within the boundaries of the villages. Collecting accurate information and mapping these natural and

cultural resources and land use areas contributes to an understanding of the limits of a community’s

claims, and therefore facilitates not only the village boundary demarcation process itself but enables

the community to use these resource areas in a sustainable manner and to protect them from future

development. In addition, the resulting maps can be used directly for village level spatial, economic

and physical development planning. More effective participatory spatial planning can thus be

conducted immediately after the VBS/CM is completed. Where there is no boundary dispute,

planning activities can be carried out without waiting for confirmation through a Bupati decree.

Completing VBS/CM in a district, sub-district or village can therefore become an essential part of

the rural area spatial planning process and in-turn provide spatial certainty to the communities

involved.

24.8. Local governments should strengthen and improve the capacities of the government unit responsible

for VBS/CM assisted by MCA-ILocal governments will need to strengthen or reaffirm a unit

responsible for VBS/CM. Based on the experience in the four starter districts, the responsibility for

VBS/CM should fall to the government unit at the Regional Secretariat or Community and Village

Government Empowerment Agency (BPMPD), particularly the Village Government Division. As

VBS/CM becomes a priority for the local governments, government officers should be appointed to

oversee the planning and technical supervision of the VBS/CM process within a given district.

Technical implementation of the VBS/CM process itself should continue to be assigned to competent

and specialized consultants and contractors through competitive procurement processes as opposed

to hiring technical experts and equipping each local government unit with specialized survey,

mapping and peripheral equipment. It is recommended that MCA-I consider as part of the GP PLUP

Activity to provide local governments representatives with contract management training, basic

training on the technical, legal and administrative aspects of the VBS/CM process and training in the

management and use of the data resulting from the VBS/CM process. Government officials can be

selected or appointed from among civil servants who have the competence or undertake the specific

training mentioned. These institutional capacity building efforts should be combined with the

training to be included under Task 3 of the overall DRA Study which is focused on the use of

geographic information in spatial planning and land use licensing and permit issuance and

enforcement process. Going forward, officials responsible for planning and supervising VBS/CM

will need to coordinate with other officials in charge in village planning to ensure that VBS/CM

activities can be conducted simultaneously with the village spatial planning process. For both both

VBS/CM and spatial planning, the responsible government units should cooperate with NGOs

experienced in participatory mapping, and collaborate with and support village boundary setting

initiatives of other national and provincial government agencies. This type of collaboration would be

very helpful in accelerating the expansion of VBS/CM within the districts selected for the GP

Program and throughout the country.

25.9. MCA-I should advocate that MOHA and the governments of the provinces and districts where the

GP Program operates should conduct VBS/CM simultaneously with the regional boundary setting

process (at sub-district, district and provincial levels) in places where the boundaries of these

administrative units overlap. Adopting this approach would be more time and cost-effective



andwould enhance the effectiveness of consensus building among the various actors (i.e., the local

communities and regional governments concerned).

26.10. MCA-I should ensure that the consultants on VBS/CM propose methods to increase the

inclusiveness and applicability of the geospatial data and maps used by the communities and the

district government. This approach would ensure that local communities have ownership of the

process and results of VBS/CM, and would help them more effectively plan rural economic

development. A map of the village (preferably one in three-dimensional form) could be prepared and

displayed in an easily accessible location, such as the office of the village head, the village hall, or

another public place. In addition to being a medium for village planning, such a map can also be an

educational tool for the younger generation to better understand the village and its resources. This

map can record the community’s knowledge of their territory, and of the changes that occur in the

village. Meanwhile, the district governments would have access to the maps, and could

simultaneously promote transparency, by developing a geo-portal and other means of disseminating

information on the development plans resulting from using these maps.

27.11. MCA-I should support the local government in making a presentation to the people in the villages

being mapped, clarifying that the administrative boundaries are not constrained by concessions or

state forestlands, and do not affect land ownership rights. Rather, an easy-to-understand mechanism

and process for land administration needs to be applied in the community to ensure their security of

land use and support clarity of land ownership.

28.12. In identifying and financing land-based renewable energy and natural resource management

investments through the GP Program, an important element is that the investments should focus on

villages that have either already affirmed or are in the process of affirming and demarcating their

boundaries. If the VBS/CM Process has not yet been carried out in a certain geographic area,

potential and selected investors could be requested by MCA-I to collaborate with the district and

village government to facilitate the completion of the VBS/CM process or incorporate the

implementation of the process within their investment proposal.

29.13. Local governments should encourage and support VBS/CM initiatives to be undertaken by non-

government parties such as NGOs at the request of the communities themselves. The district

government may therefore seek to develop coordination and monitoring mechanisms that are jointly

formulated and agreed with the NGOs and, for their part, the NGOs should agree to implement the

MCA-I GP PLUP VBS/CM methodology.

30.14. A breakthrough is needed to address the issue of the official national topographical map scale being

much smaller (1:50.000) than that required for village boundary setting (at least 1:10,000). The first

option is to look for a larger scale base map. If a larger scale base map is not available, one can be

compiled of the area using various existing data combined with data acquisition and in-field

measurement to serve as the base for the VBS/CM process. It is clear from similar experiences in

Indonesia and throughout the world that some portion of the boundary delineation process will need

to be done through field survey methods. However, where boundary areas are inaccessible; the

cartometric process will need to be used. In cases where village boundaries are delineated through a

mix of both field survey and cartometric processes, the resulting maps and geospatial data bases nust

use cartographic means and geospatial feature codes to differentiate the different source of the



boundaries. Clearly, to compile a more detailed base map for use in the VBS/CM process, in many

cases high resolution imagery will be need to be acquired. When satellite imagery is used the data

must be processed and the resulting maps must be designed and presented in a manner that is easily

understood by the community. A second option, especially useful for the collection of imagery of the

critical natural and cultural resource areas within the village is the use aerial photography with

appropriate technology including unmanned aerial systems. Based on these photos, a working map

can be compiled using computerized photogrammetric techniques.

31.15. At the national level, UKP4, BIG, MOHA, the Ministry of Forestry, and BPS all have the potential to

accelerate the VBS/CM and more importantly make use of the detiled geospatial data that will result

from the process. These ministries and institutions could provide both technical support and perhaps

funding, integrated with other boundary setting activities. For example, the Ministry of Forestry is

currently conducting accelerated forest demarcation, which can be extremely useful if effectively

integrated into VBS/CM. BIG is able to train technical agencies and NGOs in the region while also

providing supporting technical data to speed up the base mapping process. In turn, the regional

governments and NGOs should share their maps (including the maps of village boundaries) with BIG

as a part of the One Map Policy initiated by the Indonesian Government. Such data sharing would

include protocols governing issues of ownership of and consent to use the maps (including the maps

produced and owned by local communities).

32.16. The GP Program should support a study on a regional approach to indigenous communities and

villages that are not accustomed to an exclusive territorial approach (i.e. managed by the

communities themselves), with management being undertaken jointly with another community

(inclusive) – this would include Orang Rimba in Jambi. A formula is needed for state protection of

community-owned business from large-scale business, and for state protection of natural resources

from seizure by other community groups. Applied anthropology studies are needed to find a suitable

formula to use for scaled development projects and policies in the future.



Bibliography

Anonymous. tt. Hak Guna Usaha dan Hak Asasi Manusia (Leasehold and Human Rights). Jakarta:

Komisi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia & Bogor: Sawit Watch.

Anonymous. 2012. Equitable Spatial Certainty Underpinning Green Prosperity: reducing the risk of

common failures of investments in renewable natural resources caused by inequitable spatial

uncertainty. SSA 2.

Chapin, Mac and Bill Threlkeld. 2009. Mapping Indigenous Lands: a practical guidebook. Washington,

DC: Center for the Support of Native Lands; Environmental Law Institute.

Eko, Sutoro. 2008. Masa Lalu, Masa Kini dan Masa Depan Otonomi Desa (Village Autonomy in the Past,

Present, and Future). Institute for Research and Empowerment, Yogyakarta.

Heryawan, Wawan. 2012. Kegiatan DRA dan PLUP dalam Mendukung Penyiapan Proyek Green

Prosperity (DRA and PLUP Activities to support preparations for Green Prosperity Project).

MCA-Indonesia.

Hidayat, Rian. 2012. Membangkitkan Batang Terendam: Sejarah Asal Usul, Kebudayaan dan

Perjuangan Hak SAD Batin 9 (Awakening of Batang Terendam: History of origin, culture and the

struggle of SAD Batin 9 rights). Jambi: Yayasan Setara Jambi.

IFAD. 2009. Good Practices in Participatory Mapping: a review prepared for the International Fund for

Agricultural Development. Rome: IFAD.

IFAD. 2010. The IFAD Adaptive Approach to Participatory Mapping: design and delivery of

participatory mapping projects. Rome: IFAD.

Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup (Ministry of Environment). 2011. Pedoman Tata Cara Inventarisasi

Pengakuan Keberadaan Masyarakat Hukum Adat, Kearifan Lokal, dan Hak Masyarakat Hukum

Adat Yang Terkait Dengan Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup (Manual on How

to Inventory the Presence of Indigenous Peoples, Local Wisdom, and the Rights of Indigenous

People Associated With Protection and Environmental Management). Jakarta: Kementerian

Lingkungan Hidup.

Ma’ruf, Bilal; Sumaryo; Riyadi, Gondang & Wibowo, Kelmindo Andwidono. nd. Penetapan dan

Penegasan Batas Wilayah Desa Kauman Kecamatan Karangrejo Propinsi Jawa Timur.

(Delineation and Demarcation of Kauman Village Boundary in Karangrejo Sub-district of East

Java Province)

Poros Masyarakat Kehutanan Merangin. Profil Desa dan Usulan Hutan Desa di Kabupaten Merangin:

Inisiatif masyarakat lokal untuk rangka mendapatkan hak kelola dan akses pengelolaan eks HPH

di Kabupaten Merangin. (Village Profile and Village Forest Proposal in Merangin District: local

initiatives to get leasehold rights and access for former HPH in Merangin District)



Pramono, Albertus Hadi; Samperante, Franky; Safitri, Hilma & Achmaliadi, Restu. (eds.) 2009. Menuju

Demokratisasi Pemetaan: refleksi gerakan pemetaan partisipatif di Indonesia (Toward Mapping

Democratization: reflections on participatory mapping in Indonesia). Bogor: Jaringan Pemetaan

Partisipatif.

Rambaldi, Giacomo. 2010. Participatory Three-dimensional Modelling: guiding principles and

applications. 2010 edition. Wageningen, the Netherlands: ACP-EU Technical Centre for

Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA).

Sieber, Renee. 2006. Public Participation Geographic Information Systems: A Literature Review and

Framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers Volume 96 No. 3, pp. 491–507.

Sirait, Martua T. 2009. Indigenous Peoples and Oil Palm Plantation Expansion in West Kalimantan,

Indonesia. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam; The Hague: Cordaid.

Tobias, Terry N. 2000. Chief Kerry’s Moose: a guidebook to land use and occupancy mapping, research

design and data collection. Vancouver: Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, dan Ecotrust

Canada.

Weiner, Daniel; Harris, Trevor M. & Craig, William J. 2002. Community participation and geographic

information systems. in William J. Craig, Trevor M. Harris & Daniel Weiner (eds.) Community

participation and geographic information systems. pp. 3-16. London: Taylor & Francis.

Zakaria, R. Yando. 2000. Abih Tandeh: masyarakat desa di bawah rejim Orde Baru (rural communities

under New Order regime). Jakarta: Elsam.

Formatted: Portuguese (Portugal)