The Land of Papua: a continuing struggle for land and livelihoods · 2017-01-08 · The Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate (MIFEE) launched in August last year is currently

DTE Special Edition Newsletter No. 89-90, November 2011

The Land of Papua:a continuing struggle for land and livelihoods

DTE: Greenside Farmhouse, Hallbankgate, Cumbria CA82PX, England, email: [email protected] tel: +44 16977 46266 web:http://dte.gn.apc.org

Strong communities for a sustainable futureRecent events in Papua - the violence at the Freeport-Rio Tinto mine, the brutalclamp-down against freedom of expression in Abepura - show that Papuans continueto face extreme forms of exploitation and human rights violations. Meanwhile thesteady advance of large-scale investment projects continues to marginalise andimpoverish Papuans, village by village. Gold, copper, gas, palm oil, and timber areprized more highly, it seems, by the business and political elites than are thecommunities whose livelihoods depend on this region’s rich natural resources.

But Papuans are continuing to demand their right to determine their own futuresand the right to own, manage and benefit from their lands and resources.Thesecommunities and the civil society movements supporting them are calling for moreresources and a greater effort to strengthen their position. So that they can betterresist, village by village, the destructive side of the ‘development’ imposed fromoutside.

This special edition of the DTE newsletter focuses on some of the past and presentcampaigns and debates around top-down development in Papua and the impact oncommunities. The articles include welcome contributions from guest writers fromPapua, Indonesia and the UK.They all point to the urgent need for a rethink in theway Papua and its resources are managed so that the voice of Papuans in the villages- not just the business and political elites - are central in decisions for a sustainablefuture.

Inside...

Twenty-two years of top-down resourceexploitation in Papua

Ending conflict in West Papua,by Carmel Budiardjo,Tapol

Indonesia taken to task over MIFEE

Pusaka in the Land of Papua,by Franky Samperante, Pusaka

The global land-grab phenomenon,by Anna Bolin

Will REDD benefit Papua’s IndigenousPeoples? from a blog by Pietsau Amafnini, JASOIL

REDD in Indonesia - an update

BP-Tangguh: two years on

Songs of worries, songs of strength

1

6

8

11

13

17

20

21

23

Above: returning from hunting, Merauke Cover: West Papua from the air

(Photos by Adriana Sri Adhiati, 2011)

The Merauke Integrated Food and EnergyEstate (MIFEE) launched in August last year iscurrently the most prominent ambitiousnatural resources development plan for Papua(see also separate article on page.8).The planinvolves the conversion of a vast area of land,including forests, into plantations growingfood, energy and other crops. Workers areexpected to be brought to Merauke to meetthe demand for labour. Serious concerns havebeen voiced by local community organisationsand regional, national and internationalNGOs about the potential damage this mega-project will inflict on the local indigenouspopulation and their customary lands,resources and cultures.There is also concernabout the wider political, human rights, socio-cultural and environmental implications forPapua as a whole.

MIFEE is following a well-established pattern of ambitious mega-projects in Indonesia which are primarilyaimed at export markets. They provideincentives to private sector investors, whileall but ignoring the development potential andneeds of local people.

An overview of governmentsupported projects targeting Papua that DTEhas investigated over the past twenty-twoyears, shows such developments tend toshare a particular set of characteristics.Theseinclude top-down decision-making, officialannouncements which package projects asbeing for the public benefit, the appropriationof land owned by indigenous peoples, and theimport of non-Papuan labour.

The fact that MIFEE shares thesecharacteristics indicates that there has beenvery little change in the mind-set adopted bydecision-makers since the Suharto era. As aconsequence, the same kind of negativeimpacts resulting from previous projects arehighly likely to be seen again.

While some of the morepreposterous investment plans have not goneahead in Papua, or at least not in the way theyhave been announced, logging, plantationdevelopments, and mining, oil and gasexploitation have been continuing at a varyingpace, with varying degrees of impact. Theoverall effect has been the steady destructionof Papua's natural resources. The commonthread in this exploitation has been a steady

Twenty-two years of top-down resourceexploitation in Papua

From Freeport/Rio Tinto to MIFEE, Papua’s long history of top-down resource exploitation is one of human rightsabuses, military oppression, environmental devastation and enduring poverty for the majority of Papuans.

This article looks at this history from the late 1980s, when DTE was set up, until today, to set the context for othercontributions to this special edition newsletter on Papua.

DOWN TO EARTH No. 89-90, November 2011 Special Papua edition

(continued on page 3)

The blue areas are mineral and coal concessionsThe yellow areas are oil and gas concessionsThe green areas indicate primary (dark green) and secondary forests (light green).

Papua and West Papua: mining, oil and gas concessions, 2009

Source: JASOIL

2

The following is extracted from a longer versionof this article, which lists a selection of casesreported in the DTE newsletter over the last 22years.The numbers in brackets refer to therelevant newsletter edition.The list is notcomprehensive, but gives a fair indication of therange of resource damage directed at Papuaover the past decades.

1989: Marubeni of Japan is due to startimporting woodchips from mangrove area inBintuni Bay as part of a project with PTBintuni Utama Murni involving a chip milloperation on Amutu Besar Island. Noenvironmental impacts assessment has beendone, and the concession overlaps with anarea designated as conservation forest (1).Protests against the project are mounted inJapan bythe NGOs JATAN and FoE Japan(6).

Scott Paper moves ahead with plans for aplantation and pulp project in Merauke afterthe government approves the project inOctober 1988 (1). Protest letters are sentby NGOs (2) and there are protests inJakarta (3).The company finally withdrawsfrom the project (6).

A Finnish company Rauma-Repola Oy isexploring a joint venture with PT FurumaUtama Timber Co, to develop a pulp andpaper project in Papua (6).

Indonesian business conglomerate PTGaruda Mas conducts a feasibility study fora sago processing plant in Sorong district.(1). PT Sagindo Sari Lestari has built asago plant in Bintuni-Manokwari (4)

Sixty six out of 77 timber concession (HPH)holders are reported as having stoppedlogging operations (1). Australian company,McLean Ltd plans to log a 60,000 haconcession in the Mamberamo area in ajoint venture with PT Sansaporinda calledMamberamo Forest Products (5).

Gucci and Christian Dior are reported tobe interested in crocodile skin investments.Around 2,500 skins have been exported toFrance since 1987 by PT Skyline Jayapura(2). Crocodile hunting and skin smuggling isreported in the Mamberamo River area, withviolence and corruption associated with thetrade (3).

State-owned PT Aneka Tambang plans toopen a nickel mine on Gag Island withfinancial backing from Queensland NickelJoint Venture of Australia (3).

Massive expansion is underway at theFreeport mine with gold production totriple from 5-15 tonnes in the next 3 years

and copper concentrate from 25,000 to40,000 tonnes per day.The companycelebrates its 21st birthday with recordprofits. A medical officer has reported 143serious industrial accidents and 4 deaths inthe past 3 years (5).

A South Korean-Indonesian logging jointventure involving You Liem Sari(subsidiary of You One Construction) andPT Kebun Sari has devastated thelivelihoods of 90 families in Muris, nearJayapura (6).

Six foreign gold mining companies, oneBritish and five Australian, are prospectingfor gold in Papua (6).

1990: An investigation by Japanese newsagency Kyodo finds evidence of illegal loggingin Bintuni Bay by Marubeni-backed BintuniUtama Murni Wood Industries (7). InBintuni Bay, Iraturu landowners demandroyalties from the company, while campaignsagainst Marubeni's involvement in themangrove forest destruction continue inJapan (10).The company is ordered tosuspend operations and is fined by theForestry Minister for illegal logging(11).

US oil company Conoco is to drill what isdescribed as the biggest well in Papua in theBird's Head region under a productionsharing agreement with state oil company,Pertamina (8).

The first shipment of sago flour producedfrom Sagindo Sari Lestari's Bintuni Bayoperation leaves for Japan.The companyannounces plans to important 200transmigrant families to address labourshortages (9).

Governor Suebu considers a plan for anAustralian consortium to build a toxic wastedisposal plant at Nappan, Cenderawasih Bayto process high level waste from Australia,Indonesia and Singapore (9). A space porton Biak is also planned with a US-basedcompany (9).

Freeport negotiates an extended contractarea 20 times as large as its original area(10).

Indonesian NGO SKEPHI reports that 77concessions holders have been granted 12.9million hectares and say that 70% of Papua's41.8 million ha of forests have beenallocated for exploitation of some kind(logging, dam construction, transmigrationsites, plantations, mining and oil)(10).

PT Yapen Utama Timber is poised todestroy Yapen Island's pristine forests andthe livelihoods of indigenous islanders (10).

The government gives the green light to 19new pulp mills, four of them in Papua (11).

Governor Suebu says a satellite surveycarried out by US experts shows that Papuahas the world's biggest gold deposits (11).

2009: BP's climate change commitments forthe Tangguh project are scrutinised as gasoperations get underway.Around 3 milliontonnes of carbon dioxide will be releasedper year according to the environmentalimpact analysis documents (80-81).

Freeport-Rio Tinto admits it is still makingpayments to the Indonesian military (80-81).More fatal shootings near the mine promptlocal civil society organisations to call for apeaceful dialogue to address conflict inPapua.Amungme landowners file a freshlawsuit against Freeport claiming USD30billion in damages in compensation forenvironmental and human rights violations(82).

At least 3 Australian mining explorationcompanies are looking for major copper andgold deposits in Papua, including HillgroveResources in Sorong and Manokwaridistrict, Arc Exploration Ltd (formerlyAustindo Resources Corporation) in BintuniBay, via a company called PT Alam PapuaNusantara, and Nickelore Ltd, in an areabordering Freeport's concession (82).

Papua's provincial government announcesplans for a hydro-dam in Komauto toprovide electricity, power a cement works inTimika and support tourism development inPaniai (83).

2010: Government targets for industrialtimber and ‘people's timber plantations’ inPapua for 2010-2014 are given as 250,000hectares from a national total of 2.7 millionhectares.The new forests are part of thegovernment's greenhouse gas emissionsreductions strategy (84).

Fatal flash floods in Wasior district areblamed on illegal logging (87).

A Chinese company, Far East, wants toinvest in coal mining in 5 areas in Manokwaridistrict (87).

The full run-down of DTE stories on theexploitation of Papua’s resources is on ourwebsite at: www.downtoearth-indonesia.org

Top-down resource exploitation in Papua 1989-2010


3

marginalisation of indigenous Papuans, withtop-down projects imposed from outside, andoften accompanied by the threat of, or theuse of violence to enforce plans.

The cumulative impact of thesedevelopment schemes is a separate, but noless important matter. MIFEE is likely to inflictanother severe blow to any hopes thatPapua's natural wealth will be managedsustainably by local people primarily for theirown benefit. Each blow makes this prospecteven more remote than before as thepopulation balance shifts in favour of non-indigenous migrants and more and more ofPapua's natural resources are taken under thecontrol of the private sector. SpecialAutonomy measures introduced to Papua in2001 allow more room for participation byPapuan politicians in decision-making aboutPapuan resources and more opportunities tobenefit from revenues. However, people onthe ground still remain largely powerless toprevent the take-over of the land andresources which have provided theirlivelihoods.

From Scott to BPWhen DTE was established in 1988, thecampaign to stop a mega-development byScott Paper was gaining momentum.1 Anarea covering around 790,000 hectares inMerauke district was targeted for eucalyptusplantations to feed a chip and pulp operationbased in Bade (now in Mappi district) on theDigul River. The land of around 15,000indigenous hunter-gatherer people wasincluded in Scott's concession.The US-basedcompany promised it would employ as manylocal people as possible, but also confirmedthat non-Papuans would also be brought inwith the help of Indonesia's transmigrationministry.2

The international campaign wasconcerned with protecting livelihoods andthe right to Free Prior and Informed Consent(FPIC), although at that time it was notframed in those terms. When pressed byNGOs, Scott avoided saying it wouldwithdraw if local people said they didn't wantthe project to go ahead. Eventually, under thethreat of a consumer campaign against thecompany's high profile products (tissues,toilet paper) the company did withdraw fromthe project, leaving its Indonesian jointventure partner (Astra) and governmentministers angry, and creating a backlashagainst NGOs.

Since Scott Paper, Papua has beenbeset by a host of natural resourceexploitation projects - some developed, somenot; some massive in scale, others not quiteso grandiose; some officially sanctioned,others illegal. They range from the 8 million-hectare Mamberamo mega-developmentinvolving hydro-electric dams, infrastructure,heavy industry and agro-industry (whichdidn't go ahead) to crocodile skin smuggling

operations involving corrupt military andgovernment officials (which did). From BHP'splans for a giant nickel mine on Gag Island(cancelled) to BP's huge Tangguh gasextraction and LNG plant in Bintuni Bay (upand running).

One constant presence, loominglarge in Papua's recent history is theFreeport-Rio Tinto copper and gold mine inPapua's central highlands. As the chronologyshows, this giant project, has brought hugeprofits for its investors, while inflicting asteady stream of human rights andenvironmental abuse on the local population.By the early years of this century it hadbecome a measure of how not to doresource development projects in Papua.

Assault on Papua's ForestsAbove all, perhaps, the assault on Papua'sresources has affected the region's rich,biodiverse and unique forests. And along withthe forests, the livelihoods of the peopleswho depend upon those resources have beendegraded or have disappeared altogether.

Forests have been a major targetfor investors first through HPH timberconcessions and clearing for transmigrationsites, and more recently through HTI timberplantation concessions. Under regional, thenspecial autonomy rules, the decentralisationof control led to a battle for control betweenPapua's administration and Jakarta. Newtimber mafias emerged involving timberdealers and local security forces and officials,

Notes on a decade of transmigration from the DTE archive1989: After the launch of George Monbiot's book, Poisoned Arrows, the Indonesian

embassy defends the transmigration policy in Papua, saying Indonesia isn't forcingPapuans to live a modern way of life, but is attempting to prevent a nomadic way of life(3).The provincial transmigration head argues that transmigration should beencouraged, as Papua has a population density of only 3.4 people per km2.The five-yearplan target of 23,000 families has not been met, with only 4,555 sent.A total of 23,000families have been sent to Papua so far, with Merauke receiving the most (4).

1990: The new five-year plan target for Papua is 29,905 families. Plans for moving 4,000families are announced for 1990/91 for Eastern Indonesia. But empty sites are reportedin some areas of Papua with houses in need of repair and land in need of re-clearingbefore families can move in (8).

1992: In Merauke, 163 families have left transmigration sites due to lack of preparationand drought conditions.The official figures for transmigration into Merauke since 1964are 12,064 families plus 1,712 local families settled on transmigration sites. Despite theproblems, the transmigration department estimates that Merauke has the potential toaccommodate 100,000 families in a "transmigration triangle" of 1.2 million hectares.There are plans for constructing a huge dam on the Digul River to provide irrigation, tobe completed in 25 years (19).

1994: Minister of Information Harmoko says he hopes that through transmigration thepopulation of Papua can be increased rapidly in order to exploit its vast economicpotential. Suharto plans to divide Papua into three provinces to speed the developmentof supporting infrastructure. New resettlement areas along the border with PNG arealso planned (23).

1996: Papua is the biggest transmigrant receiving area for 1996/7.A new transmigrationpolicy for Papua is announced: indigenous Papuans will no longer be settled alongsidesettlers from outside Papua on purpose-built transmigration sites, but will have theirown villages "restructured" instead.The aim is to speed up their development. New"special" sites have been planned in Timika and Lereh. New transmigration sites inSorong are announced (28).A transmigration site is developed inside Wasur NationalPark, Merauke (35).

1997: A new transmigration bill excludes defence and security aspects fromtransmigration.Transmigration minister Siswono insists Papua has "too few people" andargues that more settlers are needed to speed up development (32). Since 1964,246,000 people have been moved to Papua and another 110,000 are due to be sent by1999.WALHI warns that Papuans will be a minority in their own land and calls fortransmigration to be suspended (32).

1998: There are signs that the financial crisis may force the government to scale backthe transmigration programme (37), but a government document indicates that theprogramme will continue. Figures for transmigration from 1969/70 to 1993/4 for Papuaand Maluku are 81,401 families.The current five-year plan (94/95-98/99) includes67,210 families for the same region (39).

2000: The provincial administration urges the Jakarta government to stop sendingtransmigrants to Papua and start empowering Papuans instead (45). Official figures putthe population at about 2 million with around half the population indigenous Papuans(45).

Note: Numbers in brackets refer to DTE newsletter editions.

(continued from page 1)


4

as the timber boom moved from Kalimantanto Papua. In the past decade oil palm andpulpwood and schemes have started tearinginto Papua's forests in earnest, alongside or incombination with logging.

Now, food and energy cropstargeted under MIFEE represent an additionalthreat to forests and forest-dwellers. HTI, oilpalm expansion projects and MIFEE allundermine the credibility of the commitmentmade by Indonesia's president SusiloBambang Yudhoyono to slice 26% offIndonesia's projected greenhouse gasemissions by 2020.3

The transmigration context Indonesia's hugely damaging transmigrationprogramme to shift millions of villagers fromJava, Bali and Madura to the less densely-populated 'outer islands' was in full swingwhen DTE was established in 1988. Papua,with its disputed political status, armedresistance movement, frequent and brutalmilitary operations against local people toroot out political dissent and its long, porousborder with Papua New Guinea, was a majortarget for transmigration. Here, as in otherborder regions, the programme was aimed atstrengthening territorial control and defenceas well as accessing and developing theregion's rich natural wealth. There was astrong element of 'teaching the Papuans howto farm' on top of a deliberate attempt toboost population density in order to 'speedup development'.

Transmigration remains aparticularly sensitive issue in Papua. Migrantshave settled in Papua in increasing numbers,via official, government-sponsoredtransmigrants as well as arriving under theirown steam. The overall effect has been apopulation shift in favour of people who arenot indigenous Papuans. Recent research hasindicated that indigenous Papuans wereoutnumbered by non-indigenous Papuans by2010 and that the non-indigenous populationis likely to grow faster than the indigenous.4

The MIFEE project will make thissituation more pronounced. The estimatednumber of workers needed for the plannedfood and energy plantations ranges from thetens of thousands into the millions.Whateverthe final number, it will increase pressure onresources and push indigenous Papuansfurther into a minority position.

In the broader political context,these population concerns are linked to thequestion of Papua's political status and howPapuan identity is defined. If, finally, there is agenuine act of self-determination in Papua,what would be the result now that more thanhalf the inhabitants are originally non-indigenous Papuans? Or, if there was anattempt to limit eligibility so that recentsettlers were not eligible to vote, how wouldthat eligibility be decided? If the criteria for

voting was linked to the Papuan identity, howwould that identity be determined? Whowould have the authority to decide thesequestions?

MIFEE: same book, differentcover?Based on previous experience with mega-projects, MIFEE will bring far more harm thanit will benefits. The disastrous CentralKalimantan peatland rice mega-project of the1990s was a similarly ambitious project withsimilar food security goals that ended inecological catastrophe - including emittingmillions of tonnes of CO2 - and haddisastrous impacts for indigenous Dayakcommunities.5

The MIFEE project involves tenstate-owned companies and up to 37 privatesector companies, including overseascompanies. At least two companies arereported to be finalising their environmentalimpacts assessments. The estimated areainvolved ranges from just over half a millionhectares to 2.5 million hectares and more,depending on the source.While the project isbeing promoted as a means of boostingIndonesia's food security, the involvement ofoverseas investors indicates that exportmarkets will be prioritised.The mega-projecthas prompted a great deal of concern amonglocal communities, church groups and civilsociety organisations. There has also beenstrong opposition from local groups,supported by Indonesia's indigenous allianceAMAN.6


Plaque in Domande village, Merauke, stating the community agrees to transfer their land to bemanaged by the Rajawali Group, to not contest and to safeguard the company in its operations.

(Photo: Adriana Sri Adhiati)

What has changed since the days ofScott Paper? Local people will bemarginalised, transmigrant labour will bedrafted in, forests and forest resources arebeing cleared; large corporations andinvestors stand to profit.The military may alsobenefit from protection money in the sameway it has benefited from the Freeport-RioTinto mine, oil palm and logging. MIFEE couldbe used by the military as a justification forthe need for troops to guard the projects - asituation which increases the potential forhuman rights abuses against local people. Allthe ingredients for continuing the decades-old cycle of resource exploitation andmarginalisation of local people are there.

One major difference from theScott Paper era, perhaps, is in the greaterpotential for civil society to monitor andexpose negative impacts. While independentforeign journalists still face severe restrictionsin accessing Papua and West Papua,communications between Papua and theoutside world are patchy but possible thanksto Papuan and other supportive CSOnetworks acting from inside and outsidePapua. This means that critical independentinformation can get in and out of Papua andlocal communities' concerns can be moreeffectively voiced than in the days of ScottPaper. It then remains for decision-makers totake their messages seriously and startmoving from top-down mega-developmentsto bottom-up sustainable support forcommunities.

Notes1. For more background, see DTE newsletters

1-6, 1989.2. The international campaign against World

Bank funding for the hugely damagingtransmigration programme had also gotunderway in the 1980s. Plans to movehundreds of thousands of poor people fromJava, Bali and Madura to the targeted 'outerislands' (Kalimantan, Sumatra, Sulawesi,Timor, Papua) were particularly sensitive inPapua as well as Aceh and East Timor, due tothe disputed political status of those areas.

3. See DTE 84 and 83.4. David Adam Stott, 'Indonesian Colonisation,

Resource Plunder and West PapuanGrievances', The Asia-Pacific Journal Vol 9,Issue 12 No 1, March 21, 2011,

http://www.japanfocus.org/-David_Adam-Stott/3499. The 2010 figures of 1,760,557(49%) for indigenous Papuans and 1,852,297(51%) for non-indigenous Papuans, are basedon extrapolations of population growthrates for both groups and application ofthese to the results of the 2010 census.Unlike in 2000, the 2010 census did notprovide information on the ethnic andreligious composition of Papua and WestPapua provinces.

5. See DTE 42, at http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/old-site/42kal.htm

6. See Tapol & DTE press release, August 2010at http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/journalist-s-death-overshadows-launch-papua-food-project.


5

Merauke government map of planned plantations in forest areas of Merauke

Non-forest landProtection forestProduction forestConversion forestLimited production forestNature reserves/conservation

Note: The blocks superimposed over the forest functions areas indicatethe locations of 46 investing companies (listed in the original map).

Swamp forest, Merauke (Adriana Sri Adhiati)

Source: map issued by Merauke DistrictGovernment


6

Ending conflict in West PapuaThe brutal crackdown by Indonesian security forces on the Third Papuan Congress in October has brought up to six

deaths and hundreds of beatings and arrests.The declaration of independence by the Congress and the state’sattempt to silence it, has once again put questions about the region’s political status under the spotlight.

“It is bitterly ironic that when Papuans meet to discuss their basic rights, Indonesia responds by violating thoserights,” said Carmel Budiardjo, senior campaigner for the UK-based NGO TAPOL.

In the following article, Carmel provides an overview of recent political developments in the region.

It is more than forty years since West Papuabecame a province of Indonesia. The Papuanpeople were not given the opportunity of areferendum. Instead, what took place was anAct of Free Choice which was neither freenor permitted any choice.

Just over a thousand Papuans, actingon behalf of a population of several hundredthousand people, decided 'unanimously' tobecome part of Indonesia.The vast territoryhad been under de facto Indonesian controlfor several years already under the terms ofthe 1962 New York Agreement betweenIndonesia and The Netherlands.

Papuans had no say in the matterhaving been excluded from the talks, whileIndonesia enjoyed the support of the westernpowers in its dispute with the Netherlandsover the future of the territory. When thefraudulent Act of Free Choice took place in1969, there was massive military presencethroughout the territory, with armedpersonnel vastly outnumbering a handful ofUN officials who were unable to visit mostparts of the territory to monitor the Act.

This meagre UN presence wasused to legitimise the decision of the tribalchiefs who participated in the Act. They hadbeen warned by the military of the direconsequences of voting against integrationwith Indonesia.

Since then,West Papua has been anarea of conflict and exploitation for itsindigenous people who have suffereddiscrimination, eviction from their land andthe gradual loss of their means of livelihood,while the basic freedoms of expression,assembly and association are harshlycurtailed.A Jakarta-sponsored programme oftransmigration led to a huge influx of peoplefrom Indonesia who now dominate thecommercial sector and hold a number of thesenior positions in the provincial, district andsub-district administrations. All thesedevelopments have led to the marginalisationand impoverishment of the indigenous Papuanpeople.

In the early days of West Papua'sincorporation into Indonesia, an armedstruggle was waged by the Organisasi PapuaMerdeka (OPM). Although the OPM reflectedthe grievances felt by most Papuans at beingoverwhelmed and in effect colonised by

Indonesia, any attempts at armed resistancehad little prospect of success. The poorlyequipped OPM was hardly a match for thevastly superior security forces provided bythe Indonesian army and police.

Call for dialogueFollowing a Grand Consultation (Mubes) oftribal leaders in early 2000, the Papuans heldtheir Second Papuan Congress in May-June2000, attended by several thousand people. Itwas during this congress that Papuan leadersfirst called on the government of Indonesia toengage in dialogue mediated by a third,neutral party, but Jakarta ignored the call andhas continued to do so ever since.

The congress adopted a number ofpolitical decisions. A Papuan PresidiumCouncil (PDP) was set up, which drafted theterms of reference for the proposed dialogue.It also set up a commission which, it was

hoped, would undertake a rectification ofhistory - directed towards examining thefraudulent way in which West Papua had beenincorporated into Indonesia.

In October 2004, when SusiloBambang Yudhoyono (SBY) was electedpresident of Indonesia for his first term, thepresident along with his then vice-president,Jusuf Kalla, sought what they hoped would bea comprehensive settlement for West Papua.On the occasion of his assumption of thepresidency, SBY said:

The government wishes to solve the issue inPapua in a peaceful, just and dignified manner byemphasising dialogue and persuasion.

Special AutonomyIn a move to dampen Papuan grievances andthe persistent longing for merdeka (freedom),West Papua had been granted SpecialAutonomy (OTSUS) in October 2001 under alaw that provided for wide-ranging economicand political rights for the Papuan people andthe creation of a special council, the MajelisRakyat Papua -Papuan People's Assembly -which was composed entirely of Papuans.

In December 2002, Tom Beanal,vice-chairman of the PDP declared Papua tobe a 'Zone of Peace'. Beanal had taken overthe leadership of the PDP following the brutalkilling in 2001 by elite Indonesian troops of itsleader, Theys Hiyo Eluay. The Zone of Peacewould mean West Papua becoming 'aterritory free from violence, oppression andgrief'. This land of peace concept wasembraced by Papua's religious leaders as wellas by the OPM. At the end of 2007, religiousleaders again declared that conflicts should besettled peacefully, re-affirming thecommitment of the vast majority of Papuansto peaceful means.

Two years later, the PapuanCatholic priest, Father Neles Tebay launched anew initiative promoting dialogue betweenWest Papua and the Indonesian government.More than any other Papuan leader, FatherTebay has dedicated himself to the issue ofdialogue, always stressing that violence cannotsolve the conflict. Moreover, by that time, itwas abundantly clear that OTSUS had failed toguarantee to the Papuan people the rightsthey had been promised in Law 21/2001.

Security forces before the attack on the ThirdPapuan Congress in Abepura, October 2011.(Photo: unnamed source)

7

As frustration with OTSUS grew,Papuans started demanding that the specialautonomy law should be 'handed back toJakarta'. At the same time, thousands ofPapuans have held peaceful demonstrationsacross the territory, flying their traditionalemblem, the kejora (morning star) flag.Theseactions have been treated with a heavy handby the security forces; scores of people havebeen convicted of makar (treason) and arenow serving heavy sentences in prison. In2004, Filep Karma was sentenced to fifteenyears for peacefully flying the kejora flag..Others have been sentenced to two or threeyears for this simple act of protest.

A campaign, supported by TAPOL, isunderway to end the repressive practice ofcharging persons engaged in peaceful politicalactivities with criminal offences such asmakar, inherited from the Dutch colonial era.

Papuan Peace ConferenceAs the protests continued to spread, a newinitiative was taken to promote dialogue andpeace. On 7 July this year, the Jaringan DamaiPapua (Papua Peace Network) organised aPapuan Peace Conference attended by anestimated 500 people from all parts of theterritory.

This conference was also attendedby three high-ranking Indonesians whoaddressed the meeting: Indonesia's Minister-Coordinator for Political and Security Affairs,Djoko Suyanto, the military commander ofthe Cenderawasih/XVII military command inWest Papua, Major-General Erfi Triassunu andInspector-General Bekto Soeprapto, chief ofpolice for West Papua. Djoko Suyantodescribed the conflict in West Papua as 'multi-dimensional' and recognised that two-waycommunications - in other words, dialogue -was necessary.

Also present at the conference wasthe governor of the province of Papua,Barnabas Suebu, who drew attention to theparadoxes in West Papua; a region rich innatural resources but replete with internalconflicts that have led to social disintegration.He also drew attention to the Papuantradition of resolving local disputes by'dignified' talks as being the best way to avoidthe loss of life.

Father Neles Tebay, the co-ordinator of the Jaringan Damai Papua, saidafter the conference: “I want to underlinethat these [recommendations] were notmade to find out who is at fault but more tofocus our attention on the real problems,problems that need to be addressed to createa peaceful Papua.”

The Conference proposed a seriesof indicators for this objective:

Indigenous Papuans should feel tranquil,safe, enjoy a decent standard of living, liveon the land and in peaceful relations witheach other, with nature and with God.Indigenous Papuan people should not bestigmatised as separatists or subversives.

Indigenous Papuans should enjoy freedomfrom discrimination, intimidation andmarginalisation.Indigenous Papuan people should enjoyfreedom of expression, freedom of opinionand freedom of association.All acts of State violence against theindigenous people, including those againstwomen and children, should end.Anyone who perpetrates acts of Stateviolence should be tried and punished inaccordance with the people's sense ofjustice.Indigenous people's right to customaryland should be legally recognised.The exploitation of natural resourcesshould take account of the conservation ofthe resources, recognise local customs andprovide the greatest possible benefit forthe indigenous Papuan people.Companies that destroy the environmentand damage the right to ownership ofcustomary land should be subject to legaland administrative sanctions.Forest conversion practices thatcontribute to global warming should bestopped.

With regard to security, heproposed that the security forces shouldperform their duties in a professional mannerand respect basic human rights in order tosafeguard the sense of security of theindigenous Papuan people. Intelligenceoperations that are intimidating or create asense of insecurity should stop. The TNI(army) and POLRI (the police force) shouldbe banned from engaging in business or inpolitics, with legal sanctions against thosewho violate this.

As regards social and culturalaffairs, he proposed that the social andcultural rights of the indigenous Papuanpeople including their customary rights andnorms should be recognised and respected.Labelling indigenous Papuan people as stupid,alcoholic, indolent or primitive should stop.

Discrimination against peoplesuffering from HIV and AIDS should stop.Everything should be done to reduce themortality rate of indigenous Papuan mothersand children with the help of professionalmedical services. Policies that lead to de-population of the indigenous Papuan people

such as family planning programmes shouldstop, and measures should be introduced tolimit immigration into West Papua.

TNI opposes dialogueHowever, less than two months after thepeace conference, on 21 August, thecommander-in-chief of the Indonesian armedforces,Admiral Agus Suhartono, speaking at ameeting with members of the Indonesianparliament, was quoted as saying that 'the TNIwill not negotiate with any separatistmovement, especially the Free PapuaMovement (OPM). There are no[negotiations], none in any shape or form.'

These words appear to have beenintended to contradict the more tolerantviews expressed by senior members of thearmed forces who attended the July peaceconference. They also show that the tolerantapproach to dialogue by Papua's religiousleaders will continue to confront resistance atthe highest level of government in Jakarta. It isclear that the path to dialogue and peace willcontinue to be obstructed by forces inIndonesia who have no intention of endingWest Papua's decades of conflict,discrimination and the violation of basichuman rights.

The repeated calls for dialogue withIndonesia have been met with silence fromJakarta and have led to calls for a referendum.On 2 August, while a meeting of InternationalLawyers for West Papua (ILWP) was takingplace in the UK, demonstrations organised bythe KNPB (Komite Nasional Papua Barat - WestPapua National Committee) were reported inmany parts of West Papua despite thedeployment of heavily-armed Indonesiansecurity forces. The demonstration were toexpress opposition to Indonesian rule andthe calls for dialogue and demanding that areferendum be held 'as the only lasting andcredible solution to determine the future ofPapua for Papuans'.

The need for urgent politicalinitiatives on Papua was tragically underlinedwhen up to six people were killed during abrutal crackdown on the Third PapuanPeoples' Congress held from 17-19 Octoberin the regional capital, Jayapura. Indonesiansecurity forces turned violent when Papuanindigenous leaders, who had gathered todiscuss their basic rights, issued a declarationof independence.This takes the Papuanstruggle to a new level of intensity andtestifies to the need for ever greaterinternational support for the peacefulresolution of the conflict.

More details of the peace conference arereported in an International Crisis Groupbriefing, Indonesia: Hope and Hard Reality inPapua,Asia Briefing N°126, Jakarta/Brussels,22 August 2011,http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/asia/south-east-asia/indonesia/B126%20Papua%20-%20Hope%20and%20Hard%20Reality.pdf


Renewed call for peaceLeading campaigner for peace, PastorNeles Tebay has called on Komnas HAM,the National Human Rights Commission,to investigate the acts of violence thatoccurred at the end of the Third PapuanPeople's Congress. He repeated hissupport for the call for dialogue betweenJakarta and Papua in order to end theviolence and prevent future violence in theLand of Papua.(Source: Bintang Papua, 26/Oct/2011,translated by Tapol).

8

Indonesia taken to task over MIFEE

The United National Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has written to the Indonesiangovernment to express concern about the impacts of the Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate project

(MIFEE) on the indigenous peoples affected by this agro-industrial mega-project.

It is more than a year since MIFEE wasofficially launched.1 Since then, there havebeen several investigations into howindigenous Papuan communities in the targetarea are faring as companies move in to openup land for plantations. These have foundevidence that local communities’ rights arebeing ignored in the rush to develop the land.

MIFEE, Beyond Malind Imagination, abook by the Indonesian NGO, PUSAKA (theCentre for the Study, Documentation andAdvocacy for the Rights of IndigenousPeoples) is the most in-depth study publishedto date, based on field visits and meetingswith communities. (See also page 11 for aseparate report on PUSAKA’s work.)Published earlier this year, the book exposesthe way villagers are being tricked into sellingtheir ancestral land and raises questionsabout the influx of migrant labourers, as wellas forest and livelihood loss, on local Malindand other indigenous communities.

In July and August this year, a groupof NGOs submitted a series of complaints tothree UN institutions on behalf of theindigenous communities affected by MIFEE.These submissions, to the Committee on theElimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD),the Special Rapporteur on Food Security andthe Committee on Economic, Social andCultural Rights (CESCR), called for MIFEE tobe immediately suspended until indigenousrights have been secured and their free, priorand informed consent has been obtained forany development affecting their lands andresources. An abridged version of the letterto CERD is reproduced below.

CERD respondsIn September, the Chairperson of CERD,Anwar Kemal, wrote to Indonesia’sAmbassador in Geneva to express concernabout the project, about how it enjoys thesupport of the state and the protection of theIndonesian army and about allegations thatcommunities have been manipulated byinvestors to obtain their land. The letterrefers to recommendations it made in 2007,and earlier correspondence in 2009, in whichCERD outlined concerns about the situationof indigenous peoples in Indonesia (to whichIndonesia has not yet replied).The September2011 letter requests information onmeasures taken by Indonesia to address these

recommendations and concerns.2 It requestsinformation on measures “to effectively seekthe free, prior and informed consent ofMalind and other indigenous peoples in Papuabefore carrying out the MIFEE project” andasks whether impacts assessments have beenconducted on “the traditional habits andlivelihood of Malind and others,” as well as“the impact of the transmigration over theircapacity to survive as a minority.” Finally, the

Committee requests a meeting to discussthese issues at its next session in Genevafrom 13th February to 13th March 2012.

Notes1. See http://www.downtoearth-

indonesia.org/story/journalist-s-death-overshadows-launch-papua-food-project

2. Letter from Anwar Kemal to H.E.M. DianTriansyah Djani, September 2nd, 2011.

The CERD submission

Extracts from the Request for Considerationof the Situation of Indigenous Peoples inMerauke, Papua Province, Indonesia. UnitedNations Committee on the Elimination ofRacial Discrimination, Seventy-ninth session,08 August - 2 September 2011.The Requestis signed by Abetnego Tarigan of Sawit Watchand Fergus MacKay of Forest PeoplesProgramme and submitted by 13 NGOs,including DTE.

“This request concerns the situation of theMalind and other indigenous peoples of theMerauke District, Papua Province, in theRepublic of Indonesia. On behalf of theindigenous peoples of Merauke, it isrespectfully submitted for considerationunder the Committee on the Elimination ofRacial Discrimination's early warning andurgent action procedures... The Malind andothers are presently experiencing and arethreatened with additional and imminentirreparable harm due to the massive andnon-consensual alienation and conversion oftheir ancestral lands and forests by theMerauke Integrated Food and Energy Estateproject ("MIFEE project")...

[P]lease note as an importantfoundation to this submission that whileleaders and representatives of the indigenouscommunities in Merauke have reviewed thiscommunication, commented on its contents,and approved its submission on their behalf,during a meeting about MIFEE and humanrights held in Merauke from July 22-25, theleaders and representatives in attendancedecided to not sign the document on behalfof specific-named communities for fear ofreprisals by the Government of Indonesia.This was prompted by the fact that

representatives of the Papua provincial policeand national military intelligence harassedand intimidated the leaders andrepresentatives during this meeting. On thefirst day, at least 12 police and militaryintelligence officers entered the meetinguninvited, argued without basis andunsuccessfully that particular rules were notfollowed to register the meeting or thepresence of the indigenous peoples' foreignadvisor, and demanded that the foreign legaladvisor from Forest Peoples Programme beremoved. For a day and a half they refused topermit this legal advisor to conduct theplanned human rights training and demandedcopies of her presentations before providingthe authorization. Furthermore, on the firstday of the human rights training, a militaryintelligence officer sat at the doorway of themeeting observing all activities, and enteredthe room several times to take photographsof all of the participants, facilitators, theforeign advisor and even the localinterpreter.This officer and others continuedtheir presence throughout the training,returned in the evenings after the meetingsconcluded to ask questions, and at timeseven maintained a security van in front of thetraining centre. Understandably, theseactivities - violating rights of free assembly,speech and thought, not to mention a right tobe free from threats to one's physicalintegrity as a result of attending such ameeting - led to the decision to have just theSubmitting Organizations file this earlywarning/urgent action communication ontheir behalf.

... The MIFEE project is a State-initiated, agro-industrial mega-projectimplemented by a variety of corporateentities that, to-date, encompasses around 2


(continued next page)


million hectares of traditional indigenouslands. The irreparable harm already sufferedby the affected indigenous peoples is set toexpand and intensify in the coming months asmore companies commence operations. Itshould be noted the labour required will bebrought in from outside. Meanwhile,indigenous Papuans will be hired as onlycrude labourers or not given any form ofemployment at all. Additionally, it is estimatedthat between 2-4 million workers will bemoved into Merauke - a process that hasalready commenced - to provide labour forthe MIFEE project, further threatening therights and well-being of the Malind whonumber approximately 52,000 persons.According to the 2010 census, the totalpopulation of Merauke is approximately173,000. The total indigenous population ofMerauke is approximately 73,000.

The MIFEE project has alreadyimpacted on and will continue to impact on arange of interdependent rights to indigenouspeoples' extreme detriment. In this respect,the United Nations Special Rapporteur onthe right to food, Dr. Olivier De Schutter, hasemphasized the human rights threats posedby large-scale "land acquisitions and leases,more commonly referred to as 'landgrabbing'," of the kind issued under the MIFEEproject. He observes that indigenous peoplesare especially vulnerable and often sufferirreparable harm in this context, andemphasizes the need for full adherence totheir rights, in particular as affirmed in the2007 UN Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples...

Citing the Human RightsCommittee, the Special Rapporteur on theright to food explains that "no people's land,including in particular indigenous peoples, canhave its use changed without priorconsultation." He thus recommends that"any shifts in land use can only take place withthe free, prior and informed consent of thelocal communities concerned. This isparticularly important for indigenouscommunities, in view of the discriminationand marginalization they have beenhistorically subjected to." The SpecialRapporteur's recommendations areconsistent with the UN Declaration on theRights of Indigenous Peoples and with thejurisprudence of the Committee...The SpecialRapporteur's recommendations are alsoconsistent with the Committee's 2007 and2009 recommendations to Indonesia...

However, disregarding theCommittee's clear recommendations,Indonesia continues to pursue an immenseexpansion of agro-industry and extractiveoperations in Papua and elsewhere: the MIFEEproject in Merauke is emblematic of how theexpanding agro-industry in Indonesia isoccurring at the expense of the rights ofindigenous peoples. This expansion involvesmassive encroachment on and alienation of

indigenous peoples' lands in favour of oilpalm, logging and other companies and anenormous influx of migrant workers, whosenumbers will dwarf the existing indigenouspopulation. This leaves the affected peopleswith a profoundly compromised future,severely diminished livelihood options and,given that the plantations are monocrop thatrequire clearance of the forests and otherecosystems on which indigenous peoplesdepend, the destruction of their traditionaleconomy. It also causes severe impacts onthe exercise of their cultural, spiritual andother rights, all of which are inextricablyintertwined with and dependent on securityof tenure over their traditional lands,territories and resources.

To date, indigenous Papuans havelost a considerable area of their traditionalterritories due to logging, mining, oil palmplantations and population transfers. Theyhave received few benefits and sufferedsevere negative impacts, which, in many cases,amount to irreparable harm. Theseoperations have the full support of the Statein Indonesia, at all levels, and frequently enjoythe protection of the Indonesian Army. Theuse of coercive measures and the drasticimpact of plantations in Indonesia onindigenous peoples have previously beenverified by the World Bank. The Bank, forinstance, observes that government policiesof supporting the expansion of timber and oilpalm plantations have "marginalized andalienated … indigenous peoples fromtraditional lands and uses, through denial ofrights and access" and that such denials havebeen "backed by force."...

...It is well documented thatforestry concessions, whether for logging or

oil palm or mining, have had, and continue tohave, disastrous consequences for indigenouspeoples in Indonesia. It is also welldocumented that these operations arenormally accompanied by serious humanrights abuses and Papua is no exception. Inthis regard, the former UN SpecialRapporteur on the situation of human rightsand fundamental freedoms of indigenouspeople identified oil palm plantations inIndonesia as placing indigenous peoples "onthe verge of completely losing theirtraditional territories and thus of disappearingas distinct peoples." (Note: Large influxes ofpeople from outside of Papua also exacerbatethe threat of indigenous Papuans becomingextinct).

The same is also the case withrespect to plantations and concessions of thetype issued under MIFEE. Indeed, a recent in-depth study of plantations in Merauke and thesurrounding area details a series of rightsviolations that have long-term and severeconsequences for indigenous Papuans. ..

[This] remains the case despite theadoption of the Papua Special Autonomy Lawin 2001, which is intended to decentralisedecision making over prescribed issues to theprovincial level. In particular, this law remainslargely unimplemented due the absence ofthe required subsidiary legislation.At any rate,decision making over issues pertaining to theexploitation of natural resources - the subjectof this request - remains largely vested in thecentral government in Jakarta and iscontrolled by national laws that...theCommittee has considered prejudicial toindigenous peoples' rights in its prior reviewof Indonesia.

Lack of implementation of theAutonomy Law is especially apparent inrelation to securing the territorial rights ofindigenous Papuans. Implementingregulations and agency capacity to recognizeor create cadastres of customary lands arelacking. Therefore, despite the legalrecognition of vague 'customary rights', inpractice the State generally treatstraditionally owned indigenous lands as Statelands unencumbered with rights. In addition,the majority of the MIFEE area is classed as'forest' and falls under the jurisdiction of theMinistry of Forests, which interprets the 1999Forestry Law as further limiting indigenouspeoples' customary rights.

The Malind and otherIndigenous Peoples Affectedby MIFEEThe MIFEE project will affect the Malind, whonumber approximately 50,000 persons, andother indigenous peoples (Muyu, Mandobo,Mappi, Asmatnd Auyu) in Merauke District.They predominately reside in upstream areasof rivers and do not maintain permanentvillage sites or farms, but instead occupy aseries of camps in the forest, which they useregularly. The Malind primarily subsist by

9

(continued from box, previous page)

Threatened Indigenous livelihoods:fishing nets drying in a Merauke village.(Photo: Adriana Sri Adhiati)

10

collecting sago, hunting and fishing, and aredependent on the health of their forestsecosystems for their basic needs andtraditional economy.They are divided into sixclans that own land pursuant to customarylaw and tenure systems. Their lands areinfused with sacred value due to theidentification of various sites with ancestralspirits and relations.

Various Malind and othercommunities and leaders have expressedgrave concerns about the MIFEE project inrelation to severe existing and future impacts.They have also complained about themanipulation of communities by investors andState agents seeking to obtain their signaturesin order to comply with legal requirementsrelated to showing clear title to indigenouslands... These concerns have been echoed bythe Indonesian Farmers Union, whichcondemned the MIFEE project, by AMAN, thenational indigenous peoples' organisation inIndonesia, and by others, including Indonesia'sformer Minister of agriculture...

AMAN's statement highlights thethreat to indigenous peoples posed by theMIFEE project and observes that the currentpolicy of land alienation in favour ofcorporations "will only exacerbate the humanrights situation, leading to forced evictionsand other human rights violations;" and that itwill have major impacts on [indigenouspeoples'] livelihoods by changing theecosystem and threatening IndigenousPeoples' food sovereignty." Citing thecultural and other effects of massivepopulation movements of the kind that willbe needed to provide a workforce for theMIFEE project, AMAN concludes that theproject will "acutely threaten the existence ofIndigenous Peoples within these areas, turningthem into a minority in number, even leadingto extinction in the future.This is, as we maysay, structural and systematic genocide."

The Merauke IntegratedFood and Energy EstateProject and the Threat ofIrreparable Harm toIndigenous PeoplesOn August 11, 2010 Minister of AgricultureSuswono formalized the Grand Launching ofMerauke Integrated Food and Energy Estatethrough a ceremony held in Serapu village,Semangga subdistrict. Nobody in this villageknew what was actually happening. They onlyrealized several weeks after, when bulldozersstarted to demolish their sago forests that itwas the ceremony of their dispossession ofland.

The MIFEE project is designed toproduce food crops, palm oil, timber productsand agro-fuels, primarily for export. Theentirety of the area covered by the project isclaimed by the indigenous peoples ofMerauke. Government plans explain that the

total targeted area for the project at presentis 1,282,833 hectares (423,251.3 hectares in2010-2014; 632,504.8 hectares in 2015-2019;and 227,076.9 ha in 2020-2030). However,according to the Local Investment PromotionBoard (Badan Promosi Investasi Daerah), 36companies have acquired permits to morethan 2 million hectares as of May 2011.Proposed plantations include oil palm, maize,rice and timber estates.The largest holding ismore than 300,000 hectares. In one instance,an Indonesian company known as MedCoGroup has received a permit of 360,000hectares which allows it to clear up to 60% ofthe forests within. Virtually the entire forestof the Zanegi indigenous community - locatedwithin this concession area - has been cutdown. The community members no longerhave physical access to the animals they usedto hunt and the food they used to collect intheir traditional forests, as it no longer exists.Currently, seven of these permits areoperational, covering an area of 760,000hectares. ... Around 96 percent of this area isclassed as 'forest' by the State despite the factthat the Malind and other indigenous peoples(Muyu, Mandobo, Mappi and Auyu) claim theentirety of this area as their traditional lands,territories from which they derive theirmeans of subsistence as well as being thefoundation for their identities, unique culturesand spirituality.

In order to obtain concessions andpermits to establish and operate an oil palmplantation and other forms of concessions,extant law requires that the applicantcompany demonstrate that there are no thirdparty rights in the area in question. The sameis also the case in the MIFEE project. Forpersons holding title issued by the State, thelaw requires resort to a standardcondemnation and compensation procedure.In the case of indigenous peoples who, byvirtue of Indonesian law, live on State landsthat are subject to weak and generallyunenforceable customary rights, thecompanies are required to obtain signedcertificates demonstrating that the indigenouspeople have relinquished all interest in theland in question. This is not anacknowledgement that indigenous peoplehave protected property rights, but, rather, anadministrative requirement incumbent on thecompanies as part of showing security of title.When a concession or permit is issued to thecompany, it is always a lease vis-à-vis the Stateand the indigenous people are not otherwiseinvolved.

In the MIFEE project, [..this..] hasled to coercive and manipulative practicesbeing employed to obtain signatures. Arecent study concludes that "ill-preparedindigenous Papuan communities are beingenticed, tricked and sometimes coerced intoreleasing large swathes of forested land topowerful conglomerates, backed by overseasinvestors and facilitated by the central andprovincial governments."

The same study further explainsthat, "Evidence shows that negotiationsbetween indigenous land owners andplantation companies are unequal andexploitative. Promised benefits, such asschooling, electricity and houses are seldomdelivered. Compensation payments for landand timber are meagre. Children as young asfour are required to sign contracts so that thefirm can ensure it ties the land up fordecades."

In this way, the Malind and others'lands are being alienated, subjected to long-term leases between the State and privatecompanies, and stripped of their forests formonocrop plantations and extractive industryoperations on a massive scale.

The full extent of the long-termimpacts on the Malind and other indigenouspeoples affected by the MIFEE project isdifficult to predict with certainty. The short-term impacts however are in many casesextant, constitute irreparable harm, andprovide some basis for predicting mid- andlong-term impacts. As the MIFEE projectexpands in the coming months and years thisirreparable harm will intensify and increaseexponentially. This will almost certainly leadto the destruction of the Malind and otherpeoples as distinct cultural and territorialentities and, in the process, cause extremeprejudice to the exercise and enjoyment oftheir individual and collective human rights.

...Negative and severe impacts thatare evident now include: coercion andmanipulation; increased inter-ethnic conflictand violence; and the transformation of theforests where the Malind and others obtainalmost all of their food into monocropplantations that are devoid of traditional foodsources. Game animals that provide primarysources of protein have already begun todwindle and will disappear from the area. Asthe forest contains the vast majority of theindigenous peoples' sacred sites, some ofthese areas already have either beendestroyed or access is greatly restricted, andthis will increase as clearance continues. Theinternationally guaranteed property andother rights of indigenous peoples arecompletely disregarded in this process andthese rights are essentially nullified. Thus, theMIFEE project has already begun toundermine the indigenous peoples' traditionaleconomy and their identity and integrity, aprocess that will intensify and expand asmore companies begin operations.”


The full submission to CERD (including endnotes) and the other submissions can be viewedon FPP’s website athttp://www.forestpeoples.org/topics/un-human-rights-system/news/2011/08/request-consideration-situation-indigenous-peoples-merauk.


The main focus and interest of PUSAKA'sprogrammes is support for the indigenouspeoples' movement in Indonesia. Mostindigenous peoples live in and around forestsand coastal areas. They are targeted bygovernment social and poverty programmes.Their natural resources and lands have beenseized and exploited in the name ofdevelopment. In trying to defend their rights,indigenous peoples have experiencedinjustice, violence, criminalisation,discrimination and marginalisation.

Since 2009, PUSAKA has beenworking in two regions with specialautonomy status, Aceh and Papua. InIndonesia's political history, these tworesource-rich regions have often been inconflict with the government in power, andthis was especially the case in the New Orderera. 'Legal' military operations were carriedout for many years to secure capital interestsand in the name of eradicating separatistmovements.Tens of thousands of people diedin both regions. People were traumatised bythe injustices, violence, poverty andmarginalisation they suffered.

Although Aceh and Papua weregiven Special Autonomy status, there was notall of a sudden less conflict, any significantsocial change or improvements in people'swelfare after autonomy was introduced.Instead, the decentralisation of authorityunder special autonomy was accompanied bythe shifting of problems from central toregional governments.

In Aceh, for example, the regionalgovernment issued companies with licencesto develop oil palm plantations in forest areasbelonging to the villages of Mukim LhokKruet, Panga, Krueng Beukah and Teunom inAceh Jaya District. There was no negotiationor agreement with local communities. InMukim Lamloeut, Aceh Besar District PTTambang Indrapuri Raya (an iron ore miningcompany) operated by former combatants inthe Free Aceh Movement is mining in a forestarea which the Aceh government has decidedis a strategic area for REDD+ (ReducingEmissions from Deforestation and ForestDegradation).

PUSAKA, along with localorganisations YRBI (Yayasan Rumpun BambuIndonesia) and PDPM (Due Pakat MukimCouncil) is involved in community organisingand facilitating discussions in Aceh Besar.These meetings with communities and theImeum Mukim1 leadership, are set up to findways of restoring and strengthening theirrights to land and restoring the authority ofthe Imeum Mukim.

The low level of commitment onthe part of the government to recognisingand protecting rights to land and resources isprompting communities to fear their rightswill disappear. People are either resigned tothis happening, or they resist, and tend not totry and be more systematic in securing theirrights by organising themselves. This is achallenge in itself for the organising work.

Free, Prior and InformedConsentIn September 2007, the United NationsDeclaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples(UNDRIP) was issued. The stipulation onFPIC (Free, Prior and Informed Consent) inthe UNDRIP, the right of indigenous peoplesto decide on all policies and developmentprojects affecting them, drew a lot ofattention and served to strengthen theindigenous movement as well as indigenouscommunities in the villages. PUSAKA engagedin advocacy and capacity-building work on theright to FPIC, its principles and its application.This work has taken us to several areas in theLand of Papua.2

Given Papua's socio-politicaldynamic and the region's special autonomystatus, the recognition of FPIC and theapplication of the principles and rights itcontains, in the context of Papua'sdevelopment, should help achieve justice andrespect for indigenous Papuans. PUSAKA isworking with its partner JASOIL (the Socialand Environmental Network) in Manokwari,West Papua, to organise village meetings andtraining sessions on FPIC with the Arfakcommunity in Prafi and Sidey, the Mpurcommunities in inland Mubrani and Kebar,

establishing dialogue with regionalgovernment and agencies which handle theissue of land and forests rights recognition.Similar sessions have been held withcommunities in several villages in Waropen,Mamberamo, Mimika and Merauke.

ManipulationThese communities have experiencedconflict, and continue to do so today, becausethe government - without the agreement ofcommunities - has been quietly handing outtheir customary land and forests tocompanies, for conversion to plantations,logging and timber estates, REDD projectsand transmigration programmes. Theseprojects are resulting in major changes in landand forest use designation and control.Theseare in turn forcing changes in the productionand consumption patterns of the Papuancommunities, who are highly dependent onthese resources and employ traditional,family-based resource use methods. REDDprojects managed as conservationprogrammes risk limiting community accessto forest products.

Frans Mutis and members of hisclan didn't know that the land and forest theyowned in Sidey had become the location of apalm oil plantation company, owned by theMedco Group. They had never hadinformation about the benefits and impacts ofthe project, about what would happen totheir rights or their livelihoods which werehighly dependent on the forests. They wereoffered money and facilities, with noexplanation of the impacts and risks, andaccepted the compensation of Rp50 persquare metre.

Afterward, the communityregretted the decision to hand over theirland. They are now living on other people'slands and the remaining forest.3

The Malind Anim community inMerauke had a similar experience. Asubsidiary of the Medco Group, PT SelarasInti Semesta, was issued with a timber estatelicence and started felling the customaryforest of the Zenegi Village clan. People werepaid compensation for the wood felled, farbelow the market price: Rp 2000 per cubicmetre.

This community also regretted theagreement, and is now asking to renegotiate itbefore the company starts felling more treesunder its next annual logging plan (RKT).

Community voices and theirdemands are manipulated and only rarelyreach the policy-makers, the local authorities

11

Pusaka in the Land of PapuaBy Franky Samperante, Director, PUSAKA

PUSAKAThe name "PUSAKA" has an old-fashionedfeel.The word means 'heirloom' or'bequest'.The name came aboutunintentionally by the organisation'sfounders as an abbreviation of Pusat StudiPendokumentasian dan Advokasi Hak-hakMasyarakat Adat (Centre for the Study,Documentation and Advocacy for theRights of Indigenous Peoples).The name isa popular one and there is more than oneorganisation called PUSAKA.

PUSAKA’s website is athttp://pusaka.or.id/topik/media/publikasi/buku


12

and investors. Instead, their voice isrepresented by the local elite at the districtand village level who actively represent andvoice the community interests, even thoughthe gains are only short term, and a strategyto make personal gains. There are fourinstitutions related to the Papuan community:the Dewan Adat Papua (Papuan CustomaryCouncil, DAP), the Lembaga Masyarakat Adat(the Indigenous Peoples Organisation), KetuaAdat (Customary Chief) and Kepala Marga(Clan Head). However, according to localcustomary regulations, only the land-owningclan is entitled to make decisions ontransferring rights and land use.

Opening space for dialoguePUSAKA's strategy is to develop and supportinitiatives which bring people from the villageto the centre of power in order to openspace for dialogue. It isn't easy for a villager tobe faced with policy-makers when relationsbetween government and community are atcrisis point. Communities have often beenvictims of trickery, they have been traumatisedby threats of violence from the securityforces, and disadvantaged by limitedunderstanding of the legal situation. Becauseof this, we need preparation, knowledge andcapacity, which can be gained throughmeetings, and learning through the experienceof carrying out small actions to voicecommunity problems and affirm their rights.We need to build solidarity and supportbetween groups, between villages andbetween regions.

Demianus Blamen is one of theBlamen clan leaders in Nakias Village, NggutiDistrict, which lies more than 100km from thetown of Merauke. Demianus doesn't knowmuch about the situation outside his village,let alone policies and community rights. Hisvillage only has customary regulations andmoral rights to govern relationships withinthe village.They don't know about FPIC rightsand principles. But now an oil palm company,PT Dongin Prabawa, is wiping out thousandsof hectares of their customary forest. Whilethe strength of the customary knowledgethey possess should not be discounted, thepresence of the oil palm company means thatnow, Demianus and other local people needto know about FPIC too, and to have the rightFPIC fulfilled.

When we look at the policy to builda low carbon economy in Papua and WestPapua provinces, it is interesting that FPICprinciples have been accepted as aprecondition for REDD projects in Papua. Isthis the result of pressure from above and themandate from international agreements? Or isit just opportunism - following the current'fashion' by making compromises in order togain access to project funding?

Today the challenge is how do weensure that the language in Papua's SpecialAutonomy Law - a politically-motivated legalproduct, rather than one which came out ofproper consultation - is applied to protect andstrengthen the basic rights of indigenousPapuans? It must be done by drafting clear anddetailed implementing rules under the SpecialAutonomy Law, with a clear actionprogramme that. Both rules and actionprogramme should be understood bygovernment officials charged withimplementing them.

Notes:1 An Imeum Mukim is the head, or leader, of a

mukim - the Acehnese customary legal unitof governance between gampong (lowestlevel of customary governance) and sub-district. A mukim usually covers severalgampong.

2 The term 'Land of Papua' (Tanah Papua)refers to the provinces of Papua and WestPapua.

3 DTE was informed during a trip to anothervillage that a man had been found dead inthe forest. Apparently he got confused bythe new forest 'demarcation', went astrayand couldn't find his way back. He died ofhunger.

Indonesian-language book by PUSAKA.The title translates as ‘MIFEE: Beyond MalindImagination’.The book can be downloaded from http://pusaka.or.id/topik/media/publikasi/buku


13

The global land-grab phenomenonThe following report, by independent researcher Anna Bolin,1 explores the global trends and influences at work

behind agriculture mega-projects like MIFEE in Papua.

The so-called land-grab phenomenon hasbeen reported from all over the world. Land-grabbing can be described as a process whereownership of what is perceived to be "empty","idle" or "unproductive" land changes hands inlucrative deals, to be developed into large-scale plantations to produce food oragrofuels, or both. There has been a rapidexpansion in the number of these deals andthe amount of land they cover. Studies showthat over the past few years between 20-80million hectares of land2 have been "grabbed",though researchers point out that it is difficultto say for sure since most of these deals aresurrounded by secrecy.Africa seems to be themain target for large-scale investments butcases have been reported from all over thedeveloping world.

Promoters of land-grabbing claim itis much-needed investment in agriculture.Although it is clear that investment is neededin rural areas and agriculture in the globalSouth, the question is whether this type oflarge-scale land deal will bring the type ofdevelopment that is likely to benefit localpeople. On closer examination, it is evidentthat instead of agriculture development, weare looking at a steady increase in"agribusiness" development.3 The distinctionbetween the two is clear and there should beno confusion as to who stands to benefit andwho stands to lose from these deals.

Behind these acquisitions arepowerful transnational corporations ornational governments that tap into these "idle"land resources to secure food and energysecurity at home. In reality though, this land isnot "empty" but often inhabited by localsmallholders or indigenous peoples who havelived on the land for generations, but whoserights over it are not recognised or upheld.

In order to understand this globalland-grab phenomenon we need to look moreclosely at a number of factors that drivesacquisitions, key actors behind the deals andtheir motivations, and what is really happeningon the ground.

Drivers and actors behindland-grabbingThere are a number of factors driving theseland-grabs. They can be analysed in thecontext of the global finance, food, energy andclimate crises. The 2007-2008 global foodcrisis, during which food prices soared,created political and economic momentumfor the acquisition of land. Likewise, the

climate change and energy crisis has created anew urgency to find land for the production ofrenewable energy crops.

Together these global crises havecreated the perception that - given theexpected population rise and assuming thatresources are finite - demand for food andbioenergy will continue to rise. In turn, highcommodity price volatility creates concernsfor food and energy security. Althoughconcerns for food security may seem fairlydistant to energy security, where theycoincide is in the demand for land.

A number of key actors can beidentified whose actions drive up food pricesand land acquisitions. Broadly, these actorspopulate the business, financial andgovernment sector. The interlinked globalfinancial crisis and global food crisis in 2007/8contributed to the perception that land andfood need to be secured and acquired. Bothcrises coincide with a dramatic increase inland acquisitions.

The Financial crisisIn 2008 the world was hit by the financialcrisis. The crisis called for a re-evaluation ofthe financial sector. Unsustainable practices,such as the preference for high-riskinvestments yielding short-term returns, hadbrought the world's financial sector to itsknees. In response, investors started to looktowards more secure investment options,such as land, perceived to yield low-risk andlong-term returns.

Farmland became an especiallyattractive investment for three basic reasons.

First of all, land prices do not move in syncwith other commodity prices, but withinflation, and therefore provide the benefit ofa diverse income flow that can balance risk ininvestment portfolios.4 Secondly, financialforecasts for the price of food and energyshows continuous high prices and demand.Finally, in many parts of the world, especially inAfrica, large tracts of land can still be leased orpurchased at very low prices. Thus, a simpleequation of supply and demand drives theinterest in farmland.

Another important driver is theexpected return on investment. Financialequity firms, hedge funds and asset managersare pouring capital into farmland acquisitions.To give an example, Emergent AssetManagement, a London-based hedge andprivate equity fund, is promising investors upto 270% returns on farmland investments inAfrica over a five year period.5 Despite agrowing body of reports showing that theselarge-scale land acquisitions create conflictand negative impacts at the local level,investments continue to rise because of theexpected high financial returns.

The Food crisisBetween October 2007 and October 2008food prices spiked to unprecedented levels;the price of rice reached 300% above averagelevels since 2003 and prices for wheat andmaize doubled.7 2008 was also a record yearfor the global price of oil; and the cause of thecrisis has been linked to volatility in both thefinancial and energy markets.

Source: von Braun et al. (2008).6

14

Biofuels have been linked to thefood crisis, as land destined for foodproduction is converted into biofuelproduction. According to one study by theinternational Food Policy Research Institute(IFPRI) increased demand for biofuelcontributed 30% of the increase in averagefood prices.9 Another contributing factor isfinancial speculation in food commodities.TheUN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food,Olivier de Schutter, concluded in a 2010report that "a significant portion of theincreases in the price and volatility ofessential food commodities can only beexplained by the emergence of a speculativebubble".10

The food crisis caused violentprotests all over the world. These eventssparked concerns for national food security -not only related to imports but also to socialunrest. In response, a number of countriesthat are net food importers started tooutsource their food production in order tosecure prices and supply for the long-term.The Gulf States (Saudi Arabia, United ArabEmirates, Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain), underthe aegis of the Gulf Cooperation Council(GCC), came together under a commonstrategy and aim to outsource foodproduction in exchange for capital and oilcontracts.11 Since then, individual countriesor industrial consortia under the GCC haveacquired millions of hectares of farmlandaround the world.12

The climate crisisThe production of liquid agrofuels is a drivingfactor behind recent land acquisitions. Theexpansion of the biofuel industry isassociated with the climate and energy crisisand the inevitable need for renewable energysources. In order to tackle climate change andto meet emissions reduction targets inEurope, the EU is implementing new policiesand regulations. The Renewable EnergyDirective (RED, 2009) states that 20% of allenergy used in the EU has to come fromrenewable sources by 2020, and that 10% oftransport fuel must come from renewablesources by the same year.Another example isthe Fuel Quality Directive (FQD, 2009), whichincludes a binding 6% reduction ingreenhouse gas emissions (from 2010 levels)to be achieved by end of 2020 (for moreinformation on both the RED and FQD seeDTE Agrofuels Update January 2011).

Although these policy directives areintended to tackle climate change andpromote sustainable energy consumption inthe North, they are creating incentives forunsustainable land-use change in the South.This includes large-scale land acquisitions andclearing of forests for plantation purposes;displacing greenhouse gas emissions to theSouth and further reducing the ability of localpopulations to adapt to climate change.

The World Bank reviewAs the number of land acquisitions aroundthe world started to rise in 2008 so didreports in the media and from NGOs, ofdisplacement and dispossession - not jobcreation and development. In 2009 the WorldBank embarked on an ambitious researchagenda to find out what was really happening,and whether it was a case of land beinggrabbed or whether it was a pro-poordevelopment opportunity.The study is one ofthe most comprehensive done so far,providing an overview of the nature andextent of land-grabs around the world.

The World Bank report13 is basedon a database developed by independentorganisation GRAIN (see www.grain.org) andcrossed checked with official inventories fromthe field, including field visits, over the periodOctober 2008 - August 2009. It covers 464projects, 203 of which contain areainformation totalling 56.6 million ha, in 81countries.14

The report found that 48 percentof projects, covering two thirds of the totalarea (39.7 million ha) are found in SubSaharan Africa, followed by East and SouthAsia (8.3 million ha), Europe and Central Asia(4.3 million, and Latin America and theCaribbean (3.2 million ha).15 It furtherconfirms the scale of investment ambitions:the median of projects was found to be40,000 ha, with a quarter of all projectsexceeding 200,000 ha. Only a quarter ofprojects were under 10,000 ha. For 405 of theprojects commodity data was available,showing that 37 percent of projects arefocusing on food, 21 percent on industrial orcash crops, another 21 percent on biofuels,

and the remainder are distributed amongconservation and game reserves, livestock,plantation and forestry.

The report also confirms that themajority of projects in the database originatefrom a few countries. These are the GulfStates, China, North Africa (Libya and Egypt),Russia and western economies such as theUnited Kingdom and the United States. Keyplayers are agribusiness and investment funds.Contrary to what, according to the report, isthe standard preference of foreign directinvestment (e.g strong institutionalgovernance and well-defined property rights)countries with weak governance indicatorsand where local land-rights are unsecuredappear to be most attractive to investors. Formost projects social and environmentalimpact assessments were not conducted,despite high risks. Although some countriesrequire these to be carried out by projectdevelopers, including Indonesia, in realitythese regulations are either ignored or, even ifconducted, compliance is rarely monitored.

Another interesting finding wasthat, contrary to what is often reported in themedia, the majority of investors were ofdomestic origin, not foreign. Finally, the reportfound that contrary to what was oftenpromised, the level of job creation andphysical investment was often very low.

Development?The World Bank study concludes that manyof the investments did not live up toexpectations in terms of job creation andsustainable benefits, but instead left people


(Source: von Braun et al. 20088)

15

worse off than before. Similar findings wererevealed in a previous study by Cotula et al,2009, which also set out to investigate thenature and implications of the current land-deal trend. Yet despite these controversialand quite clear findings there still seems to besome confusion as to whether large-scaleland acquisitions can indeed bringdevelopment benefits for local people.16 TheWorld Bank (2010) put forward a set ofguiding principles for investors and developingcountry governments in order to avoidnegative outcomes of projects. However, asalready pointed out by their findings, large-scale investments are concentrated incountries with low levels of institutionalgovernance and enforcement. In this contextit is questionable whether a set of guidingprinciples are likely to have the intendedimpact.

PapuaOne of the most controversial land-grabs inIndonesia happening right now is the MeraukeIntegrated Food and Energy Estate (MIFEE),currently being developed in the southernpart of Papua in Merauke regency. MIFEE is amega-project covering 1.28 million hectaresof commercial plantations claimed to be partof President Yudhoyono's dubious vision to"feed Indonesia, feed the world".

So far at least 36 investors havesecured concession permits. Most areIndonesian but companies of Japanese,Korean, Singaporean and Middle Easternorigin are also thought to be involved.17 Theprinciple commodities to be produced underthe umbrella of MIFEE are timber, palm oil,corn, soyabean and sugarcane. By the middleof 2011, more than half a dozen of theinvestors granted permits for MIFEE arethought to have started work in theirconcession areas, including companiesassociated with the powerful Medco andRajawali groups. Although MIFEE is still in itsearly stages there are serious concerns forthe social and environmental implications ofthe project for local populations and theirlivelihoods.

MIFEE is being promoted as adevelopment opportunity, where jobs will becreated not just for local Papuans but also fortransmigrant workers.The project is also saidto promote national food security, as well asenergy security. However, in reality themajority of land concessions are allocated forindustrial timber plantations (over 970,000ha), with oil palm (over 300,000 ha) and foodcrops (69,000 ha) in second and third place.18

This data suggests that MIFEE is not primarilymotivated by food and energy securityconcerns but by economic interests.

Reports from villages affected so farindicate that MIFEE poses a serious threat tolocal communities. Those indigenouscommunities that have engaged in deals with

the companies have been under-compensatedand cheated of the land that have belonged totheir communities for generations and makeup part of their cultural heritage.The processof land acquisition has been characterised bya lack of transparency, an atmosphere ofintimidation and concerns about securitythanks to the presence of the military.Thereis a dearth of appropriate informationreaching villages regarding the potentialimpacts of the project on their lives and whatrights they have to reject or accept companyoffers. Local civil society organisations have

also reported that capacity building meetingshave been interrupted by the military, whouse the excuse of national security tothreaten villages and stop meetings. Thus, inmany ways MIFEE is a politically andeconomically motivated land-grab that isbringing more threats than opportunities toaffected communities.

Wake-up callThe current trend in large-scale agriculturalexpansion must not be confused with pro-poor development. This is not a question ofrejecting much-needed investment intoagriculture and rural areas; rather it is a wake-up call that these developments are notbeneficial but harmful to both theenvironment and local people. The recentfood crisis further heightened the need toincrease food production and food security,but, as pointed out by the UN SpecialRapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier deSchutter, the issue is not about increasingallocation of funds to agriculture but rather of"choosing from different models ofagricultural development which may havedifferent impacts on and benefit variousgroups differently". As this article has pointedout, the current model benefits at first handagribusinesses and their business partners,and not those most vulnerable to famine andhigh food prices.

The tendency of large-scaleplantations and contract farming to beconcentrated in pockets of persistent poverty


Source: World Bank 2010 (see endnotes).

Resources on Land-grabbing

GRAIN: http://www.grain.org/

Oakland Institute:http://media.oaklandinstitute.org/

Via Campesina:http://viacampesina.org/en/

UN Special Rapportuer on the Rightto Food: http://www.srfood.org/

International Land Coalition:http://www.landcoalition.org/

Focus on the Global South:http://www.focusweb.org/

World Development Movement:http://www.wdm.org.uk/food-speculation

OXFAM:http://www.oxfam.org.uk/get_involved/campaign/food/?intcmp=hp_hero_grow_3009.

16

is an issue that has been discussed for a longtime within agrarian studies and it has beenwell documented. Whereas the commonassumption among World Bank circles is thatForeign Direct Investment flows to areas ofgood governance and well-defined propertyrights, the Bank’s own research confirms thatcapital flows to areas where labour and land-rights are insecure and not protected by thelegal system and its government. Wherewages are endemically low the conditions forcapitalist exploitation and profit maximisationare high. Under these precarious conditionsthese large-scale land-use projects becomespecifically problematic when they displaceand dispossess people of their most valuableasset and security, which is their land.

The case studies presented heretell a story of dispossession and

disempowerment. Instead of providingopportunities for the poor these land dealsappear to make affected communities worseoff, not just for now but for generations tocome. What is more, these large-scaleacquisitions have more far-reachingconsequences as they take up large tracts offertile land and use it for the production ofexport produce. In countries like Ethiopia,where famine is a recurrent problem and thegovernment is still dependent on food aid, thisbecomes a particularly problematic andcontroversial issue.

Notes1. Anna Bolin is an independent researcher on

climate, land and REDD, who recentlyundertook an internship with DTE andTapol.

2. A 2009 study by International Food PolicyResearch Institute puts the estimate at 20million ha, later increased to 45 million ha bythe World Bank (2010) and finally theInternational Land Coalition increases theestimate to 80 million ha.

3. GRAIN (2008)http://www.grain.org/article/entries/93-seized-the-2008-landgrab-for-food-and-financial-security, Barcelona: GRAIN,

4. GRAIN (2011) ‘Pension funds: key players inthe global farmland grab’ Against the Grain,June 2011, available at:http://www.grain.org/article/entries/4287-pension-funds-key-players-in-the-global-farmland-grab


The full version of this article, including outlinecase studies from Sierra Leone and Ethiopia,plus full end notes are available on our websiteat http://downtoearth-indonesia.org)

the lack of safeguards among bilateralREDD funders.13

Among the international REDDschemes that have been moving ahead, is theWorld Bank-led Forest Carbon PartnershipFund (FCPF) USD 3.6 million deal to prepareIndonesia for REDD+. The FCPF agreementwas signed in June 2011 and involves analyticalwork, capacity-building, consultation andoutreach, and regional data collection. Theregional focus areas are South Kalimantan,South Sumatra (Musi Rawas), Maluku, Acehand West Papua. CSOs have been critical ofIndonesia's proposal for FCPF funds, raisingconcerns about safeguards and the lack oftransparency and participation in theconsultation processes.14 A March 2011 studyof FCPF projects around the globe, Smoke andMirrors, confirmed that none of the eightREDD preparation plans (includingIndonesia's) adequately address land rights oracknowledge existing conflicts.15

Regional REDDAlthough Papua and Aceh governors were thefirst regional leaders to publicly supportREDD for their areas, Kalimantan has beenthe region of choice for officially sanctionedREDD projects, and at the end of 2010,Central Kalimantan was announced as thepilot REDD province under the NorwayREDD deal.16 Strong opposition to REDDprojects in the province has been voiced bylocal community groups such as Yayasan PetakDanum Kalimantan and ARPAG, the People'sPeat Management Alliance, which are highlycritical of the carbon-offsetting intentions ofcountries and agencies involved in financingREDD schemes in the province.17 The groupmaintains that local people are capable ofmanaging their forests sustainably and ratherthen REDD schemes, they need recognition ofand respect for their rights to manage theirown lands and resources.

Meanwhile in Aceh, another high-profile REDD project, Ulu Masen (developedby the Aceh government and CarbonConservation, in collaboration with Fauna andFlora International), remains deeplycontroversial. Recent studies have concludedthat the lack of participation by localcommunities in the project threatens toundermine the project's aim of cutting CO2

emissions from deforestation. A 2008 surveycarried out by the Aceh Indigenous Peoples'Network, JKMA, found that indigenouscommunities had never received anyinformation about the Ulu Masen programmeand had not been informed about REDD.18

A substantial study by the Institutefor Global Environmental Strategies publishedin July 2010 reports community fears that thelack of secure land tenure systems willcontribute to REDD benefits being capturedby the 'big players': mining, logging andplantation companies.There was no free, priorand informed consent of indigenous peoplesnor the full, (or even partial) support andinvolvement of local communities, accordingto this study. "There is a real danger that theREDD process will repeat the mistakes of pastexperiments with centralised forest

management strategies based onenforcement."19 Things do not seem to beimproving: a further independent surveycarried out in January 2011 and reported inInside Indonesia, found a "critical lack ofaccess to information and a chronically lowlevel of REDD literacy."20

A ray of hope? Major policyshift on indigenous rights Signs of a much-needed shift in Indonesia'sforest policy were confirmed in July whenpresidential aide Kuntoro Mangkusubrotoannounced at an international meeting thatIndonesia would "recognise, respect andprotect Adat rights". Kuntoro said thegovernment urgently needed to develop onemap as the basis for all decision-making to beused by all ministries and governmentinstitutions, as well as delineate the legalstatus of Indonesia's forest zone "guaranteeingthe recognition of Adat customary rights."21

He confirmed that only some 12% of thenation's forests has been legally delineated,22

He said that all future action on land useshould be based on the principle of"recognition, respect and protection ofcustomary Adat rights" and that thisrecognition should happen before theallocation of state land for other uses. He alsosaid that a law passed in 2001 by Indonesia'shighest legislative body - the TAP MPR IX -gives clear legal basis for the reforms.23

The dramatic announcementfollows other encouraging signs, including anagreement between AMAN and theenvironment ministry aimed at empoweringindigenous peoples. It remains to be seenhow serious the government is abouttranslating words into actions, and how thiscommitment plays out in areas such as Papua,where the violation of indigenous peoples'rights is particularly severe.

For end notes, please see the web version of thisarticle at www.downtoearth-indonesia.org

(continued from page 20)

Resources on REDDNew report on REDD+ in Indonesia byFPP, PUSAKA, HuMa and others:http://www.forestpeoples.org/fpp-series-rights-forests-and-climate-redd-plus-Indonesia

What is REDD? A guide for IndigenousCommunities http://www.forestpeoples.org/

Inside Indonesia, Issue 105, July-September2011, Climate Change and Indonesiahttp://www.insideindonesia.org/

REDD-Monitor - www.redd-monitor.org

REDD-Indonesia website: http://www.redd-indonesia.org/


17

Will REDD benefit Papua's Indigenous Peoples?

The following article is adapted from a number of blog postings by Pietsau Amafnini, Coordinator of the Manokwari-based organisation, JASOIL Tanah Papua.The Indonesian language blog is at http://sancapapuana.blogspot.com/.

Papua's tropical forests are very strategic interms of the global climate as well asproviding timber and other forest products,which need to be managed sustainably. Toimplement REDD in Papua, the forestrysector has the duty to rehabilitate degradedforests and lands and to manage forests well.If we manage conservation and protectedareas, and production forests properly, andstop converting forests to other uses, we canreduce CO2 emissions and help balance theglobal climate. However, the reality is, theIndonesian government is not concernedabout the state of the climate.

REDD in PapuaIn Papua province, there are pilot projectsplanned in Jayapura district, including in theCycloop Nature Reserve, the Mosoali ForestArea and the Unurum Guay forest area. InWest Papua province, they are planned inKaimana district, covering Arguni Bay, TritonBay and Yamor Lake. However the region'sdifferent land use areas - under its spatial plan- have not been clearly established, andindigenous peoples themselves know nothingabout government plans to determine their

Harvesting coconuts, Arfu,West Papua (Adriana Sri Adhi

The state of Papua's forests The Following figures are from Forest Watch Indonesia's newly-published Indonesian language report Keadaan Hutan Indonesia (The State ofIndonesia's Forests) which can be downloaded from FWI's website at http://fwi.or.id/?page_id=204

Total land area - Indonesia: 190.31 million hectaresTotal forest cover - Indonesia, 2009: 88.17 million hectares (46.33%)Total forest cover - Papua, 2009: 34,138,992.70 (79,62%)

of which:HPH concessions: 8,556,145.35 haHTI concessions: 411,804.56 ha

Percentage of Indonesia's total forest cover in Papua: 38.72% (highest of all regions)Deforestation between 2000-2009: 628,898.44 ha (1.81% of Papua's and 4.15% of total Indonesia

deforestation in that period - the lowest of all regions)Total peatland under forest cover in Indonesia 2009: 10.77 million ha (of total 20.8 million ha identified as peatland)Peatland under forest cover in Papua, 2009: 6,156,243.19 ha (79.59% of peatland in Papua),

of which:HPH concessions: 897,212.75 haHTI concessions: 58,671.1 ha

Deforestation in peatland forests 2000-2009: 130,917.62 (2.08% of Papuan total and 6.54% overall total)Release of forest in Papua 2003-2008 for non-forest uses such as oil palm plantations: 9.16%Change in forest use in Papua for palm oil 2003-2008: 32,546.30 ha (2006)Mining in Papua's forest areas: 74 KP permits, covering 2,100,000 ha

A new report by FPP, Pusaka and JASOIL notes that a quarter of Papua's peat swamp forests (a figure of 8 million hectares is given) arecategorised as conversion forests. "If all this were to be converted into agriculture, more than a billion tons of CO2 emissions would bereleased." See Papua and West Papua: REDD+ and the threat to indigenous peoples at http://www.forestpeoples.org/fpp-series-rights-forests-and-climate-redd-plus-Indonesia (Box compiled by DTE)


Medco Group oil palm development, Manokwari District(Photo: Adriana Sri Adhiati)

18

customary areas in line with what's neededfor REDD.

One carbon trading pilot projectwas initiated in 2008 by the provincialgovernment of West Papua and CarbonStrategic International (CSI, Australia). It islocated in forest areas in eight districts, witha total area of 8 million ha.The government'sshare is 80% and CSI's is 20%, with half of thisfor the company and half to pay experts.Thedivision of the government's share betweencentral government, region and communitystill has to be decided. It is thought thatcarbon absorption is 300-350 tonnes perhectare and each tonne will generate 10-16USD.The price and income will be calculatedannually based on financial developments andinflation.

There is now a new agreementbetween the West Papua provincialgovernment and Asia Pacific Carbon (ofAustralia).

REDD locations in West Papua arein protected forests. These were selectedbecause of the high level of threat they facedue to urban expansion, plus mining such ascoal, copper and gold, and other interests.

The conversion of forests in WestPapua for economic growth is increasing:there are plans to develop oil palmplantations, sago, mining, transmigration andso on.This is evident from the increase in thenumber of companies wanting to carry outenvironmental impacts assessments for suchprojects.

BPKH (the Forest Area MappingAgency of the Forestry Service) is currentlymaking a map of forest management units(KPH) in West Papua and Manokwari district.It is hoped that this map will be a tool for thecarbon trade, to find potential locations andwill support the calculation of carbonproduced.

Policy in PapuaREDD in Indonesia has been described as anational approach to be implemented at sub-national level. This means the overarchingpolicy and incentive framework comes fromthe central government and the details forimplementation rest with the provincesand/or regional government and relatedstakeholders.

Papuan regional legislation, whichprovides the legal framework forimplementing REDD in Papua, recognisesrights and customary forests and emphasisescommunity-based forest management. Usingprovincial regulations and guidance from thedecisions made by the forestry ministry onREDD, the Papuan government - supportedby civil society, universities, indigenouscommunities and other key actors - plannedto establish a Forest Carbon (REDD) PapuaTask Force.This Task Force was appointed bygovernor's decree at the beginning of 2011.The group's aim is to assist the Papuangovernment to translate, develop andcoordinate policy approaches and positive

incentives coming from the national andinternational levels, for the provincial leveland main districts involved. In practice, localcommunity involvement is limited and theproject is not in line with communityinterests.

There is still very little knowledgeand technical capacity among localgovernment officers and related governmentagencies, CSOs - let alone communitiesliving in West Papua province - about climatechange and the carbon trade. There is littleknowledge about national policies,international commitments on climatechange, best practice for forest management,carbon trade mechanisms, the loggingmoratorium, schemes to reduce forestdestruction and reduce emissions, and theirbenefits and impacts.

There have been several meetingsto discuss the carbon trade, but no follow-up,and no sign of policies or programmes by theprovincial and district governments toimplement it. These meetings are still verylimited in that they do not involve civilsociety, local peoples organisations such asDAP (Dewan Adat Papua - Papuan CustomaryCouncil), LMA (Lembaga Masyarakat Adat -Indigenous Peoples' Council) or the MRP(Majelis Rakyat Papua - Papuan PeoplesAssembly), NGOs or communityrepresentatives in West Papua. This lack ofinvolvement, it is feared, will give rise tonegative impacts in planning andimplementing programmes.

The TGHK (Tata Guna HutanSepekatan - agreed forest use) map and

delineation of forest boundaries still does notexist and there is no clear discussion about it,due to the tussle between interests andconcepts of state land and customary land.The draft spatial plan for West Papua provinceand for Manokwari district does not exist andhasn't been discussed.

The main people who hold rightsover the target of REDD+ (land, forest andpeat) do not understand and are notadequately involved in reaching a consensusat national and local level, to determine thepreparations for implementing REDD+.This iswhat happened with the carbon tradingproject initiated by the West Papua provincialgovernment and CSI.

What's needed for REDD?Max. J. Tokede from UNIPA Manokwariexplained what needs to be done to preparefor REDD as follows: first, increasemonitoring capacity to detect changes incarbon storage in Papua and West Papuaprovinces. This consists of: remote sensing(satellite imaging); monitoring from the air;community-based monitoring on the ground;support for activities to monitor forests andtimber trade by the Forestry Service andcommunities. Second, pilot activities for fairincentives to protect the forest, includingspatial planning and changes in forestfunction, mapping indigenous communities'forests in pilot locations; building villageinstitutions to manage incentive payments toprevent deforestation and create alternativesfor income generation; building capacity forcertified sustainable community logging, anddeveloping participatory monitoring andprotection systems.

Meanwhile, the REDD fundingmechanism in Papua needs, among otherthings, to cover funding support forcommunity development by opening villageaccounts; funding support for groups orindividuals for community-based forestpatrols and protection with group/individualaccounts; and a savings and loan fund todevelop small and medium businesses invillages. There also needs to be capacity atregional government level to facilitate fundingfor project management, funding for carbonmonitoring and law enforcement, and fundingfor general community development(education/health/economic development).There also needs to be Technical Assistanceto enable REDD to run smoothly.

Indigenous RightsThe real question is, will any benefits reachIndigenous Peoples who hold full rights overtheir forests? Will the Indonesian governmentsay indigenous peoples who are set up as alegal entity will still be able to access naturalresources in forests, as long as they don't cuttrees, and will be able to profit from REDD?There are clearly still questions to beanswered about setting up as a legal entity forindigenous communities: what about those


FPICThe following is an extract fromFPP/Pusaka/JASOIL's new report Papua andWest Papua: REDD+ and the threat toindigenous peoples1

"One important development has been theissuance of a decree by Papua GovernorBarnabas Suebu in October 2010, for theCreation of a Task Force on Low CarbonDevelopment. One of the Task Force'sroles is to secure legal certainty tosafeguard the right of communities inaccordance with the principle of Free,Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).Asimilar policy was also issued by theGovernor of West Papua,Abram Artuturi,In March 2011.The Special ProvincialGovernment Regulation (PERDASUS) ofPapua No, 23/2008 on Ulayat/CustomaryRights of Customary Law Communitiesand PERDASUS No.21/2008 on SustainableForest Management, which both recognisethe rights of the Papuans, can strengthenthe position of communities affected byREDD+ plans.To date, however, neither thedistrict nor the related governmentinstitutions have issued policies orprogrammes to implement the regulationof communities' customary rights andlaws."1

who don't have this legal status? If indigenouspeoples can acquire this status, how do theygo about it? It will be no easy process, nomatter how straightforward it might appear. Inthis context, the state must first of allrecognise the existence of indigenous peoples.Industrialised countries like the EU nations,Japan, USA and Norway are ready to fundREDD projects. Some of the schemes will payUSD10 per tonne of carbon. However, will theindigenous peoples of Papua benefit fromthese grants? It is not yet certain.

Protecting forests for the future, ormanaging them sustainably has beensomething generations of indigenous peopleshave known about.There are sacred forests ortaboo places within forests which are stillintegral to indigenous people's lives. Now themodern world knows these sacred forests asconservation forests.The way forests are usedby indigenous peoples guaranteesconservation and sustainability. They usesimple technology and take only what theyneed for daily needs.

Director of the NGO PERDUManokwari, Mujianto, explains that based on astudy by PERDU in Kaimana district - an areawhich has been scoped and nominated by theWest Papua provincial government as a REDDand carbon trade project area - governmentpermits are still mostly given to entrepreneursand companies. Post OHL II [OHL II is thesecond police operation against illegallogging], there are practically no licences forlocal communities. Kopermas [the state-sanctioned community cooperatives]aren’t functioning, although local people douse cut timber in very limited volumes to takeadvantage of local markets available. Thelikelihood of the natural forests disappearingwill increase as capital flows into this area forinvestment in various natural resourcessectors (plantations, mining etc).

"Meanwhile, if we look back into thepast… for generations local people'slivelihoods have depended on naturalresources, including forest resources; forestmanagement and use was done using simple

methods based on local knowledge; freshwater needs, animal protein and ingredientsfor food and medicines, building materialswere taken from their forest areas. Forestexploitation is still limited to supplyinghousehold needs and does not needdestructive technology. In this case, forest-dwelling indigenous peoples are far moreexpert in safeguarding the forests for REDDprojects. But if forests are turned into oxygenor carbon trading business, then local peoplehave to be directly and fully involved, includingin getting cash compensation", according toMuji.

JASOIL's roleREDD projects and other initiatives keepbeing rolled out but there is no sign thatinadequate policies will be amended or thelow level of political commitment shown bydecision-makers and project initiators will beimproved to project community rights.This isleading to fears that there will be distortionsand conflicts of interests, that social conflictwill spread, and that, in turn, the environmentwill not be protected, and GHG emissions willcontinue to rise, while communities becomeincreasingly impoverished.

What ideas and actions do we needin this situation? Grassroots actions atcommunity level are required, especially forthose who will be affected directly by REDD+projects. JASOIL Tanah Papua believes thattwo things can be done:1) step up the readiness and unity among

communities and the strengthening of theirrights so that their bargaining position isimproved and there is more communitycohesion for influencing and determiningall development projects and policieswhich take place on their land and willaffect their lives;

2) increase community capacity forinvolvement in monitoring all stages ofprovincial REDD+ pilot projects and otherREDD+ projects at district level and forinvolvement in corrective actions.

Notes:1. Forest Peoples Programme, Pusaka, JASOIL,

Rights, forests and climate briefing series -October 2011. Papua and West Papua:REDD+ and the threat to indigenouspeoples at http://www.forestpeoples.org/fpp-series-rights-forests-and-climate-redd-plus-Indonesia

2. See Papua and West Papua: REDD+ and thethreat to indigenous peoples, as above.

3. http://www.redd-indonesia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=205&Itemid=57

4. http://www.theemeraldplanet.com/indonesia/index.html

5. www.eco-carbone.com6. http://www.carbon-

strategic.com/contactus.html7. http://www.apcarbon.com/about_us.html8. See DTE 76-77, May 2008 for more

background at www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/old-site/76dde.htm.See alsohttp://www.carbonconservation.com/


The business of REDD+A new study by FPP, Pusaka and JASOIL found that none of the several REDD+ schemeswhich have been proposed for Papua have progressed beyond the early planning stage.2

Only one REDD project in Papua is identified on the REDD-Indonesia website (linked toIndonesia's Forestry Department).The project, called "Perpetual Finance for CarbonBenefits" is in Papua province, with New Forest Asset Management/PT EmeraldPlanet named as the organisations involved.3

According to FPP/Pusaka/JASOIL, these companies signed a Memorandum of Understandingwith Papua's governor in 2008 to develop plans to reduce emissions from deforestation in265,000 hectares of forests in Mamberamo and Mimika, but the developers were unable toobtain all the required permits. Emerald Planet's own website states that it is "active inAfforestation, Reforestation and Revegetation (ARR),Agricultural Land Management (ALM)and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) projects andinvestments in conjunction with Indonesian and foreign investors including Eco-Carbone(France), a major international bank and private investors." With its Indonesian headquartersin Bali, the company also states it "provides advisory services to the Provincial Governmentof Papua as the only private-sector member of the Advisory Board of the Papua LowCarbon Development Task Force." 4

Under a partnership with Eco-Carbone, called Eco-Emerald, the company also claims tobe developing "community-based jatophra plantations on degraded land in Indonesia" (it isnot stated whether this is in Papua or elsewhere in Indonesia).5

Carbon Strategic International is a global environmental (carbon, biodiversity)investment and trading group. Its website says that the company works with corporations,governments and communities "to help them understand and leverage the rapidly growingenvironmental, energy and financial markets to create positive and sustainable economic,social and ecological outcomes." The companies' four main operations are described asOrigination,Advisory & Finance,Trading and Asset Management. It has an office in Jakarta,but there is no specific information about Papua (or even Indonesia) on its website.6

Asia Pacific Carbon has been involved in carbon project development since 2005, startingin the rainforests of Papua New Guinea (PNG). Its current focus is on Indonesia and PNG.The company claims to be "one of the leading high quality carbon development companiesin the Asia and Pacific region". It has offices in Australia, Singapore, Indonesia and Papua NewGuinea. On its website, the company further states that it works with highly experiencedprojects developers, technology partners, financial institutions and trading groups" and is"further supported by our close working relationships with project owners, governments,statutory bodies, tertiary institutions and NGOs in each of our target markets.7

An earlier attempt to gain access to carbon projects in Papua was launched by CarbonConservation, an Australia-based company run by entrepreneur Dorjee Sun.8 CarbonConservation is involved in the Ulu Masen REDD project in Aceh.

(box compiled by DTE)

20

DTE last reported on the development ofpolicy and projects in Indonesia to reduceemissions from deforestation and forestdegradation (REDD) in early 2010. At thatpoint, President Susilo Bambang Yudoyonohad made an international commitment tolimit Indonesia's carbon emissions, and hadannounced plans to plant million of hectaresof new forests. Indonesia was negotiating aREDD agreement with the World Bank'sForest Carbon and had issued three pieces ofREDD-related legislation. Civil societyorganisations monitoring REDDdevelopments at national and regional levelwere seriously concerned about the lack ofsafeguards for local communities whoseforests were being, or might be in future,targeted for REDD.1

Eighteen months later, more detailsof the national REDD (now REDD+2) picturehave been filled in, official and unofficial REDDprojects are moving ahead and more majorinternational funding schemes for REDD inIndonesia are now up and running. But CSOconcerns about REDD and the decision-making processes associated with REDDprojects and policy persist. As projects movetowards implementation, concerns aboutcommunity rights - particularly the need toprotect indigenous communities' right to giveor withhold to free, prior and informedconsent to projects affecting them - havebecome more acute. Meanwhile, a majorpolicy shift to recognise indigenous rights hasbeen announced by the government.

The Moratorium and the LoIA much-anticipated two-year moratorium onclearing primary forests and peatland wassigned in May 2011. Presidential instructionNo 10/2011 was one of the agreed outcomesof the Letter of Intent (LoI) that Indonesiasigned with Norway the previous year as partof a US$ 1 billion REDD+ deal.The LoI and afollow-up Joint Concept Note set out athree-phase REDD+ plan. The firstpreparatory phase includes:

setting up a National REDD+ Agency (tobe prepared by a REDD+ Task Force) tobe fully operational by the end of 2011 the 2-year moratorium (originallydesigned to be effective from January2011, but delayed till May)setting up an independent Monitoring,Reporting and Verification (MRV)Institutionsetting up an interim financing instrumentto handle the preparatory phasea National REDD+ Strategy, to bedeveloped into a national action plan, andwhich "proposes methods forimplementing FPIC and equitable benefit-sharing"selecting a pilot province for REDD+.3

The second 'Transformation' phase

of the Indonesian-Norway deal includesnational level capacity-building, legal reform,plus at least one full scale province-level pilotproject.The Third phase, called 'Contributionsfor Verified Performance' and due to start in2014 will see the start of Norwegianpayments to Indonesia for reducing itsemissions in accordance with UNFCCCguidance.4

The moratorium itself received aless than luke-warm reception by CSOsbecause it offers little additional protection toIndonesia's fast-disappearing forests. This islargely due to the exemptions given topowerful companies who want to continueusing carbon-rich forest and peatlands toexpand their businesses. PresidentialInstruction No 10/2011 lists exemptions fromthe moratorium as

applications that have been alreadyapproved in principle by the Ministry ofForestry,the implementation of vital nationaldevelopment (geothermal, oil and naturalgas, electricity and land for rice and sugarcane;the extension of existing forest licencesEcosystem restoration.5

According to the government, themoratorium area covers 64 million hectares.However, CSOs point out that only around45.5 million ha of primary forests are actuallyleft. Around a quarter of that area is alreadycovered by licences (so cannot be included inthe moratorium) and most of the rest isalready off-limits to loggers and plantationdevelopers as it has been classified asprotection forest. According to theircalculations, only around 8.8 million ha ofIndonesia's primary forests will get anyadditional protection via the moratorium.6

One area that is exempted fromthe moratorium is the area in Meraukeallocated for the giant MIFEE project. Beforethe moratorium was issued, KuntoroMangkusbroto, a key presidential aid who isalso in charge of the REDD+ Task Force, hadsaid the MIFEE area would be reduced to350,000-500,000 ha partly due to the carbon-rich peatlands in the region.7

Any positive impact of themoratorium announcement was furtherundercut by the publication of a report byEnvironmental Investigation Agency (EIA) andthe Indonesian NGO Telapak. This showedhow the moratorium was being breached onits first day by a Malaysian-owned oil palmdeveloper in Central Kalimantan. The reportalso showed how Norway - promoter of themoratorium - was at the same time investingin the logging and plantations sector, which isclosely linked to forest destruction.8

It also emerged that forestryministry permits covering 2.9 million hectareshad been issued to companies on the last dayof 2010, in what appeared to be a last-minute

rush to beat the original moratorium deadlineof January 1st 2011.9 In yet another movethat appeared to undermine the aims of themoratorium, President SBY issued Decree18/2011 in February. This permitsunderground mining, power plants and othernationally important projects to go ahead inprotected forests.10

Other REDD+ developments, somerelated to the Norway LoI, include:

the establishment of the National REDD+Task Force, in October 2010, headed byKuntoro Mangkusbroto, a formed miningminister, leader of the post tsunamireconstruction agency in Aceh, and nowalso head of the president's SpecialDelivery Unit (UKP4).the setting up in November 2010, of aClimate Change Working Group withinthe Forestry Ministry to support itsrepresentation in the REDD+ Task Force;consultation with NGOs on a DraftNational REDD+ Strategy. Inputs fromcivil society groups (including DTE) calledfor the strategy to adhere to internationalhuman rights standards, to recognise therole of indigenous and local communitiesin sustaining the forests, to include astrategy on addressing conflicts over landand to include a complaints mechanism sothat people can report violations ornegative impacts REDD+ and have theirproblems addressed.11

more and more REDD+ demonstrationactivities. As of February 2011, theMinistry of Forestry had approved 16 suchprojects, and more than 60 were on thewaiting list.12 There is increasing concernabout these projects going ahead beforesafeguards for communities have beenagreed.A study by the Jakarta-based NGOHuMa raises particular concerns about


REDD in Indonesia - an update Key dates for REDD+ May 2010: Norway-Indonesia LetterIntent on REDD+ is signed.

October 2010: REDD+ Task Force is setup under Presidential Decree 19/2010.

November 2010: Forestry Ministry setsup a Climate Change Working Groupunder Ministerial Decree 624/Menhut-II/2010.

November 2010: Draft National REDD+Strategy prepared.

May 2011: Two-year Moratorium signed -Presidential Decree 10/2011.

July 2011: Indonesia indicates major policyshift towards recognition of indigenouspeoples' rights and addressing problems inforest tenure regime.

September 2011: President SBYannounces a new Task Force, to set up aREDD institution by the end of 2012.

(Continued on page 16


21

BP Tangguh, two years onAn update on the situation at the giant gas and LNG project in West Papua’s Bird’s Head region, operated by the

UK-based energy multinational, BP.

More than two years on from the beginningof production at the Tangguh Liquid NaturalGas (LNG) project, questions about BP andits US$5 billion project in Bintuni Bay, WestPapua still haven't gone away.

Events on the other side of theworld last year produced otheruncomfortable questions for BP. The Gulf ofMexico oil disaster highlighted theenvironmental and social cost of drilling foroil and gas. In West Papua's case, these costsare less visible to the outside world becausenews about Tangguh is harder to access, dueto the transport and communicationdifficulties in the region.

Despite the social, human rightsand environmental risks, BP is pushing aheadwith plans to expand the Tangguh LNGproject: a third production 'train' to add tothe two trains already in production will bebuilt by 2014.

BP has also acquired an offshoreexploration concession for oil and gas in theArafura Sea south of Timika and is thought tobe planning to acquire further oil and gasconcessions in the surrounding area. Putthese together with four newly signedcoalbed methane contracts in CentralKalimantan and another gas project in EastKalimantan,1 and BP's commitment toexpanding its Indonesian interests becomesclear.2

Demand for LNG from abroadremains high, with Tangguh's output beingshipped to markets in China, the USA andSouth Korea. Japan and Taiwan are alsopotential importers of Tangguh’s LNG. Aswell as this, BP has been in discussion withvarious parties to begin supplying LNG to theIndonesian market. There have been reportsof potential contracts to supply LNG topower stations in North Sumatra3 and eventhe possibility of supplying LNG to aproposed new petrochemical plant in WestPapua itself.4

It is clear that the demand for newand more plentiful energy supplies isprompting Indonesia to try and meet thatdemand, particularly through the Tangguhproject. BP and its Indonesian counterpart BPMigas are aligning themselves to benefit fromthis push.

Meanwhile, against a backdrop ofeconomic growth throughout Indonesia,5 thepush for ever greater profit and growth hasbeen highlighted by a recent announcementthat the Indonesian government is looking torenegotiate the price of its LNG salescontract with one of the Tangguh's biggest

customers, the China National Offshore OilCorporation (CNOOC).6

Tangguh as top-down'development' and the role of TIAPThe dark cloud growing on the horizonbehind this Bintuni Bay energy bonanza is thedangerous political situation that isdeveloping in West Papua. For many yearsDTE has been reporting on the human rightssituation in West Papua and has highlightedthe need for local communities to be takeninto account by governments and companieswhen launching new initiatives and decidingupon government policy. DTE hasconsistently called for development to berooted in and responding to the needs,interests and priorities of local communities.Meanwhile, mega-projects such as BP Tangguhhave been pushed ahead under the banner ofbringing progress and development to WestPapua, but with the main objective ofextracting natural resources for far-awaymarkets and energy demands.

Since the beginning of the Tangguhproject, DTE, along with various other NGOsand civil society actors, has attended meetingsof the Tangguh Independent Advisory Panel(TIAP) in order to push BP to recognise andrespect community rights to lands andresources, and to address local concernsabout this mega-enterprise. TIAP was set up

by BP in 2002 to "provide external advice tosenior decision-makers regarding the non-commercial aspects of the Tangguh LNGproject". Increasingly, the independence andeffectiveness of the TIAP process has beencalled into question. In 2009, Lord Hannay,one of the then TIAP panel members, accusedsome of the NGOs of "crying wolf" over thehuman rights situation in West Papua.

Two years on, although BP Tangguhhas made efforts to insulate itself from someof the problems of operating in West Papua, itappears unlikely that the project can avoidgetting mired in the wider problems afflictingthe region.

Conflict, killings, strikes andcorruption continue to dog the Rio Tinto-Freeport mine near Timika7 and an increasein violence in Papua generally means thatproblems are starting to get closer toTangguh.

The Asian Human RightsCommission recently issued an urgent actionoutlining the detention and imprisonment ofvarious activists under the charges of'rebellion' for raising the morning star flag inthe regional capital Manokwari.8 At thebeginning of September, a journalist coveringthe protests of indigenous landowners wasbeaten up by the district chief of SouthSorong and his assistants and pressurised toreport in their favour.9

Neither of these incidents wasdirectly related to BP Tangguh, but they areevidence of growing tensions and discontentin the region following the July PeaceConference (see page 6) and other politicaldevelopments. There remains widespreaddiscontent with the failure of SpecialAutonomy to address Papua's problems. Thequestion of population balance also feeds thetensions. A recent report on the overallsituation in West Papua has predicted that theindigenous population, which accounts foraround half the population today, will beoutnumbered two to one by the immigrantpopulation within the next ten years.10 Allthese tensions will only be exacerbated bythis further marginalisation of the localindigenous population.

Questions for BPWhat role does the presence of BP Tangguhplay in this picture of increasing discontentand conflict in West Papua? At the recentTIAP meeting, DTE raised specific questionsabout the situation in the surrounding area ofBintuni Bay. Our questions were based on theresult of prior consultations with CSOs and

BP-Tangguh LNG operation in Bintuni Bay,WestPapua.

22

community representatives in West Papuaand Jakarta. We asked about claims forcompensation for the Sebyar and Immekocommunities, and sought clarification on BPTangguh's social, health and welfareprogrammes for the north shorecommunities in Bintuni Bay. The meetingdiscussed a proposal for a human rightsadvocate for Bintuni Bay.14 We conveyed themessage from Yan Christian Warinussy, thedirector of LP3BH, a human rights advocacyorganisation based in Manokwari, that BPneeds to proactively support the reporting ofthe human rights situation in the region.15

DTE reminded BP of the recent OECD rulingagainst BP in relation to the Baku-Tblisipipeline, which calls on BP to take intoaccount the human rights context of theirprojects.16 BP staff at the meeting agreed to'seriously consider' the proposal for a humanrights advocate for the Bintuni Bay region andto 'take it forward'. DTE understands thatsince then, BP has agreed to fund thisproposal.

One of the main issues to emergeat the meeting was grievance procedures atBP Tangguh.There was agreement that theseprocedures aren't being taken advantage of inorder to air and resolve community concernsand that they are too complicated and oftenculturally inappropriate.17 DTE also raisedconcerns about BP's community developmentprogramme, reported by an Indonesian civilsociety organisation, UCM-Jakarta, which isworking with local communities on the northshore of Bintuni Bay. In both this and theSebyar and Immeko compensation claim

cases, the bureaucratic grievance proceduresat BP have not produced results. It is clearfrom these complaints that the reality on theground in these communities is very differentto the rosy picture that is painted by BP itselfin much of its corporate literature andpublicity.

Other issues discussed at the TIAPmeeting included the employment of localPapuans. On this, BP reported that the localPapuan employment targets for 2029 areunlikely to be met.18 On the issue ofresettlement, it was pointed out thatconcerns had been raised by BP's financialbackers as to the sustainability of theresettled villages.19 On financial transparency,public and trackable information aboutrevenues from Tangguh was lacking still. Themeeting discussed the role of women in theBintuni Bay area and the need for genderconsiderations to be central to all aspects ofthe Tangguh project. Also, the ongoingquestion of Tangguh's failure to use carboncapture and storage as a means of reducingcarbon emissions was noted.These issues andothers were discussed, but after all thetalking, the wider, more obvious questionremained unaddressed: who stands to gainmost from Tangguh, and who will suffer thelasting social, human rights and environmentalimpacts?

Notes1. http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?catego

ryId=2012968&contentId=70680632. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010

/12/17/bp-plans-third-lng-train-tangguh-project-2011.html

3. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-26/bp-may-supply-lng-to-gas-negara-s-n-sumatra-terminal-correct-.html

4. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/04/18/german-firm-invest-900m-west-papua.html

5. Indonesia's growth rate in 2010 wascalculated at 6.1% in 2010. See:http://www.indexmundi.com/indonesia/gdp_real_growth_rate.html

6. Indonesia plans Tangguh price talks:http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article278756.ece

7. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/09/20/workers%E2%80%99-strike-continues-freeport%E2%80%99s-grasberg-copper-mine.htmlSee also Bintang Papua, 19 September 2011.

8. http://www.urgentappeals.net/support.php?ua=AHRC-UAU-041-2011http://www.humanrights.asia/news/urgent-appeals/AHRC-UAC-117-2011

9. Jubi, 9 September 201110.http://japanfocus.org/-David_Adam-

Stott/359711.DTE 82, September 2009:

http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/ngos-accused-crying-wolf-over-tangguh-human-rights-risks

12.See: Introduction to TIAP first report onOperations phase, January 2011:http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/indonesia/STAGING/home_assets/downloads/

t/TIAP_Report_2010.pdf13.http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?cat

egoryId=9004787&contentId=7069580 14.See also recommendation 3, Section 8, TIAP

first report on Operations phase, January2011.

15. A translation of an article on the recenthuman rights situation in Papua written byYan Christian Warinussy that appeared inBintang Papua on 14 September 2011 isavailable at:http://westpapuamedia.info/2011/09/16/warinussy-on-the-politics-behind-the-recent-conflicts-in-papua/

16.http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/resource/revised-final-statement-complaint-under-oecd-guidelines-multinational-enterprises

17.The process of addressing communitygrievances has also been advanced throughnew national legislation on freedom ofinformation. The Indonesian governmentwas required to provide supportingdocumentation to claims for compensationfor customary land of the Sebyar tribe inBintuni Bay. See:http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/04/28/indone-freedom-information-lawsia%E2%80%99s-one-year.html

18.For the specifics of these employmenttargets, see Employment Section of DTEdocument: Tangguh, BP and InternationalStandards, Section 3, p13:http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/node/456

19.Further information on these concernsabout sustainability by the 'Lenders Panel'can be found in their final report on'Environmental and Social Monitoring' fromAugust 2010 on the Asian DevelopmentBank’s website at:http://www.adb.org/Documents/SEMRs/INO/38919/38919-01-ino-semr.pdf

20.See: http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/old-site/73tan.htm This claimis still repeated in the literature surroundingthe Tangguh project today, even in the mostrecent TIAP report from January 2011 andBP's recent press release on Tangguh of 17June 2011.


Tangguh standards toolDTE's summary of BP's social, humanrights and environmental commitments ison our website in Indonesian and Englishat http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/story/tangguh-bp-and-international-standards.

The document is an attempt tobridge the information gap between BP'srhetoric and the reality on the ground inBintuni Bay (and more widely in WestPapua), and to provide local communities atool with which to hold BP to account. It isclear that BP's claim that the Tangguhoperation is a 'worldclass model fordevelopment'20 remains an empty boast,given the problems identified at Tangguhitself and given the inequalities and growingtensions that still mark out West Papuatoday.

TIAP Mark IIThe TIAP meeting, held in March 2011 inLondon, was the first meeting of the 2ndTangguh Independent Advisory Panel andthe first to report on the operations phaseof the Tangguh project.

The old panel had appeared toget 'mission fatigue' in its role as a sourceof independent advice for BP.11 However,the new panel, as well as having a morelimited mandate and consisting of only twomembers, also seems to have got off to aslow start.

At the latest meeting, only onepanel member was present;AugustinusRumansara, environmental advisor to theGovernor of Papua, a previous chair of theAsian Development Bank's ComplianceReview Panel and former employee of BPIndonesia. Gary Klein, a partner in the lawfirm DLA Piper, continues to serve as thepanel's 'counsel and secretariat' and actedas the second member of the panel for thismeeting.12 Having agreed to be part ofthe panel, the US Senator Chuck Hagelwithdrew from it in March 2010. In Juneof this year, US Senator Tom Daschle wasannounced as the new second memberand chair of the panel.13

Songs of worries, songs of strength...and some hopes for securing sustainable livelihoods.

Notes from a workshop co-organised by LP3BH,Yalhimo, Mnukwar, DTE and PPP.

Nanoto tompan fo wojaro, nanototompan fo wojaroNanipun sorsoremo, nanipunsorsoremo

Let us see the star rising from the seato stand on the peak to convey the news(that) something will happen in Mpur

Something was indeed happening in Mpur.Thesong above was composed by participants intheir own language, Amberbaken, during aclimate change workshop in May 2011.Worries about the changing landscape,bringing uncertainties to their livelihoods,were a dominant theme at the event.

The Amberbaken area lies on thenortheastern coast of the Bird's Head region,West Papua, and is the home of the Mpurpeople. Linguist Malcolm Ross tentativelyassigned the Mpur/Amberbaken language asone of the three West Papuan languagefamilies. It was once also catalogued as alanguage isolate (an independent language) byEthnologue1 as it is a relatively independentlanguage.

Until less than a decade ago,Amberbaken was a relatively isolated place.The military clamp-down on the OPM (Free

Papua Organisation) had been very heavy inthe area, and consequently access to it wasrestricted.

Historically however, Amberbakendid not have a reputation for being isolated.Local folklore tells a story of how rice -which is not a traditional Papuan staple - wasbrought into the area and became a locally

cultivated crop.The story goes:A man escaped from his detention at theTidore court during the time thenortheastern coast of Papua was under thedomination of the Tidore Kingdom. He camehome bringing rice seeds wrapped in his curlyhair. From then on the people of Mpur growtheir own rice as well as sago and sweetpotato as their staples.

The local rice - which is a matter oflocal pride - tastes much better than theraskin (government-subsidised rice providedfor the poor people).

Today, a leg of the Trans-Papua Roadconnecting Manokwari and Sorong (adistance of around 568 km) passes throughthe area. It is helping to make theAmberbaken more accessible, but it is alsomaking it easier for outsiders to come andexploit the area's rich natural resources.Amberbaken's isolation is being broken oncemore but this time much more rapidly and ona massive scale.

The roar of chainsaws andbulldozers tearing down the pristine forestshas been countered by the loud protests ofenvironmental activists at the development ofthe Trans-Papua road. The road has allegedlycut through parts of North Tambrauw NatureReserve.2 The protests underline concernsthat the new artery aimed at bringing the newblood of investment to the region will alsosuck the life-blood out of the localcommunities. The revenue it brings may wellonly line the pockets of members of the localgovernment elite, while the newly openedaccess brought by the road will speed up thedestruction brought by oil palm plantationdevelopment and mining (see map, page 1 foran idea of the extent of concessions in Papuaand West Papua).


Map of West Papua province. Darkgreen areas are primary forest,lighter green, secondary forest.Thegrey districts are those with thehighest levels of deforestation in the2005-2009 period.

Source: JASOIL

Singing the workshop songs, Arfu, May 2011 (Photo: Adriana Sri Adhiati)

24

JASOIL, the local NGO coalitionworking on social and environmental justice,has studied the development plans of WestPapua province. After overlaying maps of theplans, the group concluded that between2000 - 2010 the fastest increase in the rate ofdeforestation occurred in several districtsincluding Manokwari district (see map), andnow also the newly created Tambrauwdistrict, where Amberbaken is located.

The Mpur people have learnedabout the problems associated with oil palmplantations from the experience oftransmigrants living in transmigration villagesin the palm oil zone, some 60km away fromAmberbaken. The transmigrants haveintroduced a new kind of economy, whichincludes selling garden produce - mostvegetable and fruit supplies from theManokwari region come from thetransmigration sites. But they have alsowitnessed the land provided for them undertransmigration programme slowly but surelydeteriorating following the introduction of oilpalm.

Problems around the transfer ofland ownership for transmigration sitespersist today.They are the fire hidden inside amound of rice chaff (as a local saying goes)which could flare up at any time. Demandsfrom the previous Papuan owners to returnthe land have often led to conflicts, sometimewith fatalities. None of the parties can sleeppeacefully until this matter is settled.

Isok ifo burodaiimobahabimo burodaiimobahabimo mugouwaorohmonuh mogetew

Those people chase after usKill usKill our bloodTo pay for this land

(song composed in Meyakh languageat the workshop)

A land rich in resources that will not lastforever, Papua is like a cake and many peopleare eager to get their hands on a slice. Thosepeople - the ones eager for a slice of the cake- include Papuans who are keen to reap somecash rewards from acquiring positions ofpower and control over the resources. Thepush to gain political power, as well aspemekaran - the creation of new districts bydividing old ones - has been splitting familiesand clans. Some local groups in Amberbakenhave been worried about splitting Manokwaridistrict to create a new district - Tambrauw(named after the mountain range in theregion) - at the western end of the region.They feel this will only benefit a few peoplerather than improving the welfare of wholecommunity. In their view, pemekaran onlyhelps shorten the distance for negotiationand decision-making between investors andthe self-enriching local elites.And those peopleare not always trustworthy.

Seeking a sustainablesolution

Inta nek Papuanek mafunowar disiyosoro bundake

ilmu bwano jasa bwanoinun mbe intar waro dokonedokone

My land Papualand of beautywater of refreshmentmountains covered in clouds

for the calling of knowledge and serviceI have to goleaving my land of Papua

(song in Kebar language, composed at theworkshop)

The Mpur are aspirational people.Given the opportunity they will send theirchildren far away from home to get a highereducation, even to another island, if necessary,since only limited education facilities are

available in the area. While the arrival of bigoil palm estates looks imminent,3 during therecent workshop, the Mpur participantsexpressed an interest in looking for positivealternatives to oil palm to boost the localeconomy. The thinking goes like this: oncelocal people's welfare is improved, they willbetter be able to resist the temptation to selltheir land. They know that more often thannot, they would end up worse off if theyrelinquished their resources. Not only wouldthey lose the resources that are the basis oftheir livelihoods, but they would also losetheir cultural and psychological connectionsto the forests.

nek te eyen

land is our mother(Mpur expression)

Aware of the conflict that might erupt withinthe community once they start giving in tooutside pressure, they are looking inside theirown community - to strengthen and improvetheir customary (adat) rules. Adat has beentried and tested and has helped them to


Selviana Anari is a guru jemaat4 in her late20s, with the main responsibilities of teachingthe Gospel, leading church services andtaking care of the church community. Herchoice of work is not typical of Papuanwomen. Most women in her community stayat home to take care of the housework andthe forest garden, and look after children. Ina conversation with DTE's Adriana SriAdhiati, Selviana outlined some of the mainconcerns facing women in her area.

Selviana grew up in a religiousfamily. Her father and husband are also gurujemaat. Although uncommon, the call tobecome a religious leader seems natural,given her family background. To become aguru jemaat she has had to go through aspecial religious teacher college - in her case,it is equivalent to high school - that makesher one of the most highly-educated peoplein the community.

For women in the community, herchurch runs a special religious service athome, followed by other activities.They alsoprovide home economics training (eg sewing,cooking skills) for women in the community.

Among the many challenges of herwork, she admits that pemekaran is quite asubstantial one. One of her main tasks is tomaintain the size of her congregation. If it isnot growing in number, at least it should notbe decreasing. Pemekaran, however, hasshifted the administrative borders where hercongregation lives. This makes her worriedthat her congregation members might joinother churches with better access toreligious facilities under the newlyestablished district.

Pemekaran and the opening up ofthe region by the Trans-Papua roaddevelopment, has also indirectly influencedher family's decision to move house. Thehouse they live in now used to be a hut intheir forest garden.They moved there to benear the new road. Currently, around 25families like hers have settled in the area,forming a new village, Wasanggon, which inturn is supporting pemekaran because of theexpansion of facilities it brings with it.

The issue of pemekaran (at districtand provincial level) is one that doesn't getthe attention it deserves given its effects onPapuan communities and ecosystems, as itleads to more military personnel, moreresource extraction, and the imposition ofgovernment structures which are divisive forlocal communities.

Selviana also pointed out that thehigh rate of maternal and infant mortality,due to the limited basic health facilities,remains a major problem for women andchildren in the community. Her observationconfirms reports that put Papua among theregions with highest maternal mortality ratein Indonesia, while the country itself isalready ranked bottom of the Southeast Asiatable on maternal mortality.5

Another common problem in thecommunity is domestic violence againstwomen by their husbands, mostly linked toalcoholism. A Manokwari-based NGO,LP3BH, has been trying to address theproblem in its campaigns in the past coupleof years, in line with their work to promotehuman rights.6

One woman's story


DOWN TO EARTH is the newsletter of the International Campaign for EcologicalJustice in Indonesia. If you want to receive the newsletter on a regular basis, please contact [email protected] subscription for hard copy is £10 a year for institutions and those organisations orindividuals who can afford it. Please add the equivalent of £1.50 if paying with nonsterling cheque. Please make cheques payable to

Down to Earth and send to Down to Earth, Greenside Farmhouse,Hallbankgate, Cumbria CA82PX, England. Tel/fax: +44 16977 46266

Down to Earth is a not-for-profit private limited company, registered in Englandand Wales (no. 6241367) registered office: 111 Northwood Road,Thornton Heath,Surrey, CR7 8HW, UK.

survive over the centuries. Thisstrengthening work to 'look inside' tobetter equip themselves to face change hasjust started.

Notes1. A publication of SIL International, which

studies lesser-known languages, with theprimary intention of translating the Bibleinto such languages.

2. Jubi, 7 Jan 2010, ‘Jalan Trans Papua Barat,Serobot Kawasan Cagar Alam TambrauwUtara’ http://www.tabloidjubi.com/daily-news/seputar-tanah-papua/4530-jalan-trans-papua-barat-serobot-kawasan-cagar-alam-tambrauw-utara.html

3. http://vogelkoppapua.org/?page=news.detail&id=82 - news about inauguration of anew oil palm estate of some 15,500hectares in Sidey owned by subsidiary ofthe Medco Group, one of Indonesia’ssuper-conglomerates. Sidey is aneighbouring area of Amberbaken.

4. The teacher of the congregation - seeThe history of Christianity in Indonesia, eds.Jan S. Aritonang, Karel, A. Steenbrink

5. http://www.searo.who.int/en/Section313/Section1520_13441.htm

6. http://vogelkoppapua.org/?page=news.detail&id=190

Land grabs and ecologicaldestruction - a formula forclimate injustice

Down To Earth and the Manokwari-basedNGO LP3BH ran a Training of Trainersworkshop on the theme of Climate Justicein Manokwari, March 2011.As follow up tothis workshop, five NGOs organised jointlya workshop for village leaders inAmberbaken.

During the workshop, the issue of climatejustice was linked to local concerns aboutoil palm development, how the increase indemand for alternatives to fossil-basedenergy may lead to conversion of forestsinto plantation estates for so-calledrenewable energy, and how the solutionfor one group of countries problemcreates problems for others.

Such false solutions to climate change,which is itself the result of ecologicalimbalance, add to the existing ecologicalproblems and those which might developin the future, should there be no change inthe development model.

Papua, a land where injustice prevails inmost aspect of people’s lives, is also on thereceiving end of climate injustice.

(continued from previous page)

Harvesting coconuts, Manokwari,West Papua (Adriana Sri Adhiati)

The Mpur people and development

a film by Mnukwarwith support from DTE

This new film explores the views of the Mpur community,West Papua, ondevelopment plans for their region which will affect their land,

livelihoods and culture.

Set up in 2007 by several environmental and social justice activists,Manokwari-based NGO Mnukwar focuses on facilitating learning

about community rights and citizenship through film-making.

The group believes that empowering people does not need to be expensive: the Mnukwar crew has been teaching people

how to use any media able to record moving images,such as a simple mobile phone,

to create a film.

The film can be viewed via our website at:

www.downtoearth-indonesia.org

The trans-Papua road development tears through forests in West Papua.Photo: Adriana Sri Adhiati