Peasants in mismanaged Java forest

1

PEASANTS IN MISMANAGED JAVA FOREST

By: Siti Rakhma Mary Herwati1

Introduction

The word “forest”, provokes imagination to a place full of green trees with everyone

living happily around. This imagination dissapears if the forest is investigated to find the real

fact. Living around forest for some people is a kind of disaster. Those people are living in poor

condition and sometimes face criminalization like what happened in Java and Madura forest. For

the last six years, an NGO called Association for Community and Ecologically Based Law

Reform (HuMa) observed and noted agrarian conflicts in Java forest areas. From 1998 to 2012,

there were 232 agrarian conflicts in 22 provinces; 72 conflicts occured in forest areas of which

41 conflicts occured in Java forest. This data excluded data which categorized as dark number

because those conflict were unreported. These land disputes are related to land control and lack

of access of communities to forest resources (Mary, et al., 2007, p. 1). The lack of

farm/cultivated land and access to forest resources also produce poverty. This happened because

of mis(management) by the Indonesian State Forest Company/Perusahaan Hutan Negara

Indonesia (Perum Perhutani). Perhutani controls all state’s forest under the Government

Regulation No. 72/2010 concerning the State Forestry Public Corporation/Perusahaan Umum

(Perum) Kehutanan Negara. This regulation creates some problems like land conflicts and

poverty because it regulates that Perhutani is the only company that has authority to control Java

and Madura’s forest. This regulation ignores the farmers and other local communities who have

already lived in and around the forest before the Dutch colonization period and supposed to have

right to control land forest and right to access forest resources. After the issuance of the

regulation the situation over Java forest becomes worsen. This fact raises a question: how this

bad regulation becomes really bad? This paper examines how the forest land management by the

Perum Perhutani has evicted and marginalized farmers.

1 A human rights defender and public interest lawyer.

2

Forest control by Perhutani creates poverty and land conflicts

Java forest area covers 3.04 million ha from total of 134 million ha of forest area in

Indonesia (Ministry of Forestry, 2012, p. 15). About 2.4 million ha of Java forest has been given

under the State Forest Company (Perhutani); the rest of Java Forest has been allocated for

conservation areas such as national park, wildlife sanctuary, grand forest park, and nature

recreation park. The forest land control by Perhutani resembles a monopolystic system. Perhutani

controls all of forest in Java only under Government Regulation No. 72/2010 which is the

continuation of the Dutch system. The Dutch had enacted Domein Verklaring Principle which

forbid people to occupy lands unless they could show their ownership over their land.

Eventhough this principle was not stated in Law No. 5/1967 concerning Forestry and Law No.

41/1999 concerning Forestry, but the spirit of those law is similar to that of the Domein

Verklaring. Everyone who can not show their certificate of land ownership to the government,

will lose one’s lands. In my view, this is a form of land confiscation considering that local people

had accessed forest resources for their daily need even before the Verenigde-Oost Indische

Compagnie (VOC) era (Peluso, 2006, p. 47).

The forest control by the Perhutani has affected farmers and other communities who live

in rural area. Based on data from Ministry of Forestry (2009, p. 18) about the identification of

villages in and around forest area, there are 4,614 villages around the forest in Java and Madura

where 366 villages located in the forest area and 4,248 villages located at the edge of the forest

area. Approximately 12.61 percent of Java and Madura’s total population living in forest villages

that occupy areas of 4.18 million ha. The data also mention that 99.45 percent of forest villages

in the forest areas and 97.08 percent of forest villages at the edge of forest areas depend on

agriculture as a main source income; 90.66 percent of the farm is crop farm. This data shows that

the communities of forest villages are small peasants who do not have farmland and depend their

life from crops. The forest sector itself has only become the main income for less than one

percent of forest villages communities in Java and Madura. The more astonishingly, data from

State Minister for Acceleration Development of Underprevilege Area/Kementerian Negara

Percepatan Pembangunan Daerah Tertinggal (PDT) shows that the percentage number of poor

families living in forest villages is twofold of the percentage of poor families in Indonesia.

According to the Head of Association of Indonesian Forest Village Community (Paguyuban

Masyarakat Desa Hutan Indonesia or PMDHI), there are 5,400 LMDH in Java and Madura

3

consist of approximately 5 million households and 60 percent of these is categorized as poor and

underdeveloped villages (kabarbisnis, 2010). One example of this poverty can be seen in Blora

District, Central Java. From total area of Blora, forest areas occupy 49,66 percent and paddy

field is only 25,30 percent of all lands (Central Bureau of Statistic and Bappeda, 2012, p. 23).

The number of poor people in Blora District is 39,03 percent. These data are not so much

different compared to that of year 2000. In 2000, the state forest area is 49,18 while paddy field

is 25,14 percent of all forest lands. The number of farmer in Blora District is 59,78 percent. As a

consequence, the number of farm laborers is high: 18,15 percent (Mary, et al., 2007, p. 63). In

several villages like Windujaya village in Banyumas District, 445 of total 528 households are

poor families; in Cacaban and Kalirejo village in Kendal District, many people go to cities to

seek a job as a labor because no land to be cultivated in their villages (Mary et al., 2007, pp. 17-

42). The poverty of people around the forest is also acknowledged by the Ministry of Forestry

Zulkifli Hasan who said that 21 percent of people living around the forest is poor. Furthermore,

he recommends to empower the people to access the forest by poviding some social forestry

programs such as Hutan Desa/HD (Village Forest), Hutan Kemasyarakatan/HK (Social Forest),

and Hutan Tanaman Rakyat/HTR (Community Planted Forest) without disclosing the roots of the

poverty (Republika, 2013).

The poverty makes people reclaim and occupy the forest lands by planting the lands or

logging its trees especially since the fall of Soeharto in 1998. I distinguish the term occupy and

reclaim. Occupy means that the farmers do not have historical claim over the lands, while

reclaim means that their claim has historical background and even legal basis. Therefore, the

different background of the land conflicts require different solution. For those who have

historical claim, the solution should be based on the historical claim which is by returning the

land back to the farmers. For farmers who do not have historical and legal claim but living in

poverty around the forest area, the solution must be based on the community’s right to access the

forest.

The government and Perhutani’s responses on agrarian conflicts in forest areas

Forest land disputes have no clear solution. The Ministry of Forestry always avoids when people

ask about the solution of land disputes in forest areas which involve Perhutani. The Ministry of

Forestry said that “it is easier to solve land dispute outside Java than forest land dispute in Java

4

because of the existing Perhutani in Java”.2 So far, the Ministry of Forestry entrusts the conflict

resolution in Java forest to Perhutani. But the way Perhutani resolves forest land disputes is

dissapointing.

In general, there are two categories of Java forest conflict. Firstly, conflict of land claim

because of land rights history and secondly, conflict access to forest resources. Conflict related to

land rights occured since farmers’ lands has been occupied by the government to become state

forest. Conflicts related to the claim of land rights’ ownership can be solved by finding its root

and return the land back to the real owner. But, here is the problem because if concerning claim

on land rights, Perhutani do not have authority to solve it. The authority is in the Ministry of

Forestry’s hand whereas the Ministry of Forestry does not want to take this responsibility.

However, it is very hard for the peasants to file this forest land dispute to court because court

will only consider formal evidence like certificate of land ownership. Peasants do not have this

evidence because they usually do not register their land or communal land and their evidence has

been destroyed during the Dutch colonization or by Soeharto’s military regime around 1965 –

1966.

Responding to the claims, Perhutani took some actions. Firstly, they criminalized

peasants. They captured peasants who try to reclaim the land or who try to resist Perhutani by

cutting trees. In several cases, some peasants injured or even died because of Perhutani’s

violation. Secondly, Perhutani implemented a social forestry program namely Community

Collaboration Forest Management/Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat (PHBM). PHBM is

a program where peasants are allowed to cultivate special plants such as cassava, banana, or corn

among Perhutani’s trees. Usually the plants will live for two years and after that the peasants

have to maintain the Perhutani’s trees for 20 years or more. Peasants will get profit sharing as

stated in PHBM’s agreement, but the realization often dissapoints them.

The Implementation of PHBM

The result of the Indonesian Institute of Sciences/Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia

(LIPI)’s research on social forestry shows that social forestry practices have not yet answered

problem on control and access to forest. Social forestry focuses on giving limited space and time

2Statement of the Ministry of Forestry when he met civil society at the Ministry of Forestry office, Jakarta, 6 January

2012.

5

to use forest resources, rather than to hand over control and access to peasants. In their research

on implementation of PHBM in Kuningan, West Java Province, LIPI found that equality of

rights as a principle of PHBM is futile in reality. For example, to make an action plan, Perhutani

composes the detail plan without involvement of forest village community. Proposal of the forest

village community has not always been accomodated. Inequality also happens in peasants’

participation in forest plan and decision of forest logs sharing. Perhutani still stands as a single

planner with top down approach and instructions through tiered process starting from the

Foreman (Mandor), the Mantri, the Asper, the Administratur, the Forest Planning Division, and

then decided to become Forest Stewardship Unit/Kesatuan Pemangkuan Hutan (KPH)’s plan

(Aji, et al., 2010, pp. 61-64).

The study by the LIPI has been strengthened by the Volunteers of Alliance for Saving the

Nature/Aliansi Relawan Untuk Penyelamatan Alam (ARUPA)’s research that has been

undertaken in Blora and Bojonegoro District, Central Java. Their research shows that the

implementation of PHBM is so much different with the definition of PHBM which is spelled out

in Article 1 Decree of Perum Perhutani Director No. 682/2009 concerning PHBM. The Article

states that: “Collaborative Forest Resource Management (CBFM) is a system of forest

management conducted jointly by Perum Perhutani and forest villagers and or Perum Perhutani

and forest villagers with interested parties (stakeholders) with the spirit of sharing, so that the

common interest to achieve continuity of the function forest resources and benefits can be

realized in an optimal and proportional manner.”

There are some implementation of PHBM which inflicted a loss for Lembaga Masyarakat

Desa Hutan (LMDH)’s members. First, Perhutani involved an investor in forest resources

management without involving LMDH’s members. For example; a case of management of

tourism potency in KPH of East Banyumas, Central Java that was done by Palawi (tourism

company owned by Perhutani) that managed tourism potency without the involvement of

LMDH’s members. Considering sharing principle in PHBM, the involvement of investor should

be discussed with LMDH’s members at the first time. Second, Perhutani has formed a

cooperative in forest villages and this is precisely create institutional confusion to LMDH. The

proportion of activities and budget which previously been optimized for coordination and

partnership with LMDH used for setting up a cooperative and forest farmers group in some

places. Third, Perhutani has never shared and discussed with LMDH about the amount of value

6

and factors of production. Supposedly the determination of the amount and value of production

factors are conducted through deliberation between Perhutani and LMDH. Fourth, timber forest

product which becomes the object of sharing is wooden utensils and firewoods from the

production of forest areas that has been managed through PHBM. There is no sharing in the

protected forest. LMDH questions why there is no sharing in the protected forest. These woods

should become object of PHBM’s sharing: rencek, stumps, logs waste, logs waste from natural

disaster, timber damaged due to pest/diseases, evidence’s logs, timber outside staple trees,

unplanned felled logs. Furthermore, the cutting plan should involve LMDH. Fifth, profit sharing

for LMDH was given by Perhutani in the form of cash money. LMDH proposes that sharing

should be in the form of log sharing because profit sharing in the form of money tends to work

against farmers because it is based on the basic selling price of Perhutani. Sixth, in the process of

dispute resolution, Perhutani ignores mediation process between Perhutani and LMDH

communities, and Communication Forum of LMDH as mediator (Purwanto et al., 2013 pp. 82-

103).

The Implementation of PHBM Through Criminalization

Observing the implementation of PHBM above, the reform that has been waited for a

long time seems do not appear. Peasants who become member of LMDH also do not have a

better quality of life. Criminalization to peasants still occurs to those who become member of

LMDH. The government still launchs crime-busting operation such as “Wanalaga Lodaya” or

“Operasi Hutan Lestari” to detain people who are accused as illegal loggers. In fact, the main

actors of illegal logging have never been captured. During1998 - 2012, some NGOs, ARUPA

and Semarang Legal Aid Institute noted at least 108 community around forest areas become

victim of violence because Perhutani accused them for stealing logs or degrading the forest.

Thirty-four of them were shot or tortured by Perhutani police/security and 74 of them were

injured (Purwanto, et al., 2013, p. 102). The government and police let those cases unresolved.

The perpetrator are have taken to court. Moreover, the use of criminal provisions in Law No.

41/1999 to the community who depend their life on the forest also still continues. For example, a

peasant named Rosidi was accused for stealing a log in forest area of Perhutani in Kendal,

Central Java district. The log which has been taken by Rosidi has already fallen to the ground.

Rosidi has been jailed for 5 months (Firdaus, 2012). The recent case is the arrest of three farmers

7

who become member of LMDH Rengganis. They were arrested by forest police on 12 January

2013 in area of Sembah Pokang Petak Suci, Jember District, East Java. Perhutani accused them

for stealing 12 logs of mahoni wood. In fact, they only cut some twigs. When they capture the

peasants, Perhutani’s police committed violence (metrotvnews, 2013). Judges decided that the

peasants did the crime and they were sentenced with three months of imprisonment.

In my view, eventhough Perhutani launched PHBM program and “Drop the Gun” around

2006, but the government’s and Perhutani’s method in resolving forest land disputes is

dissapointing. They continue to use violence and imprisonment which perpetuate and extend

those conflicts.

Forest management by community: one solution of forest land disputes

The government must begin to trust people to manage natural resources, including forest.

Communities living around forest villages show that they can and able to manage, preserve, and

sustain forest. Some forest management concept has been collated and conducted, such as

“garden” concept (applied by farmers in Ngrimpak, Temanggung, Central Java), concept of

agroforestry (mixed forest) (Kalijaya Village, Ciamis, West Java), Wanadusun (Kendal, Central

Java), Kampung with Conservation Purpose (Nanggung Village, Bogor District), and community

forestry. Communities in those villages manage the forest without Perhutani’s intervention. They

cultivate the forest land with crops such as cassava, corn, peanut, and other plants like banana,

coffee, cardamom, and albacia without destroying the forest. Their plants also grow well

eventhough they are mixed with forest trees. Community forest management is forest based farm

with wood and non-wood commodity. Community using their local knowledge to cultivate lands

with intercropping system between stands of timber plants, crops, and livestock feed. It means

when one of the commodities whose prices fall, farmers expect another results from other

products whose prices stable or more expensive (Wahyudyanti, 2012, p. 18).

Conclusion

The inequality and injustice over Java forest have been occuring since the Dutch period. This

inequality and injustice have never been ended because the Indonesian government has

established a state forest company to control forest land in Java. The government enacts

Government Regulation No. 72/2010 which materialized in the form of inequality and injustice

8

over the land forest and access to forest. The two types of forest land disputes can not be solved

until now because the root of the forest land disputes has never been examined. In several places,

the PHBM program run by the Perhutani fails to answer peasants claims and demands access to

forest. Forest land dispute and access to forest dispute can not be solved by offering social

forestry approach like PHBM but by examining the root of the problem. Conflict related to land

confiscation can be solved by returning the land back to peasants. It means that the Ministry of

Forestry must release the land from the state forest and return it to peasants/communities.

Conflict related to access to forest can be solved by returning the forest management to

communities. In some places, communities have shown that they can manage the forest by their

own value and local wisdom. However, it is almost impossible to depend on the Ministry of

Forestry’s awareness to return the lands back to the peasants. Therefore some external

recommendation are needed such as the form of special court on structural land disputes and

judicial review on Government Regulation No. 71/2010.

Jakarta, 4 January 2014

9

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aji, G.B. et al., 2010. Strategi alternative mengurangi kemiskinan dengan pengelolaan hutan

bersama masyarakat. Jakarta:Pusat Penelitian Kependudukan LIPI.

Balai Pemantapan Kawasan Hutan Wilayah XI Jawa-Madura, 2011. Rencana Strategis Balai

Pemantapan Kawasan Hutan Wilayah XI Jawa-Madura Tahun 2010 – 2014

(Penyempurnaan).[pdf] Yogyakarta: Balai Pemantapan Kawasan Hutan XI. Available at:

<http://www.bpkhjogja.net/Dokumen/RENSTRABPKHXITahun2011.pdf> [Accessed 14

December 2013].

Bintariadi, B., 2010. ProFauna Desak Pemerintah Selamatkan Hutan di Jawa. Tempo Interaktif,

[online] 22 Februari 2010. Available at:

http://www.tempo.co/read/news/2010/02/22/058227570/ProFauna-Desak-Pemerintah-

Selamatkan-Hutan-di-Jawa [Accessed 13 December 2013].

Firdaus, R.A. 2012. Akhirnya, Rosidi Dihukum 5 bulan 15 Hari. Tribun-Medan.com, [online] 25

July 2012. Available at: <http://medan.tribunnews.com/2012/07/25/akhirnya-rosidi-dihukum-5-

bulan-15-hari> [Accessed 16 December 2013].

Kabarbisnis, 2010. Pembangunan Ekonomi Desa Hutan Tak Sinergis. Kabar Bisnis Online,

[online] 23 October 2010. Available at: <http://www.kabarbisnis.com/aneka-bisnis/2815545-

Pembangunan_ekonomi_desa_hutan_tak_sinergis.html> [Accessed 13 December 2013].

Mary, R. et al., 2007. Dominasi dan Resistensi Pengelolaan Hutan di Jawa Tengah: Studi Kasus

4 Kabupaten di Jawa Tengah. Jakarta: HuMa.

Metrotvnews, 2013. Ini Kronologis Penangkapan Tiga Petani Jember. Metrotvnews.com,

[online] 15 January 2013. Available at:

10

<http://www.metrotvnews.com/metronews/read/2013/01/15/6/122988/Ini-Kronologis-

Penangkapan-Tiga-Petani-Jember> [Accessed 16 December 2013].

Ministry of Forestry and Central Bureau of Statistic of Indonesia., 2009. Identifikasi Desa di

Dalam dan di Sekitar Kawasan Hutan 2009. Jakarta: Departemen Kehutanan & Biro Pusat

Statistik.

Ministry of Forestry., 2012. Forestry Statistic of Indonesia 2011. Jakarta: Ministry of Forestry.

Wahyudyanti, R.L., 2012. Sebuah Cerita dari Hutan Jawa.Yogyakarta: Javlec.

Peluso, N., 2006. Hutan Kaya Rakyat Melarat: Penguasaan Sumberdaya dan Perlawanan di

Jawa. Bogor: Konphalindo.

Purwanto, A. B. and Suprapto, E. eds., 2013. Hutan Jawa: Kontestasi dan Kolaborasi.

Yogyakarta: ARUPA.

Republika, 2013. Menhut: 21 Persen Masyarakat Sekitar Hutan Miskin. Republika,

[online] 18 Agustus 2013. Available at:

<http://www.republika.co.id/berita/nasional/umum/13/08/18/mrqk6j-menhut-21-persen-

masyarakat-sekitar-hutan-miskin> [Accessed 13 December 2013].