Task 4: Village Boundary Setting Final Report

Task 4: Village Boundary Setting Final Report Support Services for Land Use Planning, District Readiness, Strategic Environmental Assessment and Rela...
Author: Ilene Griffith
3 downloads 0 Views 2MB Size
Task 4: Village Boundary Setting Final Report

Support Services for Land Use Planning, District Readiness, Strategic Environmental Assessment and Related Preparatory Activities for the Green Prosperity Project in Indonesia Contract # GS10F0086K Second Draft for MCC Review and Comment 20 November 2013

Prepared for: Millennium Challenge Corporation 875 15th St., NW Washington, D.C. 20005

Submitted by: Abt Associates Inc. 4550 Montgomery Avenue Suite 800 North Bethesda, MD 20814 In Partnership with: ICRAF, Indonesia URDI, Indonesia

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

Table of Contents Abbreviations, Acronyms and Glossary of Key Terms ............................................................. iii Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ v 1.

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1

Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Scope of Work .......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2.1.

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

1.2.2.

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

1.2.3.

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

1.2.4.

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

1.2.5.

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

1.2.6.

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

1.3. Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 4 1.4. Report Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 6

2.

Policies on Villages and Village Boundary Setting in Indonesia ...................................... 7 2.1. Indonesian Villages over Time .................................................................................................................... 7 2.2. Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous Territory ............................................................................................. 9 2.3. MOHA Policy Framework for Village Boundary Setting ......................................................................... 10 2.4. Interface between Village Territory and Governance Status of Land ........................................................ 17 2.5. Villages in District Spatial Planning .......................................................................................................... 20 2.6. Policy on Land Dispute Settlement............................................................................................................ 21

3.

Village and Administrative Territorial Boundary Setting ................................................ 23 3.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 23 3.2. Merangin District ....................................................................................................................................... 23 3.3. District of Muaro Jambi ............................................................................................................................. 25 3.4. Villages in West Sulawesi ......................................................................................................................... 27

4.

Towards Participatory Village Boundary Setting ............................................................... 31 4.1. Participatory Mapping Practices ................................................................................................................ 31 4.1.1. International Best Practices in Participatory Mapping........................................................................ 31 4.1.2. Participatory Mapping in Indonesia .................................................................................................... 36 4.1.3. Lessons Learned from Participatory Mapping .................................................................................... 38 4.1.4. Use of Technology in Participatory Mapping ..................................................................................... 39 4.2. Village Boundary Setting Practices Based on Permendagri No. 27 of 2006 ............................................. 40 4.2.1. Village Boundary Setting in the Districts of Merangin, Muaro Jambi, Mamasa and Mamuju ........... 40 4.2.2. Tebo District in Jambi Province ......................................................................................................... 41 4.2.3. Ogan Komering Ilir, South Sumatra ................................................................................................... 42 4.2.4. Study on Village Boundary Setting by University of Gajah Mada ..................................................... 45 4.2.5. Lessons Learned from Village Boundary Setting ............................................................................... 45 4.3. Important Factors in Participatory Village Boundary Setting .................................................................... 45 4.4. Lessons Learned From Village Boundary Setting ..................................................................................... 51 4.5. Lessons Learned from Regional Boundary Setting ................................................................................... 54

Abt Associates Inc.

i

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

5.

Contract # GS10F0086K

Conclusion and Recommendations........................................................................................ 55 5.1. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 55 5.2. Recommendations...................................................................................................................................... 58

Bibliography ...................................................................................................................................... 62 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1. Conceptual model of Green Prosperity ................................................................................................... 1 Exhibit 2. Regulations on villages over time ........................................................................................................... 8 Exhibit 3. Flow of village boundary setting concept ............................................................................................. 11 Exhibit 4. Territorial boundary demarcation guide (Permendagri No. 27 of 2006)............................................... 13 Exhibit 5. Delineation and Demarcation of Village Boundaries............................................................................ 14 Exhibit 6. Territorial Boundary Map (Permendagri No. 27 of 2006) .................................................................... 15 Exhibit 7. Provisional list of Local Governments adopting Permendagri No. 27 of 2006..................................... 16 Exhibit 8. Sungai Tebal on the border of Tuo and Nilo Dingin Villages .............................................................. 24 Exhibit 9. Boundary of Tuo Village and Nilo Dingin Village in Sungai Tebal ..................................................... 25 Exhibit 10. Boundary of Tuo Village and Nilo Dingin Village in Sungai Tebal ................................................... 26 Exhibit 11. Elementary school (SD) in Sungai Beruang ....................................................................................... 27 Exhibit 13. Buttuada Village in boundary dispute between Mamasa District and Mamuju District ..................... 29 Exhibit 12. Expansion of Leko Village in Rantebulahan Timur Sub-district, Mamasa District ............................ 29 Exhibit 14. Land Expansion in Polo Camba Village, Pangale Sub-district, Mamuju District ............................... 30 Exhibit 15. Differences in land use and land occupancy ....................................................................................... 32 Exhibit 16. Stages in Traditional Land Use Study ................................................................................................. 33 Exhibit 17. Stages in Native Lands Methodology ................................................................................................. 35 Exhibit 18. Sample sketch map made by a community ......................................................................................... 35 Exhibit 19. Final map produced by Nambluong (Papua) community using Native Lands Methodology ............. 36 Exhibit 20. Participatory Mapping stages in Indonesia ......................................................................................... 37 Exhibit 21. Sample village map attached to District Regulation (Perda) of Muaro Jambi.................................... 41 Exhibit 22. Technical and social capacity of boundary setting personnel ............................................................. 46 Exhibit 23. Types of village boundary dispute ...................................................................................................... 50

Abt Associates Inc.

ii

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

Abbreviations, Acronyms and Glossary of Key Terms ADD

Alokasi Dana Desa – Village Fund Allocation

Afdeeling

government territorial unit in Dutch East Indies era

AMAN

Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara (Indonesian Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance)

APBD

Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah – Regional Budget

APBN

Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Negara – State Budget

Bappeda

Badan Pembangunan dan Perencanaan Daerah – Regional Development Planning Board

BPMPD

Badan Pemberdayaan Masyarakat dan Pemerintah Desa – Office for the Empowerment of Rural Communities and Village Government

BPN

Badan Pertanahan Nasional – National Land Agency

cartometry

delineation of boundary lines on map

CORS

Continuously Operating Reference Station

Desa

village; smallest territorial unit that has autonomy to manage itself

DPR

Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat – House of Representatives

GIS

geographical information systems; a computer based spatial information processing system

GP

Green Prosperity

GPS

global positioning systems; a coordinate determination system on earth surface using navigation satellites

JKPP

Jaringan Kerja Pemetaan Partisipatif – Participatory Mapping Network

JRSP

Jaringan Referensi Satelit Pertanahan - Land Satellite Reference Network

HPH

Hak Pengelolaan Hutan – Forest Concession

Inpres

Presidential Instruction

Kecamatan

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

Kemendagri

Kementerian Dalam Negeri – Ministry of Home Affairs

KMAN

Congress of Indonesian Indigenous Peoples

Landsat

earth observation satellite owned by United States

MCA-I

Millennium Challenge Account – Indonesia

MCC

Millennium Challenge Corporation

MOHA

Ministry of Home Affairs

MSF

Multi Stakeholder Forum

NGO

non-governmental organization

Abt Associates Inc.

iii

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

OKI

Ogan Kemering Ilir

Onderafdeeling

government unit in Dutch East Indies era

PBD

Panitia Batas Daerah – Regional Boundary Committee

Pemda

Pemerintah Daerah – Local Government

Pemdes

Pemerintah Desa – Village Government

Pemkab

Pemerintah Kabupaten – District Government

Perda

Peraturan Daerah – Local Regulation

Permen

Peraturan Menteri – Ministerial Regulation

Permendagri

Peraturan Menteri Dalam Negeri – Minister of Home Affairs Regulation

Permeneg

Peraturan Menteri Negara – State Minister Regulation

Permenhut

Peraturan Menteri Kehutanan – Minister of Forestry Regulation

Permen PU

Peraturan Menteri Pekerjaan Umum – Minister of Public Works Regulation

PIR

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

PLUP

participatory land use planning

PP

Peraturan Pemerintah – Government Regulation

PTPN

Perseroan Terbatas Perkebunan Nusantara – state-owned plantation company

RDTR

Rencana Detail Tata Ruang (Detailed Spatial Plan)

RTRW

Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah (Regional Spatial Plan)

RUU

Rancangan Undang-undang – Draft Bill

SAD

Suku Anak Dalam

satellite imagery

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

SPOT

Earth observation satellite owned by French

TNI

Tentara Nasional Indonesia – Indonesian National Army

UPT

Unit Pemukiman Transmigrasi – Transmigration Settlement Units

Abt Associates Inc.

iv

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

Executive Summary The team’s study of the four starter districts (Merangin, Muaro Jambi, Mamuju and Mamasa) found that developments in village border setting have been very slow because village boundaries are not a top priority in these districts. Meanwhile, there has been rapid investment in the villages. Unclear village borders would affect the implementation of investment and development plans because the issue has the potential to increase tensions among the actors involved. This results in a lack of spatial certainty (which is present when spatial planning is done properly) and spatial equity (which is present when the local community is given a prominent role in spatial planning). A lack of spatial certainty can lead to high economic, social and environmental costs for those involved. Local communities would be the most affected, because these costs can be beyond their capacity to bear. Clear and well-documented village delineation in the country’s territorial system is needed in order to address this issue. However, the brief assessment conducted in the preparation of this report and other studies show that clear boundaries generally exist in areas maintaining strong customary laws. However, knowledge of these customary boundaries is not generally found in documents, but in oral agreements known only by a few elders. Without concerted efforts to transfer this knowledge to the next generation, the information will be lost, and no one will know the boundaries agreed in the past. The Task 4 (Village Boundary Setting) team under the District Readiness Assessment (DRA) – a project which aims to provide input for the preparation of the Green Prosperity (GP) program in Indonesia – was assigned to review developments in village boundary setting in Indonesia, particularly in the provinces of Jambi and West Sulawesi, and to develop guidelines for participatory village boundary setting. The team was tasked with preparing village boundary setting guidelines for use at the district level, which will be used to implement Participatory Land Use Planning (PLUP). The PLUP guidelines, which are a separate attachment to this report, are intended to enhance the village boundary setting guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA), particularly those contained in MOHA Regulation (Permendagri) No. 27 of 2006 on Delineation and Confirmation of Village Boundaries. The guidelines also incorporate international best practices in participatory mapping that are being carried out by NGOs in various parts of Indonesia. The guidelines were developed in consultation with local governments and NGOs in four starter districts – Merangin and Muaro Jambi in Jambi province, and Mamasa and Mamuju in West Sulawesi – which are stakeholders in the Green Prosperity project. It is intended that the guidelines can become a GP methodology for village boundary setting and community mapping that is legally recognized and enacted in each district. Before developing the guidelines (which are an Appendix to this report), the DRA Task 4 team conducted a policy review and study on the boundary setting practices of both government agencies and NGOs, especially in the four starter districts. The study also looked at the possibility of participatory village boundary setting being conducted, especially by identifying technical, institutional, administrative and legal support for village boundary setting, and assessing institutional capacity to implement the boundary demarcation process in a transparent, participatory, inclusive, accountable, responsive and timely manner. The study involved tracking the secondary information (research reports and media articles), reviewing applicable legislation, and holding focus group

Abt Associates Inc.

v

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

discussions and in-depth interviews. The team then developed the Guidelines for Participatory Village Boundary Setting as a separate attachment to this report. The team presented a preliminary draft of these guidelines at the Multi-Stakeholder Forum (MSF) held in each of the four districts. The team also received input from MCC and MCA-I, which was incorporated in the preparation of this report and the guidelines. Currently, the government is focusing on provincial and district boundaries in its boundary setting program, most likely to ensure proper territorial administration. However, when investments reach the village level, clear village boundaries become crucial. Consequently, village boundary setting should be given equal weight in the boundary setting program. The study also found that, provided there are clear boundaries between villages, the district and provincial boundaries will also become clear. This suggests the need for a breakthrough that can accelerate the village boundary setting process. Such a breakthrough can overcome current obstacles such as the time required and the high costs involved. By using participatory mapping and involving many parties, boundary mapping can be done more efficiently and can be more participatory. The team found that Regulation No. 27 of 2006 focuses on technical mapping issues and fails to pay adequate attention to the social issues involved in village boundary setting. Village boundary mapping cannot be treated as merely a technical activity that is carried out by mapping technicians – the process is much broader than cartography, as it involves social aspects that are often complex. A key social factor in the village boundary setting process is the history of the village’s establishment,1 which will determine the degree of complexity in reaching agreement on the village boundaries. There are two common ways in which villages can be formed – genealogically and nongenealogically. Genealogical villages are usually old villages inhabited by people with strong kinship ties over many generations. These villages generally have customary rules and a clear territory that is based on those rules. In other words, these villages are inhabited by indigenous peoples with indigenous territories, whether still intact or already divided into several villages by central government edict in the New Order era. (This commonly occurred after the imposition of standardized Javanese-style village and territorial re-organization of rural regions to facilitate access to public services and exploitation of resources.) Non-genealogical villages are villages whose inhabitants have no particular kinship ties. These villages may be based on recent expansion or transmigration, or local rural occupations. Villages can also be a mixture of the two types, where people who have kinship ties migrate and mix with other people. Whatever the background to the village’s formation, indigenous territorial integrity needs to be considered when village boundary setting is being undertaken – whether by MCA-I under the GP program or by any other organization. So, for the purposes of the GP program, the maps resulting 1

The histories of villages in Indonesia are strongly linked to migrations into uninhabited areas or areas in which other communities have previously established settlements or claims. The second scenario tends to complicate the territorial and tenurial rights of the communities involved. Most village histories are passed down orally from generation to generation through repeated storytelling. With the rapid social and cultural changes occurring in rural areas, particularly the introduction of television, storytelling has begun to disappear, jeopardizing the continued transfer of oral knowledge in rural communities.

Abt Associates Inc.

vi

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

from village boundary setting projects will provide indicative and informative indigenous territorial boundaries for the maps of village administrative boundaries (It is beyond MCA-I’s authority and remit to provide an authoritative indigenous boundaries map). Given the social complexity involved in village boundary setting, the separate guideline attempts to add a social component, chiefly during the village boundary delineation stage. To that end, the guideline incorporates aspects of large-scale participatory mapping as an input to Regulation No. 27 of 2006. Participatory mapping is at the core of the village boundary delineation process, while the activity stages set out in the MOHA Guideline on Village Boundary Delineation and Demarcation (published as an Annex to Regulation No. 27 of 2006) are the core of village boundary demarcation. While the Native Lands mapping methodology is primarily intended for mapping large regions of up to 2,000,000 hectares in size and with 20-25 communities, this guideline is also intended for mapping sub-districts and indigenous territories. This approach is expected to reduce the time and cost involved, while also reducing the likelihood of conflict arising. An advantage of the Native Lands methodology is its emphasis on the community’s spatial use. This is very useful for people in adjoining villages to understand the control of land between them, as it places them in a more informed position when negotiating the boundaries of their villages. This is important, as there is a strong tendency for rural communities to consider tenure boundaries as the same as village boundaries. There is also a tendency for the delineation of village boundaries to be seen as the act of putting up fences in territory that customarily had no boundaries. Such action is only likely to increase the potential for conflict to arise. Under this methodology, a number of non-technical tasks (i.e. non-cartographic tasks) need to be conducted. These include raising funds, managing the funds, organizing people at each activity stage (including holding workshops and going into the field), logistics (travel, food, and lodging), communicating with various parties at villages and government level, and managing teams at events. While cartography remains a critical component, it is one of many. The biggest issue is how all of these components can be combined and managed. There is always a strong temptation to embark on the activity as quickly as possible, before the field work has been done. As soon as the idea of village boundary setting arises, there will always be some people who want to go ahead immediately. This urge must be restrained until a strong activities management team has been formed and other key components have been established. To accommodate community land use, the less well-known MOHA Regulation 51 of 2007 can be used as an entry point for village boundary setting, together with the district spatial planning approach used by the GP Program. This regulation encourages a bottom-up decision making process, which can reduce disputes over land use and tenure. While some villages are located in state forestlands, the current policy should be reviewed carefully through documentary research, including the pros and cons of the bottom-up planning process. There also needs to be an appreciation that the local community is not a single entity with particular interests; the interests of the impoverished, families led by women, landless peasants, and others, all need to be considered. Boundary setting will be implemented whenever new villages are formed or villages change status to become kelurahan. In fact, as explained earlier and based on existing experience, district boundaries at the lower level are actually also village boundaries. Consequently, district boundary setting may also indirectly be village boundary setting, especially in areas that are also district or provincial boundaries. Once village boundary setting has been completed, the sub-district, district and provincial boundaries will also be complete. Going forward, districts and provinces need to prioritize village Abt Associates Inc.

vii

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

boundaries first. Any funding from the state budget for district and provincial demarcation should therefore also be allocated to village boundary setting. Undertaking and expediting village boundary setting activities requires support from various parties. The parties involved in this regard will be the district government concerned, MCA-I, NGOs and local communities. The district government (particularly the Governance Division and/or BPMPD) needs to have strong political will to obtain the funds, expertise, and guidance. MCA-I, under the GP Program, can provide the funds and expertise needed to assist the district governments selected and the local communities. For their part, indigenous and religious leaders can help with consensus building to reach agreement on the village boundaries. NGOs with relevant experience of the issues can also support the process through both social and technical work. Various institutions at the district level have the requisite technical skills, including Bappeda, the Forest Service, the Department of Agriculture, the Land Agency, and other agencies. To fill the gaps (and occasional lack of harmony) in national policy, local governments typically regulate land issues in more detail through local regulations (Perda) or a Decree (SK) of the District Head (Bupati). Local regulations that delegate district government authority to the village government may cover, among other things, forest boundaries, zoning, and the collection of revenue from land and natural resources. There are differences in practice between districts, and there is a need to identify which communities and NGOs in which districts have experience in setting village boundaries.

Abt Associates Inc.

viii

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

Recommendations 1. To follow up the Green Prosperity Project MoUs that have been signed between MCA-I and the four starter districts, each Bupati should adopt the GP-PLUP VBS/CM methodology by issuing a decree to implement Article 6(e) of the MoU to undertake village boundary setting activities in accordance with Regulation No. 27 of 2006 in villages of theselected sub-districts (kecamatan). A bupati decree is more reasonable with the GP Project’s timeframe, as it takes less time and more straightforward in issuing it, rather the ideal status of district regulation (peraturan daerah) that can take months to complete. Bupati should issue another decree to establish a Village Delineation and Demarcation Committee to supervise and certify the MCA-I VBS/CM exercise. This is in line with Article 7 points c and d of Permendagri No. 27 of 2006, which gives this team the authority to implement village boundary setting and to supervise village boundary demarcation activities. The village boundary setting and community mapping activities will be technically implemented by consultants, hired by MCA-I . 2. The Permendagri No. 27 of 2006 should take into consideration a greater social rigor, primarily by elaborating the consensus-building and participatory aspects, and simplifying the cartographic rigor to enable the district governments to more effectively implement it due to their limited resources in terms of expertise, equipment and funding. The GP PLUP VBS/CM methodology to be developed by MCA-I, based in part on the description, findings and recommendations contained in this report, could assist MOHA in developing a new policy and regulations which are based on broader experience in implementing village boundary setting under the GP PLUP Activity. 3. The GP PLUP VBS/CM methodology needs to be piloted in order for MCA-I and the local government and village representatives in the starter districts to better understand the methodology. A pilot study can reveal the complexity of the issues and challenges faced, as well as any weaknesses that may still arise and the time and cost required to complete the process. The piloting should be done in selected sub-districts in four starter district by taking into consideration the variety of geographical conditions, particularly the terrains, and investment potentials under the GP Program. Based on a rapid assessment and interviews with government officials in charge of village boundary setting completed during this study, the sub-districts recommended as pilot locations in each starter district are Sungai Tenang (Merangin), Kumpeh (Muaro Jambi), Kalumpang (Mamuju), and Sumarorong (Mamasa). 4. There is a need to integrate VBS/CM and Regional Spatial Planning using the policy on rural areas regulated in Law No. 26 of 2007 on Spatial Planning and its implementing regulation, MOHA Regulation No. 51 of 2007 on Community Based Rural Area Development. PLUP approach employed by MCA-I could enlighten the district governments as to why the integration is substantial and how it is implemented. 5. As the VBS/CM methodology is implemented, different types of disputes may arise, including; boundary disputes, land use disputes, and land tenure disputes. Based on the analysis completed in this study, MCA-I should facilitate alternative dispute resolution (ADR) within the implementation of VBS/CM. The characteristics of this mechanism should be that it is community-level, extrajudicial, voluntary, and produces written agreements. The mechanism is based on willingness to enter the process and acceptance of the results voluntarily. As far as possible, a customary settlement mechanism should be used to reach agreement, since such a mechanism can better ensure the continuity of the agreement. Abt Associates Inc.

ix

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

6. VBS/CM should identify the potential causes of boundary, land use and land tenure disputes. Early on in the process in a given sub-district and/or village, disputes should be grouped those that are: (a) potentially non-problematic, (b) problematic but easily resolved, or (c) problematic and difficult to resolve. From this grouping, the problems can be located geographically and the technical work can be undertaken in the non-problematic areas first. Waiting for all disputes to be resolved first will inevitably delay progress in VBS/CM in the village and subdistrict. 7. VBS/CM methodology must include mapping of critical natural and cultural resource areas and land uses within the boundaries of the villages. Collecting accurate information and mapping these natural and cultural resources and land use areas contributes to an understanding of the limits of a community’s claims, and therefore facilitates not only the village boundary demarcation process itself but enables the community to use these resource areas in a sustainable manner and to protect them from future development. In addition, the resulting maps can be used directly for village level spatial, economic and physical development planning. More effective participatory spatial planningcan thus be conducted immediately after the VBS/CM is completed. Where there is no boundary dispute, planning activities can be carried out without waiting for confirmation through a Bupati decree. Completing VBS/CM in a district, sub-district or village can therefore become an essential part of the rural area spatial planning process and in-turn provide spatial certainty to the communities involved. 8. Local governments should strengthen and improve the capacities of the government unit responsible for VBS/CM assisted by MCA-I.. As VBS/CM becomes a priority for the local governments, government officers should be appointed to oversee the planning and technical supervision of the VBS/CM process within a given district. Technical implementation of the VBS/CM process itself should continue to be assigned to competent and specialized consultants and contractors through competitive procurement processes as opposed to hiring technical experts and equipping each local government unit with specialized survey, mapping and peripheral equipment. It is recommended that MCA-I consider, as part of the GP PLUP Activity, to provide local governments representatives with contract management training, basic training on the technical, legal and administrative aspects of the VBS/CM process and training in the management and use of the data resulting from the VBS/CM process. Government officials can be selected or appointed from among civil servants who have the competence or undertake the specific training mentioned. These institutional capacity building efforts should be combined with the training to be included under Task #3 of the overall DRA Study which is focused on the use of geographic information in spatial planning and land use licensing and permit issuance and enforcement process. Going forward, officials responsible for planning and supervising VBS/CM will need to coordinate with other officials in charge in village planning to ensure that VBS/CM activities can be conducted simultaneously with the village spatial planning process. For both both VBS/CM and spatial planning, the responsible government units should cooperate with NGOs experienced in participatory mapping, and collaborate with and support village boundary setting initiatives of other national and provincial government agencies. This type of collaboration would be very helpful in accelerating the expansion of VBS/CM within the districts selected for the GP Program and throughout the country. 9. MCA-I should advocate that MOHA and the governments of the provinces and districts where the GP Program operates should conduct VBS/CM simultaneously with the regional boundary setting process (at sub-district, district and provincial levels) in places where the boundaries of these administrative units overlap. Adopting this approach would be more time and cost-effective

Abt Associates Inc.

x

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

and would enhance the effectiveness of consensus building among the various actors (i.e., the local communities and regional governments concerned). 10. MCA-I should ensure that the consultants on VBS/CM proposed methods to increase the inclusiveness and applicability of the geospatial data and maps used by the communities and the district government. This approach would ensure that local communities have ownership of the process and results of VBS/CM, and would help them more effectively plan rural economic development. A map of the village (preferably one in three-dimensional form) could be prepared and displayed in an easily accessible location, such as the office of the village head, the village hall, or another public place. In addition to being a medium for village planning, such a map can also be an educational tool for the younger generation to better understand the village and its resources. This map can record the community’s knowledge of their territory, and of the changes that occur in the village. Meanwhile, the district governments would have access to the maps, and could simultaneously promote transparency, by developing a geo-portal and other means of disseminating information on the development plans resulting from using these maps. 11. MCA-I should support the local government in making a presentation to the people in the villages being mapped, clarifying that the administrative boundaries are not constrained by concessions or state forestlands, and do not affect land ownership rights. Rather, an easy-tounderstand mechanism and process for land administration needs to be applied in the community to ensure their security of land use and support clarity of land ownership. 12. In identifying and financing land-based renewable energy and natural resource management investments through the GP Program, an important element is that the investments should focus on villages that have either already affirmed or are in the process of affirming and demarcating their boundaries. If the VBS/CM Process has not yet been carried out in a certain geographic area, potential and selected investors could be requested by MCA-I to collaborate with the district and village government to facilitate the completion of the VBS/CM process or incorporate the implementation of the process within their investment proposal. 13. Local governments should encourage and support VBS/CM initiatives to be undertaken by nongovernment parties such as NGOs at the request of the communities themselves. The district government may therefore seek to develop coordination and monitoring mechanisms that are jointly formulated and agreed with the NGOs and, for their part, the NGOs should agree to implement the MCA-I GP PLUP VBS/CM methodology. 14. A breakthrough is needed to address the issue of the official national topographical map scale being much smaller (1:50.000) than that required for village boundary setting (at least 1:10,000). The first option is to look for a larger scale base map. If a larger scale base map is not available, one can be compiled of the area using various existing data combined with data acquisition and in-field measurement to serve as the base for the VBS/CM process. It is clear from similar experiences in Indonesia and throughout the world that some portion of the boundary delineation process will need to be done through field survey methods. However, where boundary areas are inaccessible; the cartometric process will need to be used. In cases where village boundaries are delineated through a mix of both field survey and cartometric processes, the resulting maps and geospatial data bases must use cartographic means and geospatial feature codes to differentiate the different source of the boundaries. Clearly, to compile a more detailed base map for use in the VBS/CM process, in many cases high resolution imagery will be need to be acquired. When satellite imagery is used the data must be processed and the resulting maps must be designed and

Abt Associates Inc.

xi

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

presented in a manner that is easily understood by the community. A second option, especially useful for the collection of imagery of the critical natural and cultural resource areas within the village is the use aerial photography with appropriate technology including unmanned aerial systems. Based on these photos, a working map can be compiled using computerized photogrammetric techniques. 15. At the national level, UKP4, BIG, MOHA, the Ministry of Forestry, and BPS all have the potential to accelerate the VBS/CM and more importantly make use of the detailed geospatial data that will result from the process. These ministries and institutions could provide both technical support and perhaps funding, integrated with other boundary setting activities. For example, the Ministry of Forestry is currently conducting accelerated forest demarcation, which can be extremely useful in reducing disputes and improving the effectiveness of natural resource management if effectively integrated into VBS/CM. BIG is able to train technical agencies and NGOs in the region while also providing supporting technical data to speed up the base mapping process. In turn, the regional governments and NGOs should share their maps (including the maps of village boundaries) with BIG as a part of the One Map Policy initiated by the Indonesian Government. Such data sharing would include protocols governing issues of ownership of and consent to use the maps (including the maps produced and owned by local communities). 16. The GP Program should support a study on a regional approach to indigenous communities and villages that are not accustomed to an exclusive territorial approach (i.e. managed by the communities themselves), with management being undertaken jointly with another community (inclusive) – this would include Orang Rimba in Jambi. A formula is needed for state protection of community-owned business from large-scale business, and for state protection of natural resources from seizure by other community groups. Applied anthropology studies are needed to find a suitable formula to use for scaled development projects and policies in the future.

Abt Associates Inc.

xii

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

1. Introduction 1.1

Background

Unclear village boundaries are a common problem in Indonesia. This gives rise to a lack of spatial certainty – i.e. good formal spatial planning – and spatial equity, which would give the local community a decent place and position in spatial planning through the inclusion of a map of settlements and rural areas in the spatial planning map. This is an important issue for the Green Prosperity (GP) Program – being one of the Compact projects under a grant from the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) to the Indonesian government – as both spatial certainty and spatial equity are enabling conditions for project implementation. Exhibit 1. Conceptual model of Green Prosperity

The GP program aims to alleviate poverty by increasing access to reliable clean energy in rural areas through renewable energy projects and improved management and utilization of natural resources sustainably. Thus, the project investment plan will tend to be more land-based. In that regard, this project uses a Participatory Land Use Planning (PLUP) approach. The project believes that village boundary setting is an important element and in many ways is the first step in the process of participatory spatial planning at the village level. Clear and indisputable boundaries provide a basis for rural land use planning, mapping of land ownership boundaries, and the right use of communal villages, as well as the integration of spatial data at the national, provincial, and district level with “reality on the ground”. This activity is expected to “empower rural communities and provide participatory spatial assurance and support for mapping and geographically determining the village settlement and its territory including its natural resources”. (Heryawan, 2012)

Abt Associates Inc.

1

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

To ensure this can be done in the four project starter districts (Merangin, Muaro Jambi, Mamuju and Mamasa), the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between Millennium Challenge Account–Indonesia (MCA-I) and all four districts includes a clause on village boundary setting. Article 6(e) in the MOU requires the provincial and district governments to “facilitate activities to determine the administrative boundaries, including, among others, (i) the location of large and small settlements in villages, (ii) the development of appropriate guidelines for participatory village boundary setting using the applicable process and best practices (international best practices) by providing a real role for women and vulnerable groups, and (iii) mapping and demarcation of village boundaries in the sub-districts of potential project regions by considering the direction from the local government and financial support and technical assistance from the Green Prosperity Project”. Therefore, Task 4 of the District Readiness Assessment (DRA) Project was assigned to review the development of village boundary setting in Indonesia, particularly in the provinces of Jambi and West Sulawesi, and to develop guidelines for participatory village boundary setting. The purpose of this report is to present a village boundary setting guide at the district level, which can be used in implementation of PLUP. The spatial plan resulting from this process is needed in order for a district to obtain funding under the GP scheme. The guidelines in this report endeavor to enrich the village boundary setting guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA) in MOHA Regulation (Permendagri) No. 27 of 2006 on Delineation and Demarcation of Village Boundaries. However, since a village is also part of a district and a province, Permendagri No. 1 of 2006 on Guidelines for Regional Boundary Demarcation (as amended by Permendagri No. 72 of 2012) also applies and has heavily influenced the development of this guideline. This guideline also adapts international best practices implemented by many NGOs in various parts of Indonesia. It was developed in consultation with local governments and NGOs in the four starter districts – Merangin and Muaro Jambi (in Jambi), and Mamasa and Mamuju (in West Sulawesi) – as stakeholders in the GP project. This report also provides recommendations on approaches to using this generic guide, which can be legally recognized and enacted in each district. The guidelines developed for this report combine several aspects. First, the guidelines follow standard cartographic techniques (including the use of new spatial technologies such as GPS, GIS, and satellite imagery) to comply with the MOHA rules. Second, the guide encourages meaningful participation by stakeholders – including women and other vulnerable groups – in order to be accepted at the village level. This approach is intended to facilitate community participation in the development of a lowcarbon economy and sustainable management of natural resources, and reduce dispute. Third, this guideline can also adapt international best practices already being applied throughout Indonesia, spearheaded by NGOs. For the district, the new guidelines ought to be easily managed and applied in the field, so that the village boundaries can be determined by the community, the boundaries can be drawn geographically, and marked physically with boundary pillars (demarcation) in the field. This report covers the recommended approach for adopting general guidelines that can be legally recognized and enforceable in each district, as part of the process of village government administration, land administration and spatial planning.

Abt Associates Inc.

2

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

1.2. Scope of Work The activity components expected to be undertaken by the team are listed below. a. Associating with relevant communities and stakeholders, NGOs in the four starter districts with a proven track record in effective village boundary setting, national and local government officials, particularly the Ministry of Home Affairs and the regional Government Bureau, on the procedures and implementation of boundary mapping, and recommendations for improvement. Relationships include meaningful consultation with and representation of NGOs working with marginalized groups. b. Working with the above mentioned stakeholders to prepare a district level guideline (procedures and technical standards) for participatory village boundary setting to determine and affirm the village administrative boundaries. This guideline is in line with applicable government procedures and incorporates best practices of international and local NGOs, including the process of geo-referencing for the same base maps that use a national coordination reference frame, and the use of recognized standard mapping procedures. The guideline includes criteria for meaningful involvement of women and other vulnerable groups to ensure participation of all stakeholders. c. Completing the guideline for participatory boundary delineation and demarcation based on responses from a broad and inclusive range of stakeholders, including the Multi-Stakeholder Forum (MSF). d. Facilitating the acceptance of this guideline by the relevant district institutions. e. Facilitating the use of this guideline in rural development planning and project planning, such as agriculture and forestry, education, health, social cohesion, etc. The DRA team then translated this scope of work into several activities, as set out in the Inception Report and discussed below. 1.2.1. Policy Review

As mentioned above, there is a need to review all relevant government regulations at the national, provincial and district levels to provide a clear legal basis for this guideline. Public policies reviewed include regulations that directly regulate village boundary setting, especially from MOHA, and regulations that affect the existence of the village and its boundaries, especially from the Ministry of Forestry, Ministry of Public Works, Ministry of Agriculture, and Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources. 1.2.2. Likelihood Assessment of Implementation of Participatory Village Boundary Setting

This study identifies the technical requirements, institutional, administrative and legal arrangements related to village boundary setting, and assesses the institutional capacity of the implementing unit (such as a Government Unit) to carry out the boundary setting process in a transparent, participatory, inclusive, accountable, responsive and timely manner. The appropriate technical and operational support (satellite imagery, consultants, and equipment) required to perform this task are identified, as well as the appropriate time frame for the district. 1.2.3. Understanding Local Values and Stakeholder Involvement

Over the last 20 years, many local, national, and international NGOs have conducted area mapping with the community, including vulnerable groups. NGOs can be considered as both a stakeholder and

Abt Associates Inc.

3

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

a critical resource in the development of the village boundary setting guideline and its implementation in the next phase of the GP Project, particularly as related to participatory spatial planning. After reviewing all relevant government regulations at the national, provincial and district levels, the team identifies and consults with relevant NGOs and other stakeholder groups in each starter district, as well as central and local government officials involved in the boundary mapping procedure and its implementation. This report also receives input from the Task 3 Team (on Needs Assessment in Land Use and Spatial Planning) and the MSF. This consultation is used to identify and understand the current procedures and best practices in village boundary setting, as well as to identify the areas where it can make improvements in the process, increase community participation in village boundary setting, and facilitate land use planning in a participatory manner, leading to low-carbon economic development and sustainable natural resource management. 1.2.4. Developing the Draft Guideline

Based on the introduction and comparison of the input stage of each starter districts, the DRA team drafted the participatory village boundary setting guideline at the district level in order to determine and affirm village administrative boundaries. This guideline was developed in accordance with existing government procedures and combines it with the best practices of international and local NGOs, including geo-referencing to the base map commonly used and associated with the national coordinate reference frame and using recognized standard mapping procedures. This guideline includes concrete criteria in order to involve women and other vulnerable groups significantly in an effort to ensure balanced participation of all stakeholders. 1.2.5. Initial Presentation, Feedback and Revision

The draft guideline is presented and discussed with the same stakeholder groups and government officials that were involved in the introduction stage. Through a feedback process and continual revisions, including additional consultation during the MSF, the final version of this guideline was designed, for adoption by the relevant local government agencies, the MSF in each starter district, MCC and MCA-I. Input from diverse stakeholders and inclusiveness were the keys to finalizing this guideline. 1.2.6. Adoption and Capacity Development in Village Boundary Setting

Once this guideline is complete, the Team will facilitate its adoption by relevant institutions as part of the land use planning and development planning process at the village level.

1.3. Methodology In preparing this report, including the Village Boundary Setting Guideline in the Appendix, the authors used several methods: tracking secondary information (research reports, media articles, and applicable legislation), focus group discussions, and in-depth interviews. Secondary information was collected primarily on the history of the boundaries, the administrative area boundaries (province, district, and village), and boundary disputes and their resolution. This tracking was primarily done to prepare the team members on the issues and areas to be visited, and on the boundary setting initiatives and studies in various regions.

Abt Associates Inc.

4

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

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

Regulation of Minister of Home Affairs No. 1 of 2006 on Regional Boundary Demarcation Guidelines (amended by Minister of Home Affairs Regulation No. 76 of 2012)



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



Regulation of Minister of Home Affairs No. 28 of 2006 on Village Establishment, Liquidation, Integration and Village Status Change into Ward (Kelurahan)



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



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



Regulation of Minister of Forestry No. 47 of 2010 on Forest Boundary Governance Committee and No. 44 of 2012 on State Forestlands



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



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



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

Based on the preliminary information obtained, the team contacted NGOs that have conducted participatory mapping to obtain a more complete picture and look for sites that could be visited to understand the territorial and boundary concepts in the regions. At the national level, the NGO contacted was the Participatory Mapping Network (JKPP). In Jambi, the NGOs contacted were WALHI Jambi, CAPPA, Indonesian Conservation Community WARSI, Tiga Beradik Institute, AGRA Jambi. In West Sulawesi, the team contacted the Investigation Agency for Agrarian and Human Conflict (LIKA-HAM) in Mamuju. Based on these inputs, the team visited several villages in the four starter districts. In Merangin District, the team visited and had discussions with indigenous leaders and village government officials (all men) at Tuo hamlet (Berangin Tinggi sub-district and village). In Muaro Jambi, the team visited the village of Tanjung Lebar (Bahar Selatan sub-district) and Pondok Meja village (Mestong sub-district). In Mamasa District, the villages visited were Lakahang (Tabulahan sub-district), Osango (Mamasa sub-district), and Leko Sukamaju (Mehalaan sub-district). In Mamuju, the team interviewed residents and village officials of Buttuada (Bonehau sub-district), Polo Camba (Pangale sub-district), and Pasapa (Budong-budong sub-district). Focus group discussions (FGDs) conducted in the four starter districts helped obtain a preliminary picture of the issues and key stakeholders identified in village boundary setting. The FGDs took place in Merangin on February 12, 2013, in Muaro Jambi on February 18, 2013, in Mamasa on March 19, 2013, and in Mamuju on March 26, 2013. Based on the information obtained from these discussions, the team conducted in-depth interviews with the government agencies responsible for village boundary setting (especially the Government Unit of the Regional Secretariat), NGOs conducting participatory mapping, and indigenous leaders. In Merangin District, the team interviewed representatives of WARSI, Tiga Beradik Institute, Sub-division of Lands and Boundaries at Regional Secretariat, and the Village Community and Government Empowerment Board (BPMPD). In Muaro Jambi, the team interviewed representatives of Yayasan Setara, Subdivision of Land and Boundaries of Regional Secretary, and BPMPD. In Mamasa District, interviews were conducted with AMAN

Abt Associates Inc.

5

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

Kondosapata and the Government Unit of the Regional Secretariat, while in Mamuju only the Government Unit of the Regional Secretariat was interviewed. All information collected and several participatory mapping methods were reviewed and became the basis for the team to draft a report, including the Village Boundary Setting Guideline. Once the design was completed, the team presented the draft to the MSF for input. However, because of the limited time available and the diversity of participants, the input obtained tended to focus on whether the method was adequate, and obtaining confirmation and additional information on the field findings. More in-depth input could only be generated from presentations to MCC and MCA-I. Based on all these inputs, the team prepared this report.

1.4. Report Structure Following the Introduction, the next section of this report is a Policy Review. This report also has several attachments, including the aforementioned Village Boundary Setting Guideline. In this chapter, we have described the purpose, scope and methodology of this report. Chapter 2 covers the history of village governance in Indonesia as a manifestation of the paradigm shifts in territorial organization and policies related to village boundaries and village spatial planning. Chapter 3 discusses the history of the division of the four districts where the study was conducted for this report, and the problems they face today. Chapter 4 discusses the development and methodology of participatory mapping (at both international and national level) and the implementation of regional and rural boundary setting policies. Chapter 4 also discusses the survey and mapping capacity of local governments and NGOs. Chapter 5 sets out the team’s conclusions and recommendations.

Abt Associates Inc.

6

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

2. Policies on Villages and Village Boundary Setting in Indonesia 2.1. Indonesian Villages over Time Desa (village) is the generic name for the smallest socio-political autonomous unit in Indonesia, which has long and diverse history in various regions. Generally this unit starts with the unification of a number of families to organize and manage social relations among them and with surrounding groups, based on their distinct cultural values. These units have certain norms, structure, and mechanisms which they develop and/or are influenced by foreign cultures (mainly Indian, Arabic and European). Desa is the common name for this unit in Java, while in other regions it has a different name – Gampong in Aceh, Huta in Batak land, Nagari in Minangkabau, Kampung/Binua in Kalimantan, Marga in the southern part of Sumatra, Lembang in Tana Toraja, Negeri in Maluku, and Yo in Sentani. These units change from time to time with changes in the political constellation from a local to a global level, either voluntarily or by compulsion. Sutoro Eko (2008) gives a very good description of these changes, especially during the colonial era. According to Eko (2008, page 5), before the colonial era, each of these units was a self-governing community, since it was “a local community organization that had territorial boundaries, was inhabited by a number of people, and had traditions to manage itself.” They could be very independent without outside influence or under the influence of small kingdoms in this archipelago, because generally they “had their own government managed autonomously without hierarchystructural bond with higher structure” (Eko 2008, page 6). Nagari, for example, is “a ‘small republic’ that has its own autonomous government and is based on community” and has “democratic government elements: legislative, executive and judiciary” (Eko 2008, page 6). Next, Eko (2008, page 6) stated that: “such autonomous system is the main characteristic of tribal society for the purpose of self-defense and preserving the values of each Nagari, with a focus on diversity.” These units are now called masyarakat adat (indigenous community), which is discussed later. This autonomy was disrupted when the Dutch East Indies penetrated these units, as “the starting point of state establishment, exploitation and marginalization of villages,” eventually taking control of land and labor in the villages (Eko 2008, page 8). From that moment on, heads of villages were responsible to the colonial government and complied with the published colonial regulations. In Regeeringsreglement (published in 1854), Desa – called inlandsche gemeenten – selected its own leader, who had to be endorsed by the regional head (resident), and had the right “to manage and to take care its own household by referring to regulations issued by Governor General or Regional Head (resident)” (Eko 2008, page 9). The colonial government then stipulated that a village was a legal entity called volksgemeenschap (known today as masyarakat hukum adat, or customary law community) that could own assets. This perspective was carried over into independence, as stated in Article 18 of (the original) 1945 Constitution. During the Old Order era, the volksgemeenschap term was changed to Desapraja, as then stipulated in Article 1 of Law No. 19 of 1965 on Desapraja, as a transitional form to accelerate the formation of Third Level Regions throughout Indonesia. In this law, Desapraja is defined as a “legal community unit with certain area boundaries, having the right to manage its own households, select its leader, and possess its own assets.” This law was not meant to form new Desapraja but to preserve existing units. However, this law opened up the possibility of merging and splitting existing Desapraja. Unfortunately, this law could not be effectively enforced, and after the New Order government took Abt Associates Inc.

7

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

over in 1966, it replaced it with Law No. 6 of 1969. Nevertheless, Law No. 19 of 1965 tried to standardize the village government and impose control on villages from the higher district-level (second level) and provincial-level (first level) governments. Systematic standardization occurred under the New Order with the enactment of Law No. 5 of 1979 on Village Government. This law eliminated the indigenous village structure and functions. Although the village was still considered a distinct legal community, this law trimmed down village authority to that of government administrator under an imposed structure. This can be seen in the definition of village under this law as: “an area inhabited by a number of people as a community unit that also includes a legal community unit that has the lowest government organization directly under the Camat (sub-district head) and has the right to manage its own households within the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia”. Many studies have explained the socio-cultural damage caused by this law.2 The fall of Suharto opened up a strong wave of reforms, including demand for decentralization. To accommodate this, the Indonesian parliament (DPR) ratified Law No. 22 of 1999 on Regional Government. In this law, a village is defined as “a legal community unit that has the authority to manage and govern local community interests based on local origin and traditions recognized in the National Government system and occurring in the District territory.” Thus there was an intention to restore village autonomy, since the village is recognized as the smallest territorial unit with a substantial degree of autonomy in governing the community and resources within its jurisdiction. Now, the other names for Desa could also be used again. Nevertheless, it was still strongly implied that village government was merely a small part of local government. In 2004, this law was replaced by Law No. 32 of 2004 on Regional Government, which tended to reduce the degree of autonomy of regional government. Exhibit 2. Regulations on villages over time Period 1800-1899 1900-1942

1942-1945 1945-1965

1966-1998 1998-

Title and content Regeeringsreglement 1854  village is responsible to Dutch East Indies government - Inlandshe Gemeente Ordonantie (1906) acknowledge village as - Hoogere Inlandsche Verbanden Ordonantie volkgemeenschap Buitengewesten (1931) Osamu Seirei No. 7 (1944)  village under control of Japanese military - Law No. 14 of 1946, complemented by Law No. 1 of 1948 - Replaced by Law No. 19 of 1965 on Desapraja – also acknowledged village as volkgemeenschap (having tradition and origin) Law No. 5 of 1979  standardization of village, still recognized village as a legal community unit Law No. 22 of 1999 recognized the unit of legal Law No. 32 of 2004 on Local Government community, tradition and President Regulation No. 72 of 2005 on Villages origin

Law No. 32 of 2004 introduced a few changes to the definition of a village: “legal community unit that has territorial boundaries and the power to manage and to govern local community interest based on local origin and traditions that are recognized and respected within the unitary state of the Republic of Indonesia”. This law also recognized the use of various terms for “village” in many 2

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

Abt Associates Inc.

8

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

regions. This law has a variety of derivative regulation in the form of Government Regulations (GRs), Ministerial Regulations (MRs), and Regional Regulations at provincial and district/city level. These derivative regulations still seem unable to reflect fully the autonomy held by villages. This can be clearly seen in GR No. 72 of 2005 on Villages, which implies that the village government is responsible not only to its community members but also to the Indonesian government through the Head of District (Bupati) or Mayor. Furthermore, MOHA has issued a number of regulations to unify and control village government functions. Village governments’ tasks include performing public service on behalf of the government, as regulated in Article 2 of Permendagri No. 28 of 2007 on Village Establishment, Liquidation, Integration and Village Status Alteration to “Kelurahan”. This article states: “The establishment of a village aims to improve public services to accelerate actualization of community welfare.” These policies imply ambiguity in passing autonomy to the village. This can be a problem due to different interpretations in the field. The definition of village implies an autonomous territorial unit, while the details of the legislation on villages treat it as merely an administrative unit under the state government. The Indonesian government and parliament are currently discussing a draft village law mandated by Article 18B of the amended 1945 Constitution, to emphasize recognition and respect for customary law community units (kesatuan masyarakat hukum adat) and to reorganize the village setting. That background turns the definition of a village into a “unity of the legal community that has boundaries and is authorized to manage and take care of the interests of local communities, based on rights of origin, tradition, socio-cultural of the local community insofar as they still exist and are in accordance with societal development and principles of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia”. However these proposed articles re-emphasize the government administration role. At the time of writing, the discussion was still going on, with both government and parliament wanting the law to be ratified in 2013.

2.2. Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous Territory After these reforms, the political deadlock occurring during the New Order era has changed. The relationship between the state and its people has been reorganized, including the demand to restore the authority of rural communities to manage themselves. This claim later developed into an indigenous peoples movement3 that led to the Congress of Indigenous Peoples of the Archipelago (KMAN) in March 1999 and the establishment of the Indonesian Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance (AMAN). The participants in the Congress define indigenous peoples as “communities that live based on the origin of their ancestry for generations in an indigenous territory, which has sovereignty over land and natural resources, where social and cultural life are governed by customary law, and where indigenous institutions manage the sustainability of their people’s life”. This definition affirms the importance of indigenous territories to the lives of indigenous peoples. Indigenous territory is the central component for indigenous peoples, being an important foundation for their rights and a core part of their identity. Not surprisingly, at KMAN IV in Tobelo (North Maluku), AMAN made indigenous territories one of the key issues. AMAN’s 2012 profile notes: “Indigenous people inherit the right to control, manage and use the land and all other natural resources in indigenous territories in accordance with our own indigenous wisdom 3

”Indigenous Peoples” is the term being used by the social movement to re-establish the rights of original rural communities. In the state law, the term used is “customary law community”.

Abt Associates Inc.

9

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

respectively. Indigenous territories, which in and on them contain agrarian resources such as land and diverse natural resources, are an integral part of the indigenous peoples’ life. Indigenous territories are not only seen as a source of economic and community viability, but also an identity; identity is an existence that is contained in the social, cultural and spiritual value system, which is passed down from generation to generation. With these values, indigenous peoples continue to maintain and preserve their indigenous territories.” Although territory is very important to indigenous peoples, and although indigenous land has been recognized by the Constitutional Court as not being state forest, in its Decision No. 35 of 2012, as yet there is no clear implementing regulation on the legal status of indigenous territories under Indonesian law. Currently, there are only two laws that can be used as a reference: State Minister for Agrarian Affairs Regulation (Permeneg) No. 5 of 1999 on Guidelines for Land Settlement Issues Involving Customary Law Communities, and Law No. 32 of 2009 on the Protection and Management of the Environment.4 The Agrarian Regulation places more emphasis on resolving overlapping claims on indigenous land through the issuance of local regulations by the related local government, following a research process on the facts concerning the existence of indigenous peoples. Furthermore, as mentioned in Article 5 paragraph 2 of this regulation, communal land can be “described in base map of land registration by affixing a cartography sign and, if possible, describe its boundaries, and record it in the land register.” Meanwhile, Law No. 32 of 2009 commissioned the Government and Local Government to establish and implement “policy on the recognition procedures for the existence of indigenous peoples, local knowledge, and the rights of indigenous people concerned with protecting and managing the environment” (Article 63). In that regard, the Ministry of Environment (MOE) has published a guide containing an inventory of indigenous peoples to record their existence and their indigenous rights and wisdoms (MOE, 2011). One criterion for the existence of indigenous peoples is “a group of people who have lived for generations in a particular geographic area” (KLH 2011, p.17). For this reason, indigenous territory is one of the indicators recorded in the MOE database. But it is not clear whether an indigenous territory map is required during this inventory process. It is also not clear to what extent the results of this inventory could encourage the recognition and protection of indigenous peoples, including their customary lands, from the state.

2.3. MOHA Policy Framework for Village Boundary Setting MOHA has issued several policies requiring villages to set their boundaries. The main policy is contained in MOHA Regulation No. 1 of 2006 on Guidelines for Regional Boundary Demarcation, as recently amended by Permendagri No. 72 of 2012, and Permendagri No. 27 of 2006 on Delineation and Demarcation of Village Boundaries.

4

In formal legal terminology, the term used is masyarakat hukum adat (“customary law community”), as mentioned in the 1945 Constitution.

Abt Associates Inc.

10

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

Exhibit 3. Flow of village boundary setting concept

Existing TOPOGRAPHICAL OR MAP

TERRESTRIAL SURVEY METHOD OR

PHOTO ORGRAMETRICALMETHOD

PHOTO/IMAGERY INTERPRETATION METHOD

Geometric Requirements as Base Map

List of Natural Boundaries resulting from Border Delineation Agreement

Technical Specifications of Map Drafting

BASE MAP For VILLAGE BOUNDARY MAP

List of Boundary Coordinates resulting from Joint Delineation

DRAFTING Village Boundaries to be VILLAGE BOUNDARY MAP

Source: Sri Handoyo, 2003

Permendagri No. 27 of 2006 defines village boundaries as “a jurisdictional territorial boundary separating the area of government administration that falls under the authority of a village from other villages”5. Thus, the term only refers to the administrative jurisdiction boundaries, not a sociopolitical unit (territory). As outlined in Article 2, the regulation’s goal is “to provide legal certainty for village boundaries on the land and be a reference for conducting boundary delineation and demarcation activities in an orderly and coordinated manner.” This means that the focus is land boundaries, with an absence from the regulations of any coastal boundaries. It also means that the 5

Indonesian language version: “batas wilayah yurisdiksi pemisah wilayah penyelenggaraan urusan pemerintahan yang menjadi kewenangan suatu desa dengan desa lain”

Abt Associates Inc.

11

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

village does not have jurisdiction over marine areas. The smallest territorial unit with such jurisdiction is the district or city (as stipulated in Article 18 of Law No. 32 of 2004). MOHA also requires a district regulation (peraturan daerah or Perda) for the creation of a new village or the liquidation or unification of villages to include a map of the new village in order to “accurately define the village boundary” (Permendagri No. 28 of 2006, Article 5 point g). MOHA distinguishes between boundary delineation and boundary demarcation. As stipulated in Permendagri No. 27 of 2006, delineation means determining the boundaries on a map, while demarcation is done by marking boundaries on the ground. Below are the definitions of these two terms in the Permendagri: ●

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



Village boundary demarcation is “a field implementation process of placing the signs/marks of village boundaries based on the delineation results”

With this definition, delineation is a legal process (consensus) to establish an agreement between neighboring villages, while demarcation is a technical process that translates the agreement into boundary markers and geodetic coordinate points. Building consensus on boundaries often takes a long time, so the delineation phase needs special attention. Unfortunately, this distinction is not expressed in the Permendagri, either in the body of the regulation or in its attachments. The emphasis is evident from the components of each stage. In this regulation, boundary delineation consists of research on boundary documents, determining the base map used, and cartometrically making the boundary lines on the base map (Article 3). The components found in the regulation do not accommodate adequate social features for reaching agreement on the boundaries. Instead, the delineation phase tends to be extremely administrative in nature, mostly dealing with documents, rather than social issues. Meanwhile, boundary demarcation includes the stages of determining boundary documents, boundary survey, installation of boundary markers along the boundary, measurement and positioning of the boundary markers, and mapping the boundary (Article 4 paragraph 1). This shows that the Permendagri places far greater emphasis on technical issues. However, these technical aspects are very rigorous, with three types of fieldwork: boundary surveys, installation of permanent boundary pillars, and surveying of permanent boundary pillars (with a highly-accurate geodetic technique). Such fieldwork would be very costly, with high costs for labor, construction materials and transportation as well as expensive geodetic surveying equipment. The high cost of boundary setting would inhibit district governments from following the provisions of this regulation, especially when they have limited budgets and place boundary setting as a low priority in the district budget. Village boundary setting activities include several stages, as shown in Exhibit 3. Similar activities also occur in district and provincial boundary setting as described in Permendagri No. 1 of 2006 on Guidelines for Regional Boundary Demarcation (later amended by Permendagri No. 76 of 2012 because implementation was considered too slow). In the district and provincial boundary setting, there is no longer any boundary delineation process, since it is considered adequate from existing documents. But village boundary setting has not yet been widely implemented, making boundary setting problematic in the field. To date, only a few local governments have regulations (usually local regulations) on village boundary setting, as shown in Exhibit 7. Some local governments even still

Abt Associates Inc.

12

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

apply the Instruction of Minister of Home Affairs No. 24 of 1990 on Village and Kelurahan Boundary Delineation and Territorial Mapping. Based on Permendagri No. 27 of 2006, a Village Boundary Delineation and Demarcation Team is established by a Decree of the Bupati/Mayor to determine the village boundaries in a District/City. This team will coordinate with the District/City Boundary Demarcation team. Membership of this village team consists of elements from relevant technical agencies coupled with elements from: (a) Sub-district; (b) Village Government, and (c) community leaders from adjacent villages. The elements of the relevant technical agencies are: (a) Governance Unit; (b) Bappeda; (c) Land Office (d) Land and Building Tax Office; (e) Department of Public Works; (f) Department of Spatial Planning; (g) City Planning Office: and (h) others. Exhibit 4. Territorial boundary demarcation guide (Permendagri No. 27 of 2006)

Document

Land

Border Tracking

Regulation, base map, supporting documents Cartographic method, filed survey, list of coordinate points Taking the coordinates points from the work map

Measuring Developing the draft of boundary map, compilation of RBI map in digital format, adding

Regional Boundary Demarcation

Map Drafting Regulation, base map, supporting document

Document Identification of base map cartometrically

Sea Coastal Lines

Measuring Map Drawing

Developing the draft of boundary map, compilation from RBI maps in digital format adding information

Boundary Demarcation Team

Central PBD Team

Abt Associates Inc.

Provincial PBD Team

• Start from coastline to the sea based on equal distance principles • Face to face with 24 miles distance from the sea, by getting 1/3 parts from shore line to the center line • Face to face 12 miles by getting 1/3 parts of shore line to the center line • The distance is 2 times 12 nautical miles, by circular measured with 12 nautical miles wide

District/Municip ality PBD Team

• Conduct filed survey • Coordinating among provinces and districts/cities • Prepare Minutes of agreement • Conduct verification on boundary demarcation result

13

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

Exhibit 5. Delineation and Demarcation of Village Boundaries

Determining village border

Preparing Map

Agreement

Boundary Delineation and Demarcation Team

Sub-districts

Villages

Institutions: Governance Division, Bappeda, Land Office, Land & Building Tax Office, Public Works Department, Spatial Planning Department, Urban Planning Department, etc.

Community Leaders

Tasks

• Inventory • Study • Planning and implementing village boundaries • Technical Supervision • Plan Dissemination • Funding proposal • Reporting

Endorsement of village boundaries

Village boundary minutes of meeting

Dispute settlement

Head of sub-district (Camat)

In one Sub-district

District (Kabupaten)

In different sub-district

Bupati/Mayor

Boundary markers

Bupati Decree

Resolution if no agreement reached

• Adjacent to sea/lake • Considering origin rights and local tradition

Abt Associates Inc.

14

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

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

Result of boundary delineation from base map (village expansion) Type of Boundary Map Result of boundary demarcation, result of field measuring Verification result conducted by district/city team Derivation of existing map

Process of drafting village map

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

Endorsement of map

Verification result

Approved by village head

Printing

Endorsed by Bupati

Approved list of research on village boundary documents

Data on Boundary survey Preparing village boundary documents

Agreed list of determination/installation of village boundary markers Village boundary map

Other documents

Abt Associates Inc.

15

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

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

District/City

Regulation Number

Subject

Compliance with Permendagri 27/2007

Technical guideline in the format of

Funding source

Jambi

Tebo

Local Regulation 9/2007

Delineation and Demarcation of Village Boundary

Entirely

Bupati Regulation

District Budget

South Sumatra

Empat Lawang

Local Regulation 13/2009

Delineation and Demarcation of Village Boundary

Entirely

Supplement

District Budget

Lahat

Local Regulation 1/2008

Delineation and Demarcation of Village Boundary

Entirely

Supplement

District Budget

Ogan Komering Ulu Timur

Local Regulation 27/2007

Delineation and Demarcation of Village Boundary

Entirely

Supplement

District Budget

South Bangka

Local Regulation 46/2011

Guideline on Delineation and Demarcation of Village Boundary

Entirely

Supplement

District Budget

Governor Regulation 44/2012

Guideline on Delineation and Demarcation of Village Boundary

Entirely

None

Village Budget

Bangka Belitung West Java Central Java

Purworejo

Local Regulation 9/2012

Guideline on Delineation and Demarcation of Village Boundary

Entirely

Supplement

Local Budget (APBD)/village budget

West Kalimantan

Sambas

Local Regulation 1/ 2009

Villages

Partial

None

Unclear

Central Kalimantan

Seruyan

Local Regulation 24/2006

Delineation of village boundary

Using old regulation

None

District Budget or other source

Maluku

Ambon

Local Regulation 17/2008

General Guideline of Country Territorial Boundary in Ambon City

Entirely + marine boundary

None

City Budget & (APBD) & state budget

Abt Associates Inc.

16

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

These rules may have to be changed soon, as the DPR is now discussing the aforementioned Bill (RUU) on Villages, which is expected to be completed in 2013. If the current draft is passed, there are some important implications for existing villages, especially in the reorganization of the village. For example, while Government Regulation No. 72 of 2005 on Villages requires a minimum village population in Sumatra and Sulawesi of 1,000 people, the Bill requires a minimum population of 5,000. Thus, existing village boundaries would need to be rearranged. This will not be easy, and disputes are likely to arise. Once the village boundaries have been determined, the explicit legal status of land in the village needs to be established. This is an important topic in the current discussion on the draft Bill on Recognition and Protection of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Civil society, including indigenous community, tries to obtain protection, respect and fulfillment of people's rights on land as a means to ensure security of ownership over their land in supporting their livelihoods. However, thousands of villages are within or overlap with state forestlands, where settlement is prohibited, as are agricultural activities. This weakens the safeguarding efforts mentioned above, especially since 134 million ha (70%) out of Indonesia's landmass (190 million ha) is made up of state forestlands.6 In addition, many plantations and mining concessions also overlap with village areas. Thousands of these concessions are also in state forestlands, with the status having been altered or a borrow-and-use license having been issued by the Ministry of Forestry. Other overlapping uses include transmigration settlement developments located within many old (indigenous) villages.

2.4. Interface between Village Territory and Governance Status of Land The Ministry of Forestry (MOF) has claimed that state forestlands under its control total more than 134 million hectares. However, state forestlands that have been officially designated as “forest land” by a decree of the Minister of Forestry total only about 14 million hectares (MOF, 2011), while most of the rest is still at the appointment and/or mapping stage. The Director General of Forestry Planning stated that in 2012 the forest area that had already been delineated accounted for 75% of the total area, but that an official letter on forest area delineation had not yet been received for around 60,000 km2. A key reason for this was that mapping has not yet been done for the entire outer area of the forest boundary. A joint study conducted by the Central Bureau of Statistics and the Directorate General of Forestry Planning of the MOF in 2007 and 2009 identified about 30,000 villages that partially or wholly overlap with state forestlands, but there were no clear village or forest boundaries or limits. On the other hand, MOHA has not clarified the status of villages located within state forestlands. As yet there are no regulations on protection of community land located inside state forestlands (Safitri, 2010). Even the existing regulations tend to remove the rights of indigenous communities in, for example, state forestlands. Article 1 paragraph 6 of the Forestry Law (Law No. 41 of 1999) expressly states that "adat forest is state forest located within the territory of indigenous people." Since adat forests do not have any ownership documents, this article revives domein verklaring – an act by the Dutch government claiming that land without proper documents is state land – which had previously been removed by Law No. 5 of 1960 on Basic Agrarian Principles. This policy was recently overturned by the Constitutional 6

The status of state forestlands does not mean that the lands have actual forest stands, since they can be barren lands, agroforests, smallholding farms, and even settlements. Therefore, the term has a strong notion of tenurial status.

Abt Associates Inc.

17

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

Court (No. 35/PUU-X/2012), which, in a judicial review filed by AMAN and two indigenous communities, stated that adat forest is not state forest. However, this does not mean that adat forests are automatically excluded from the state forests, as the ruling confirms that recognition of indigenous community requires a set of conditions, including a district regulation (peraturan daerah). Responding to the ruling, the Minister of Forestry issued a Circular No. SE.1/Menhut-II/2013 concerning Constitutional Court Ruling No. 35/PUU-X/2012 dated May 16, 2013, addressed to the Governors, the Bupatis/Mayors and the Chief of the Forest Service throughout Indonesia. It asserts that the determination of adat forest remains on the Ministry of Forestry, “as long as the existence of the indigenous community has been enacted through a district regulation (peraturan daerah) based on the outcomes of a research by an expert team.” So far there appears to have been no official action on this Circular across the country, including the starter districts. Another issue in the Forestry Law is a contradiction relating to determining state forestlands. Article 1 paragraph 3 states: “Forest area is a specific area determined and or established by the government and its presence to be protected as permanent forest”. In contrast, Article 15 of the same law requires a complete holistic process in designating state forestlands, namely: appointment, boundary setting, mapping, and delineation. Thus, a forest area can have full legal status once it has been determined. In practice, only about 10% of the designated forest has legal confirmation status. But the government has already given permission for state forestlands without legal confirmation of their status, while the people who utilize the forest are being convicted and labeled as “forest encroachers”. Moreover, the confirmation process only recognizes a claim for the land in the form of documents (written), which means this process disregards claims citing a community’s oral tradition. Lastly, the delineation process is heavily dominated by government agencies, particularly those related to the forestry sector, as evidenced by the composition of the Boundary Setting Committee stipulated in MOF Regulation (Permenhut) No. 47 o 2010 on Forest Area Boundary Setting Committee. Meanwhile, the people living in the designated forest area are only represented by the related village head. The same Permenhut also gives the Director General of Forestry Planning the authority to make a decision on the Minutes of Boundary setting if the Committee cannot agree on the minutes within 64 days. Such definition and practice should also accommodate both the licensing administration and protection of the community's rights. For many years, the government carried out policies and forest management practices in the regions with questionable legality. In a resolution on a petition for judicial review of the law on determining state forestlands (No. 45/PUU-IX/2011), the Constitutional Court removed the phrase “and/or” from Article 1 point 3. The consequence is that a new forest area can only have permanent legal status if the MOF has stipulated it in a decree. This resolution raises a debate on the status of existing state forestlands, which are mostly still at the appointment status, and on the concessions granted over such areas. Responding to the Constitutional Court ruling, the Minister of Forestry issued Permenhut No. 44 of 2012 on Gazettement of State Forestlands to address the legality of state forestlands that have been designated. The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has also coordinated efforts to address the slow demarcation process of state forestlands. In March 2013, KPK signed a Memorandum of Understanding for a Joint Action Plan on the Acceleration of Indonesian Forest Area Gazetting with 12 Ministries and Abt Associates Inc.

18

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

State Institutions7. At the time of writing, this initiative has translated into 93 action plans between 2013 and 2016, including a revision to Government Regulation No. 44 of 2004 on Forest Planning with respect to the delineation of state forestlands. This action plan includes drafting policies and standards for forest area delineation, which will be stated in a Joint Regulation of the MOF, MOHA and the Head of the National Land Agency (BPN), including policy on settlement of village boundaries intersecting with or located entirely within state forestlands, as well as on the land status. Another major overlapping designation is plantation concessions, particularly oil palm plantations. After the timber boom ended, plantations have become the new economic driver in various regions. To facilitate the development of the plantation industry, parliament has passed Law No. 18 of 2004 on Plantations. This Law is considered to be very protective of the interests of the business community, but detrimental to small farmers and rural communities. As a result, land disputes with plantation companies, particularly oil palm plantations, now dominate land disputes in this country, and have even led to human rights violations.8 Regulation of the Minister of Agriculture No. 26/Permentan/OT.140/2/2007 on Plantation Business Licensing Guidelines, which implements Law 18 of 2004, states that estates larger than 25 hectares should have a Plantation Business Permit (IUP). This regulation allows a company to control up to 100,000 hectares in the palm oil industry and 150,000 hectares in the sugar cane industry, while rubber and coconut industries, which are also popular commodities, may only have up to 25,000 hectares per company. With limited land available, plantation land requirements are being met by converting most of Indonesia’s forests into plantations. As of December 2010, the MOF had processed applications to release nearly 9.5 million hectares of forest land for plantations. In January-May 2013, the MOF released 110,804 hectares of forest land for oil palm plantations (in Kalimantan and Papua) and reserved 431,315 hectares for oil palm plantations (in Kalimantan) and sugar cane (in the Aru Islands, Maluku) Another land use that has a major impact on village areas is mining. Mining has become one of the main industries for economic activities in Indonesia. After several changes, the legislation applicable to the mining industry is Law No. 22 of 2001 on Oil and Natural Gas and Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining. Of the two types of mining regulated under these two laws, mineral and coal mining requires large areas of land, especially for open pit mining. This therefore presents the greatest risk of land disputes. The regulations on land use in the industry also have an impact on rural areas. Chapter XVIII of Law No. 4 of 2009 states that mining concessions (in the form of Mining Business Permit Areas, People's Mining Areas, and Special Mining Business Permit Areas) are not a form of land ownership. However, Part Four of GR No.23 of 2010 on Implementation of Mineral and Coal Mining Production requires Production Operation IUP holders to install boundary signs/marks on their concession areas (Region Mining Permit/WIUP) within six months after the license is obtained, and these

7

8

http://dkn.or.id/2013/07/11/nkb-12-kementerian-daan-lembaga-tentang-percepatan-pengukuhan-kawasan-hutanindonesia/, accessed July 31, 2013 For a better understanding on this issue, please see, among others, joint report of Human Rights Commission and Sawit Watch (Anon. tt) and Sirait report (2009).

Abt Associates Inc.

19

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

must be completed before the start of production operations9. This could have an impact, as the markers in forested areas prohibit people from entering the concession. Moreover, most mining concessions published in recent years are forest lease areas. As of April 2013, the Ministry of Forestry had issued 396 lease permits for exploitation activities covering a total area of 386,415 ha, and 501 permits for exploration activities covering a total area of 2,677,731 ha. One other overlapping issue which has implications for the region and village life is the transmigration program, which requires a large area to be taken from original village areas. Regulation of the Minister of Manpower and Transmigration No. PER.15/MEN/VI/2007 on Preparation of Transmigration Settlements states: “Transmigration Area is a stretch of land in a cultivated area which is located in an autonomous administrative area, consisting of the construction of transmigration villages, rural villages around settlement areas, and potential areas for transmigration settlement development and potential for superior commodities which are connected in a single network of roads so as to encourage the growth of economic centers.” The same regulation also mandates transmigration development regional planning, with potential areas for development of transmigration settlements with a capacity of at least 9,000 households. If each household gets an area of two hectares of land, the land to be prepared will cover at least 18,000 ha. Such an area could cover several villages. Land acquired for transmigration settlements then receives a Certificate of Management (HPL) which is generally broken down into ownership titles for households. This disappoints indigenous peoples, whose land is distributed freely with only a little left for them. As is the case with other development activities, discussed here, the land being developed for transmigration settlements consists of state forestlands. As of December 2010, the MOF had processed the release of state forestlands for 687 settlement units with a total area of 1,529,051.04 ha.10 Except Mamasa district, all starter districts in GP Project have been provided lands for transmigration program, particularly in the form of nucleus estate scheme for palm oil industry. Transmigration sites in Merangin district were settled mostly in 1980s, in Muaro Jambi in 1990s, and in Mamuju district since 1980s. Today Mamuju district still receives new transmigrants. In March 2013, for example, the Ministry of Forestry has allocated 1,200 ha of state forestland in the district for transmigration settlement, which needs further study before the actual letter of release is issued. The Ministry of Manpower and Transmigration aims to develop a network of transmigration sites to become a growth center called Kota Terpadu Mandiri (Self-sufficient Integrated Municipality).

2.5. Villages in District Spatial Planning Law No. 26 of 2007 on Spatial Planning (especially Part Five) covers Spatial Planning for Rural Areas. Spatial planning has the following contexts: (a) empowering rural/village community; (b) preserving the quality of the local environment and its buffer zones; (c) conservation of natural resources; (d) preserving 9

This Government Regulation assigned to the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources the authority to prepare the guide on WIUP border signs, but as of the date of writing, the guideline had not yet been issued.

10

This is already regulated in Regulation of the Minister of Manpower and Transmigration No. 23/Men/XI/2007 and Minister of Forestry No. P.52/Menhut-II/2007 on Release of Forest Areas in the Context of Transmigration Implementation.

Abt Associates Inc.

20

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

local cultural heritage; (e) protection of perennial food agriculture territory to ensure food remains abundant; and (f) maintaining a balance between rural and urban development. These rural areas can be in one sub-district or district, or cross-administrative in nature (district or province). This should be regulated further in a GR, but none has been issued yet. There is, however, a Permendagri regulating these matters. A regulation that includes villages in the spatial planning process is Permendagri No. 51 of 2007 on Community-based Rural Area Development, which encourages participatory village spatial planning and can be transplanted into the process of development planning meetings. In contrast, the policy of the Ministry of Public Works (being the main spatial planning agency based on that law), which is expressed in Regulation of the Minister of Public Works (Permen PU) No. 16 of 2009 on Guidelines for Preparation of District Spatial Plans, does not require the inclusion of rural areas in spatial planning documents. Instead, it only regulates village/rural areas in the context of the spatial planning structure in the infrastructure development plan of the related district. Given the importance of the village’s role in spatial planning and the high level of potential dispute, rural areas need to be included in the document, and in the discussion of the District Spatial Plan (RTRW), to ensure that villages have a clear legal status in the framework of the Spatial Planning Law. To introduce rural areas to spatial planning, it is necessary to put special effort into approaching both MOHA and the Ministry of Public Works so that the two ministries can reach a common understanding on the issues. This would lead to clear guidance on how to classify villages in the rural area category.11

2.6. Policy on Land Dispute Settlement In response to the increasing prevalence of land disputes, the Government of Indonesia has issued a number of regulations. In 2012, Law 7 of 2012 on Social Conflict was passed. This law contemplates boundary disputes, disputes over natural resources, and deployment of natural resources that is not evenly distributed. The law also prioritizes indigenous mechanism, with the state mechanism being applied if no agreement can be reached (Article 41). Another policy issued by the government is contained in Presidential Instruction (Inpres) No. 2 of 2013 on the Handling of Domestic Security Disturbances, which allows the government to use military force under police coordination to resolve disputes – an approach that could potentially lead to human rights violations. In response to the Presidential Instruction, the Coordinating Minister for Politics, Law, and Security Affairs (Menko Polhukam) has prepared a National Integrated Action Plan for Domestic Security Disturbances consisting of 36 action plans, a substantial portion of which are devoted to land disputes and natural resources. This action plan includes settlement of regional boundary dispute, dispute settlement for land and natural resources issues, acceleration of implementation of participatory forest area delineation, settlement of current status of villages/cities (including territory of indigenous communities), limiting forest and plantation area concessions, and dispute area mapping. This effort had already begun

11

ICRAF and its partners have introduced this theme in the spatial planning process in Sanggau District (West Kalimantan). The materials from this activity could be used as a reference for discussion with MOHA and the Ministry of Public Works.

Abt Associates Inc.

21

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

in two provinces (Jambi and East Kalimantan), which already have a MOU with the REDD++ Task Force and will continue by implementing the action plan. Some local governments are aware of the importance of handling disputes due to the increasing amount of land-based investment. Jambi Provincial Government, for example, has commissioned the National and Political Unity Agency to review and to resolve any existing conflicts (Governor Regulation No. 31 of 2008). However, institutional effectiveness and mechanisms still need to be reviewed. Regardless of the skepticism that may arise, the existing regulations and mechanisms provide a basis for the settlement of disputes over village boundaries. This is in addition to the indigenous mechanism, which should be prioritized and be more readily accepted by rural communities.

Abt Associates Inc.

22

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

3. Village and Administrative Territorial Boundary Setting 3.1. Introduction This chapter first describes the history and condition of the villages in the districts of Merangin, Muaro Jambi, Mamasa, and Mamuju, which are the starter districts in the Green Prosperity (GP) Project. We then review the experience of administrative territory boundary setting in the four districts, including district and provincial boundary setting, in order to get an overview of the opportunities and challenges faced.

3.2. Merangin District Merangin district was established by Law No. 54 of 1999 on the Establishment of Sarolangun District, Tebo District, Muaro Jambi District, and Tanjung Jabo Timur District. Previously those districts were part of Sarolangun Bangko District using the old name when the district was still incorporated with Bungo Tebo District in 1956. In 2005, it is recorded there were 162 villages (Desa) and 8 kelurahan in this district. Statistics of 2010 recorded there were 24 sub-districts consisting of 213 villages (Desa) and 9 “kelurahan”. In Merangin District, which is in the highlands around Mount Masurai, the smallest of social and political units in the past were referred to as hamlets or kampong, which were originally built along the river. At that time, the residential area often moved and each area had its own name. The move can be caused by wild animals (such as elephants and tigers), disease (such as the plague of leprosy), or residential development due to the creation of new rice fields far from the village of origin. To manage themselves, a number of kampong or hamlets created a federation. Based on interviews in the Banyan Tinggi village, before the colonial period this federation was called “alam” and led by a “pamuncak”, who also functioned as an indigenous leader. In running the government, the pamuncak was assisted by a number of officials. Pamuncak Alam Sungai Tenang, for example, was assisted by “Depati” and “rio” who led the hamlet or kampong. The central government was in Koto Tapus (Jangkat). The federation was made up of 22 hamlets, so it was quite difficult to manage. Then the Federation was divided into three: Pungguk Enam, Koto Sepuluh and Pngguk Sembilan. The hamlet federation in the highlands then formed a larger federation called Luak XVI, consisting of 16 federations. In the region that is now Merangin District, there were six federations: Sungai Tenang, Serampas, Peratin Tuo, Sangrahan, Tiang Pumpung, and Renah Pemberap. In the area that is now Kerinci District, there were 10 federations. In determining their territory, the people in this area used the cucur ao guling batu concept, which means that a community is determined by the direction of the river flow where the community lives. The arrival of modern states changed the political constellation in the surrounding highlands. The first change came from the Dutch Government which resulted in name changes from “federation” to “marga” (margo in Merangin dialect) and the leader being called “pasirah”, the same name that is used in South Sumatra. These “margo” were part of the Bangko onderafdeeling residing in Residentie Djambi. At the time of independence, these “margo” became part of Siau Jangkat sub-district. After the enactment of Abt Associates Inc.

23

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

Law No. 5 of 1979, margo was converted to “Kecamatan” or sub-district led by a Camat, who was a civil servant appointed by the Bupati (District Head). Thus, the pasirah lost their position and power. Dusun or Kampung were transformed into Desa (village), led by a head of village. With this policy, the government merged Margo Sungai Tenang and Margo Serampang into Kecamatan (sub-district) Jangkat with its first district office located in Koto Tapus and later moved to the village of Muara Madras. Meanwhile, Margo Tuo Peratin, Margo Tiang Pumpung, and Margo Sangrahan merged into Kecamatan Muara Siau, with its government center in Muara Siau. In 2005, Lembah Masurai sub-district was established with its capital in Pasar Masurai village, which took some of the sub-district of Muara Siau and Jangkat areas whose origin was the region of Margo Peratin Tuo, part of Margo Sungai Tenang, and Margo Tiang Pumpung. In 2007, Kecamatan Sungai Tenang was re-established, consisting of most of the region of Margo Sungai Tenang, and Kecamatan Tiang Pumpung, consisting of the Margo Tiang Pumpung region. Although there was an effort to standardize the villages, customary law still applied. Villagers then divided up roles to regulate their social life. Village government managed the government administration, while the elders (nenek mamak) acted as indigenous stakeholders who perform customary law, including dispute resolution among villagers and between villages. Exhibit 8. Sungai Tebal on the border of Tuo and Nilo Dingin Villages Sungai Tebal is an area which is very spacious, with plantation estates, in Lembah Masurai SubDistrict. Coffee farmers mainly open up land in the former concession area of PT Injapsin and PT Sarestra II, which ceased to operate in 1998. Most of them are migrants from South Sumatra, Bengkulu, Lampung, or Java. Currently there are approximately 15,000 residents in the region. Complications arise because the area is located on the boundary between Tuo village and Nilo Dingin village, which is an old village that was originally part of Margo Pratin Tuo. In 2004, the majority of the area, called Sipurak Hook, was forced to change its status by the Ministry of Forestry to become part of the Kerinci Seblat National Park (TNKS). With a diminishing area of forest, the communities of Tuo village proposed the northwest of their region, adjacent to the National Park of Kerinci Seblat, as forest villages in the former forest concession. However, this forest no longer existed since being converted into coffee plantation. Tuo village communities had already conducted the participatory mapping of their administrative boundaries, but it could not be completed since, during the boundary survey with Nilo Dingin village, the activity was opposed by the Sei Tebal community. Source: Gusdi Warman (Director of Tiga Beradik Institute), Syahrul (Indigenous/Adat Leader of Dusun Tuo)

Like indigenous communities in many places, the margo region boundaries are natural boundaries, especially rivers and hills or mountains. In Merangin District, the history and margo boundaries have been handed down from generation to generation in a poem called tambo or tembo. At the time of the Malay Jambi Sultanate, this tembo was written in a placard using Malay Arabic alphabet. This placard is now often called tembo. After the establishment of a village, village boundaries have not been determined definitively. Clear boundaries are limited to the road, which becomes the responsibility of each village to take care of. Some NGOs (such as Tiga Beradik Institute) have helped map village boundaries, but only

Abt Associates Inc.

24

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

for a few villages. One reason for the unclear village boundaries is the community’s reluctance to assert these boundaries, because they still use the margo boundaries. Exhibit 9. Boundary of Tuo Village and Nilo Dingin Village in Sungai Tebal

3.3. District of Muaro Jambi Muaro Jambi District was formerly part of Batanghari District and became Muaro Jambi district in 1999, along with three other new districts in Jambi. The region encircles the city of Jambi. Like most coastal and downstream river areas, the district's population varies with the number of immigrants. To understand the original history of the village, this report specifically addresses the changes in the socio-political unit and the dynamics faced by Orang Dalam or Orang Batin Sembilan, which are suspected to have Malayan roots. The Batin Sembilan today are known as Suku Anak Dalam (SAD) or Kubu by outsiders – a connotation which is very degrading. Their original territories were spread across nine tributaries: Bulian River and Singoan River, which empty into Batang Hari River; Jebak River, Pemusiran River, Telisak River, Sekamis River, Jangga River, and Burung Antu River, which empty into Batang Tembesi River; and Bahar River, which empties into Lalan River (which itself empties into South Sumatra Province). This region is now spread among the districts of Sarolangun, Batanghari and Muaro Jambi. Abt Associates Inc.

25

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

This tribe may have been nomadic initially, hunting and gathering as a group, but then settled and established village life as a social unit as part of the tribe. Unfortunately, information on the sociopolitical structure in this tribe varies depending on the sources. Rian Hidayat (2012, p. 72) states that before the influence of the Sultanate of Jambi and the Dutch government, hamlets were collectively led by four persons – Datuk Tuo, Tuo Tahu, Tuo Khusyuk and Tuo Tengganai, with the last title bearer acting as leader. The hamlets were part of a tribe led by a Patih (governor). While Mr. Roni (hamlet chief of Sungai Beruang in Tanjung Lebar village) reports that the leader of the hamlet was the kampong chief, under coordination of Temenggung at the village (Batin) level. The Dutch government then changed the structure of government. The Temenggung turned into Pesirah (who live in the city), underneath there was Jenang (kampong chief), then there were the Krio as indigenous stakeholders. Another source, Mr. Mugiono, says that in the Dutch era the village was called Kampung and led by Depati and Mangku (Indigenous Leader), who handled indigenous rights. Depati was in charge of external relations, such as with the Dutch Government. The Dutch government entered Batin Sembilan territory mainly for petroleum drilling. They encouraged the indigenous people to settle there by introducing the rubber plant. The biggest changes occurred with the New Order, with the arrival of commercial logging companies, Transmigration Nucleus Plantations (PIR Trans) schemes, and oil palm plantations. Consequently, the Batin Sembilan indigenous territory has fragmented, and there is even an old village whose territory is split by transmigration villages and oil palm plantations. Exhibit 10. Boundary of Tuo Village and Nilo Dingin Village in Sungai Tebal Tanjung Lebar village is one of the older villages in the Batin Sungai Bahar area. It was first inhabited from around 1911 or 1913. The establishment of this settlement apparently received strong support from the Dutch Government, which was developing a large-scale petroleum industry, and there are still plenty of oil drilling activities today. At that time, the region was known as a kampong. Because some people faced transportation problems, in 1961 Bujang invited people to clear the land and build settlements on the banks of a large river, which was later named Tanjung Baru (now the center of the village government). In the early 1980s, the government gave three forest concessions (HPH) to PT Tanjung Asa, PT Suka Rimba, and PT Asialog for logging timber in the forests in the batin territory. Some of their territory became oil palm plantation concessions with the Trans PIR scheme for PTPN VI in 1982 and PT Bangun Desa Utama (BDU) in 1987. The Trans PIR program established 22 residential units, which are mostly located in the village of Tanjung Lebar. BDU was renamed PT Asiatic Persada in 1992. In 2010 the MOF provided ecosystem restoration concession in the former PT Asialog land, whose concession had expired in 2007, to PT Restorasi Ecosystem Indonesi (REKI). Thus, the village territory was fragmented. The hamlets that still remain are: Tanjung Lebar, Tanjung Mandiri, Pangkalan Ranjau, Sungai Beruang, Mangkubangan, and a hamlet in the concession area of PTPN VI. Sungai Beruang hamlet is now located in the middle of PT Asiatic Persada’s concession. The issue is further complicated because the boundary between Batanghari District and Muaro Jambi District is in the concession area, but the two district governments have not yet been able to reach an agreement. Batanghari district, as the ‘parent’ district, claims that the concession area of PT Asiatic Persada belongs in its jurisdiction, while Muaro Jambi District has built a public elementary school in the hamlet of Sungai Beruang. Source: Roni, Head of Sei Beruang hamlet; Mugiono, former head of Tanjung Lebar village

Abt Associates Inc.

26

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

At its inception in 1999, Muaro Jambi had six sub-districts. When this report was being written, that number had increased to 11 sub-districts (150 Desa and five Kelurahan). Mestong sub-district, covering an area of Orang Dalam at Sungai Bahar, is now divided into 3 sub-districts: Mestong, Sungai Bahar and Sungai Bahar Selatan.

Exhibit 11. Elementary school (SD) in Sungai Beruang

Coordinate: (2o5’16.4”S, 103o24’58.4”E)

3.4. Villages in West Sulawesi West Sulawesi is generally located in Tanah Mandar, which is a collection of ethnic communities originating from areas that are now in the districts of Polewali Mandar, Mamasa, Majene, Mamuju and Mamuju Utara. The territory was once a confederation of 14 small kingdoms joined in Pitu Ulunna Salu (Seven Upland Kingdoms) and Pitu Babbana Binanga (Seven Coastal Kingdoms) with the parent kingdom being the kingdom of Balanipa, which is now located in Tinambung Polewali Mandar subdistrict (Polman). All kingdoms united under the Alamungan Batu di Luyo pact. Pitu Ulunna Salu is a federation led by Tabulahan, Aralle, Mambi, Bambang, Rantebulahan, Matangnga, Mala'bo, and Tabang. Later this federation established agreements with Karua Babbana Binanga (Eight River Estuary) which consists of Mesawa, Ulu Manda, Sondoan, Panetean, Mamasa, Osango, Orobua, and Tawalian. Both federations later referred to themselves as Kondosapata Wai Sapalelean. This region is now largely part of Mamasa district. Communities in this region can be classified as West Toraja people. Each is led by a Tomakaka.12 The format of kingdoms in society led to stratification in the social system into the nobility, the wealthy, warriors, and servants.

12

Because of Dutch influence, this title changed to Parenge’, and the person bearing this title was selected by colonial powers so they would cooperate.

Abt Associates Inc.

27

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

During the Dutch colonial era, West Sulawesi province was Afdeeling Mandar, which was divided into four regions, called Onderafdeeling: Majene, Mamuju, Polewali and Mamasa. The area of Pitu Babbana Binanga was part of three Onderafdeeling in coastal areas. Meanwhile, the seven kingdoms (Pitu Ulunna Salu) in the highlands became part of Onderafdeeling Mamasa. The small kingdoms in this period were referred to as self-governing territories (zelfbestuurende landschappen). In around 1950, the four Onderafdeeling became three districts, with Onderafdeeling Polewali and Mamasa merging into Polewali Mamasa District. At that time, the district was changed to kecamatan (sub-district). With the Reform era, elites in the former territory of Afdeeling Mandar encouraged the establishment of Mandar province, which once existed in the 1960s, and this was established by Law No. 26 of 2004. Prior to that, the people of former Onderafdeeling Mamasa demanded the establishment of their own district, which was duly authorized by Law No. 11 of 2002, in conjunction with the establishment of Palopo municipality. However, this new district ignited a dispute in the community because the people in the sub-districts of Aralle, Tabulahan and Mambi, who were mostly Moslem, wanted to continue to be part of Polewali Mamasa district (whose name later changed to Polewali Mandar district). This conflict escalated and broadened in 2003 and 2004, causing major displacement and three deaths. One impact of this conflict was the separation of people from one village that had different religions into two separate villages. In 2001 Mamasa district had only four sub-districts, but in 2002 this became 10, and in 2004 the number rose again to 15. At the time of writing, Mamasa district had 17 sub-districts with 182 wards and villages (Desa and Kelurahan). The rapid increase in the number of villages was apparently caused by the desire to obtain government subsidies through the Village Fund Allocation (ADD), and the increase in the number of electoral districts, as well as a way to resolve sectarian conflict. In early 2013, 43 new villages were established under Mamasa District Regulation No. 1 of 2013 on the establishment of new villages, following the expansion of villages in the district. Unfortunately, this expansion seemed to be forced and possibly exaggerated, leading to a variety of problems, including village boundary disputes. Moreover, these expansions did not include the village boundary maps required under Permendagri No. 28 of 2006 on the Establishment, Deletion and Merger of Villages and change of status of Villages to Kelurahan (Article 3 point a), even though the village concerned had submitted its sketch map in the proposal to establish new villages. For example, in the expansion of Leko and Leko Sukamaju villages, the administrative areas and populations were very difficult to identify and administer separately since they were randomly blended. Moreover, from a government administrative perspective, these villages belonged to two different sub-districts (Rantebulahan Timur and Melahaan), while geographically they are only located within one sub-district area (Rantebulahan Timur). Local Regulation No. 1 of 2013 stated that Leko Sukamaju village was the expansion of Salukonta village, which is already in the territory of Mehalaan sub-district.

Abt Associates Inc.

28

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

Exhibit 12. Expansion of Leko Village in Rantebulahan Timur Sub-district, Mamasa District Leko and Leko Sukamaju villages were inhabited by approximately 70 households. The expansion of Leko and Seko Sukamaju villages was based on a conflict over the establishment of Mamasa District. Other than that, this expansion was intended to meet the number of villages in the expanded Mehalaan sub-district. Consequently, the Leko Village area was divided into two villages – Leko and Leko Sukamaju – with Leko Sukamaju being part of Mehalaan sub-district. However, the population and its territory are administratively located in the same area. Even the residents of the two villages are randomly intermingled, making it difficult to determine the administrative boundaries. The proposal for this expansion was not accompanied by a map of the administrative area. Source: Interview with Octavian D (Head of Village of Leko Sukamaju)

Mamasa district’s boundaries with other districts in the province of West Sulawesi have been determined by Permendagri No. 15 of 2005. But in fact there is a continuing dispute over the boundaries with Mamuju district (in Tabulahan sub-district) and Polewali Mandar district (in Messawa sub-district). In 2012, Mamuju district consisted of 16 sub-districts with 145 villages, 10 kelurahan and 2 Transmigration Settlement Units. However, with the formation of Mamuju Tengah district, which was passed by Law No. 4 of 2013, the number of Mamuju sub-districts and villages fell to 11 sub-districts, 91 villages and 10 kelurahan, since five sub-districts (Pangale, Tobadak, Budong-budong, Topoyo, and Karossa) now belong to the new district (Mamuju Tengah). The land splitting issues faced in Mamasa district and Muaro Jambi district can also be found in Mamuju district. Polo Camba village in Pangale sub-district is split into two due to the need to expand the area of agricultural land available to its households. Exhibit 13. Buttuada Village in boundary dispute between Mamasa District and Mamuju District Buttuada village is a village in Bonehau sub-district, Mamuju district that is adjacent to Lakahang village, Tabulahan sub-district in Mamasa district. This village is one of the villages on the boundary between Mamuju and Mamasa districts, but until now the exact boundary between the two districts is still disputed. Buttuada is new territory opened by Tabulahan and surrounding residents, especially now known as the Gandang Dewata village in the 1950s, and became a village in 2001. In 1987, the village chief of Buntu Malangka successfully established an agreement that the boundary between Mamuju district and Polewali Mamasa district would be Salu Batu (a river). After the formation of Mamasa district in 2002, the Government of West Sulawesi province, in collaboration with Wirabuana Regional Military Topography (Topdam), conducted the first district boundary setting in January 2006. In the same year, two gold mining companies conducted gold exploration in the area. In 2010, the regional boundary demarcation team put the Main Boundary Pillars on the banks of the river on the Mamasa district side. This raised an issue related to the right to use the river. The Buttuada residents claimed that the main part of the river was within their jurisdiction, so they were entitled to a levy on sand quarrying from the river. Lakahang residents objected to the pillar’s position because it meant they lost the right to the river. The two villages also have different versions of the boundaries. According to Lakahang residents, the district boundary is Salu Batu up to Bonehau river, and goes along the edge of this river, while Buttuada villagers claim that the district boundary starts just before the Salu Batu estuary and then goes up to the hill. Sources: (Chief of Lakahang village), Alfian (Chief of Buttu’ada village), Malora P. Lamba, and Politin Wetanda

Abt Associates Inc.

29

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

Exhibit 14. Land Expansion in Polo Camba Village, Pangale Sub-district, Mamuju District Camba Polo village is located in Pangale sub-district in Mamuju district. Polo Camba village is an expansion of Lumu village in Budong-Budong sub-district and Poloreng Transmigration Settlement Unit (UPT) in Kalukku sub-district, which was formerly a semi-spontaneous UPT formed in 1989 before the expansion of Pangale sub-district. During the UPT Polo Camba expansion, the land needed was insufficient for 250 people since each household should get two hectares of land. So 100 families were moved to the land of Kuo village area, across from Polo Lereng village. Today Polo Camba village has a territory that is split by other villages. Cambal Tunggal hamlet and Pebe’dekan village are located north and west of the village of Polo Lereng and east of Lamba Lamba village, while Camba 2 hamlet is located to the east of Polo Lereng village and north of Kuo village. Source: Interview with former village head of Polo Camba, M. Saleh

Abt Associates Inc.

30

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

4. Towards Participatory Village Boundary Setting This chapter discusses the extent to which participatory village boundary setting can be implemented in the four districts where the study was conducted for the purpose of this report. It also contains the study team’s findings on local circumstances and stakeholder engagement in village boundary setting. Including a review of and lessons learned in participatory mapping (both internationally and within Indonesia), this chapter also looks at implementation and lessons learned on regional and village boundary setting based on MOHA policies.

4.1. Participatory Mapping Practices Participatory mapping has become a global movement and is known by various names by referring to a similar type of mapping: counter-mapping, participatory land use mapping, participatory resource mapping, indigenous occupancy and land use study, indigenous mapping, community mapping, cultural mapping, aboriginal mapping, ethno cartography, participatory GIS (PGIS), public participation GIS (PPGIS), etc. The movement began in Canada in 1973 when the Inuit people asked the government to map out the area they wanted to manage themselves. A study was conducted by a number of consultants to collect oral histories, memoirs of European nations, and archaeological excavations. The study report was published in 1976. Since then, the movement has become global, and includes Indonesia. Participatory mapping activities first took place in Indonesia in 1992 in East Kalimantan, to determine the boundaries of a conservation area that intersected with the territory of the Dayak community. As a movement, participatory mapping encourages recognition of the knowledge of local people and their rights over their land plot. A publication of a UN agency, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), hinted this in the following quote: “participatory mapping can become an essential tool in enabling these marginal groups to better represent and communicate this relationship to the land – in order to support relevant and sustainable development and to increase their potential to secure rights to their resources and lands.” (IFAD 2010, p. 6) The term “participatory mapping” also refers to a mapping method. In this method, people are expected to become mapmakers and map users at once, or, as stated by Stone (1998, p. 54), “mapping of, by and for the community.” Such statements imply a more participatory nature. This method grows from participatory methods, such as participatory rural appraisals (PRA) or participatory village studies, which emphasize dialogue in the conception process, and try to translate the local/original knowledge into cartographic maps. This method emphasizes “the transparency and inclusiveness of all members of society” (IFAD 2010, p. 6). It is rapidly spreading due to the opportunities arising from the development of spatial technologies. GIS and GPS navigation are becoming more common, cheaper and easier to use, making it easier for people to achieve their goals themselves, without needing a professional cartographer. The role of outsiders in this method is more as a facilitator than as a surveyor or cartographer. 4.1.1. International Best Practices in Participatory Mapping

This section describes some of the popular mapping methodology used in many countries around the world. Abt Associates Inc.

31

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

Traditional Land Use Study

Although it is called a study, actually this method is the mapping of traditional area carried out by indigenous peoples in Canada – known as First Nations. This method was first used for the mapping of the Inuit people, who were undergoing some changes. As outlined by Tobias (2000), the core of this methodology is collecting the biographies into a map (biography map) which includes land use and residential area (land occupancy). This is achieved via interviews with several people who are considered most knowledgeable about the area, mainly the elders (both men and women), while their activities’ locations are then plotted on a topographic map. The definition of a biography map is the territory explored and used by a person for hunting, fishing and important plants, farming and living. Thus, the land use map will be larger than the land occupancy map. All maps from each interview were collected and digitized to determine land use and land occupancy of the indigenous people. Land occupancy is the traditional territory for an indigenous people, because of the intensity of use and the highest degree of control.

Exhibit 15. Differences in land use and land occupancy

(Source: Tobias 2000, p.3)

This methodology produces highly detailed information on the use of land and natural resources in a society. With the interview process, translation (if using indigenous native language), and transcription, this method is time consuming. Managing the information collected is also quite complicated, especially the recording and storage of the results of the interview transcripts.

Abt Associates Inc.

32

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

Exhibit 16. Stages in Traditional Land Use Study

(Source: Tobias 2000, p.10)

GIS with Public Participation (Public Participation GIS, or PPGIS)

This methodology was developed in the mid-1990s as a response to criticisms of the use of GIS technology in the formulation of public policy, which tends to be technocratic and top-down. The initial idea for this approach evolved among urban planners in the United States to encourage democratization of the technology so that it could reach common citizens. Among geography experts, similar criticism also emerged, especially concerning social issues such as production, access, and use of the information and maps that were made and produced, as well as the space concepts used in these maps. In an article reviewing PPGIS, Sieber (2006, p.503) states that PPGIS is “a unique approach for engaging the public in decision making through its goal to incorporate local knowledge, integrate and contextualize complex spatial information, allow participants to dynamically interact with input, analyze alternatives, and empower individuals and groups.”

Abt Associates Inc.

33

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

In general, this methodology assumes that “the system would place ordinary people in a position to generate and analyze geo referenced spatial data and integrate multiple realities and diverse forms of information … [that] would in turn enable broader public participation in environmental and public policy decision making.” (Rambaldi, 2010, p.2) As described by Weiner et al (2002), this approach has several models, namely: systems managed directly by the people, systems managed by the research or educational institution (either alone or with the community), and internet-based systems (web-based mapping). Since this is a GIS-based methodology, the use of computers and access to electricity is essential. In addition, GIS operating experts are also needed. Thus, this methodology is widely used in urban areas. For use in rural areas, the urban support facilities are still needed. Participatory Three-dimensional Mapping (P3DM)

This methodology was first used in Thailand, and then became very popular in Asian countries, especially in the Philippines. This methodology basically involves making a relief map based on topographic maps filled jointly by the community using existing spatial information in their memory (mental map) on their needs and interests. Or, to use the language of Rambaldi (2010, p. 3), the resulting maps are “scaled 3D models by merging spatial information (i.e. contour lines) with their location-specific knowledge”. Because the latitude and longitude are also shown on the map, the geo-referenced data can be transferred into GIS. Thus, “3-dimensional mapping is a method for bringing the potential of GIS closer to rural communities and for bridging the gap that exists between geographic information technologies and capacities found among marginalized and isolated communities who are frequently dependent on natural resources.” (Rambaldi, 2010, p. 3). The resulting map can be displayed in a public place and can always be used to discuss and plan activities in the village. Native Lands Methodology

This methodology was developed by the Center for the Support of Native Lands and has been performed since 1992 in several Latin American countries, Cameroon, Papua New Guinea, and Indonesia (Chapin & Threlkeld, 2009). In principle, this method tries to transfer the land use sketch maps made by the community onto topographic maps by using aerial photography or satellite imagery as a reference. This method can be used to map a relatively wide area (up to 20,000 km2) with 25-30 communities of various ethnicities. It is a participatory process and uses appropriate yet simple technology at the community level. This method greatly emphasizes the process, and ultimately the process of making maps together is just as important as, if not more important than, making the map itself. In addition, it involves a close collaborative relation between the community and cartographer (mapmaker), encouraging a two-way learning process. Ultimately the resulting map will combine local knowledge and cartography.

Abt Associates Inc.

34

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

Stages in Native Lands Methodology

Exhibit 17. Stages in Native Lands Methodology

Field Preparation (4 – 6 months) First Workshop (4-5 days) First Field Work (1-2 months) Second Workshop (10-14 days) Second Field Work (1-2 months) Third Workshop (7 days)

Map Printing

• • • •

Establish the Mapping Team (Management, Cartography) Selection of Kampong Researcher Visit to government agencies Dissemination of mapping plan to each community

• Information in map and mapping • Discussion on methodology • Selection of the category of area use and symbols used in the map • Training for making the sketch map • Drafting the sketch map of area use • Finding information on kampong history • Visit of cartography team supervisor • Transfer the sketch map of area use into cartographic standard map using the help of satellite images/aerial photo • Check the map to determine the information need to be explore • Checking the map draft by each community • Find other necessary information

• Refinement of map draft based on information from the kampong • Discussion on map draft and printing • Develop map plan • Map printing

Exhibit 18. Sample sketch map made by a community

Abt Associates Inc.

35

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

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

4.1.2. Participatory Mapping in Indonesia

The Participatory Mapping Network (Jaringan Kerja Pemetaan Partisipatif/JKPP) is a national network for participatory mapping which since 1996 has mapped more than 3.5 million hectares in more than 400 rural areas, managing areas, and indigenous territories. Some members of JKPP and the Participatory Mapping Service Node (which was established with the support of JKPP) have used Permendagri No. 27 Of 2006 as a reference, although they have not fully implemented it.

Abt Associates Inc.

36

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

Exhibit 20. Participatory Mapping stages in Indonesia

Participatory Mapping (PM) Stages in Indonesia PM Planning Meeting Dis cussion on PM initiative

(Formulation of the objective, area definition and land use, work plan, working group, funding, etc. )

Non spatial data collection Data Verification

Data Processing

(history of origin, local policies, PSDA model, etc. )

Spatial data collection (survey circling the border using the GPS etc. )

Workshop on the result Endorsement

PM Training Building the consensus on border agreement

Sociali zation on PM result Use of PM result

Many variations of the participatory village mapping stages have been designed for several regions, but in general the stages are as follows: 1) Introduction of ideas on participatory mapping to the community, especially by conducting informal discussions with indigenous leaders and community leaders. 2) If this idea is accepted, there will usually be a request from the community to conduct participatory mapping to members of JKPP. Then the facilitator of participatory mapping (facilitating activist) will hold preparatory discussions to prepare for the community meetings, including determining who will be the organizer and who will be invited. 3) Workshop on Planning for Participatory Mapping. This activity establishes the importance of participatory mapping, the formulation of participatory mapping objectives, what kind of maps will be drafted, area identification, working team, and activities planned, including funding. In the area identification, workshop participants will make sketch of the intended area, including the area’s boundaries. This sketch is then discussed in general with the whole community, including the invited representatives of adjacent villages. If no boundary agreement is reached, then a special team will resolve the area boundary issue with the adjacent village. If a boundary agreement can be reached in the workshop, a joint field inspection can be arranged. If the schedule for the field inspection cannot be determined yet, another meeting will be scheduled to Abt Associates Inc.

37

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

set the inspection date. In some regions, even before the participatory mapping workshop for village-level is conducted there is pre-meeting of the kampong/hamlet. The results of this premeeting are taken to a Planning for Participatory Mapping workshop at the village level. 4) Training for participatory mapping team. The goal is for a participatory mapping team selected by and from the community to have the knowledge and skills needed to draft a map. Training covers field data collection (social and spatial), use of equipment, data processing and representation. The training usually lasts 3-7 days. 5) Other preparatory activities such as preparation of logistics, negotiating the boundaries, and socializing with government and others. 6) Field data collection. The community, especially the participatory mapping team, will go into the field to identify boundaries, important places, and use of land, using GPS. There will also be interviews to understand the regional history, type of land use, indigenous rules and others. 7) Data processing, cartography and verification. This activity is done repeatedly until the map is considered correct. 8) Workshop on results. Similar to the planning workshop, the entire community and representatives of the adjacent community are invited. Usually government officials from the sub-district level are also invited. This activity discusses the results of the participatory mapping. If an agreement has been reached, the formal agreement letter will be prepared. 9) Handover of finished map by the team to village governments. This activity can be done simultaneously, but if there are matters that still need to be resolved, they should be resolved first. The participatory mapping model discussed above is also used by some NGOs in Jambi, including Warsi, Jambi Farmers Union (PPJ), Walhi Jambi, Tiga Beradik Institute, SSS Pundi, Alliance of Indigenous People (AMAN), Cappa, Gita Buana, and others. The differences appear to be in the approach to the region to be mapped. For example, AMAN does indigenous territory, PPJ uses a community managed area approach, Walhi maps the managed territory and rural areas. The equipment used is generally GPS navigation using an RBI base map with a scale of 1:50.000. In West Sulawesi, participatory mapping had only been conducted once, in Kalumpang sub-district (Mamuju district), but this has not yet resulted in a final map. 4.1.3. Lessons Learned from Participatory Mapping

Since participatory mapping has been used for 20 years, many lessons have been learned. Several years ago JKPP published a book that reflects on the implementation of participatory mapping in various places in Indonesia (Pramono et al., 2009). One of the most important things is that participatory mapping is a form of democratization of technology that allows the general public with a basic knowledge of mapping to make a map to describe their knowledge and interests. The assumption that ordinary people cannot make a map has already been proven wrong. This is an eye-opener for government officials, who often lack respect for the ability of rural communities. The second lesson is how to value participation. In many cases, participation means mobilizing more materials and labor, as in many government projects, with a low level of participation. The mapping Abt Associates Inc.

38

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

process itself tends to be too dominated by the mapping facilitator. One of the issues is the implementation of participatory mapping activities places too much emphasis on mapping techniques, such as the survey process and the accuracy of the map, while the social preparation process is not handled optimally. This is due to, among other things, excessive emphasis on the map as an end result rather than an organizing tool. This issue may arise when the total number of maps becomes the target in donor-funded projects. As a result, the mapping process is conducted in a rush to meet the target, so communities involved in the mapping process cannot properly understand the purpose and process of mapping or how to use the map later on. Although the community does not implement all of the mapping stages, they do need to understand the purpose, process and use of the maps so that they have control over the mapping activity. Another problem is that participatory mapping activists tend to work with the elite of the village, especially men. This may not be intentional, since at the introduction stage they tend to interact with the head of village and his staff, and indigenous leaders, who are generally old men. So it is not surprising that there is dominance in the men's elite in the mapping process, while women tend to provide the meals as passive participants in the meeting. The opinions and interests of groups of non-elite and youth groups are heard less, if not non-existent. Furthermore, the participatory mapping approach commonly used in Indonesia only covers a small area, such as a kampong or village. As a result, although it has been in place for 20 years, only 3.9 million hectares have been mapped using this method, while changes in land use for commercial activities occur very quickly. Efforts to reduce the risk of overlapping claims will be difficult unless there are also efforts to accelerate the process. It should be remembered that acceleration should not sacrifice the quality of the community’s participation. There needs to be an effort to develop a method that covers a wide area and ensures the participation process goes well, while accommodating the interests and input of women, youth and marginalized groups. Finally, the maps generated from the participatory mapping program do not receive government recognition or follow-up since there is no legal basis for the maps made by institutions that are not government agencies and holders of mapping permits or licenses, even though the extent of the mapped region is quite large, and the maps have been produced to cartographic standards. Nevertheless, many communities are already using the maps they produce to preserve their land or plan development in their area. JKPP has even made a detailed plan of spatial planning at sub-district level in some regions. 4.1.4. Use of Technology in Participatory Mapping

The technology used in participatory mapping in Indonesia follows developments in spatial information technology. Initially, the method involved the use of a compass and a measuring tape. With easier use of GIS and unfettered access to GPS, the method is now taking advantage of both these technologies. GPS Navigation has already become one of the standard tools in participatory mapping. And with the availability of satellite imagery, whether paid or free, more and more groups are using remote sensing technology in their activities. High-resolution satellite imagery (with a pixel size of less than or equal to 4 meters) is increasingly available in the market.

Abt Associates Inc.

39

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

The reference maps being used range from topographic maps issued by the Bureau of Topography of the Army to the Topographical Map issued by Bakosurtanal, maps created by satellite imagery (such as Landsat and Alos PALSAR), Google Earth, and Bing Map. Satellite imagery is commonly used in participatory visual analysis conducted to identify land cover and land use types with the community. JKPP had done this in several regions, including Sungai Sambas, Sekadau and Kapuas Hulu (West Kalimantan), among others. Satellite imagery is also very helpful to accelerate the process of participatory mapping since it allows the creation of more accurate land use maps. This is especially useful when the mapping region is very broad. In Papua, for example, the Nambluong people, who have a very wide territory, have been greatly helped by satellite imagery. Conventional methods would take great time, effort and cost. Satellite imagery can also be used for small area coverage (under 5,000 Ha) as has been done in participatory mapping in Lela and Trimandayan villages in Sambas district (West Kalimantan). This was chosen because the area consists of turf/peat moss with bushes, making it difficult to traverse the terrain. JKPP has also taken advantage of this technology by combining satellite imagery, maps and the earth survey map and several other thematic maps in large-scale mapping in Kapuas Hulu district, West Kalimantan. Using the Native Lands method, people make a sketch map of land use through in-depth discussions in the villages. The completed sketch maps are discussed with the community and then cartometrically transferred with the help of satellite imagery, the topographical map and other secondary thematic maps in order to generate an area map in a shorter time, while still applying participation and deep social processes.

4.2. Village Boundary Setting Practices Based on Permendagri No. 27 of 2006 4.2.1. Village Boundary Setting in the Districts of Merangin, Muaro Jambi, Mamasa and Mamuju

At the time of writing, there were no local regulations governing the delineation and demarcation of village boundaries in the four starter districts that are the focus of study for this report, since this was not considered a priority. Of the four districts, only Muaro Jambi has conducted village boundary setting. By 2013, Muaro Jambi District had conducted boundary setting for 32 villages out of its 150 villages and five kelurahan. However, this program did not fully apply the technical requirements mandated in Permendagri No. 27 of 2006 because of limited funding and equipment. The boundary setting has been conducted in new villages, expanded villages, and several villages that have become kelurahan. New villages are mostly former Transmigration Settlement Units that later became villages. For the new villages and expanded villages, a local regulation (Perda) and an area map have already been published. Anther initiative supported by BPMPD is to encourage villages to map village potential, one of the outputs being a village boundary and land use map. In 2013, BPMPD will try to obtain a Bupati Decree to endorse these maps as an official village administrative zone.13 Other than BPMD, villages in Mestong sub-district initiated their own village boundary mapping using the services of a researcher from the University of Jambi. Mapping activities were carried out through a survey, and then the data were inputted into satellite imagery (Landsat and SPOT). The resultant map has never been reported to BPMD (since the village considered it not to be part of the BPMD program, and only a local initiative) although 13

Interview with Jamhur, secretary of BPMPD Muaro Jambi

Abt Associates Inc.

40

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

the unit is aware of the map. But in Mamuju District, Mamasa District and Merangin District, as yet there have been no village boundary delineation and demarcation activities facilitated by the district government. As mandated by Permendagri No. 27 of 2006, the District Government of Muaro Jambi requires that the village expansion be accompanied by a sketch and boundary agreement. After that, the BPMPD will visit the village and invite the adjacent villages. All incoming documents will be reviewed by the BPMPD. If there is no basic argument from the people, then the government will not conduct any boundary setting activities. Therefore, the village should first have an agreement before it can propose any village expansion. BPMPD will then review the completeness of the minutes of agreement among the adjacent parties. Based on these documents, the BPMPD will decide whether there is any potential dispute. It will also review the reasons and arguments for the village expansion, including the investment plan for the area. Exhibit 21. Sample village map attached to District Regulation (Perda) of Muaro Jambi

4.2.2. Tebo District in Jambi Province

14

Tebo district is the only district in Jambi that has a regulation on village boundary delineation and demarcation, namely Local Regulation (Perda) No. 9 of 2007. The substance of this Perda is no different 14

Taken from interviews with Legal and Governance Unit of District Secretariat of Tebo and Community Empowerment & Village Governance Board

Abt Associates Inc.

41

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

than Permendagri No. 27 of 2006. It is intended to (1) strengthen and reinforce Permendagri 27 of 2006, and (2) prepare a local policy in case boundary delineation and demarcation is carried out in the future, and in case of any village expansion. The initiative for this Local Regulation came from the local government, and was assigned to the Government Unit assisted by the Legal Unit of Regional Secretariat. Unfortunately, this regulation has not yet been implemented. it also requires a district level regulation for implementation, which has not yet been drafted. During an interview, it was revealed that this local regulation has not been implemented due to funding limitations. In addition, there are still many unfinished district boundaries, so funding has been prioritized for district boundary setting. The expansion of new villages requires definitive village boundaries on a map. The government facilitates this map-making, but implementation has not been as described in local regulations. According to information from the village head, the mapping team came on the agreed day and together with the community they directly noted down the boundaries. No documentary research process was conducted, there was no delineation of the base map to be used, and there was no cartometric delineation of the boundary lines on the base map. 4.2.3. Ogan Komering Ilir, South Sumatra

The district government of Ogan Kemering Ilir (OKI) commenced village boundary delineation and demarcation in 2008. The government unit assigned to implement this activity is the Regional Boundary Setting Subdivision (Sub Bagian Penataan Batas Wilayah) of the Governance Division of the District Secretariat. The BPMPD is involved especially when the village concerned is a newly created village that uses a government subsidy to the village (Alokasi Dana Desa/ADD) for the exercise. This activity is a top priority in the district because village boundaries are a potential source of dispute these days with a lot of investment coming into the district. Despite its importance, the district government did not issue a district regulation (bylaw) on village boundary setting, as it considered Permendagri No. 27 of 2006 to be sufficient. Since 2010, village governments in the district have actively requested to have their boundaries set, whereas previously the initiative had come from the government. The district government is now overwhelmed with such requests, and is not able to meet them due to budgetary restraints. To illustrate this point, boundary setting exercises were carried out in 25 villages in 2010, 20 villages in 2011, and 18 villages in 2012, while there are only plans for seven villages in 2013 because of limited funds. For villages that have not requested boundary setting for their jurisdiction, the district government has sent officials to disseminate the program. The importance being given to village boundary setting in the district is illustrated by the efforts being made to build the capacity of village heads to independently carry out the exercise. First, training on the delineation process has been arranged for a number of village heads, village secretaries, and civil servants from their units, in cooperation with the Geodesy Department of the Engineering Faculty of Gajah Mada University (UGM) in Yogyakarta. However, this training was considered insufficient to address the needs of the trainees. Second, the Regional Boundary Setting Subdivision acquired a number of hand-held GPS units, planning to place the units in subdistrict offices so that the villages could take turns in using them. But so far no village has used them independently. The subdivision eventually took back the units.

Abt Associates Inc.

42

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

While adopting Permendagri No. 27 of 2006, the actual process of village boundary setting in the district has been somewhat different. A particular village proposed the boundary setting project to the Bupati, acknowledged by the sub-district head. The Bupati handed over the proposal to the Governance Division, which in turn gave it to the Regional Boundary Setting Subdivision. A proposal for village boundary setting also came from BPMPD for newly created villages and for changes in the status of villages to wards (kelurahan). The proposal was accommodated and included in the district’s proposed budget plan for the next fiscal year. The actual number of villages facilitated would depend on budget approval from the district parliament, which prioritized villages with high potential for disputes. The Regional Boundary Setting Subdivision then notified the village governments that had received funding and visited the villages to disseminate the boundary setting Plan. With the start of the new fiscal year, the Bupati formed a Village Boundary Delineation and Demarcation Team by issuing a decree, based on a proposal submitted to the Bupati by the Regional Boundary Setting Subdivision through the Head of Governance Division. The team is chaired by Assistant I (Governance) of the District Secretariat, and its members are the Head of Governance Division, Head of District Planning Office, Head of Land Office, Head of BPMPD, Head of the Legal Division of the District Secretariat, head of the subdistrict concerned, village head, village BPD head, and several community leaders. There is no fixed number of community leaders stipulated by Permendagri No. 27 of 2006, so the village can select any number of people. For the delineation phase, the sub-district head (Camat) facilitated consensus building on the boundaries between adjoining villages within the same sub-district. But if the boundaries were also sub-district boundaries, then the Head of the Regional Boundary Setting Subdivision facilitated the process. The document review required by Permendagri No. 27 of 2006 was rarely done. Instead, the team visited the village and focused on collecting stories about the boundaries. The cartometric process (i.e. delineation of boundaries on the map) was never carried out, mainly because of the limited information on the map. The team then went straight to boundary surveys on the ground, which eventually led to a map of village boundaries. The boundary survey took between two and seven days, depending on the extent and complexity of the terrain. Prior to the survey, the team asked the villagers to prepare their version of the boundaries. This knowledge was usually held by community leaders in the form of place names. Village boundaries generally used the boundaries of marga (a territorial organization during the Dutch colonial era, like margo in Merangin), which were welcomed by the communities in the district. The information was then transferred onto a sketch map. Sometimes the villagers had difficulty producing sketch maps. Next, the team held a village meeting to discuss the survey. At the meeting, representatives from adjoining villages were also invited to reach a consensus on the boundaries. Where they could reach agreement, they continued the process by scheduling the survey. Where they could not reach agreement, the team facilitated a settlement procedure. If the dispute could not be resolved, the team took the case to the integrated team formed by the Bupati through a decree. (Dispute settlement is discussed later in this section.) The demarcation phase began with boundary surveys and the installations of interim boundary markers. The survey involved officials from the Regional Boundary Setting Subdivision, community leaders, the governments of the village concerned and the adjoining village. The survey lasted between two and seven Abt Associates Inc.

43

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

days, depending on the terrain. Some parts of the district are swampland, which can be inaccessible. The team used hand-held navigational GPS units (i.e., Garmin GPSMAP 78csx) operated by an official from the Regional Boundary Setting Subdivision to read the geographical coordinates along the boundary path, including the position of the interim boundary markers installed during the survey. The Regional Boundary Setting Subdivision input the village boundary coordinates into GIS. However, where the office did not have in-house expertise, digitization was contracted out. During map production, the subdivision used topographical maps as the base maps along with Google Earth. The resulting maps had scales of up to 1:50,000, so did not comply with Permendagri No. 27 of 2006, which requires a scale of 1:5,000 or 1:10,000. The main reason for this was that no topographical maps on such a scale had been produced by the Geospatial Information Agency for the district. After the village boundary map was produced, the district government installed permanent pillars. However, with a limited budget, a village could only have a maximum of 10 boundary pillars at IDR 1,000,000 per pillar. The pillars were installed on sites considered to be important. If additional pillars are needed, their cost must be borne by the village. The size of the pillars was in accordance with Permendagri No. 27 of 2006, but no brass plates were affixed to them. The surveying party for this stage consisted of a surveyor and members of the Village Delineation and Demarcation Team, including a surveyor from the Land Office (BPN) who observed the work and did not take any coordinate readings. After installing the permanent boundary pillars, the team took the geographical coordinates of the pillars using the hand-held navigational GPS units. Afterward, photographs were taken of the pillars together with the representatives of the adjoining villages, as evidence, along with the exchange of minutes of the activity (berita acara) between the adjoining villages. The district government did not conduct the geodetic surveying required by the regulation, since no equipment or in-house expertise was available. Hiring a third party to do this would be costly. Furthermore, an accuracy of 3-4 meters using the navigational GPS units was sufficient, since the boundary pillars could be identified easily. Boundary disputes that cannot be resolved by the Sub-district Head and Sub-unit Head for Boundary Setting will be handled by an integrated dispute settlement team chaired by the Vice Bupati. There are three sub-teams within this team. The sub-team for boundary dispute settlement is led by the Head of the Governance Division and includes representatives from the police, district parliament, judiciary unit, and other relevant agencies. The team was only established in 2011, and effectively began working in 2012. Disputing parties will be summoned to submit their arguments by plotting their claims on a base map or sketch map. The team then conducts a survey with the disputing parties to identify the area of overlapping claims. The resulting map will be submitted to the integrated team. The team usually then begins mediating the settlement by talking to each disputing village in order to reach agreement on village boundaries. During this process, several community meetings are usually held. If both parties refuse to budge from their positions, it is usually recommended that the matter be taken to the Bupati to decide, assuming both parties agree. So far, no dispute has required a Bupati decision.

Abt Associates Inc.

44

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

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

The Geodesy Department at the Engineering Faculty of UGM is one research and education institution that has undertaken village boundary setting. Some lecturers from this department have facilitated the delineation and demarcation of village boundaries. One village surveyed by UGM is Kauman village in Karang Rejo sub-district, East Java. In 2014, this institution will facilitate boundary setting around campus, in cooperation with Bakosurtanal. It also facilitates training on village boundary setting for Ogan Komering Ilir District and Kutai Kartanegara District. Boundary delineation and demarcation refers to Permendagri No. 27 of 2006. The equipment used for the delineation is GPS Navigation while for demarcation they use Single Frequency Geodetic GPS. They also facilitate the delineation and demarcation of village boundaries, such as in Kauman village in Magetan district, East Java (Ma’ruf et al., nd). During implementation, the research team had a problem with availability of the map. The existing village map is on a scale of 1:5,000, while the existing topographical map is on a scale of 1:25,000. In addition, they found that boundary delineation on maps (cartometric) cannot always be conducted, because it must be accompanied by a field survey. In an interview for this report, three lecturers stated that in their view, Permendagri No. 27 of 2006, especially its appendix, is very technical and too burdensome for villages to carry out.15 The demarcation stage is particularly complicated and detailed, making it too costly and time consuming. The surveying of boundary markers alone requires special skills that cannot be mastered in 3-10 days. As a result, the quality of participation will decline. They consider that the most important thing is building a consensus on boundaries in the delineation stage, which is the core process in village boundary setting. While the demarcation stage is important, as long as the boundary has been determined, the installation of the pillars can be much simpler and self-reliant, while still technically acceptable from a geodesy perspective. 4.2.5. Lessons Learned from Village Boundary Setting

Village boundary delineation is a process of consensus building regarding the boundaries set out in an official agreement and maps of the administrative boundaries of a village. The process is conducted in several stages. Boundary village demarcation is a process of field implementation by marking the village boundaries based on the results of the delineation process, using boundary markers/signs. For provincial and district boundaries, the delineation process is not regulated by any policy – only the delineation itself is covered. Delineation of a given province or district is defined in the law on its establishment. In reality, the delineation of a district or province has not gone very smoothly, and the maps produced have many shortcomings. Accordingly, the activity of boundary demarcation has been carried out in conjunction with consensus building on boundary areas, especially by involving neighboring villages and understanding true conditions in the field.

4.3. Important Factors in Participatory Village Boundary Setting Technical Capabilities

Boundary setting activity is a consensus building activity and a technical process to draw up an agreement using mapping techniques. Based on this activity, the unit that facilitates the activity is at least able to 15

Interview with Ir. Sumaryo, M.Si; Ir. Gondang Riyadi, Dipl. Car., MT. and Bilal Maruf, ST, MT.

Abt Associates Inc.

45

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

facilitate the deliberation process to reach an agreement between the neighboring parties. At a glance, this may seem simple, but based on experience it is not an easy task. The facilitators in mapping process need to develop their capacity in order to review documents; they must understand the histories of the boundary, the community characteristics (which may differ between neighboring parties), how to avoid making the dispute worse, and so on. If the village is established based on origins, it is likely to have clear boundaries. But if the basis of village establishment being facilitated is not as solid, facilitation skills become critical. Other important skills needed include the ability to technically translate an agreement into village boundary sketch map, how to make boundary delineation cartometrically, how to use technical equipment, and standard map drafting skills. Demand for data integration requires that the village map be produced in a digital format. So a good GIS specialist is needed for field data processing and preparation of field work maps derived from images and other maps. Standard technical requirements for mapping are not difficult to achieve. From the JKPP experience, many villagers are able to take coordinates using GPS and draw them manually onto a map if they are trained and assisted. The availability of technical and social personnel for boundary setting in Jambi and South Sulawesi is described in Exhibit 22. Exhibit 22. Technical and social capacity of boundary setting personnel Component

Social Capacity

Technical Capacity

Remarks

Government

Unit of Boundary Setting, BPMPD (Muaro Jambi only)

Unit of Boundary Setting, BPN, Bappeda, Forestry Department, BPMPD (Muaro Jambi only)

Experienced in performing boundary setting especially district, provincial and forest boundary

Other than government agencies

Jambi: Walhi, Cappa, LTB, Warsi, FFI, SSS Pundi, Gita Buana, AMAN (UKP3), Agra, Jambi University

Walhi, Cappa, LTB, Warsi, FFI, SSS Pundi, Gita Buana, AMAN (UKP3), Agra, Jambi University

National: JKPP

National: JKPP

West Sulawesi: None

West Sulawesi: None

Regional: Participatory Mapping Service Node in South and Central Sulawesi

Regional: Participatory Mapping Service Node in South and Central Sulawesi

Experienced in conducting participatory mapping in indigenous territories, villages and community managed areas (village farm and forest)

National: JKPP

National: JKPP

Referring to Permendagri No. 27 of 2006, the delineation and demarcation of village administrative boundaries should use geodetic methods (either equipment or methods). In the four starter districts, there are currently only a few government institutions that have Geodetic GPS, while the NGOs still have no access to such equipment.

Abt Associates Inc.

46

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K



In Merangin district, the equipment is only owned by BPN, Bappeda and the Forestry Department, in limited numbers and for work unit purposes only. Several government institutions have GPS navigation equipment: Plantation and Forestry Department (5 units), Local Development Planning Board (4 units), Land Office/BPN (1 unit), Local Environment Board (2 units), Public Works (6 units), and Mineral and Energy Resources Department (1 unit).



In Muaro Jambi district, the equipment is owned by BPN, Bappeda, the Forestry Department and the Governance Unit. BPMPD currently only uses equipment personally owned by one of its staff. Equipment includes Electronic Total Station owned by BPN (1 unit), GPS Navigation (8 unit) and GIS software.



In Mamuju district, the Land Office has two compasses, two geodetic GPS, 100 GPS navigation units, and 4 pieces of total station. In addition, the Forest Department has 16 GPS navigation units.



In Mamasa district, the departments that have the equipment are the Department of Energy and Mineral Resources (4 GPS navigation units) and Forest Department (12 GPS navigation units). In addition, the Land Office has a total station and GPS navigation unit.

However, based on the experience of some areas, this limitation is not a significant constraint on village planning delineation and demarcation. In OKI district, for example, the use of GPS Navigation (Garmin 78s type) is considered sufficient for current needs, up to boundary demarcation. The reason they do not have the capability to buy the equipment and provide technical personnel, even if this task is contracted out, is that local financing capacity is not sufficient. In addition, the boundary markers and signs are usually seen or easily found in a four-meter radius in accordance with the level of accuracy of this equipment. For areas not accurately detected, this can be overcome by taking more auxiliary points. Moreover, the extent of the area does not affect the private ownership status. Institutionalization

In the districts of Merangin, Mamuju and Mamasa, the authority for village boundary setting is in the hands of the Land Affairs and Boundary Setting sub-unit at the Governance unit of the District Secretariat. While in Muaro Jambi district, this government unit is only authorized to handle boundary setting at the district and sub-district level. For villages, the authority is given to the village governance unit of the Community Empowerment and Village Governance Agency. In practice, Muaro Jambi district is more productive in organizing village boundary setting than Merangin, Mamuju or Mamasa. In the other three districts, the coordination process should be easier, since they are under one institution. In conducting village boundary setting, Muaro Jambi BPMD employs various forms of creativity without breaking any rules. The village boundary setting that led to legislation was carried out within the framework of the expansion and improvement of village status. But for villages that are non-expansion villages, boundary setting is conducted under development of village potential. This village potential is required to include the village territorial map because to plan village potential one needs to clearly understand where that potential is. Thus, the villages that are conducting this activity will also do the village area boundary mapping established under an agreement among adjacent villages. In the next stage, BPMPD will perform village boundary delineation activity based on the village territory map drafted by the village. This agreed upon village map then only needs to be submitted to the Bupati for a decree to be

Abt Associates Inc.

47

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

issued, following verification and preparation of the minutes of agreement. This simultaneous boundary setting costs much less than conducting village boundary delineation activities village by village. Community Participation

Actively involving the community living in the region is the most important thing in boundary setting activity, because in reality they are the most knowledgeable and interested parties in that area. From previous experience in boundary setting, what is considered as community participation is limited to village government staff and community leaders. In fact, many people need to be involved, including women and young people. Women are also very important in agreeing their village boundaries while young people are successors who should have some knowledge of the area to be agreed upon. Limited time and funding are some of the inhibiting factors in the socialization process, which should involve a greater community element. Active community involvement in village boundary setting has been widely practiced by NGOs, one of which is the Participatory Mapping Network. Members of this network do much facilitation in indigenous area and village area boundary setting. Funding

In all starter districts, the budget provided for the village boundary setting is very small. Sometimes the budget proposed in the local budget draft (RAPBD) is deleted from the final local budget (APBD). In addition, most focus is on the completion of regional boundaries (provinces and districts) and more emphasis is placed on infrastructure development (in new districts such as Mamasa). In Muaro Jambi, funds are budgeted based on the BPMPD activities package. The components of the package include: socialization that produces an agreement, transportation costs (including transportation costs for the community involved), and making the boundary markers (signs) in line with the existing regulations. For the 2012 budget, the district only budgeted IDR 150,000 per sign, which was not sufficient. Since none of the four starter districts have a mapping expert, they ask the Land Office or Army Topographic Directorate to conduct regional boundary setting. Unfortunately there are no clear standard fees for boundary setting issued by MOHA or the local government. The only standard fee available is for BPN. Under GR No. 13 of 2010 concerning Types and Tariffs on Non-Tax State Revenues Applicable within the National Land Agency, the cost for boundary measurement is IDR 3,500,000 per sign/marker. Base Map Scale

One issue in Permendagri No. 27 of 2006 with respect to village boundary delineation is the use of cartometric techniques. Based on experience, agreement on boundaries cannot always be reached by using cartometry. It really depends on the scale of the information available on the map being used. The cartometric process actually helps facilitate formulation of a boundary agreement and speeds up the delineation process, since it does not need to be done. In applying the cartometric process, the map scale will determine the level of accuracy of the information, in addition to the characteristics of the region and the characteristics of the boundary area in the field. In Sumatra, especially in rural areas, the only topographic map available is on a scale of 1:50,000. In the islands of Java, Bali and Nusa Tenggara, only 1:25,000 scale maps are available. For the 1:50,000 map, the available information is at 25 meter intervals. For a river, a line on the map that is 0.1 mm wide will Abt Associates Inc.

48

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

reflect a 5-meter wide river. But many of these rivers are not identified, and may be only portrayed as estimates based on the terrain shape depicted as contours. This also applies to roads, which most likely will not be depicted on a topographic map. This problem arises in several village boundary mapping activities. The UGM research team faced this problem when conducting the Kauman village boundary setting described earlier. Similarly, the experience of JKPP in broad scale mapping of Kapuas Hulu in West Kalimantan using 1:50,000 scale map made it very difficult to draw the boundaries, especially on sloping areas. But in the experience with Dayak Pitap, almost all cartometric processes could be carried out since the regional characteristics are similar to a watershed area, with mountain ridges and a large river as the boundaries. Cartometric processes will be easy to do if the village boundaries are natural boundaries of a significant size that are suitable for the map scale available, such as a mountain ridge with 25 meter intervals or a river at least 5 meters wide, when using a 1:50,000 scale map. For predominantly flat areas, though, it will be difficult to use cartometric process, because there is unlikely to be sufficient interesting information to draw the boundary lines of the village. Another factor is the size of the village area. If the village is around 5,000 ha, it would take up around 10x20 cm on the map. With coverage like this, a surface map on a scale of 1:50,000 will provide very limited information on actual field conditions. Village Governments and Non-Government Institution Initiatives

Based on the findings, the existing government institutional arrangements are not sufficient to address the need to accelerate village boundary setting. Moreover, these units also have many other responsibilities. For technical mapping work in Jambi and West Sulawesi provinces, the provincial government is still using staff from the Land Office and Topography Military Region. Yet NGOs actually have good potential to help accelerate the process of village boundary setting. For example, in Jambi, NGO facilitators have conducted participatory mapping in five villages in Merangin district. Several village boundary setting activities were initiatives of the village or indigenous community, facilitated by NGOs, especially in Merangin. Walhi Jambi has completed the facilitation of village boundary mapping in at least five villages. Tiga Beradik Institution (LTB) has facilitated village boundary mapping in three villages, including minutes of agreement. There are still other NGOs, such as SSS Pundi, Warsi, FFI, and AMAN, which are also facilitating village area participatory mapping. In Muaro Jambi, some villages in Mestong and Bahar sub-districts have conducted boundary setting, facilitated by a researcher. Judging from existing initiatives and experience, boundary setting could actually be completed more quickly. The maps drafted based on a community initiative should be immediately accommodated and endorsed with legal status based on Permendagri No. 27 of 2006. Some of the issues or disputes on village boundaries could be resolved with government support. There is also the case of a village head who did not support a community initiative to conduct village boundary setting. Village heads generally do not dare to support them unless there is a direct order from a higher level of government (and a budget). Sometimes the village head consults the sub-district and district level government on such a community initiative. If approved, at least by the head of sub-district, the village head will then support the initiative. Thus, district and sub-district governments should provide opportunities and clear policy on citizen initiatives facilitated by NGOs. Resources of NGOs in terms of technical and non-technical facilitation can be used by district governments to accelerate completion of village boundary setting. Abt Associates Inc.

49

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

Boundary Dispute Settlement

Boundaries are the intersection area of claims over space. Consequently, dispute often arises over where a claimed area ends. Based on current findings, new or planned investments can lead to dispute on village boundaries. Where previously village boundaries were not considered important, when there are investment plans, the village becomes important and needs to be controlled. Land previously worthless will increase in value. Sometimes even government staff in the village will try to claim the largest area of land possible. In all starter districts, land-based investment has great potential, especially in forest-related industry, plantations and mining in rural areas, and in residential development areas of a city. While not all districts currently have large-scale land-based investment (e.g. Mamasa district), referring to the regional spatial plan (rencana tata ruang wilayah - RTRW), the potential for investment becomes an important pillar of development planning in the future. In Muaro Jambi, which surrounds the city of Jambi, potential housing development is one area of investment that will thrive for several years to come. Accordingly, if area boundary issues are not resolved, this is sure to lead to potential boundary disputes. For housing developments, specific locations in the district and city will directly affect the selling price. Boundary areas that have become plantations, timber estates or mining locations will change the landscape and remove natural boundary markers. Consequently, when boundary setting is carried out, the lack of natural signs will make village boundary delineation more difficult. This is when dispute settlement becomes important. Based on visits to several locations in Jambi and West Sulawesi and discussions with several NGOs and local government officials, the team found eight types of disputes relating to rural areas requiring attention in formulating the guidelines for Village Boundary Setting (Exhibit 23). Exhibit 23. Types of village boundary dispute Village Government

Indigenous Community

Immigrant

Nomadic Community

Village government

1

2

3

4

Indigenous Community

2

5

6

7

Immigrant

3

6

None

8

Nomadic Community

4

7

8

None

Dispute types 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are clearly identified and there are remedies being done to prevent them turning into open conflict. While dispute types 4, 7 and 8 (relating to nomadic or semi-nomadic communities, such as Orang Rimbo in Jambi or To Bunggu in West Sulawesi) will require a better understanding through in-depth study.

Abt Associates Inc.

50

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

Findings in the four districts where this study was conducted show no specific institutions responsible for mediating or resolving the dispute over territorial boundary, even though boundary dispute is a potential casualty if not properly resolved. Handling boundary disputes in the four districts is still left to the territorial boundary setting team, particularly the Governance Unit at the Regional Secretariat. There is no institutionalized mechanism supported by policy on boundary dispute settlement. In Ogan Komering Ilir district, the boundary setting team is only assigned to resolve minor disputes that can be resolved by deliberation. For boundary disputes beyond their capacity, a special team has been established by the Bupati to resolve such disputes. If boundary setting needs to be done, the government should prepare the institution and mechanism for dispute settlement before any fatalities. The model for boundary dispute settlement can adapt the indigenous dispute settlement models existing and functioning in the community. There are currently dispute settlement institutions in the community that use the customary law mechanism. From interviews with several sources and consultations at a series of MSFs, settlement of disputes through indigenous institutions is widely accepted because it is cheap and fast or simple. However, because this kind of law is issued in the oral tradition, the decision is generally not recorded in writing. In addition, judicial decisions of indigenous customary courts do not have formal juridical power, despite being accepted by the community. Examples of the institutionalization of boundary dispute settlement include initiatives in Osango village (Mamasa district). The village government there has established an agency called the Council of Village Peacemakers (DPD) through a village regulation. This agency collects and involves various elements of society, particularly indigenous stakeholders, and serves to mediate and resolve various boundary disputes, both within the village and with neighboring villages.

4.4. Lessons Learned From Village Boundary Setting Origin of village. Genealogically formed villages usually have a clear boundary agreement since the territorial boundaries were agreed a long time before, and some have distinctive regional concepts. Based on the history of village formation in the starter districts, many villages were formed with a low level of territory clarity. In the village formation in the 1980s, some settlements/kampong with a sufficient population became villages. However, the establishment of these villages was not accompanied by a clear delineation of the village boundaries. In Merangin, there is a concept called cucur ai guling batu, which means the area where the community should live is determined by the direction of the flow of river water. Some areas in Jambi have “tembo” which is the authority to regulate and manage an area with certain restrictions. Transmigration settlement units were placed among the old villages by the governments of the Old Order and the New Order without the consent of the indigenous peoples of the ancestral villages. The ancestral villages considered these transmigration villages to be only settlements and agricultural land, not separate villages. Formation of new administrative units. Formation of new district requires a sufficient number of subdistricts. Likewise, the formation of a new sub-district requires a minimum number of villages. As a result, the formation of new district encourages the inception of new villages in order to meet the district requirements or for other purposes. There are also several other reasons to establish a new village. First, a village or settlement that has a significant population will be wooed by politicians. For example, if a Abt Associates Inc.

51

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

village should belong to a certain province or district, but is considered to have political value, it may attract much interest. Second, villagers may want to get a larger portion of government subsidies in the form of the Village Allocation Fund (Alokasi Dana Desa – ADD). Third, some cases of village expansion are based on a horizontal conflict from the past. (Separation of the village is a way to minimize potential dispute, a solution that may not last long because the potential for dispute is still there.) Village formation that is not accompanied by village boundary setting may create confusion over village administrative boundaries. These conditions can complicate the process of territorial boundary setting. If, for example, an indigenous territory consists of several kampong which are later determined to be a village, territorial boundaries between villages may not be considered important. Residents can manage their land anywhere in accordance with customary rules without worrying about administrative boundaries. So when village boundary delineation is being conducted, they may feel that their livelihoods will be disrupted. But village boundary setting is not always carried out in the four districts in this study. Even when it is, the map will not be developed geodetically, as mandated by Permendagri No. 27 of 2006 (as in Muaro Jambi district), or it may be just a sketch map (as in Mamuju district). The establishment of 43 villages in the district of Mamasa under Local Regulation No. 1 in 2013 did not include a single map. Unclear boundaries. Village boundaries tend to be unclear, increasing the potential for dispute among the villages. Most definite limit is the limit on road maintenance responsibilities placed on the curb. Most accepted boundaries are indigenous adat boundaries or government unit boundaries from the colonial era. Unfortunately, community and indigenous leaders are rarely involved in the implementation of boundary demarcation, especially pertaining to the boundaries of customary lands. However, when there is a dispute, indigenous leaders are engaged by the boundary setting team. Lack of community understanding. The main problems were usually encountered are a lack of time for the introduction of project among the communities, so information and discussions with the adjacent communities are insufficient. Sometimes there is resistance from the people residing in boundary areas, some even try to threaten the surveying party. Community participation. The field officers are well aware of the importance of involving the community in the area to be delineated. Provincial boundaries will naturally be related to the village boundary. Actually, the people living on the boundaries are the ones who would know what may have been agreed between adjacent communities. In addition, they are the ones who know most about conditions in the area. But in practice, while it has been agreed to jointly conduct site visits for the purpose of boundary setting, there are always some groups that cannot come. Fear of loss of property rights and access. A common assumption in a community whose area is being delineated is that boundary setting will remove their ownership and access, especially to buildings, land and natural resources in the region. Even when socialization and dissemination have been conducted by the team, there are still many people who do not understand. In many instances, people assume that the boundaries of land ownership must be in one government’s administrative territory. This happens not only in the four districts in the study, but also in various regions in Indonesia. As a result, agreement on boundaries is often difficult to achieve. In some cases, agreement on cartometric boundary delineation can be achieved, but during boundary demarcation in the field, the landowners on the boundaries withdraw their agreement. Moreover, the construction of new settlements on a city’s boundaries or in a new city can cause land prices to soar, as happened in an area of Muaro Jambi district located on the boundary with Abt Associates Inc.

52

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

Jambi city, and in Mamasa on the boundary with the district capital. Residents want to be part of a city area in order to get a higher price for their land. Concerns on the complexity of land administration. People are worried that when a parcel of land becomes part of a different administrative region, the Certificate of Land Ownership (title deed) should be administered in that area, or there must be a change in the title deed. Another concern is when a parcel of land now located in two administrative jurisdictions, could cause the division of the deed into two deeds. Land administration involves money and time – a concern for landowners. Concerns on accessibility and government attention. Community groups in a delineated area often try to be part of a certain administrative area, although administratively they actually belong to a neighboring area. One reason could be accessibility to the center of government services, as this will affect the time and cost of administration and government services. Government attention to regional development is also a key factor in influencing people to choose to be resident of a particular region. Regional boundary relates to pride. Regional boundaries are considered a part of regional pride, so sometimes the evidence regarding territorial issues could be obscured simply by pride. Too rigid in drawing up boundaries. One of the stages in the delineation and demarcation of regional boundaries is describing an interim agreement on the boundaries in a map. This map is then used by field workers as a reference for mapping. In that map, some area boundaries are drawn in a straight line, whereas actual conditions may be different. This happens because the field workers follow the reference map as it is, regardless of field conditions. This occurred during the field marking of the boundary area of Muaro Jambi District and Jambi City in Muaro Kumpeh village. If a straight line drawn on the map is applied in the field inflexibly, a house may need to be divided because it is now located in two districts. Terrain conditions in boundary area. The area where the boundary signs/markers need to be installed is often difficult to access or infrequently accessed, since natural boundaries usually take the form of mountain peaks, steep areas or wetlands that are difficult to reach. For example, in the case of boundaries in South Sumatra, about 32 km cannot be accessed because it is swampland, where the terrain is too difficult. The Team from Central, South Sumatra and Jambi Governments dared not pass through the terrain and eventually agreed on what had been drawn in the reference map. Data on Regional Boundary Plan. The data management on the outcome of regional boundary plans is not yet well coordinated. Most of the data is still stored by the executive officer and other employees. This becomes a problem when the officer or employee is transferred to another unit. The problem is that there is no clear mechanism on how the data should be transferred or explained to a new officer. Coordination among team members. In boundary setting implementation, many elements are involved. But due to lack of coordination, there are many boundary maps prepared by one institution that differ from each other. Moreover, each has its own activities and plan, so sometimes it is difficult to find the perfect time to bring all the team members together. None of the four starter districts have any technical staff for surveys or mapping in the local government unit in charge of managing village boundary setting. They also do not have proper equipment and tools. The existing equipment and tools are private property of officers and staff in charge of planning tasks (as in the case in Merangin District).

Abt Associates Inc.

53

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

4.5. Lessons Learned from Regional Boundary Setting In conducting boundary delineation and demarcation, several problems and obstacles are encountered in the field. Documents used for boundary setting. The documents used in the boundary setting consist of documents related to area boundaries, topographical maps and other reference maps, satellite images and other supporting documents. In Jambi, the widely used documents are topographical maps with 1:100,000 scales published by the Dutch Indies Government in 1934. These maps are also commonly used in Sumatra. The information contained in the maps is quite complete, and the boundaries shown on the map are close to the existing boundaries. These maps are then used as a reference in tracking boundaries in the field. In West Sulawesi, the topographical map used is the one published by the Topography Directorate of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Indonesia in 1993. For the community, documents or stories regarding the regional boundaries (such as Tembo in Merangin District) are still used as a reference in determining regional boundaries. But there is often no conformity between the regional boundaries in the community’s version (such as margo) and the topographical map, with many maps also being inconsistent (e.g., on the boundary between Merangin District and Kerinci District). Costs of boundary markers. The estimated cost for installing the boundary markers, based on experience, is around IDR 5 million per marker. Boundary sign installation costs in mountainous areas can be up to four times as much as for those installed on flat terrain. The cost of transportation/freight is one of the hardest things to estimate, particularly in an area with limited transportation means or challenging natural conditions. From the Merangin District experience, boundary area demarcation costs are around IDR 2.53 million per km, not including the installation of boundary markers, while the installation cost can reach IDR 3 million per marker/pillar. Boundary disputes are a concern in both provinces where the starter districts are located. In Jambi Province there are several areas that are disputed, for example Berhala Island is being contested between Jambi and Riau Islands (Kepri). Based on Permendagri, Berhala Island is part of Jambi. Jambi argues that historically the Berhala Island was strongly linked to Jambi because there is the grave of Datuk Berhala, who is known to be of Jambi origin. But in terms of development, some buildings have been constructed by the provincial government of Riau Islands. As a result, the provincial government of Riau Islands requested a judicial review on the Permendagri to the Supreme Court, which decided that the island belongs to Riau. In the province of West Sulawesi there are still some disputed areas. For example, there are disputes with South Sulawesi Province (in Polewali Mandar District and Mamuju District), with Central Sulawesi Province (in North Mamuju District), and with East Kalimantan Province (Balabalakang Islands). Many efforts have been made to solve these disputes by involving MOHA. Capacity of district governments in boundary setting. The resources for boundary setting, especially for measuring, still depend on Land Office personnel, as the technical officer. The non-technical phases of measurement can be carried out by other teams. So far there have been no problems in involving the Land Office as technical personnel. Other potential personnel can also be utilized, such as personnel from Bappeda, the Forestry Department and other technical departments.

Abt Associates Inc.

54

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

5. Conclusion and Recommendations 5.1. Conclusion Progress in village boundary setting has been slow, as explained in the study results for the four districts (Merangin, Muaro Jambi, Mamuju, and Mamasa) in Chapter 4. This is because village boundaries are not a high priority in these four districts. Meanwhile, investment has entered the villages fast. Unclear village boundaries can spur dispute between communities and investment and/or development projects, as well as horizontal dispute among adjacent communities. Such condition produces a great risk to investment/development scheme. Secured village boundaries are thus crucial to enable the security of investment. MCA-I has a large stake in this regard, because it will develop GP Finance Facility to commercial and non-profit entities in selected districts to help mobilize greater private sector investment in renewable energy and sustainable land use practices. It is where village boundary setting/community mapping can substantially contribute in identifying these investments, supporting the sustainability of these investments and protecting the land use and land cover as well as the rights of the villagers.

Clear boundaries generally exist in areas that still have strong indigenous rules. These are generally found in oral agreements known only to a few elders. If there is no special effort to transfer this knowledge to the next generation, it will be lost and no one else will know the boundaries based on the old agreement. On the other hand, the government still does not consider village boundary setting to be a priority, preferring to focus instead on provincial and district boundaries. This study clearly shows that when there are clear boundaries between all villages, then the district and provincial boundaries can be settled at the same time. This suggests that there needs to be a breakthrough to accelerate village boundary setting. This breakthrough can overcome obstacles such as the time required and the high costs involved. Using participatory approaches, boundary mapping can be done less expensively and more quickly especially when the process involves many parties. Regulation No. 27 of 2006 focuses on technical mapping issues (cartographic rigor) and does not pay sufficient attention to the social issues involved in village boundary setting. Village boundary mapping cannot be treated as merely a technical activity that is carried out by mapping technicians – the process is much broader than cartography, involving social aspects that are often complex. Furthermore, while the current requirement for geodetic accuracy of 5 cm may be appropriate when surveying land parcels for land administration processes, when it comes to territorial boundaries, a degree of accuracy of up to 1 meter is more appropriate. In the case of Ogan Komering Ilir district, village boundary setting projects only partially followed the technical components and specifications of Permendagri No. 27 of 2006, as the district government found complying with the technical rigor required to be too costly. Meanwhile, village boundary setting exercises that are socially rigorous still require considerable elaboration in the regulations. For these reasons, MCA-I is developing a village boundary setting and community mapping process (VBS/CM) and associated guidelines which both hold to appropriate technical rigor and include the participatory processes and societal interaction needed to ensure buy-in of the communities themselves as well as that of adjacent communities.

Abt Associates Inc.

55

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

A key social factor in the village boundary setting process is the history of the village’s establishment, which will determine the degree of complexity in reaching agreement on the village boundaries. There are two common ways in which villages can be formed – genealogically and non-genealogically. Genealogical villages are usually old villages inhabited by people with strong kinship ties forged over many generations. These villages generally have customary rules and a clear territory that is based on those rules. In other words, these villages are inhabited by indigenous peoples with indigenous territories, whether still intact or divided into several villages by central government edict during the New Order era. Non-genealogical villages are villages whose inhabitants have no particular kinship ties. These villages may be based on recent expansion or transmigration, or local rural occupations. Villages can also be a mixture of the two types, where people who have kinship ties migrate and mix with other people. Whatever the background to the village’s formation, indigenous territorial integrity needs to be considered when village boundary setting is being undertaken – whether by MCA-I under the GP Program or by any other organization. For the purposes of the GP program, both customary territorial boundaries (even if only indicative) and village administrative boundaries need to be mapped simultaneously through a participatory process which combines the technical aspects with the social aspects. Given the social complexity involved in village boundary setting, the accompanying guideline attempts to add a social component, chiefly during the village boundary delineation stage. To that end, the guideline combines the process of large-scale participatory mapping developed by the Center for the Support of Native Lands (which combines the use of sketch maps and satellite imagery) with mapping based on Regulation No. 27 of 2006. Participatory mapping is at the core of the village boundary delineation process, while the activity stages set out in the MOHA Guideline on Village Boundary Delineation and Demarcation (published as an Annex to Regulation No. 27 of 2006) form the core of village boundary demarcation. The result is a combined village boundary setting and community mapping process, or VBS/CM methodology. While the Native Lands mapping methodology is primarily intended for mapping large regions of up to 2,000,000 hectares in size that are home to 20-25 communities, the accompanying guideline is also intended for mapping sub-districts and indigenous territories. This approach is expected to reduce the time and cost involved, while also reducing the likelihood of dispute arising. An advantage of the Native Lands methodology is its emphasis on the community’s spatial use. It is very useful for people in adjoining villages to understand the control of land between them, as this places them in a more informed position when negotiating the boundaries of their villages. This is important, as there is a strong tendency for rural communities to consider tenure boundaries the same as village boundaries. There is also a tendency for the delineation of village boundaries to be seen as the act of putting up fences in territory that previously had no physical boundaries. Such action is only likely to increase the potential for dispute to arise. Under this methodology, a number of non-technical tasks (i.e. non-cartographic tasks) need to be conducted. These include raising funds and managing the funds16, organizing people at each activity stage 16

Under the MCA-I Green Prosperity Project funding for implementing the VBS/CM methodology has been provided through a combination of MCC Compact funds of the Participatory Land Use Planning Activity (PLUP) and funding from local and regional government agencies.

Abt Associates Inc.

56

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

(including holding workshops and going into the field), logistics (travel, food, and lodging), communicating with various parties at village and government level, and managing teams at events. While cartography remains a critical component, it is one of many. The biggest issue is how all of these components can be combined and managed. There is always a strong temptation to embark on the activity as quickly as possible, before the fieldwork has been done. As soon as the idea of village boundary setting arises, there will always be some people who want to go ahead with it immediately. This desire must be restrained until a strong activities management team has been formed and other key components have been established. To accommodate the mapping of land use and critical community natural and cultural land use areas, the less well-known MOHA Regulation No. 51 of 2007 can be used as an entry point for village boundary setting, together with the district spatial planning approach used by the GP Program. This MOHA regulation encourages a bottom-up decision making process, which can reduce disputes over land use and tenure. While some villages are located in state forestlands, the current policy should be reviewed carefully through documentary research, including the pros and cons of the bottom-up planning process. There also needs to be an appreciation that the local community is not a single entity with particular interests – the interests of the impoverished, of families led by women, landless peasants, and others all need to be considered. This study shows that the priority of village boundary setting in the starter districts are for newly formed villages or villages change status to become kelurahan. Such individual village boundary setting slows the process of reaching secured boundaries for all villages in a given district. A more systematic approach should be employed by having village boundary setting in a larger scale with a larger mapping unit. . This scale-up approach will be more cost-effective in conducting both the social processes and technical works. Therefore, once village boundaries have been determined, the sub-district, district and provincial boundaries will also be complete. Going forward, districts and provinces should prioritize village boundaries first. Any funding from the state budget for district and provincial demarcation should therefore also be allocated to village boundary setting. Undertaking and expediting village boundary setting and community mapping activities requires support from various parties. The responsible agencies will need to mobilize and coordinate their existing capacities. Indigenous and religious leaders can help with consensus building to reach agreement on the village boundaries. NGOs with relevant experience of the issues can also support the process through both social and technical work. Various government agencies at the district level have the requisite technical skills, including Bappeda, the Forest Service, the Department of Agriculture, the Land Office and other agencies and the involvement of these governmental organizations is required by the MOHA regulations. To fill the gaps (and occasional lack of harmony) in national policy, local governments typically regulate land issues in greater detail through district regulations (Perda) or a Bupati Decree. Local regulations that delegate district government authority to the village government may cover, among other things, forest boundaries, zoning, and the collection of revenue from land and natural resources. There are practical differences between districts, and there is a need to identify which communities and NGOs in which districts have experience in setting village boundaries.

Abt Associates Inc.

57

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

5.2. Recommendations 1.

To follow up the Green Prosperity Project MoUs that have been signed between MCA-I and the four starter districts, each Bupati should adopt the GP-PLUP VBS/CM methodology by issuing a decree to implement Article 6(e) of the MoU to undertake village boundary setting activities in accordance with Regulation No. 27 of 2006 in villages of theselected sub-districts (kecamatan). A bupati decree is decree is more reasonable with the GP Project’s timeframe, as it takes less time and is more straightforward in issuing it, rather the ideal status of district regulation (peraturan daerah) that can take months to complete. Bupati should issue another decree to establish a Village Delineation and Demarcation Committee to supervise and certify the MCA-I VBS/CM exercise. This is in line with Article 7 points c and d of Permendagri No. 27 of 2006, which gives this team the authority to implement village boundary setting and to supervise village boundary demarcation activities. The village boundary setting and community mapping activities will be technically implemented by consultants, hired by MCA-I .

2. The Permendagri No. 27 of 2006 should take into consideration a greater social rigor, primarily by elaborating the consensus-building and participatory aspects, and simplifying the cartographic rigor to enable the district governments to more effectively implement it due to their limited resources in terms of expertise, equipment and funding. The GP PLUP VBS/CM methodology to be developed by MCA-I, based in part on the description, findings and recommendations contained in this report, could assist MOHA in developing a new policy and regulations which are based on broader experience in implementing village boundary setting under the GP PLUP Activity.. 3. The GP PLUP VBS/CM methodology needs to be piloted in order for MCA-I and the local government and village representatives in the starter districts to better understand the methodology. A pilot study can reveal the complexity of the issues and challenges faced, as well as any weaknesses that may still arise and the time and cost required to complete the process. The piloting should be done in selected sub-districts in four starter district by taking into consideration the variety of geographical conditions, particularly the terrains, and investment potentials under the GP Program. Based on a rapid assessment and interviews with government officials in charge of village boundary setting completed during this study, the sub-districts recommended as pilot locations in each starter district are Sungai Tenang (Merangin), Kumpeh (Muaro Jambi), Kalumpang (Mamuju), and Sumarorong (Mamasa). 4. There is a need to integrate VBS/CM and Regional Spatial Planning using the policy on rural areas regulated in Law No. 26 of 2007 on Spatial Planning and its implementing regulation, MOHA Regulation No. 51 of 2007 on Community Based Rural Area Development. PLUP approach employed by MCA-I could enlighten the district governments as to why the integration is substantial and how it is implemented. 5. As the VBS/CM methodology is implemented different types of disputes may arise, including; boundary disputes, land use disputes, and land tenure disputes. Based on the analysis completed in this study, MCA-I should facilitate alternative dispute resolution (ADR) within the implementation of VBS/CM. The characteristics of this mechanism should be that it is community-level, Abt Associates Inc.

58

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

extrajudicial, voluntary, and produces written agreements. The mechanism is based on willingness to enter the process and acceptance of the results voluntarily. As far as possible, a customary settlement mechanism should be used to reach agreement, since such a mechanism can better ensure the continuity of the agreement. 6. VBS/CM should identify the potential causes of boundary, land use and land tenure disputes. Early on in the process in a given sub-district and/or village, disputes should be grouped those that are: (a) potentially non-problematic, (b) problematic but easily resolved, or (c) problematic and difficult to resolve. From this grouping, the problems can be located geographically and the technical work can be undertaken in the non-problematic areas first. Waiting for all disputes to be resolved first will inevitably delay progress in VBS/CM in the village and subdistrict. 7. VBS/CM methodology must include mapping of critical natural and cultural resource areas and land uses within the boundaries of the villages. Collecting accurate information and mapping these natural and cultural resources and land use areas contributes to an understanding of the limits of a community’s claims, and therefore facilitates not only the village boundary demarcation process itself but enables the community to use these resource areas in a sustainable manner and to protect them from future development. In addition, the resulting maps can be used directly for village level spatial, economic and physical development planning. More effective participatory spatial planning can thus be conducted immediately after the VBS/CM is completed. Where there is no boundary dispute, planning activities can be carried out without waiting for confirmation through a Bupati decree. Completing VBS/CM in a district, sub-district or village can therefore become an essential part of the rural area spatial planning process and in-turn provide spatial certainty to the communities involved. 8. Local governments should strengthen and improve the capacities of the government unit responsible for VBS/CM assisted by MCA-I.. As VBS/CM becomes a priority for the local governments, government officers should be appointed to oversee the planning and technical supervision of the VBS/CM process within a given district. Technical implementation of the VBS/CM process itself should continue to be assigned to competent and specialized consultants and contractors through competitive procurement processes as opposed to hiring technical experts and equipping each local government unit with specialized survey, mapping and peripheral equipment. It is recommended that MCA-I consider as part of the GP PLUP Activity to provide local governments representatives with contract management training, basic training on the technical, legal and administrative aspects of the VBS/CM process and training in the management and use of the data resulting from the VBS/CM process. Government officials can be selected or appointed from among civil servants who have the competence or undertake the specific training mentioned. These institutional capacity building efforts should be combined with the training to be included under Task 3 of the overall DRA Study which is focused on the use of geographic information in spatial planning and land use licensing and permit issuance and enforcement process. Going forward, officials responsible for planning and supervising VBS/CM will need to coordinate with other officials in charge in village planning to ensure that VBS/CM activities can be conducted simultaneously with the village spatial planning process. For both both VBS/CM and spatial planning, the responsible government units should cooperate with NGOs experienced in participatory mapping, and collaborate with and support village boundary setting initiatives of other national and provincial government agencies. Abt Associates Inc.

59

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

This type of collaboration would be very helpful in accelerating the expansion of VBS/CM within the districts selected for the GP Program and throughout the country. 9. MCA-I should advocate that MOHA and the governments of the provinces and districts where the GP Program operates should conduct VBS/CM simultaneously with the regional boundary setting process (at sub-district, district and provincial levels) in places where the boundaries of these administrative units overlap. Adopting this approach would be more time and cost-effective andwould enhance the effectiveness of consensus building among the various actors (i.e., the local communities and regional governments concerned). 10. MCA-I should ensure that the consultants on VBS/CM propose methods to increase the inclusiveness and applicability of the geospatial data and maps used by the communities and the district government. This approach would ensure that local communities have ownership of the process and results of VBS/CM, and would help them more effectively plan rural economic development. A map of the village (preferably one in three-dimensional form) could be prepared and displayed in an easily accessible location, such as the office of the village head, the village hall, or another public place. In addition to being a medium for village planning, such a map can also be an educational tool for the younger generation to better understand the village and its resources. This map can record the community’s knowledge of their territory, and of the changes that occur in the village. Meanwhile, the district governments would have access to the maps, and could simultaneously promote transparency, by developing a geo-portal and other means of disseminating information on the development plans resulting from using these maps. 11. MCA-I should support the local government in making a presentation to the people in the villages being mapped, clarifying that the administrative boundaries are not constrained by concessions or state forestlands, and do not affect land ownership rights. Rather, an easy-to-understand mechanism and process for land administration needs to be applied in the community to ensure their security of land use and support clarity of land ownership. 12. In identifying and financing land-based renewable energy and natural resource management investments through the GP Program, an important element is that the investments should focus on villages that have either already affirmed or are in the process of affirming and demarcating their boundaries. If the VBS/CM Process has not yet been carried out in a certain geographic area, potential and selected investors could be requested by MCA-I to collaborate with the district and village government to facilitate the completion of the VBS/CM process or incorporate the implementation of the process within their investment proposal. 13. Local governments should encourage and support VBS/CM initiatives to be undertaken by nongovernment parties such as NGOs at the request of the communities themselves. The district government may therefore seek to develop coordination and monitoring mechanisms that are jointly formulated and agreed with the NGOs and, for their part, the NGOs should agree to implement the MCA-I GP PLUP VBS/CM methodology. 14. A breakthrough is needed to address the issue of the official national topographical map scale being much smaller (1:50.000) than that required for village boundary setting (at least 1:10,000). The first option is to look for a larger scale base map. If a larger scale base map is not available, one can be Abt Associates Inc.

60

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

compiled of the area using various existing data combined with data acquisition and in-field measurement to serve as the base for the VBS/CM process. It is clear from similar experiences in Indonesia and throughout the world that some portion of the boundary delineation process will need to be done through field survey methods. However, where boundary areas are inaccessible; the cartometric process will need to be used. In cases where village boundaries are delineated through a mix of both field survey and cartometric processes, the resulting maps and geospatial data bases nust use cartographic means and geospatial feature codes to differentiate the different source of the boundaries. Clearly, to compile a more detailed base map for use in the VBS/CM process, in many cases high resolution imagery will be need to be acquired. When satellite imagery is used the data must be processed and the resulting maps must be designed and presented in a manner that is easily understood by the community. A second option, especially useful for the collection of imagery of the critical natural and cultural resource areas within the village is the use aerial photography with appropriate technology including unmanned aerial systems. Based on these photos, a working map can be compiled using computerized photogrammetric techniques. 15. At the national level, UKP4, BIG, MOHA, the Ministry of Forestry, and BPS all have the potential to accelerate the VBS/CM and more importantly make use of the detiled geospatial data that will result from the process. These ministries and institutions could provide both technical support and perhaps funding, integrated with other boundary setting activities. For example, the Ministry of Forestry is currently conducting accelerated forest demarcation, which can be extremely useful if effectively integrated into VBS/CM. BIG is able to train technical agencies and NGOs in the region while also providing supporting technical data to speed up the base mapping process. In turn, the regional governments and NGOs should share their maps (including the maps of village boundaries) with BIG as a part of the One Map Policy initiated by the Indonesian Government. Such data sharing would include protocols governing issues of ownership of and consent to use the maps (including the maps produced and owned by local communities). 16. The GP Program should support a study on a regional approach to indigenous communities and villages that are not accustomed to an exclusive territorial approach (i.e. managed by the communities themselves), with management being undertaken jointly with another community (inclusive) – this would include Orang Rimba in Jambi. A formula is needed for state protection of community-owned business from large-scale business, and for state protection of natural resources from seizure by other community groups. Applied anthropology studies are needed to find a suitable formula to use for scaled development projects and policies in the future.

Abt Associates Inc.

61

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

Bibliography Anonymous. tt. Hak Guna Usaha dan Hak Asasi Manusia (Leasehold and Human Rights). Jakarta: Komisi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia & Bogor: Sawit Watch. Anonymous. 2012. Equitable Spatial Certainty Underpinning Green Prosperity: reducing the risk of common failures of investments in renewable natural resources caused by inequitable spatial uncertainty. SSA 2. Chapin, Mac and Bill Threlkeld. 2009. Mapping Indigenous Lands: a practical guidebook. Washington, DC: Center for the Support of Native Lands; Environmental Law Institute. Eko, Sutoro. 2008. Masa Lalu, Masa Kini dan Masa Depan Otonomi Desa (Village Autonomy in the Past, Present, and Future). Institute for Research and Empowerment, Yogyakarta. Heryawan, Wawan. 2012. Kegiatan DRA dan PLUP dalam Mendukung Penyiapan Proyek Green Prosperity (DRA and PLUP Activities to support preparations for Green Prosperity Project). MCA-Indonesia. Hidayat, Rian. 2012. Membangkitkan Batang Terendam: Sejarah Asal Usul, Kebudayaan dan Perjuangan Hak SAD Batin 9 (Awakening of Batang Terendam: History of origin, culture and the struggle of SAD Batin 9 rights). Jambi: Yayasan Setara Jambi. IFAD. 2009. Good Practices in Participatory Mapping: a review prepared for the International Fund for Agricultural Development. Rome: IFAD. IFAD. 2010. The IFAD Adaptive Approach to Participatory Mapping: design and delivery of participatory mapping projects. Rome: IFAD. Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup (Ministry of Environment). 2011. Pedoman Tata Cara Inventarisasi Pengakuan Keberadaan Masyarakat Hukum Adat, Kearifan Lokal, dan Hak Masyarakat Hukum Adat Yang Terkait Dengan Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup (Manual on How to Inventory the Presence of Indigenous Peoples, Local Wisdom, and the Rights of Indigenous People Associated With Protection and Environmental Management). Jakarta: Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup. Ma’ruf, Bilal; Sumaryo; Riyadi, Gondang & Wibowo, Kelmindo Andwidono. nd. Penetapan dan Penegasan Batas Wilayah Desa Kauman Kecamatan Karangrejo Propinsi Jawa Timur. (Delineation and Demarcation of Kauman Village Boundary in Karangrejo Sub-district of East Java Province) Poros Masyarakat Kehutanan Merangin. Profil Desa dan Usulan Hutan Desa di Kabupaten Merangin: Inisiatif masyarakat lokal untuk rangka mendapatkan hak kelola dan akses pengelolaan eks HPH di Kabupaten Merangin. (Village Profile and Village Forest Proposal in Merangin District: local initiatives to get leasehold rights and access for former HPH in Merangin District)

Abt Associates Inc.

62

Draft Report on Village Boundary Setting

Contract # GS10F0086K

Pramono, Albertus Hadi; Samperante, Franky; Safitri, Hilma & Achmaliadi, Restu. (eds.) 2009. Menuju Demokratisasi Pemetaan: refleksi gerakan pemetaan partisipatif di Indonesia (Toward Mapping Democratization: reflections on participatory mapping in Indonesia). Bogor: Jaringan Pemetaan Partisipatif. Rambaldi, Giacomo. 2010. Participatory Three-dimensional Modelling: guiding principles and applications. 2010 edition. Wageningen, the Netherlands: ACP-EU Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA). Sieber, Renee. 2006. Public Participation Geographic Information Systems: A Literature Review and Framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers Volume 96 No. 3, pp. 491–507. Sirait, Martua T. 2009. Indigenous Peoples and Oil Palm Plantation Expansion in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam; The Hague: Cordaid. Tobias, Terry N. 2000. Chief Kerry’s Moose: a guidebook to land use and occupancy mapping, research design and data collection. Vancouver: Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, dan Ecotrust Canada. Weiner, Daniel; Harris, Trevor M. & Craig, William J. 2002. Community participation and geographic information systems. in William J. Craig, Trevor M. Harris & Daniel Weiner (eds.) Community participation and geographic information systems. pp. 3-16. London: Taylor & Francis. Zakaria, R. Yando. 2000. Abih Tandeh: masyarakat desa di bawah rejim Orde Baru (rural communities under New Order regime). Jakarta: Elsam.

Abt Associates Inc.

63

Suggest Documents