Manis Mata conflict (PT HSL) in Kalimantan, Indonesia

Description
Oil palm is today the fastest growing monoculture in the tropics. Indonesia is the world's largest producer. The country has witnessed a massive conversion of customary (adat) land to oil palm (and fast-wood) plantations. Between 1967 and 2007, oil palm monocultures have increased about 50 times and the government is planning to expand the area under plantation.
See more...
Basic Data
NameManis Mata conflict (PT HSL) in Kalimantan, Indonesia
CountryIndonesia
ProvinceWest Kalimantan
Sitesub-district of Manismata
Accuracy of LocationHIGH local level
Source of Conflict
Type of Conflict (1st level)Biomass and Land Conflicts (Forests, Agriculture and Livestock Management)
Type of Conflict (2nd level)Plantation conflicts (incl. Pulp
Land acquisition conflicts
Specific CommoditiesPalm oil
Project Details and Actors
Project Details
The area became the target of logging operations in the 1980s and oil palm plantations in the 1990s. PT HSL, having concessions over approximately 25,000 ha, began operations in 1993.
See more...
Project Area (in hectares)25,000
Type of PopulationRural
Potential Affected PopulationThe concessions affect 15 indigenous Dayak communities
Start Date2000
Company Names or State EnterprisesPT Harapan Sawit Lestari (HSL)
Commonwealth Development Corporation from United Kingdom
Cargill from United States of America
Temasak Holding from Singapore
CTP Holding - A company owned by Cargill and Temasak Holding
International and Financial InstitutionsRound Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) from Malaysia
Environmental justice organisations and other supportersSupport of WALHI

Rainforest Action Network
The Conflict and the Mobilization
Intensity of Conflict (at highest level)LOW (some local organising)
When did the mobilization beginIn REACTION to the implementation (during construction or operation)
Groups MobilizingIndigenous groups or traditional communities
International ejos
Local ejos
Dayak community
Forms of MobilizationCreation of alternative reports/knowledge
Land occupation
Official complaint letters and petitions
Public campaigns
Street protest/marches
Property damage/arson
Refusal of compensation
Impacts
Environmental ImpactsVisible: Loss of landscape/aesthetic degradation, Deforestation and loss of vegetation cover, Surface water pollution / Decreasing water (physico-chemical, biological) quality, Reduced ecological / hydrological connectivity
Potential: Food insecurity (crop damage), Biodiversity loss (wildlife, agro-diversity)
Socio-economic ImpactsVisible: Loss of traditional knowledge/practices/cultures, Militarization and increased police presence, Social problems (alcoholism, prostitution, etc..), Loss of livelihood, Land dispossession
Outcome
Project StatusIn operation
Pathways for conflict outcome / responseRepression
unclear, division within the community
Development of AlternativesLocal demands according to Wahli were as follows:

- Compensation for all the land, traditional rubber plantations, fruit gardens and other agro-forestry systems damaged and/or taken by the plantation. This should be based on the long-term value of these agro-forestry systems to individual families and the community; in other words, the opportunity costs which local people have suffered by losing these forest resources. It must not be a simple calculation of the value of the timber or one year’s production. (In Bahasa Indonesia they are demanding ganti untung -opportunity costs - rather than ganti rugi – compensation).

Recognition of indigenous land rights. This means that the practice of taking local people’s land without their direct consent must stop. HSL/CDC must not use the local authorities to procure land (at least until democracy at village and district levels is fully implemented under recent local autonomy legislation).

A new agreement must be signed with local communities for the use of their customary (adat) lands over the 25 year period which the plantation permit covers.

Payment of fines determined by customary law for the desecration of graves.

A stop to burning by the company in and around its concession, whether this is to clear land for plantation, to control weeds or to prevent encroachment.

Full transparency about the way the plantation co-operative scheme operates, including its advantages and disadvantages and the financial and other responsibilities of participation. This is essential for local people to be able to make an informed decision about whether to take part.

All people who have given up land and who decide, after being properly informed, that they want to participate in the KKPA scheme must be allocated plots. As far as possible, these should be plots on their own land; agreements must be negotiated where this is not so.

Members of the KKPA scheme must not be burdened with debt. The ‘credit’ system must be abolished.

Even though they realise that there is no chance of going back to their old way of life since their land has been planted with oil palm, some villagers are now demanding their land back. Certain individuals have said that they want a share in the company’s profits proportionate to the land which was taken from them.

Most local people want some kind of guarantee for their future from the company. They want an alternative means of making a living now their forest, agro-forestry gardens and fields have gone. [1]

WAHLI's demands to the company were as follows:

RECOMMENDATIONS

A Specific to the HSL/Manis Mata development

Greater transparency about past injustices and a genuine commitment to tackle these. As the major shareholder and manager of the plantation CDC must take responsibility for this and play a leading role. It cannot write past grievances off as history or leave their resolution to its local partner and/or local authorities.

Take a more pro-active role to improving community relations in the future. Setting up new mechanisms for genuine consultation with the local community and conflict resolution should be central to this.

CDC/HSL should commission an independent audit to investigate fully the social, economic and environmental impacts of the plantation. This must be a top-quality investigation – not something done on the cheap to assuage critics – using participatory methods. The terms of reference should be agreed with the indigenous community.

The recommendations of the audit must be discussed openly with the whole community and implemented on a schedule to be agreed with the community.

Set up an appeals procedure to deal with further disputes or disagreements over the settlement of present grievances. The whole community should be made aware of how this operates.

Review the Beringin Jaya KKPA scheme and improve it, drawing on examples of good practice for other KKPA schemes in West/Central Kalimantan.

Accept into the plantation co-operative all people who have given up their land and want to take part. Stakeholdings granted gratuitously to people because of their official positions in the community must be fairly reallocated.

Abolish co-operative stakeholders’ debts through the KKPA. Villagers’ land and labour must be counted as their share in the plantation company.

Set up community development schemes – after full consultation and preparation – to ensure that the whole local community has a means of making a living which is economically, socially, culturally and environmentally sustainable in order to replace the livelihoods which they have lost since the advent of the oil palm plantation.

Respect the land rights of the local community. People who do not want to give up their land or to join the KKPA scheme must not be forced or coerced by any means into this.

Hold full and open discussions about what form the recognition of indigenous land rights should take, in the community’s eyes – whether this means land certification, formal acknowledgement of customary (adat) property law or some other form.

In all these actions, CDC should seek advice from and the active participation of the local community, plus civil society groups which have good grassroots contacts and broad practical experience of the issues important to indigenous communities.
Do you consider this as a success?No
Why? Explain briefly.Apparently, local people do not want the plantation to pull out. Their former way of life is now impossible since their land is converted into an oil palm monoculture.
Sources and Materials
References

Sofa, F., 2002. Resisting large-scale tree plantations: the Manismata dispute. In: Fertile resistance in forests, eds. Friends of the Earth (FoE) and World Rainforest Movement (WRM), p. 28. Amsterdam: FoE; Montevideo: WRM.
[click to view]

[2] Cargill's Legacy of Destruction
[click to view]

[3] Cargill's Problems with Palm Oil
[click to view]

[1] The Dispute Between The Indigenous Community And Pt Harapan Sawit Lestari, Oil Palm Plantation Manis Mata, Ketapang District, West Kalimantan. Report By Walhi Kalbar & Down To Earth, September 2000
[click to view]

Meta Information
ContributorJ.-F. Gerber
Last update06/05/2014
Comments