Indonesians fighting against exploitation of their land for palm oil must confront both powerful corporate interests and an extraordinary level of state control over land that can be traced back to the colonial era. Here, we share observations from those who took part in a recent panel discussion about palm oil and land rights*, inspired by a hard-hitting new documentary, Colonial Debris.
As palm oil production expands to meet demand for food, feed and fuel, so do land conflicts between commercial growers and local communities. Land conflicts in palm oil are rife and many of these drag on unresolved, for years.
That conflict between communities, state power and corporate interests took centre stage in May at a panel event at the Sustainable Palm Oil Dialogue in Paris. The dialogue is an annual event to share knowledge on ways companies can ensure they respect human rights and ensure the environment is protected in their palm oil supply chains.
The discussion was inspired by a viewing of Colonial Debris – a documentary by WatchDoc which anyone can watch on YouTube and which follows communities protests against palm oil companies and real estate developers taking land in Indonesia, with executive producer of the film Professor Ward Berenschot from the Universiteit van Amsterdam joining the panel.
“People really do have various rights. They have the right not to give up their land. They have the right to receive compensation for the loss of land. Or share in the profits of the plantation. And people have a right to protest”
Ward Berenschot, executive producer of Colonial Debris
Alongside Professor Berenschot were other experts: Solidaridad Programme Manager Marieke Leegwater; Kaleka Executive Director Bernadinus Steni, Forest Peoples Programme Senior Policy Advisor Marcus Colchester; and Oxfam Novib Senior Advisor Fiona Jarden. At the side event, they dug into protections or lack of protections offered to front-line communities, and importantly how campaigners and NGOs can move forward in supporting them.
Ward, please tell us about Colonial Debris. What did the film reveal about why Indonesia has so many land conflicts?
The documentary shows that the pervasiveness of land conflicts in Indonesia is due to both the colonial past as well as contemporary politics. In 1870, the colonial state asserted ownership over much of Indonesia’s land and this heritage lingers. After independence this outsized control of the state over land has not fundamentally changed. Consequently relatively few Indonesians possess legal ownership over the land on which they live and work, and the state is entitled to provide companies with the right to take control of their land.
As we highlight in the documentary, many Indonesians find this situation unfair, but legally speaking their position is weak. Indonesian laws do contain various provisions to ensure that companies respect their rights and interests – as companies need to provide consent, pay compensation and, in many cases, engage in profit-sharing – but this is where contemporary politics comes in. Because of the close relationship between company representatives, politicians and state officials, it is relatively easy for companies to circumvent their obligations vis a vis communities. The result is that conflicts are emerging across Indonesia. As the documentary shows vividly, these conflicts not only involve demonstrations, blockades and court cases, but also extensive police violence. Despite ongoing efforts by, among others, the RSPO [Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, which co-organises the Paris dialogue], these conflicts remain difficult to resolve.
Steni, are land conflicts in palm oil production in Indonesia relegated to history or is this still ongoing?
The conflict presented in the movie isn’t just a historical relic; it’s a current reality playing out in numerous locations. While some causes stem from new pressures, many are rooted in longstanding issues. For example, national interests like food security programs and critical mineral mines often spark clashes between communities.
These are systemic problems, depicted in the movie as remnants of the colonial era, and they haven’t been addressed with systemic solutions. After [former Indonesian president] Suharto stepped down, Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) made significant efforts, including the 2001 Decree of the People’s Consultative Assembly, which recommended widespread legal and institutional reforms. Unfortunately, recent laws and regulations, including the Environmental Law of 2009, the Resolution for Social Conflict of 2012 and Agrarian Reform since 2016, have been insufficient to resolve land conflicts over palm oil. We need better standards for those in the market, as advocated for by the RSPO. We have seen some improvements and resolution of conflicts in certain areas through combining local regulations with RSPO standards and by creating a conflict database and resolution system.
Marcus, what are existing conflict resolution mechanisms and how effective are they?
In many states, land conflicts are resolved through the courts. But, as this wonderful film shows, in Indonesia the State does not uphold Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ land rights. Rather the legal framework, influenced by the Dutch, favours handing out concessions to companies. The State’s failure to uphold people’s rights is strongly criticised by UN human rights bodies. There are some laws that are meant to give people a voice before plantations are established on their lands but the courts are notoriously corrupt so few cases succeed.
As the film shows, when people protest, the police crack down to support company land grabs. Some communities have tried using voluntary certification schemes, like RSPO and Forrest Stewardship Council, to resolve this impasse, as these standards do require member companies to respect prior customary and users’ rights. However, auditors routinely overlook land disputes and the lack of Free, Prior and Informed Consent. And, while there are some successes, complaints systems are very slow and largely ineffective.
Fiona, what is the role of Civil Society to improve the situation?
In palm oil production there is a massive power imbalance in favour of companies and governments. We see that imbalance in many spaces, including sometimes in the RSPO. The film showed how local people’s (rightsholders) ability to protest is limited or absent, which is a growing trend worldwide. That is why civil society’s critical role is indispensable to level the playing field, by working with rightsholders and their communities to amplify their voice, interests, and rights, and hold the palm oil sector accountable.
We [at Oxfam] push for justice through different methods. It includes litigation, community information provision, capacity building with companies, policy, advocacy, campaigns, data collection, and more. What makes civil society’s role unique is that we do this throughout the palm oil value chain – from upstream with communities and mills to downstream with governments and multi-national companies. To give an example, Oxfam has a really valuable project in Guatemala and Honduras funded by the RSPO, with CNV Internationaal, which is about getting real information to people and communities affected by palm oil production about how to use the RSPO’s Dispute Settlement Facility and Complaints and Appeals Procedures. Another recent example of our work was in keeping certification standards strong on Free, Prior, Informed Consent (FPIC).
What is your final remark about how to move forward to deliver justice for communities in area of palm oil production?
Fiona: To help prevent conflicts companies need to engage with local rightsholders affected by palm oil projects early, honestly, and continuously (FPIC). We need to make it the norm that communities are well informed about how they can stop and settle land disputes. Companies and governments should give more funding and meaningful engagement to prevention and conflict resolution mechanisms.
Ward: One quite implementable finding of our research project is that these conflicts are more likely to be solved when independent, professional mediators are involved. This is a worthwhile investment that too few companies are making. By hiring such mediators, and by seriously committing to a mediation process, companies can help ensure that the grievances are addressed, and that agreements with communities are achieved and implemented in a way that can actually prevent further conflict. People really do have various rights. They have the right not to give up their land. They have the right to receive compensation for the loss of land. Or share in the profits of the plantation. And people have a right to protest.
Marcus: Real change is unlikely to come about without exposing and ending the corruption, clientelism and collusion between politicians, the administration, security forces, gangsters and companies, reinforced by shadowy offshore secrecy jurisdictions where oligarchs hide their assets (as evidenced here and here). Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index ranks Indonesia 90th out of 180 countries. Accountability requires transparency. We think RSPO can also play a role here, by requiring more transparency on where member companies register their operations.
Steni: While state-based solutions like legal framework offer some guidance, they are insufficient. Market standards like RSPO are crucial to drive solutions aligned with sustainability principles and multi-stakeholder processes. Kaleka and several NGOs, including FPP, HCVN, CNV and many others support the district government in implementing the jurisdictional approach of the RSPO’s model to integrate public and private standards, thereby ensuring the implementation and progress of these standards. For example, in Seruyan, combining local regulations with RSPO has led to a conflict database and resolution system. Some recently resolved conflicts had persisted for over 15 years and are now being addressed through a jurisdictional working group. While not perfect, this system has continuously improved since we initiated the jurisdictional approach eight years ago.
*The above text is drawn both from the discussion and subsequent comments provided by the participants
Author
Author
Author
Author
Author
