Forest For The Future PDF

Forests for the Future Indigenous Forest Management in a Changing World
I
ndonesia’s forests, the third largest in
the world, are rapidly disappearing due
to destructive logging, forest fires, the
expansion of large-scale plantations and
agriculture encroachment. At national and
Forests for the Future
local levels, indigenous people have often been Indigenous Forest Management in a Changing World
blamed as the agents of forest degradation and
destruction. However, Indonesia’s forest peoples
tell a very different story: they are experts in
forest management.
‘Forests for the Future’ is intended to increase

awareness about the sustainability of indigenous
forest management. This publication focuses
on six case studies from different parts of the
Indonesian archipelago written by indigenous
peoples themselves. These show that forest
communities have retained a wealth of skills and
knowledge. They also illustrate the importance
of adat in decision-making about the use of land
and natural resources.
This book presents lessons learned from

communities who are striving to meet the
economic and political challenges facing their
forest resources and ways of life. It offers national
and international policy makers models of
sustainable forest management. It also represents
a powerful argument for policy reform in favour
of indigenous communities and forest protection
at both national and international levels.
Editors :
Emilianus Ola Kleden
Liz Chidley
Yuyun Indradi
Forests for the Future: Indigenous forest management in a changing
world, AMAN-DTE, editors Emil Kleden, Yuyun Indradi and Liz Chidley, 2009
Copyright AMAN & DTE. All rights reserved. Sections of this book may be
copied provided acknowledgement is made to the author of the chapter, the
editors and to AMAN and Down to Earth.
Design and Layout: Jopi Peranginangin

Cover: Yuyun Indradi
Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago

Jl. Tebet Utara II No. 22 C Jakarta – Indonesia
Telp/Fax: 021 – 8297954
Email: rumahaman@cbn.net.id
Web : www.aman.or.id
Down to Earth
Greenside Farmhouse, Hallbankgate
Cumbria CA8 2PX England
Tel/fax +44 (0) 16977 46266
Email: dte@gn.apc.org
Web: http://dte.gn.apc.org
FORESTS FOR THE FUTURE
Indigenous forest management in a changing world

The Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago
and
Down to Earth
Editors:

Yuyun Indradi
Liz Chidley
April 2009
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
W
e would like to express our gratitude to the following
individuals and communities who shared their time,
information and thoughts so generously with us for the case
studies: Ki Ugis Suganda, Abah Anom, Koncara and the community of
Kasepuhan Ciptagelar, Sirnaresmi, Sukabumi, West Java; Nursewan,
Basuni and Kawi from Batu Kambar, Hinas Kiri; Mido Basmi, Maliburan,
Misu and Dadang from Datar Ajab; Zonson Masrie from Hantakan;
Andi Syahruji and Makorban from Kiyu; Pinan from Juhu, Hulu
Sungai Tengah, South Kalimantan; Datuk Haji Abubakar, Datuk Zen,
Datuk Abbas, Usman, Ichsan SH, Mahmud Rasali, Abusama and Sapri,
Desa Guguk, Merangin, Jambi; Rizal, Rukmini, CH Towaha, Pendeta
Ferdi, Naftali Porentjo and Silas, Toro, Donggala, Central Sulawesi;
Haji Abdulrahman, Sudirman and Ketul Brekele, Sembalun, Rinjani,
Lombok Barat, West Nusa Tenggara; Murray Muhammad H. Basyir;
Petrus and Bernardus, Hikong-Boru Kedang dan Utang Wair,
Likonggete, Sika, Flores, East Nusa Tenggara.
The following communities and local indigenous organisations (AMAs)

have also helped our work: Nur Jafar and the community of Simpang
Tungkal, Musi Banyuasin; the community of Tanjung Beringin, Serelo,
Lahat; and the community of Lore Lindu, Central Sulawesi; OPANT
(Organisasi Perempuan Adat Ngata Toro) Kulawi, Central Sulawesi;
PERMASS (Persatuan Masyarakat Adat Sumatera Selatan); Paguyuban
Masyarakat Adat Pulau Jawa (PAMAPUJA); Aliansi Masyarakat Adat
Sulawesi Tengah (AMASUTA); ORMAF (Organisasi Masyarakat
Adat Flores); Forum Masyarakat Adat Mapi Tara, Maumere, Flores;
PERMADA (Persatuan Masyarakat Adat Dayak) South Kalimantan;
AMAL (Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Lombok); and AMA Jambi.
Thanks too to the organisations and individuals who helped with

the field visits: Erinaldi Ramli, Rakhmat Hidayat and Yusamir from
WARSI Jambi; RMI Bogor; Gono, Geboy and Aidil Fitri from Walhi
Sumatra Selatan; Yasir Al Fatah, Muhamad Saleh, Hamsuri, Rahmi and
Fitriansyah from LPMA (Lembaga Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Adat)
I 102
South Kalimantan; Arianto Sangaji and the staff of Yayasan Tanah
Merdeka, Palu, Central Sulawesi; Samuel Sulu from JKPP Regio Nusa
Tenggara; and Romo Aloisius Ndate and Romo Piet Nong who serve
communities in Flores.
We would also like to thank all the other members of indigenous

communities in Indonesia who have added to our understanding.
Special thanks go to:

Abdon Nababan who initiated this project;
Chip Fay and Suraya Affif for writing the analysis chapters;
Yaffet Leonard Franky, who helped to research and edit the Lombok
case study;
Eva Castaner and Serge Marti who translated the case studies;
Sue Ellen O’Farrell for proofreading;
Hayu, Wisnu, Yoyon and other Forest Watch Indonesia friends for
helping out with the layout, including photos and redrawing maps.
The help of AMAN secretariat’s staff and DTE staff was much
appreciated.
This publication and the work preceding it were supported by a grant

from DFID’s Multi-stakeholder Forestry Programme (MFP). AMAN-
DTE’s joint worker was supported by CAFOD during 2005 and 2006.
101
II
PREFACE
T
he title of the Beatles’ song, ‘The Long and Winding Road’,
will always remind me of the process of writing this book.
This has been a long journey with many twists and turns. It
has taken more than two years to arrive at our intended destination.
These forest peoples’ stories, so rarely heard by the wider world, have
real significance. They relate the efforts of indigenous communities in
Indonesia to manage their natural resources sustainably – especially
their forests.
‘Forests for the Future’ is part of a joint programme between the

Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN) and Down
to Earth (DTE). Although our organisations are based in two countries
with different cultures, on the opposite sides of the globe, we share the
same interest in and concerns about the fate of communities who are all
too often the victims of ‘development’: those indigenous peoples who
live in and around Indonesia’s forests.
The AMAN-DTE work has consisted of four elements: (i) publishing

‘Good News Stories’ about indigenous peoples’ management of natural
resources; (ii) translating international advocacy materials for use by
AMAN and information from AMAN for the international community;
(iii) joint campaigning on selected cases involving indigenous
communities in Indonesia; and (iv) facilitating AMAN’s participation
in international fora.
The past three years have seen a whole range of different achievements
in these four areas of our work together. The publication of this book is
only one of these.
The contents of ‘Forests for the Future’ are the product of field visits
carried out by AMAN and/or its members with local organisations. This
work involved visiting communities and gathering information through

Emil Kleden, Former Executive Secretary of AMAN
III 102
interviews and written sources, then seeking out other documentary
evidence and supporting data. The selected communities were then
invited to write up their own case studies. These were clarified and
edited by the project co-ordinator, a member of the joint AMAN-DTE
programme who was accountable to both organisations. In this way,
both AMAN and Down to Earth share responsibility for all that is in
this book.
The case studies tell about the real experiences of indigenous

communities who live in the selected locations. They are not simply a
record of the past or dreams for the future. All these stories represent the
essence of what indigenous peoples are doing within their communities
to combat the powerful economic and political forces that threaten their
very existence. Their highest priority at this stage is not to accumulate
wealth but to survive and this fight for life means they must adopt
various strategies. Their resistance takes many different forms - from
instinctive reactions to well-planned, sophisticated initiatives – and
they have met with varying degrees of success.
It is here that the strategic importance of forming networks is so clearly

relevant – both within the indigenous movement in Indonesia and at
the international level. We need to work with people who share our
vision and employ approaches that complement each other. This book
and the other materials generated by this joint project are a step in that
direction.
Finally, on behalf of AMAN, I express my heartfelt thanks to all the

contributors to this book and everyone who has helped to support its
publication, including the funding agencies. My thanks also go to Down
to Earth for putting so much energy into the joint work with AMAN
with our respective strengths and weaknesses. We have learned to work
together and to stick together. Hopefully, this book will bring further
positive outcomes in the future. I hope you enjoy reading it.
101
IV
MAP OF SITES
102
N
100 0 100 200 300Miles
Banda Aceh
Medan
Manado
Pekanbaru Ternate
Pontianak Gorontalo
Samarinda WEST PAPUA
V
Padang Palu
Jambi Balikpapan
Pangkal Pinang
2 Palangkaraya
5 Jayapura
3
Palembang
Banjarmasin Kendari
Bengkulu Ambon
Tanjungkarang-Telukbetung Makassar
Jakarta
Semarang Surabaya
1 Bandung
Mataram
Yogyakarta
Denpasar
4 6
Kupang
1. 1.
Ciptagelar, Kasepuhan,
Ciptagelar, West Java
Kasepuhan, West Java 3. Meratus, South Kalimantan
3. Meratus, South Kalimantan 5. Toro,5.Central
Toro,Sulawesi
Central Sulawesi
2. Guguk, Jambi 4. Sembalun, Lombok, NTB 6. Hikong-Boru Kedang, Flores, NTT
2. Guguk, Jambi 4. Sembalun, Lombok, NTB 6. Tana Ai, Flores, NTT
101
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements I
Preface III
Map of sites V
Glossary VII
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 2: Methodology 9
Chapter 3: The Ciptagelar Kasepuhan Indigenous Community, West Java 27
Developing a bargaining position over customary forest
Ki Ugis Suganda
Chapter 4: The Guguk Indigenous Community, Jambi 63
Protecting customary forests with local regulations
Datuk H. Abubakar
Chapter 5: The Kiyu Dayak Indigenous Community, Meratus, South 101
Kalimantan
Strengthening alliances to campaign for forest protection
Andy Syahruji (team leader), Balai Kiyu
Chapter 6: The Sembalun Indigenous Community, Lombok 143

Building consensus to save adat forest on Mount Selong
Abdulrahman Sembahulun and Y. L. Franky
Chapter 7: The Indigenous Ngata Toro Community, Central Sulawesi 179
Reforming Adat to promote environmental, economic and
cultural sustainability
Rizal Mahfud and Rukmini Paata Toheke
Chapter 8: Tana Ai Indigenous Communities, East Flores 225
Maintaining traditional culture as a way of protecting the
environment
Murray Muhammad H. Basyir
Chapter 9: An Indonesian Overview 263
Indigenous Peoples’ Writing on Forest Management:A
Counter Discourse?
Suraya Afiff
Chapter 10: An International Overview 277
Indigenous Natural Resource Management Systems at the
Crossroads
Chip Fay
Chapter 11: Conclusions 297
Communities in Transformation
Emil Kleden
102
GLOSSARY
Adat Customary practices, beliefs, values
and/or laws
ADB Asian Development Bank
AMAN Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the
Archipelago
AMDAL Environmental Impact Assessment
BPN National Land Agency
Bupati Regent/district administrative head
CBFM Community-based forest management
CBNRM Community-based natural resource
management
CSO Civil society organisation
DepHut Forestry department/Ministry of
Forestry
Desa Village (Government administrative
unit)
Dinas Local government office
Dinas Kehutanan Local forestry service
DPR Parliament
DPRD Regional Representative Assembly
DTE Down to Earth
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
FPIC Free, prior, informed consent
GG Dutch colonial term for State land
Gotong Royong Community self-help
ha hectare
HGU Land use rights given to company
HPH Logging concession
HTI Industrial timber plantation
Hukum positip Formal legislation
Hukum adat Customary law
IPK Permit for forest conversion
IPO Indigenous peoples’ organisation
IUPHHK Permit for selective logging
Kabupaten District
Kecamatan Subdistrict
Kepala adat Customary leader
101
VII
Kepala desa Village leader/official

KPH Forest management unit
Masyarakat adat Indigenous people(s)/community
Musyarawah Discussion leading to consensus
NGO Non-government organisation
NTFP Non-timber forest product
Pemda Local government
Perda Local regulation/by law
PP Implementing regulation
PT Private company
Rumah adat Traditional house/village hall
Rupiah Indonesian unit of currency
SIM Land use permit
SK Official written decision
SPPT Proof of tax payment for land use
Tanah adat Customary land
UU Law/Act
VOC Dutch East Indies Company
VIII 102
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
101
1
INTRODUCTION
Rationale
The starting point for this joint publication was to try to increase
awareness at the international level about the sustainability of indigenous
forest management systems. So many recent reports have focused on the
problems facing Indonesia’s forests: fires, illegal logging, the expansion
of large-scale plantations, agriculture encroachment, endangered
wildlife and conflicts over land and resources. At national and local
levels, indigenous people have often been blamed as the agents of forest
degradation and destruction.
Forest communities have retained a wealth of indigenous skills and

knowledge, despite systematic attempts by the Indonesian government
over four decades to eradicate traditional systems of natural resource
management and decision-making. Customary law and shared values
and belief systems – summed up by the Indonesian term adat – are
an integral part of land use systems, including forest management,
for indigenous communities. Adat is more than a traditional lifestyle
and colourful ceremonies which attract tourists. It can provide the
cohesion and direction necessary for indigenous peoples to protect their
forest environment and develop sustainable livelihoods in the face of
challenges from the outside world.
Moreover, the Indonesian indigenous network, AMAN, felt that the

communities which make up the indigenous movement needed to
develop greater capacity to take their issues to the international arena,
particularly those related to forest destruction, illegal logging and
sustainable forest management.
1
AMAN.doc
The Third Congress of the Indigneous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago (KMAN III)
Indigenous peoples in Indonesia

Indonesia has a population of around 220 million people - the fourth
largest in the world after China, India and the USA. It is also a multi-
ethnic society with 1,072 ethnic and subethnic groups spread throughout
the archipelago from Aceh to Papua. This ethnic diversity represents
a wealth of cultural assets combined in one nation state, as reflected in
Indonesia’s national slogan Bhinneka Tunggal Ika: unity in diversity.
During the Suharto period, this slogan was interpreted in terms of
unifying Indonesia’s people through standardisation. Assertions of
ethnic identity were considered dangerous to state unity. So there
were a number of initiatives from 1965 onwards aimed at limiting
the expression of ethnic identity, predominantly through policies and
development programmes that emphasised uniformity and economic
growth.
The Indonesian government has, and to some extent still does, refer
to indigenous peoples in terms with negative associations such as
native people, isolated people, swidden farmers, forest squatters and
backward communities. For example, the department of social affairs
described ‘isolated peoples’ in 1994 as “groups of people who live or

Leo Suryadinata, Evi Nurvidya Arifin & Aris Ananta, 2003, Indonesia’s Population:
Ethnicity and Religion in a Changing Political Landscape, Institute of Southeast Asian
Studies, Singapore
2
are nomadic in geographically remote and isolated areas and are socially
and culturally alienated and/or still underdeveloped compared to other
Indonesia communities in general”. In the same policy document,
indigenous peoples’ health, education, housing, clothing and lifestyles
are said to be ‘underdeveloped’. Such definitions are deeply resented by
the indigenous community.
Through the first national gathering of the indigenous movement, held in

Jakarta in March 1999, Indonesia’s indigenous people defined themselves
as masyarakat adat. This term refers to indigenous communities who
have lived on their ancestral lands for generations and have sovereignty
over their lands and natural resources. They have their own values
and ideologies, social structures, economic and political systems and
cultures which are governed by customary laws and institutions. Based
on these criteria, the Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago
(AMAN) estimates some 50-70 million people in Indonesia belong to
indigenous communities.
The growth of Indonesia’s forestry industry

Many of the problems facing Indonesia’s forests today have their roots
in the model of development initiated in the mid-1960s. The vision of
Suharto’s New Order for Indonesia was based on economic growth
fuelled by the exploitation of natural resources. Foreign investment and
the patronage of a powerful local elite, including Indonesia’s military,
were an essential part of this policy. The first law passed by the Suharto
government was to promote foreign investment.
Indonesia faced serious economic problems in the 1960s and was desperate
for foreign exchange. The country’s natural resources, including forests,
were parceled up as large-scale concessions and put into the hands
of private and state-owned companies. While this system generated
substantial revenues for the central government in taxes and other levies,
it brought very few benefits at the local level. Communities were stripped
of their forest assets to support a huge administrative bureaucracy and a
small powerful circle of businessmen close to the president.

Director General of Social Welfare, Department of Social Affairs, Decree No 5/1994

UU No. 1/1967 Penanaman Modal Asing
3
Jopi [AMAN]
Logging concession in West Kalimantan
For nearly two decades, the Indonesian forestry department claimed

144 million hectares of forest lands as ‘state forest’. This was divided
up into four categories. Production Forest (64 million ha) was intended
for selective logging as part of the permanent forest estate. Another
31 million ha of so-called Conversion Forest was destined to be clear
felled for agriculture, settlements or non-forestry uses. Protection Forest
covering 39 million ha, mainly on high land or steep slopes, was to
be retained for watershed protection. Protected Forests (19 million ha)
included National Parks and Nature Reserves where forest exploitation
was forbidden.

Indonesian Department of Forestry forest zoning, 1984 (Tata Guna Hutan Kesepaka-
tan). This figure was later reduced to 120 million hectares.
4
The first logging concessions were set up immediately after the

1967 Forestry Law was passed, even though the regulations which
spelled out the details of how forestry companies should operate only
appeared in 1970. By that time, 64 logging companies were active
in concessions covering 8 million hectares. The numbers of logging
concessions increased throughout the 1970s and 80s. For example,
in East Kalimantan, PT Yasa Maha Kerta was one of the first timber
companies to start operations in the Bulungan area in 1967. By 1983, an
area of 11,678,540 ha had been allocated to 110 concessionaires in that
province alone. Nationally, the forestry department had issued permits
for 578 logging concessions by 1990, with a total area of 59.9 million
ha. This figure is only slightly less than the 64 million ha zoned as
Production Forest by the forestry department in 1985.
Indonesia’s forestry sector soon became hugely important to the

country’s economy. The development of Indonesia’s plywood industry,
stimulated by an export ban on logs in 1980, generated even more
revenues. In 1989, the export of timber products contributed US$3.5
billion to central government coffers – over 15% of total exports or
around 25% of exports from the non-oil & gas sector.
The crisis in Indonesia’s forests

This model of large-scale forest exploitation has proven to be envi-
ronmentally or economically unsustainable. Indonesia’s forests disap-
peared at the average rate of 2.2 million ha per year between 1985 and
1997. This increased in the period of economic crisis and political un-
certainty which followed the fall of Suharto and the Asian financial

This was the implementing regulation on forestry permits and fees PP No. 21/1970
(Hak Pengusahaan Hutan dan Hak Pemungutan Hasil Hutan).

Although the Dutch colonial administration focused on forestry to meet local needs,
it also gave some concessions to private companies. For example, in East Kalimantan,
commercial forestry started in 1939 with logging permits for six companies with Dutch
and Japanese owners. Some of the timber produced was for export. For further infor-
mation see Rimbo Gunawan, Juni Thamrin & Endang Suhendar, 1999, After the Rain
Falls, Akatiga, Bandung, p17

op.cit., p8

Rizal Ramli & Mubariq Ahmad, 1999, Rente Ekonomi Pengusahaan Hutan Indonesia,
1993, Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia, Jakarta, p18

Portret Keadaan Hutan Indonesia, 2001, Forest Watch Indonesia and Global Forest
Watch, Bogor, p11
5
crash in the late 1990s in
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]

which many forestry com-
panies became bankrupt and
the massive debt burdens of
others were taken over by
the state. More recently, of-
ficial figures for Indonesian
deforestation rates were 2.8
million ha/year10, but for-
est NGO estimates were 3.8
million ha/year or higher11.
Over-capacity in the wood-

processing industry is a ma-
jor contributor to forest de-
struction in Indonesia. Data
on timber supply and de-
mand, collected and proces-
sed by the Indonesian forest
Customary Protected Forest
research group Forest Watch
Indonesia, reveals a substantial deficit. In 2001, the wood-processing
industry’s demand for raw material (timber) was nearly 23 million m3,
yet supplies were roughly half this amount at 11.5 million m3 12. And
this is in addition to the demands from Indonesia’s burgeoning pulp and
paper industry. From 2000 onwards, paper pulp production has con-
sumed 23-25 million m3 of timber/year, while production of pulpwood
from plantations is still only 3.8 million m3/year13. So it is clear that the
remaining 70-80% of timber supplies for Indonesian pulp plants comes
from illegal logging or clearing natural forests.

The lack of sustainability in Indonesian forest management is also
demonstrated by the number of timber companies that have stopped
operating in recent years. In December 2003, 265 concessionaires
were actively logging in forests covering 27,430,463 ha. But one year
10
Department of Forestry, 23/May/06, http://www.depkominfo.go.id
11
Togu Manurung, director FWI, quoted in Media Indonesia, 20/Oct/2004
12
The State of Indonesia’s Forests, forthcoming.
13
Portret Keadaan Hutan Indonesia, op. cit. p45
6
later, only 114 companies were still operating in just 8,819,287 ha of

forest concessions14: 18,611,176 ha of forest concessions had been
abandoned. This again raises questions about the ability of Indonesia’s
wood processing industries to secure timber from legal, sustaianble
sources in future.
Amidst all the concerns about the sharp increases in the number of cases
of ’illegal logging’ and rates of deforestation, it is important to realise
that most of Indonesia’s logging concessions are not fully legimate.
The Indonesian government simply followed in the footsteps of the
Dutch colonial authorities by declaring most of the country’s forests
to be state land. This move automatically deprived communities living
in and around forests of their ownership of and acccess to forest lands
and resources. One result was that many forest peoples now live in
poverty. Under Indonesian law, the boundary of state forests should be
negotiated and clearly marked. However, less than 12 million ha of this
area has been properly gazetted. In other words, around 90% of state
forests do not have a formal legal basis15.
The future for Indonesia’s forestry industry looks increasingly gloomy.

The gap between supply and demand in the wood processing and
pulp industries, the high deforestation rate, illegal logging, unclear
legitimacy and community conflicts in the forestry sector are likely
to result in further environmental destruction and chronic poverty.
It is not clear where the government sees the place of the 50 million
indigenous peoples who live in and around Indonesia’s forests in the
macro-economic recovery of the forestry sector.
Meanwhile, national and international demand for timber will probably

remain at least the same or, more likely, increase. One way out of this
dilemma is to shift away from the failed paradigm of a forestry industry
based on companies exploiting large-scale concessions and to replace
it with a model of community-based forest management which brings
direct benefits to local people.
14
The State of Indonesia’s Forests, FWI, forthcoming.
AC Hermosila & C Fay, 2006, Memperkokoh Pengelolaan Hutan Indonesia melalui
15
Penguasaan Tanah, World Agroforestry Centre, Bogor, Indonesia

7
Indigenous forest management and tenure
Indigenous people’s understanding of customary/adat land16 is
basically that of a community’s living space. This territory forms part
of their identity. The existence and integrity of this customary domain
is an essential element of indigenous peoples’ lives. The importance of
maintaining the land, its resources and boundaries is reflected in the
rules and regulations that indigenous communities have drawn up about
how adat lands may be owned and used. Most concepts of customary
land are characterised by a balance between individual and communal
rights. Rights to land and natural resources, including forests, can be
held communally for the benefit of the whole community and also
individually to meet families’ particular needs. The exact pattern
depends on the indigenous community.
The relationship between communities and/or individuals and land and

resources is further defined through customary regulations which divide
the adat domain into zones and specify the function and management
of each of these. The ownership of the various zones is also clearly
set down. For example, religious, environmental, economic and social
functions are fulfilled by areas designated respectively as sacred forest
(hutan keramat), protection forest (hutan lindung), productive forest
(hutan produksi), agroforestry areas (kebun), rainfed and irrigated fields
(huma/ladang and sawah) and settlements. The type of tenure is related
to the function of each area. For example, spiritual and conservation
zones are communal land because these functions benefit the whole
community, whereas productive land/forest and settlement areas may
be under communal or invidual tenure.
The state’s concept of adat land predominantly focuses on communal

land and is usually taken to mean sacred and protection forest, although
this is not clearly stated in law. The result is that government authorities
do not take into account the fact that productive forests and lands
may also be under communal tenure or be a mosaic of communal and
individual ownership. This difference between state and indigenous
perspectives about customary lands has blurred the distinction between
16
The term tanah ulayat is also often used for customary/adat land, both by some in-
digenous peoples and in government land regulations. The term, originally Arabic, was
first associated with indigenous communities in West Sumatra.
8
communal and individual tenure and, through various legal instruments,

has contributed to the increasing trend towards individual ownership
in adat lands. This phenomenon threatens the status of adat domains,
the practice of customary land and resource management systems and,
ultimately, the very identity of indigenous peoples.
Many communities have continued to retain some control over their

forest resources and continue to manage them sustainably, despite the
unfavourable social and political climate. A range of different terms are
used for these community-based forest management practices in the
literature and at national level: community forest (hutan rakyat), village
forest (hutan desa), forest gardens (kebun hutan), agroforestry areas
(wanatani). There is also a plethora of local terms such as leuweung
(West Java), repong (Lampung), tombak (Tapanuli Utara, North Suma-
tra), tembawang (West Kalimantan), katuan (Meratus, South Kaliman-
tan), wanakiki (Toro, Central Sulawesi), gawar (Lombok) and ope dun
karedunan and karetaden (Tana Ai, Flores). These testify to the ability
of communities to manage forests and to the fact that this is an aspect of
their culture which is still very much alive today. Indigenous peoples’
relationships with forests are multi-dimensional: forests have econo-
mic, social, religious and ecological value in their societies.
Much of the conflict between indigenous communities and the state or

companies over forests stems from government legislation. The Indone-
sian government avoids the use of the words ’indigenous peoples’, not least
since to do so would recognise their rights under international law. In prin-
ciple, Indonesian law does give some recognition to indigenous rights over
land and natural resources. However, this recognition is very limited and
much legislation uses terms that lead to confusion and disputes.
For example, the 1999 Forestry Law uses two terms - ’customary law
communities’ and ’local communities’ – but often as if they are the
same17. Yet local communities may be made up of many elements, in-
cluding settlers and transmigrants from other areas who have no rights
to land or natural resources under customary law.
17
Customary law communities = Masyarakat Hukum Adat and local communities =
Masyarakat Setempat. The Forestry Act No. 41/1999 specifies five characteristics of
Masyarakat Hukum Adat, but none for ‘local communities’. These are only defined
in later operating regulations. In contrast, the Water Resources Law (No. 7/2004) sets
down what is meant by ‘customary law communities’ under that legislation.
9
In calling indigenous peoples ’customary law communities’, the
Forestry Law acknowledges that they are forest stakeholders. The legal
text also recognises indigneous people’s individual rights over forests
and the fact that forest people manage forests18. However, other clauses
make clear that these rights are subject to state control and can easily
be negated ’in the national interest’. In other words, the law does not
provide strong legal protection for forest peoples and their resources.
Furthermore, all the ’rights’ mentioned in the Forestry Law are only
to manage the forests: the forestry department vigorously denies any
acknowledgement of indigenous tenure.
The grudging acknowledgment of indigenous peoples’ rights in the

1999 Forestry Law is only one example of the way that Indonesia’s
legislation marginalises them. The lack of legal support goes right back
to the first Agrarian Law19. This states that a community’s indigenous
rights are only recognised if they fulfil the following conditions:
• They are still living in their ancestral lands20;
• Their presence is officially recognised through local legislation
(Perda);
• There is no conflict with the national interest.
Local recognition of indigenous rights

Indigenous communities who are judged to meet these criteria have
certain rights as stakeholders under the Forestry Law. They are allowed
to collect forest products, to manage the forest in accordance with
customary law and to develop their skills and economic potential21.
Further measures on ’customary law communities’ were supposed to be
defined in subsidiary legislation, including a regulation on adat forests,
but regretably these have never appeared.
18
As hutan ulayat or hutan marga
19
UU Pokok Agraria No. 5/1960.
20
The law is not clear in the Bahasa Indonesia original whether it is the indigenous
peoples, their customary law or both which must still be present before they are recog-
nised. There are also no guidelines on who should commission the research proving
indigenous communities’ claims or how this should be done in order to gain formal
recognition by the local authorities in the form of a bylaw.
21
Forestry Law No. 41/1999, clause 67:1. The word pemberdayaan literally means
‘enrichment’, but the law does not make clear exactly what form this should take. It
is usually interpreted as eligibility to take part in government training courses and to
manage certain areas of forest.
10
AMAN.doc
Indigenous institutions are in urgent need of revitalization, enrichment, and
empowerment
To add to the confusion, a 2004 circular from the minister of forestry, entitled
’The problem of Customary Law and Customary Law Communities’
Compensation Demands’, sets out in detail the department’s position on
indigenous forest rights22. This document refers back to the conditions
required under the Forestry Law for indigenous people’s official recognition.
This means carrying out research to prove a community’s continued
presence in an area. The local authority then considers the evidence and
formally acknowledges the indigenous people in a regulation.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that to date not a single local government
has gone through this procedure. The very few authorities in Indonesia that
have issued some form of official recognition to indigenous peoples since
1999 have done so using less rigorous methods. These are the districts of
Kampar (Riau), Merangin (Jambi), Sanggau (West Kalimantan), Luwu
Utara (South Sulawesi), Lebak (Banten) and Nunukan (East Kalimantan).
22
Surat Edaran Menhut No.S.75/Menhut II/2004 tentang Masalah Hukum Adat dan
Tuntutan Kompensasi/Ganti Rugi oleh Masyarakat Hukum Adat.
11
The 1999 Forestry Law and contingent legislation do offer some other
routes to recognition for indigenous forest practices. Forest lands can be
designated Special Purposes Areas23. The agroforests of the Pesisir Krui
in West Lampung are the only areas to have been granted this status
so far. Community forests which have been developed on individual
property are eligible for designation as Village Forests, Community
Forest or Private Forest24. Examples of these are in Wonosobo (Central
Java) where the local community planted Paraserienthes falcataria
(sengon) around their homes and in South Konawe (on Mona Island in
SE Sulawesi) where people in 46 villages have formed a co-operative
based around teak plantations which they planted on their own land.
Finally, there are opportunities under the Local Empowerment scheme,
although these must await revision of the relevant regulation25. The
drawback of all these schemes for indigenous communities is that they
are more easily applied to forest under individual rights whereas much
customary land is held communally.
The introduction of regional autonomy in Indonesia in 2001 has made

the legal situation over forests and rights even more complicated. The
extent of local governments’ powers with respect to forests is far from
clear. This puts local authorities in a difficult position. One the one hand,
they can stick to the rules set down by Jakarta and risk confrontations
with communities who want their rights. On the other, they can seize
the opportunity to introduce reforms at the risk of confrontations with
higher levels of government. Local governments which are motivated
by genuine concerns for forest people or which are under strong pressure
from them to acknowledge their resource rights face a legal minefield.
The general case is that framework legislation on land and natural

resources passed by Indonesia’s highest constitutional body26 and some
national laws contain elements which recognise indigenous rights.
However, these pieces of legislation are never fully implemented. The
block in the system is usually that the operating regulations have not
23
Kawasan Hutan Dengan Tujuan Khusus (KDTK), previously known as Kawasan Hu-
tan dengan Tujuan Istimewa (KDTI), are allowed under UU No. 41/1999, clause 34.
24
Hutan Desa, Hutan Kemasyarakatan and Hutan Hak (UU No. 41/1999 clause 5:1)
25
Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Setempat (PP 34/2002 clause 51:1)
26
Tetapan MPR IX, 2001
12
been issued by the relevant department and approved by parliament.

This is the case with the proposed regulations on customary forests
(Hutan Adat) and other areas such as village forests (Hutan Desa). In
addition, the process of agreeing and gazetting boundaries is painfully
slow and there are always budgetary constraints.
Local governments have tackled this dilemma in the following ways:

1. Break with standard practice: recognise communities’ customary
forests in one locality without going through the procedure required
by Jakarta of proving the community’s continued presence in the
area. This was done in the Guguk case (Merangin district, Jambi)
as we will see in Chapter 4.
2. Pass a local regulation: such as the regulations on community forestry
and natural reources management in districts West Lampung, West
Lombok and SE Sulawesi27.
3. Use another entry point: such as the local regulations on customary
rights issued in Kampar, Lebak and Nunukan districts28 which also
cover indigenous forest areas; the regulation on customary domain
in Luwu district; and the regulation on local governance in Tana
Toraja.
Central government (in this instance, the forestry department) has

responded in various ways to this miscellany of local government
measures. It demanded the withdrawal of the regulation in West Kutai
and the cancellation of the regulation in Wonosobo, but has taken no
action on regulations issued by the local authorities in NTB province and
Sumbawa, Merangin and Bungo districts. In contrast, the National Land
Agency (BPN) has shown no interest in investigating or challenging
local regulations which relate to customary land; neither has the State
Department bothered about local governance regulations, because it has
yet to state its policy.
27
Perda HKm = local regulation on community forestry; Perda Pengelolaan SDA Ber-
basis Masyarakat (PSDABM) = local regulation on CBNRM. These bylaws apply to all
communities, not just indigenous ones.
28
Pengakuan Hak Ulayat; Pengakuan Wilayah Adat; Pengakuan Sistem Pemerintahan
Lokal; Pengakuan Lembaga Adat.
13
Indonesia’s indigenous movement
The biggest challenge if a transformation to a just, prosperous society
in Indonesia is to take place is to rehabilitate ecological and social
systems. Indigenous institutions are in urgent need of revitalization,
enrichment, and empowerment. The same is true for their social and
political systems (including legal systems) and methods of natural
resource management.
The first step towards restructuring the relationship between indigenous

peoples and the Indonesian state was taken through the First Congress
of Indigenous Peoples of the Archipelago held in 1999. This resulted in
the establishment of the Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago
(AMAN) and set out its mission statement and guiding principles for
the indigenous movement. Its membership is based on communities or
indigenous associations.
Over the last decade, AMAN has pushed hard for changes in policies and
legislation which disadvantage indigenous peoples. It has also worked
to strengthen indigenous organisations so that they form the basis for
resistance to unfair policies, human rights violations and environmental
degradation.
AMAN was created at time when Indonesia was emerging from more
than three decades of dictatorship. So, from its earliest days, this
indigenous organisation has been involved in some important social
and political events in the life of the Indonesian nation state. The first
of these was the Local Government Law No. 22/1999. This replaced
the 1979 law which imposed a uniform system of governance on all
villages in Indonesia, thus rendering indigenous systems powerless29.
The first AMAN Congress had demanded this measure in order to
create the opportunity to replace the government village system with
adat governance.
Secondly, an amendment to Indonesia’s 1945 Constitution of the

Amendment in 2000 gave a considerable boost to the status of
indigenous peoples. It states that “The State recognises and respects the
29
UU No. 5/1979 on Desa (Village) Government
14
units of indigenous community along with their traditional rights”. It

also emphasises that the cultural identity and other rights of traditional
communities should be respected as human rights30.
Thirdly, the Decree of the Peoples’ Consultative Assembly on Agrarian

Reform and Natural Resources Management in 2001 states that there
should be recognition of, and respect and protection for, indigenous
peoples’ rights to natural resources31.
Future challenges
AMAN realises that these policy reforms are the new challenges for
indigenous peoples in the future. Dozens of sectoral laws no longer in
accordance with the amendment to the Indonesian Constitution and the
Consultative Assembly’s decree will have to be revoked and replaced.
Hundreds of new local regulations need to be drafted and passed at
provincial, district and even village levels once changes have been
made at national level. All these pieces of legislation will require the full
participation of all elements of the nation-state, including indigenous
peoples, at local, regional, national and international levels.
One major problem is that current political structures and the prevailing
political conditions have not provided sufficient opportunities for the
Indonesian people to live in peace and harmony. The lack of access for
indigenous peoples and other groups prevents them from participating
in policy and decision-making processes at local and national levels.
This has generated a sense of recklessness amongst political elites, as
the people have little control over their representatives.
Corruption by local governments is just one manifestation of this

phenomenon. Another example is the growing collusion between local
elites and Jakarta in manipulating indigenous issues to gain political
power. The results of polarising indigenous communities can be seen in
the bloody conflicts of Poso, Sampit and Maluku.
30
Amendemen UU Dasar 1945 (2000), Paragraphs 18-B article (2) and Paragraph 28-I,
in Chapter X on human rights.
31
Ketetapan MPR No. IX/2001
15
Such issues have led AMAN to the firm belief that it is important today,
in the era of local autonomy, to restructure the relationship between
indigenous peoples and the state by changing Indonesia’s political
systems and institutions. Increased political participation by indigenous
peoples is one of the keys to making local political representatives more
accountable to communities and more responsible for the impacts of
their decision-making on peoples’ lives and the environment.
It is also important for Indonesia’s indigenous peoples to anticipate

the negative impacts of globalisation. The agenda of liberal capitalism
promoted by industrialised countries has gained considerable momentum
in recent decades. The liberalisation of trade and investment represent a
powerful challenge to indigenous peoples’ political and legal standing.
Unless there is adequate preparation at community level to develop
democratic political and legal institutions, indigenous peoples will be
helpless to resist the theft of their intellectual property rights, such as
their traditional medicines, and the manipulation of their plants through
genetic engineering.
However, local autonomy and globalisation can also be positive forces.

They offer indigenous peoples opportunities to realise their sovereignty
and autonomy over their lands and lives. In addition to driving out the
concept of the desa32, local autonomy has brought indigenous peoples
living in the outermost parts of the archipelago relatively closer to
the sphere of policy and decision-making by granting greater powers
to district level government. Similarly, globalisation has promoted
solidarity amongst indigenous peoples from various part of the globe. It
has also helped indigenous peoples to secure more established positions
at the international level. They are now one of the major groups which
have to be involved in policy and decision-making processes facilitated
by international bodies and the implementation of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the Rio Declaration on Sustainable
Development.
32
The top-down system of standardised village governance brought in in 1979.
16
AMAN.doc
102
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
101
2
METHODOLOGY
Structure
This book is an attempt to
Yuyun Indradi [DtE]

present indigenous perspec-
tives on sustainable forest
management. It is not an
extensive study of forest
peoples’ knowledge and
practices in Indonesia, but
focuses instead on a limited
number of examples. These
give some indication of the
complexity of indigenous
forest management systems
and the enormity of the
challenges faced by indig-
enous peoples throughout
the archipelago.
The previous chapter out-

Ugis Suganda, author of Ciptagelar (Chapter 3)
lines some of the key issues
surrounding Indonesia’s forests and indigenous peoples. The core of the
book is six case studies written by members of indigenous communities
themselves. They have been selected from various parts of Indonesia and
highlight some successes in community-based forest management. Two
observers of Indonesia’s indigenous movement – one Indonesian, one
English – were invited to present their reflections on these accounts in
the two chapters that follow in order to generate some critical thinking.
The final section contains some general conclusions which are intended
19
to bring important messages from indigenous peoples to international de-
cision-makers, academics, campaigners and individuals concerned with
human rights and environmental issues in Indonesia.
Key questions
Points which have guided all the contributors to this book included:
• How important is adat in indigenous peoples’ forest management
today?
• How is adat changing to engage with the ways that the modern
world has intruded on indigenous lives?
• What kind of approaches and strategies have been used to
defend indigenous livelihoods and natural resources from
external threats?
• How are conflicts over forests and land rights addressed and
resolved internally and externally?
• How do the communities deal with a political climate that does
not favour their interests?
• What lessons can be learned from these cases for the
development of new models of forest management, based on
community rights and sustainability?
Method
The process of compiling this report has taken several years and was
preceded by a two-year period of collecting examples of ‘Good News
Stories’ about Indonesia’s indigenous peoples and their forests. It would
have been undoubtedly simpler and quicker to hire a researcher to visit
a handful of communities and to write up his/her findings. It may also
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Reflecting on the experiences and the lessons learned
20
have made the book an easier read for an international audience had we
done it that way. However, this would have missed an essential element
in AMAN-DTE’s work: indigenous peoples are the subjects, not the
object, of this book.
In writing their own stories, indigenous people have produced accounts

from a unique perspective that no outsider can truly represent. The
case studies are all the better for the depth of detail and understanding
that the authors have provided. Moreover, the process has encouraged
communities to reflect on their experiences and the lessons learned. It
has also increased the capacity of indigenous communities to present
their perspectives and achievements to outsiders.
The book project started by reviewing a range of cases where indigenous

communities appeared to be managing to hold on to their forests and
their culture. Staff from AMAN’s secretariat and Down to Earth gathered
information from visits to indigenous communities; accounts presented
by indigenous representatives at local, national and international
meetings; conversations with individuals – both community leaders and
forest researchers; from news reports; and from research by NGOs and
academics.
Selection of cases
It was agreed to showcase a small number of studies which represented
different geographical areas, challenges and responses. This was a very
difficult process and many other cases could have been chosen. Three
different sets of criteria were used. Firstly, there had to be real evidence
that communities had protected forests and that adat still had some
relevance to their everyday lives. A list of characteristics of ‘success’
was based on work by the Consortium on Community-based Forestry
(KPSHK) (see p24). Before this was used as one of the selection tools it
was further refined, with advice from indigenous representatives, after
testing in a field visit to South Sumatra in 2004.
The second set of criteria comprised practical issues including the

following points:
• Geographical distribution;
• Likelihood of community consent;
21
• Good contacts through indigenous organisation or local NGO;
• Accessibility;
• Amount of readily available existing information;
• Amount of previous exposure;
• Overlap with other ongoing projects;
• Representation of women and the younger generation.
The third and most important criterion was whether the communities
wanted to take part and how far they felt able to write their own accounts.
AMAN/DTE staff had visited all the short-listed communities. The joint
project worker then visited all the selected sites to explain the purpose
of the project in detail and provide guidelines for writing. This was
also an opportunity to gather secondary data, including population data,
documents, maps and photos, and to visit the forests.
Writing up
The six communities submitted their accounts over a period of about
a year. These were then edited so that they were of similar format and
length. Information collected during the initial assessment was also used
to clarify or supplement what the authors had written. Each chapter
was translated into English. This was followed by consultation and
confirmation of the final text with key people from each community.
Positive and negative aspects

One positive outcome of the joint AMAN-DTE work is that both the
preliminary research and the process of writing the book have generated
a large amount of information, mostly in Bahasa Indonesia. This will be
useful to the communities themselves and to AMAN in its role of supporting
indigenous communities throughout the archipelago. In addition, both
phases of the project have generated a number of examples of good practice
for other forest communities to explore and potentially use or adapt . It is
hoped that a Bahasa Indonesia version of this book can be produced.
On the other hand, we are well aware of the limitations of the selection
procedure. No single example fulfilled all the criteria so it was necessary
to make somewhat subjective decisions, based on advice from AMAN’s
secretariat, so that together the cases studies addressed all the criteria.
Limitations on budgets and staff time were also very real considerations.
22
Yuyun Indradi [DtE]

Drying the paddy at Ciptagelar Kasepuhan
For that reason, it was not possible to include any studies from
Maluku or Papua. This lack of representation of good practice in forest
management by indigenous peoples in eastern Indonesia is a regrettable
weakness of this book.
Another shortcoming is that more time should have been spent with
the communities to help them to present information about their
current situation and expectations, but budgets did not allow this. The
indigenous authors’ pride in their culture and traditions shines through
the case studies and reflects their oral tradition. Some of these stories
have never been written down before. However, it is noticeable that
they are much more accustomed to relating the stories of their origin,
history and traditional governance structures than they are to talking
about their present day land use systems and beliefs. The sections
about adat beliefs and systems are much longer and more detailed than
those explaining how adat is being used in the present context to help
indigenous communities to build sustainable livelihoods.
Hopefully, the comments made by the two observers will identify

dilemmas that need to be addressed and their analysis will support the
indigenous peoples in their struggle for their rights to access, manage
and control their natural resources. They are also intended to provide
inputs to and motivation for forest policy reforms based on community-
based forest management and recognition of indigenous rights.
23
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ‘GOOD NEWS STORIES’
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ‘GOOD NEWS STORIES’
1. Land tenure recognition
There is recognition from surrounding/other communities of
customary land/forest with agreed and clear borders. There
is also an existing common/agreed mechanism to resolve
possible conflict regarding land issues over collective or
individual land within the customary domain.
2. Conflict resolution mechanisms on land issues
Mechanisms of conflict resolution exist which relate to internal
(horizontal) conflict as well as conflicts with the state (vertical).
There is evidence of experiences where the community has
resolved conflicts over land within the community or with
neighbouring communities.
3. Remaining forest meets the ecological, social and economic
needs of the community
This includes some estimate of the extent to which this forest area
contributes to the ecological, social and economic needs of the
broader community e.g. a district, province or even a bioregion.
4. Sustainability
Not only whether natural resources are available now, but
some indication of practices that will protect and maintain
these resources in future.
5. Decision-making structures which are capable of change
The traditional/adat governance system is still strong or has
been revived, and is flexible enough to deal with challenges
from the outside world.
6. Clear land ownership status and system
There are common/agreed (customary) rules of land ownership
- individual or collective - which are acknowledged and
protected as village or customary regulations.
7. Egalitarian systems of decision-making
Inclusive and democratic structures of decision-making within
which women and the younger generation can participate
on an equal basis, specifically related to managing natural
resources including planning.
24
8. Community understanding on the ecological functions of

the forest and its benefit to people
There is a common understanding of the ecological function of
customary forests, expressed through customary regulations
or practices intended to maintain the sustainability of forest
functions and the benefits to their livelihoods.
9. Integration of forest management functions between
customary and government governance
A close relationship between the adat organisation and
village government, or integration of these functions under
a common and agreed governance system which strengthens
adat institutions in their role in managing natural resources
through enforcement of adat regulation/norms/values and
their roles in social relationships/interactions.
10. Local government recognition of customary territory and
practices
The existence of customary land/forest and traditional practices
is recognised, protected and supported by local government,
at least at the subdistrict or district level, even though there is
no formal legal protection.
AMAN.doc
Remaining forest meets the ecological, social and economic needs of the community
25
Jopi [AMAN]
101
3
THE CIPTAGELAR KASEPUHAN

INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY, WEST JAVA
Developing a bargaining position over customary forest
Ki Ugis Suganda1
1
The author is a member of the Ciptagelar Kasepuhan who lives in Sirnaresmi. He
holds the position of Kanagaraan or external relations in the traditional community
structure.
27
Jopi [AMAN]
Newly built traditional house, Sirnaresmi
I. INTRODUCTION
The heart of the Ciptagelar Kasepuhan community is located deep in

the forested hills of West Java, which the Indonesian government has
designated as Gunung Halimun-Salak National Park. Most members of
this indigenous community depend on traditional agriculture and forest
products for their livelihoods.
The whole Kasepuhan adat community is estimated to number around

16,000 people, spread across three districts in the provinces of West
Java and Banten - Sukabumi, Bogor and Lebak. Some also live and
work in other regions outside western Java, mostly in the big cities
of Java, although a few now live on other islands of Indonesia. The
majority still identify themselves as indigenous Kasepuhan2.
2
There are around thirteen indigenous Kasepuhan communities in the hilly, forested
parts of western Java, of which the Ciptagelar is one of the largest (see DTE Newsletter
63, November 2004).
28
Under Ciptagelar Kasepuhan customary law, the area now called

the village of Sirnaresmi lies within the indigenous community’s
protected forest area and is part of its customary domain of Cicemet.
The Ciptagelar community lives mainly in Cikarancang – officially part
of the hamlet of Sukamulya.
Sirnaresmi is, in administrative terms, a village in the Cisolok subdistrict

of Sukabumi. The total population is 4,803: 2,460 men and 2,343
women5. It covers 4,917 ha most of which is forests or agroforests with
smaller areas of paddy fields, other agricultural land and settlements. It
is bounded by Lebak district to the north, Kelapa Nunggal subdistrict to
the east and Cicadas village to the south and west and is 198 km from
Bogor, 46 km from Sukabumi and 21 km from Cisolok, which lies on
the south coast.
This is a highland area, 800-1,200 m above sea level with gradients of

25-45%. The climate is cool and pleasant with an average temperature
of 21-28°C and humidity around 84%. The annual rainfall is quite high
(2,120-3,250 mm/year) and the rainy season usually lasts five months.
The land is criss-crossed by many rivers and is suitable for agriculture
and plantations, but it is difficult to access, especially during the rainy
season. The only public transport available along the unpaved stony
road to Cikarancang is 4-wheel drive Jeep and motorbike-taxis.
Gunung Halimun National Park was originally created in 1992 with

an area of some 40,000 ha, but was extended in 2003 to include

Indigenous communities and government authorities usually have very different
views about the concept of ‘a village’. The Indonesian government imposed a standard
system of village administration during the 1970s. The new, hierarchical system cut
across traditional settlements. Some traditional villages were split; others were desig-
nated hamlets or incorporated as districts of other villages. Many customary villages
now have different names. Sirnaresmi is unusual in that most of its inhabitants are
indigenous Kasepuhan, so the customary and government governance systems are very
closely linked and the impact of village administration legislation has not been as great
as in many indigenous communities.

Sirnaresmi is both the name given by the government to this administrative area and
the name of a small Kasepuhan community linked to the Ciptagelar who live 16 km
away nearer the main coast road. Yet another closely related Kasepuhan community,
Ciptamulya, lives in Sirnaresmi near the road at Tugu.
5
Official data on Sirnaresmi village (Daftar Isian Potensi Desa Sirnaresmi, 1997)
29
30
Road
River
Kasepuhan Community
Gn Halimun Nat Park Boundary
Gunung Halimun-Salak Nat Park Boundary
Sirnaresmi Village
Overlay map of the original (Gunung Halimun) national park and the extended area (Gunung Halimun-Salak) with Kasepuhan
communities. The Participatory mapping was based on the administrative village of Sirnaresmi, not on customary domains
Mount Salak with a total area of 113,357 ha. Prior to that, some of the
Ciptagelar community’s customary lands had been zoned as watershed
protection forest or production forest and allocated to the Indonesian
state-owned forestry company, Perum Perhutani. This too now forms
part of the national park.
The main problem for the Ciptagelar community relates to this national
park. Whereas the community had reached an understanding with
Perhutani about land use, the framework document of the new national
park does not permit settlements, agricultural activities or logging
within the core zone. The Ciptagelar and other Kasepuhan communities
are concerned about where they will be allowed to live and grow their
crops, especially paddy rice, and how they will be able to meet their
own needs for timber such as for building new houses.
II. PROFILE OF THE CIPTAGELAR KASEPUHAN

INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY
1. Origin and migrations

According to Kasepuhan oral history, passed from generation to
generation, the Ciptagelar community originated from the Pajajaran-
Bogor kingdom. In the mid-sixteenth century, the Islamic sultanate of
Banten invaded the Pajajaran kingdom. The destruction of Java’s last
Sunda-Hindu kingdom was led by Sultan Maulana Yusuf. Before the
capital fell to the enemy, King Prabu Suryakancana - known as Prabu
Pucuk Umun, the last of the Pakuan Pajajaran dynasty - instructed his
chieftains to hide the kingdom’s sacred heirlooms so they did not fall
into enemy hands.
The Kasepuhan people believe that the former capital of the Pajajaran
kingdom was located near Batu Tulis, where Bogor now is. While the

Forestry minister’s decree No. 175/Kpts-II/2003

Technically, the state forestry concession was cancelled when this area became part
of the national park. However, Perhutani has not yet relinquished control. The exten-
sion of the national park to include Gunung Salak means that the whole area must be
re-zoned.

Gregorian calendar
31
king and his escort went to Palasari (Pandeglang district) in Banten
province, the chieftains left for Jasinga Bogor and then moved on to
Lebak Binong village, in what is now the Lebak district of Banten.
Later, they went to Cipatat (near Bogor) but returned to Lebak district
where they moved successively from Lebak Larang, back to Lebak
Binong and to Tegal Lumbu. Their escape then took them to Cicadas
(Sukabumi district), and to Bojong Cisono (Lebak district), before they
finally arrived in Cicemet.
The story goes that these frequent relocations across a considerable

area were a device to hide their tracks and avoid persecution by the
sultan’s troops. Moreover, they wanted to resist the incorporation of their
community into the Banten sultanate.
In 1957, the core of the Ciptagelar Kasepuhan community relocated to

Cikaret village (now called Sirnaresmi), then, in 1972, to Ciganas village
(now Sirnarasa), before moving to the hamlet of Lebak Gadog (Linggar
Jati) in 1982. In 1983, they moved once more to Datar Putat (Ciptarasa)
and finally, in 2000, to Cikarancang where they remain until today. All
these locations lie within the Sukabumi district of West Java.
The elders of the Kasepuhan community explain that these recent moves
were intended to demarcate and maintain the identity of Kasepuhan
customary lands which were spread across the three districts of Bogor,
Sukabumi and Lebak, close to what would soon become Gunung
Halimun-Salak National Park.
The story has also been handed down that, one day (when is not known),
the indigenous Ciptagelar, Citorek and Cicarucub Kasepuhan peoples,
who are all related, will return to the heart of the Pajajaran kingdom in
Batu Tulis, Bogor.
2. Institutional Structure of the Kasepuhan people under Customary Law

All traditional offices within the Kasepuhan customary institutional
structure are responsible to the highest leader, the Sesepuh (usually

Now known as Ciptagelar, after the community. In a similar way, Cikaret was re-
named Sirnaresmi after the Kasepuhan community of that name.
32
called Abah, meaning father). These posts are all hereditary: there are
no community elections for them. Only the Kokolot Lembur, the leaders
of each community group, are elected by the indigenous members of
that village10. As community leaders, the Kokolot Lembur participate in
adat meetings – this is the forum where decisions are made regarding
the whole cycle of agricultural production, from preparing the land to
harvesting the crops. Usually the Kokolot Lembur also hold certain
positions within the Kasepuhan’s customary structure.
Adat positions in Kasepuhan Society

Title Function
Head of the ethnic group. Highest
adat leader. Serve the needs of the
Leader members of the community in matters
(Sesepuh) concerning this world (material) and
beyond (spiritual). Appoint and dismiss
customary officials.
Assist the head of the community (Sesepuh)

in all affairs dealing with the government.
Head of external affairs
Advise the Sesepuh on community issues.
(Kanagaraan)
Organise the community. Issue statements/
political positions.
Assist the Sesepuh with affairs concerning

Head of religious affairs
customary law and religion. Propose
(Syara1)
candidates for the position of adat leader.
Lead prayers in customary rituals. To
Head of customary law
prepare and conduct burials. Determine
(Panghulu)
burial costs.
Coordinate the management of rice paddies
Water manager
and the irrigation system. Punish those who
(Tatanen)
interfere with water supplies.
10
Not all members of the Ciptagelar Kasepuhan live in Cikarancang: some live in
Sirnaresmi/Cikaret, Tugu or other settlements in the area. So each group of Ciptagelar
Kasepuhan, wherever they are living, selects a leader or Kolokot Lembur. The Sesepuh
is the overall leader of the whole Ciptagelar community.
33
Lead the adat rituals2 to prevent or cure
Human healer/ Shaman
illness. Give medicines and treat the sick.
(Dukun manusia)
Determine costs for treatments.
Animal healer (Dukun
Treat sick animals.
hewan)
Musician Play and take care of the gamelan
(Gamelan) (traditional orchestra).
Rice field manager Supervise/ control/ administer/ look after
(Panyawah) communal and individual rice paddies.
Cultural Guardian To inform and educate community members
(Pamuk/Obor3/ Pantun/ about Kasepuhan beliefs through traditional
Pakarang) stories, songs and verses. To enforce adat law.
Male circumciser
Circumcise boys.
(Bengkong Lalaki)
Female circumciser
Circumcise girls.
(Bengkong Perempuan)
Midwife Take care of women during pregnancy and
(Paraji) labour.
Puppeteer Organise entertainment, narrate and perform
(Dalang) shadow puppet plays.
Singer (Sinden) The lead female singer in performances.
Hunt animals needed for adat rituals and
Hunter
drive away pests harming the crops of any
(Moro)
community member.
Take care of and polish the community’s
Treasurer
heirlooms and sacred objects, especially
(Pakarang)
during the month of Maulud4.
Cleaner Clean up the village and the area around the
(Bebersih) communal rice store.
Wedding organiser Organise wedding decorations and lead
(Panganten) wedding ceremonies.
Fuel manager Find firewood and banana leaves for the
(Kemit /Suluh Daun) public kitchen and relay messages.
Forest protector Supervise the community’s protected and
(Kemit Leuweung) sacred forest areas.
34
Road manager Surface paths around people’s homes

(Ngabalay) and roads around the village.
Ceremonial chef Prepare and serve the cakes and food during
(Masang) adat ceremonies.
Leader’s cook Cook for the Sesepuh’s family.
(Dapur Khusus)
Rice Manager Supervise rice being stored and taken out of
(Candoli) the communal storehouse.
Cook Take care of the vegetables and meat in the
(Masak) public kitchen for adat ceremonies.
Travel Assistant
Assist the Sesepuh when he travels.
(Gandek /Koja)
Store and manage cakes, bananas, coconuts,
Supplies manager
vegetables, spices and meat when there is a
(Tukang Para)
ceremony or a celebration.
Carpenter Build houses and furniture for the Sesepuh
(Tukang Bas/Kayu) and other community members.
Transport Manager Attend to the means of transportation of the
(Tukang Kuda) Sesepuh.
Lampman
Take care of lighting in the village.
(Tukang Lampu)
Tailor/Seamstress Make clothes for the Sesepuh’s family and
(Tukang Jahit) other community members.
Ceremonial assistant5 Carries out parts of wedding and
(Tukang Sawer) circumcision ceremonies and celebrations.
1
The Kasepuhan have their own religion/belief system which includes influences from Islam
and Hinduism. So terms like syara do not have the same meaning as in mainstream Islam.
2
These healing rituals are called nyimur or prah-prahan in Kasepuhan. Nowadays, the
immunisation programme is also considered part of these.
3
Obor literally means ‘a torch’ so, in Kasepuhan society, the person in this position is
responsible for ‘enlightening’ people about traditional knowledge through poetry, stories
and other art forms. He also warns the community to stay on the well-lit path rather than the
dark one i.e. to follow adat rules (see Section IV.3).
4
Maulud is the period when Muslims commemorate the birth of Muhammad.
5
Literally sawer means to share or distribute money. At these ceremonies, money and yellow
rice are handed out to symbolise hopes for justice, solidarity and collective prosperity.
35
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Village and customary house in Kasepuhan
3. Control of customary land and forests

The colonial policy of forced cultivation for the ‘native’ population,
first implemented by the Dutch East Indies Company11, had a serious
impact on indigenous peoples. The capitalist economic system which
underpinned colonial agriculture was directly opposed to the indigenous
culture of subsistence agriculture. To avoid confrontation with the
colonial authorities, the Kasepuhan had to clear some natural forest
within their customary lands for settlements and farming, even though
this was protected under adat law.
In the 19th century, the Dutch colonial plantation system started to take
over customary land and made indigenous people work under the forced
cultivation policy for large-scale plantation and forestry companies
belonging to the private sector or the Dutch colonial government. A
number of plantation and forestry operations, including conservation
measures, were imposed on customary land and forests belonging to
the Kasepuhan people. This appropriation of indigenous lands and
resources continued throughout the Japanese occupation and even
after Indonesia became independent. The Indonesian government has
11
The Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie or VOC controlled large parts of the coastal
areas of Java, Sumatra, Kalimantan, Sulawesi and the Moluccas for nearly two centu-
ries from the early 17th century.
36
continued to permit plantations (through concessions to private or state-

owned companies) and forestry companies (through the state-owned
company Perhutani) to use Kasepuhan customary forest lands.
It was in 1932 that the awisan (protected forest) in Cicemet was cleared
for agricultural purposes for the first time ever. After Dutch troops
burned down the communal rice store in 193812, the core of the Kasepu-
han community moved from Cibengkung to Cicemet. To ensure the
sustainable use of their land for future generations, the Kasepuhan lead-
ers developed a land use plan through discussion with the community,
designating areas as protected forest, reserved forest and land for agri-
cultural and agroforestry purposes13 (see section III, 2).
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Agroforest (talun), Ciptagelar
12
The movement for independence from the Dutch started pre-World War II. The co-
lonial powers destroyed crops where they suspected villagers were supplying food to
independence supporters.
13
Huma is land cleared for dry rice cultivation as part of the Kasepuhan’s rotational
cultivation system. A number of other crops are also grown in these fields. Talun is a tra-
ditional Sundanese agroforestry system that combines the cultivation of many kinds of
vegetables and trees which eventually develops into man-made forest. Kebun is similar
to talun, but is usually nearer to people’s houses and has fewer large trees.
37
The land use plan drew clear boundaries between these different areas,
following the community’s traditional forest management concept14.
Agreements with third parties were mutually acknowledged but not
formalised in writing. Even though these boundaries overlapped with
the Gunung Halimun National Park and Perum Perhutani’s concession
area, this did not result in conflict between different stakeholders at that
time15.
In order to avoid disputes between community members, forest

areas assigned for agricultural and agroforestry purposes are held as
communal land. Only land in the immediate surroundings of a house is
considered individual property for as long as the occupants live there. If
they move away, someone else can take over the house and land.
Jopi [AMAN]
Customary land in Kasepuhan Sirnaresmi
14
These boundaries are usually only marked by natural features such as rocks, streams
or particular trees.
15
More recently, there has been conflict between the Kasepuhan community over the
area designated as the ‘core zone’ of the National Park (but not any of the other zones)
and what was the production area of the Perhutani concession. The Halimun area was
divided up into three large management units (KPH) and some 26,000 ha of Kasepuhan
rice fields, agroforest and customary forest were converted to pine plantations for log-
ging. So the indigenous community lost their assets and access to natural resources.
38
Jopi [AMAN]
Traditional rice barns at Kasepuhan Sirnaresmi
The rules are different for rice paddies and talun where, even if people
move away, they still retain ownership. Landowners can hand over land
use rights to another member of the community and agree payment in
kind or in cash as compensation for the initial cost of land clearance or
for crops on the land.
With the growing pace of development and higher incomes, demand for
timber to build houses increased during the 1970s. Some individuals
(migrants into the Kasepuhan area) and government officials saw this as
an opportunity to get into the timber trade. Gradual encroachment has
led to forest degradation and destruction. The situation has been made
worse by extremely weak law enforcement. In applying customary
laws on natural resource management, the indigenous community
often clashes with the civil authorities and police/judiciary over illegal
activities.
4. Village land versus customary land

There is a difference in principle between the terms ‘village land’ (tanah
desa) and ‘customary land’ (tanah adat) for most indigenous peoples in
Indonesia. For the Kasepuhan, ‘customary land’ (wilayah hak ulayat)
only refers to communal property. It has very clear boundaries and use
is regulated by customary rules, but there is no individual ownership,
official administrative areas do not confine it and there is no written
39
proof of ownership16. In case of dispute, a consensual solution is sought
through negotiations led by members of the customary governance
structure.
On the other hand, the term ‘village land’ applies to land which was
managed individually but not formally registered as individual property
at the time of the 1960 Agrarian Law. This was traditionally known
by the Kasephuan as ‘common land’ but was then classified by the
government as ‘state land’ by default as it was said to be ‘without
owners’17. Eventually, in the 1970s, the district government issued
certificates18 allowing people to use this land for agriculture, subject to
the following conditions:
 the land could not be bought or sold19;
 it could not be bequeathed;
 it could be reclaimed by the government in the public interest
without any compensation;
 the holder of the certificate had to pay land and building tax
on any village land used for individual purposes.
Solutions for disputes in the Ciptagelar community are sought according

to customary rules. For example, when land is required for new housing
or a road, school or mosque, a proposal is sent to the local government
to withdraw permission to farm that area of village land. Its status
then changes from individual to communal ownership, as it becomes
customary land20.
16
In Indonesia, only individual land ownership is officially recognised.
17
The community traditionally calls this land hakulah or tanah hak olah – land which any-
one in the community can use. However they also use an old Dutch colonial term, abbrevi-
ated to GG, which refers to collectively-held lands which are claimed as ‘state land’.
18
These land use permits are known as Surat Ijin Menggarap (SIM). The local Land
Agency office issues certificates called Surat Pemberitahuan Pajak Terhutang (SPPT)
which recognise land use, subject to payment of taxes.
19
Members of the Kasepuhan community are not allowed to buy or sell land anyway under
customary law. However, exchanging plots of land within the community is permitted.
20
This is only possible because most of the village are indigenous Kasepuhan, including
members of the village administration.
40
III. attitudes toWards natural resources and

their management

1. Basic philosophy of nature and its management
The Ciptagelar Kasepuhan indigenous community believes that
humans are only one of many living creatures in the universe. In their
value system, human beings should respect ‘Mother Earth’ and ‘Father
Heaven’ just as they respect their own parents. Perceptions of nature
must always be related to people’s perceptions of themselves as human
beings. The underlying concept is Jagat Leutik, Jagat Gede - Jagat
Leutik Sanubari, Jagat Gede Bumi Langit: awareness of the microcosm
and macrocosm – the small world of consciousness and the immensity
of the natural universe.
Nature with all its elements is considered to be some sort of living entity
too, which is why it can interact with human beings. Most importantly,
humans do not have the right to decide the fate of all other living things.
In practice, this principle means that natural resource management must
be based on self-awareness. This is reflected in the way the Kasepuhan
people manage their natural resources.
The Kasepuhan community place great emphasis on the balance between

people and nature. They believe that nature sends out signals that people
can read to help them maintain this natural balance. The Kasepuhan
people apply this philosophy to their agriculture and forest management.
The Kasepuhan people recognise several constellations and their

significance for agricultural practices. They call these the ‘Village
Teachers’. They pay special attention to two constellations and use them
for guidance in farming: the Kereti and the Kidang, which follow each
other once a year from east to west.
When the Kereti constellation first appears – around the month of August
- the Kasepuhan know it is time to start getting their farming tools ready21.
21
Tanggal Kereti Turun Beusi (lit. when Kereti appears, get the tools ready); Tanggal
Kidang, Turun Kujang (lit. when Kidang appears, get the machetes out); Tilem Kidang,
Turun Kungkang (lit. when Kidang goes, the pests come).
41
Once the constellation of Kidang appears, they start clearing the land and
cultivating their rice paddies. They should finish harvesting the upland
and paddy rice when this constellation disappears (some time in May),
because plagues of insect rice pests are most likely then22.
The Kasepuhan do not view their forests as production forests, in the

sense that they do not harvest timber as an economic crop. Instead, they
value the environmental services provided by forests such as:
• protecting water sources;
• balancing climate;
• habitats for animals;
• conservation.
They believe that the current generation has only borrowed the natural
resources from future generations and must therefore manage them in
a fair and sustainable way. A local saying is: Our world can feed any
amount of people, as long as it is managed in a fair way, but it won’t
feed two or three greedy people.
Because of these beliefs, the Kasepuhan always hold a ceremony to

pay respect to nature before starting any activity related to the land or
natural resource use (see section IV).
2. Sustainability and the natural resource management practices of

the Kasepuhan people
In the Kasepuhan culture, land is zoned according to its function,
such as forest (gunung kayuan); steep slopes covered with bamboo
groves (lamping gawit awian); agroforestry areas (kebun talun); rice
paddies (datar sawahan); and fish ponds (legok balongan). This zoning
influences the way people manage their natural resources23.
22
Such as the rice bug, locally called the walang sangit (Leptocorisa oratorius), which
infects ears of rice preventing development of the grains.
23
Until the 1940s, the Ciptagelar Kasepuhan only practiced rotational cultivation
(‘shifting agriculture’). Now much rice is grown in irrigated paddy fields on land where
the local government has granted limited use rights. Not everyone in Cikarancang has
land, but most members of the indigenous community have either some paddy fields or
upland or agroforestry plots. They also keep chickens, goats and water buffalos.
42
Participatory mapping of land use

in Sirnaresmi village, redrawn from
Customary Forest Kasepuhan community, RMI, 1999
Other Forest Uses
Agroforestry Farming
Paddy Fields
Settlement
Cemetry
a. Irrigated rice (paddy)

Rice is planted for subsistence, not as a cash crop. One crop of
local rice varieties is planted per year on communal land and on
individual plots24.
b. Upland plots
These are rain-fed not irrigated. Local upland rice varieties are
intercropped with beans, pumpkins, cucumber and maize. This land
is used rotationally.
24
At least 3 varieties of irrigated rice and 5 varieties of dryland rice are grown at
Sirnaresmi. Rice is still harvested with a small blade held between the fingers, not with
a sickle, as the individual stems ripen at different times. People must harvest rice from
the Sesepuh’s fields without pay as a service to the community leader. The rice is dried
on racks before being stored in special barns. Women from the age of 9 years old up-
wards still pound the rice by hand.
43
c. Vegetable gardens
Vegetables, maize and sweet potato are also grown on the paddy
fields or upland plots before the rice-planting season.
d. Agroforestry
Any category of land can be used for agroforestry (kebun talun),
including previously cultivated upland plots. The Ciptagelar
Kasepuhan plant crops such as bananas, coffee, cardamom, cloves,
sugar cane, chillies, peanuts and tree species to supply timber and
other local needs. Tree species planted to reforest swidden fallow
include manglid (Manglietia glauca), surian (Toona sureni), mani’i/
afrika (Maesopsis eminii), tisuk (Hibiscus macrophylia), dadap
(Erythrina spp), pucung (Pangium edule), teureup (Artocarpus
sp), candle nut (Aleurites moluccana), huru tangkalak (Litsea
glutinosa), harendong’ badak (Melastoma malabathrycum) and
many others25.
e. Fish production
The Kasepuhan people create fishponds in parts of the valley floor
close to streams or springs. Fish is much in demand for rituals
throughout the year, so nearly all community members have
fishponds. Fish breeding and hatching take place in the paddy fields
before the rice-planting season. Later, the fish are transferred to
individually owned ponds near the village. They breed carp, catfish,
tilapia, sepat26 and other species.
f. Fruit trees
These are not planted on specific plots of land, but are grown anywhere
around the village, on the margins of paddy fields or upland plots.
They include: durian, avocado, jackfruit, petai bean trees (Parkia
speciosa), sugar palm, coconut, mango and various kinds of guava.
The Kasepuhan community also uses non-timber forest products such

as rattan; honey for local consumption and for sale; mushrooms; and
25
The talun has high biodiversity. In 20-30 years, depending on the species planted, it
can be difficult for outsiders to distinguish between talun and natural forest. Members
of the indigenous community recognise at least 200 different kinds of trees, including
species grown for timber, firewood, resins and fruits and some 9 species of bamboo.
Firewood is an important commodity as most Ciptagelar families depend on it for all
their cooking.
26
Sepat is Helostoma temmincki
44
roots, tubers and other parts of many other medicinal plants from the
forest, mainly for use within the community.
There is a trend towards increased use of the lowlands for irrigated rice
cultivation, since upland cultivation is not always profitable. Recently,
the community has started to sell timber on the open market as well
as for building their own houses. They use sustainable harvesting and
management practices27.
The Kasepuhan people’s sustainable forest management system

distinguishes between three kinds of forest. These categories are closely
related to their philosophy of life. The approximate proportion of each
type is indicated in brackets below.
I. Protected forest (Leuweung titipan28) (60%)

This forest is protected by the community and the forest spirits. It
is strictly forbidden to enter this forest area without the permission
of the traditional leader (Sesepuh) or to take anything from it. This
zone is preserved to ensure the sustainability of the community’s
livelihoods.
II. Closed forest (Leuweung tutupan) (20%)

This forest functions as a buffer and also protects the village.
Community members may only harvest non-timber forest products.
In cases of extreme need, the community may decide to clear parts of
this forest for the benefit of the whole Kasepuhan people (for instance
the Cicemet case in 1932), but not for individual interests.
27
Manglid (Manglietia glauca), surian (Toona sureni) and mani’i/afrika (Maesopsis
eminii) are the most commonly planted timber species as part of the Kasepuhan agro-
forest system and it is these that are now harvested for sale. Agroforestry (talun) is
becoming even more important now to the Kasepuhan both because of the reforestation
they have carried out and because they are giving up traditional rotational cultivation
on the uplands for irrigated rice cultivation in the valleys.
28
Also known as hutan awisan. Awisan means ‘forbidden’ or ‘sacred’. As the purpose
of the core zone of the national park is broadly similar, the Kasepuhan do not have a
problem where these two zones overlap. Each of the 13 or so Kasepuhan communities
around Gunung Halimun and Salak has its own area of sacred forest but this may be
located near another community’s settlement.
45
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Customary forest and paddy fields, Ciptagelar
III. Open forest (Leuweung bukaan/garapan) (20%)

This is the part of the forest that the community uses for its paddy
fields, rotational agriculture, agroforestry, housing, roads, mosques,
cemeteries, livestock and other needs. It is strictly forbidden to use
the other two forest areas for any of these purposes. The open forest
zone is also known as Terasan once it has been cleared.
IV. Customary institutions, LAWS and decision

making mechanisms for natural resource
management
1 . Rituals
The Opat Belasan ceremony is celebrated on the thirteenth day of every
month in the Muslim calendar. This ritual welcomes the full moon, so
that people’s hearts will be filled with its light. It also pays respect
to the spirits contained within the community’s sacred heirlooms.
The ceremony includes a ritual meal and midnight prayers, followed
by traditional artistic entertainment. While the men meet to discuss
community affairs, the women prepare a fruit salad and cook the food
for the celebration.
Before undertaking any activity related to natural resource management,

there usually is a devotional visit to the graves of the community’s
46
Sirnaresmi land use

Land use Kasepuhan zone Area (ha)
Housing Open forest (Leuweung garapan) 74.18
Paddy fields Open forest (Leuweung garapan) 559.98
Upland agriculture Open forest (Leuweung garapan) 303.4
Burial ground Open forest (Leuweung garapan) 7.00
Customary forest Closed forest (Leuweung tutupan) 1,013.00
Customary forest Protected forest (Leuweung titipan) 2,948.48
Total village area 4,906.046
forefathers. In chronological order, the customary rituals during the

year are:
 Ngaseuk which marks the beginning of the planting season for
upland rice, followed by the planting season for lowland paddy
rice;
 Mipit which is celebrated when the rice is ready for harvesting;
 Nganyaran: a ritual for cooking the newly harvested rice;
 Serah Ponggokan: the community apologises to Mother Earth
for disturbing her during their agricultural activities. At this
occasion, community members agree on the costs for the
harvest festival;
 Seren Tahun is the most important of all the ceremonies. Here
the community thanks the Almighty for a good harvest;
 Circumcisions and weddings are celebrated collectively at harvest
time, so that community members can all help each other.
All men, women, and young people of the community participate in

these activities according to their skills and capacity.
2. Customary rules
The Kasepuhan people regard their forest as something special that
must be respected. Certain mantras have to be spoken when entering or
leaving the forest. People felling a tree to build a house need to carry
47
incense29 provided by the community leader as a sign of blessing from
the microcosm and the macrocosm. It is strictly forbidden to cut budding
or sprouting trees. Nobody is allowed to cut any trees at all during the
second and third months of the Muslim calendar30.
The underlying principle of Kasepuhan customary law is to preserve the bal-

ance between humans and nature. Actions that violate customary law can dis-
turb this balance.
The rituals and ceremonies described in the previous section can also be con-
sidered part of customary law as, although they are unwritten, they represent
people’s collective and individual obligations before the natural environment
can be used. However, as part of their adaptation to modern times, the Ciptage-
lar community is slowly giving up its system of shifting cultivation. The same
is true for customary rules that have lost their relevance with time. For example,
there is hardly any hunting since deer have become very rare.
It was explained earlier that the community may only use land designated as
‘open forest’. Exploitation of the sacred and ‘closed forests’ for farmland or
timber is strictly forbidden. Nearly all the springs are located in the sacred forest;
this is also the habitat of rare wildlife. Village land is used if more agricultural
land is needed. Traditionally, timber can only be extracted to build a house or
furniture for oneself. Man-made forest (kebun talun), not the natural forest, is
used as a source of timber and only certain species can be felled.
3. Customary law enforcement and sanctions

The basis of Ciptagelar Kasepuhan customary law is their philosophy
of life which is based on three pillars (Tilu Sapamulu). The terms
Tekad, Ucap and Lampah roughly translate as determination, speech
and behaviour, but have broader significance in different contexts.
Harmony – a central aspect of Kasepuhan life - can only be achieved
if there is a balance between all three elements. The Kasepuhan people
must pay attention to these three principles and use them as guidance in
their daily lives at the individual and community level.
29
Kemenyan is a fragrant tree resin produced by Styrax bezoin, commonly called frank-
incense in Indonesia.
30
Syafar and Raby’al-Awwal
48
Relationships between the spiritual and physical worlds

Internal External
What you What you What you do
Characteristic
think (Tekad7) say (Ucap) (Lampah)
Personal
Kasepuhan
values or Civil
norms of
Social controls community governance
behaviour
spirit (Buhun, (Nagara)
(Syara)
Mokaha)
Body Clothing
Vehicle Soul (Nyawa)
(Raga) (Papakean)
The following examples illustrate how the whole belief system puts
humans at the centre of the universe but, at the same time, treats people
as only one part of nature.
At the individual level, Tekad, Ucap and Lampah stand for accountability
in words and in deeds: one’s words and deeds must be consistent with
one’s interests and intentions. At the level of society, the collective spirit
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Seren Tahun, the community thanks the Almighty for a good harvest
49
(Buhun) must be in harmony with community governance (Nagara) and
Kesepuhan culture (Syara). At yet another level, the community and its
system of governance are regarded as living entities or people. For the
Kasepuhan, governance and community affairs must take into account the
soul (community life), body (socio-political territory) and cultural norms
(Papakean). If the territory is managed without taking the collective spirit
(Buhun) into account, it will result in a form of development which is
meaningless to the community, just as a finely dressed body with no soul
remains a corpse. Similarly, if development only takes into account the
territory and the collective spirit, it will produce a community without
cultural norms: a living body with no clothes.
Customary legal enforcement and adat sanctions emphasise the role of

individual consciousness in guarding the balance between microcosm
and macrocosm. If someone breaks a customary law or rule, it is
believed this will have an effect on cosmological balance. This will
impact on the person who broke the rule, the family and the whole
Kasepuhan community.
For the Ciptagelar Kasepuhan, indigenous people’s wisdom is a spiritual

understanding or Buhun. The soul is invisible and therefore customary
law is not written down. Customary sanctions are neither physical
nor material, but whoever breaks adat law will be punished socially,
spiritually and even cosmically – they will be cursed (kabendon).
The judge in the Kasepuhan community is the social environment; the

adat leaders only act as witnesses. One customary official (the Obor/
Pamuk) monitors adherence to adat law. For instance: if a member
of the community breaks a rule, the customary guardian will remind
them and reprimand them. S/he must then admit the mistake in front
of the community leaders and promise not to do it again. Community
members guilty of violating adat law have to provide everything for
the ritual required to ask for forgiveness and absolve their wrongdoing.
Guided by the shaman, s/he will then ask to be cleansed of their sins by
the ancestors. If that person breaks the adat rule again, s/he will suffer
some sort of indirect physical punishment in form of a severe or even
fatal illness, a snakebite or being mauled by a tiger.
50
The Kemit Leuweung is in charge of regularly patrolling the forest and

enforcing the customary laws related to it. He reports any problem he
encounters to the Sesepuh as the highest leader. Anyone breaking the
adat laws governing the customary forest may also suffer penalties
from the spirit world, for example, getting lost in the forest for several
days. S/he can only be found by getting a specific kind of incense from
the community leader and burning it around the forest boundaries.
4. Adat Meetings
The Opat Belasan ceremonies (see also section IV, 1), also serve as
opportunities for routine adat meetings. These are a sort of monthly
evaluation of community activities in every hamlet. Participants include
the community leaders, plus women and young people. The kind of
decisions taken include when to celebrate the various rituals or when to
start clearing the land for upland cultivation, based on the constellations
used in the agricultural calendar. The Sesepuh chairs the discussion until
a consensus is reached on the schedule of events, then an assistant will
lead the preparations for each event.
The largest meeting takes place during the Serah Ponggokan celebrations,
at the end of the cultivation cycle. Topics discussed here include when to
celebrate the harvest festival (Seren Tahun), each family’s contribution,
planning the communal wedding and circumcision ceremonies and
scheduling further discussions to take place under the supervision of
the community leader.
The harvest celebrations also provide an opportunity to evaluate the

Kasepuhan community’s overall development. Usually this takes place
as an informal discussion, after the Ampih Pare Ka Leuit ritual of
bringing the rice harvest into the communal storehouse, and is attended
by the leaders of each hamlet, community members and government
officials as invited guests.
This gathering also serves as a forum for the community to hold

discussions with representatives of government agencies and maintain
good external relations with them.
51
V. RelationshipS betWeen the customary
institutions and the village administration
1. Village regulations versus customary law

Most inhabitants of the settlements in the Ciptagelar customary domain
are indigenous Kasepuhan. So it is not surprising that the community
bases village regulations on customary law. The only exceptions are
issues related to land and building taxes or to national government
initiatives, for example, the family welfare programme31.
The difference between the two is that customary rules are derived from
customary law and are valid for an indefinite period of time, whereas
village regulations are usually made to satisfy specific needs only for
a certain period of time. Customary rules were made by the ancestors
and handed down to their successors who implement them; the village
administration and assembly32 create village regulations.
To date there are no village regulations regarding the customary forest in

Sirnaresmi. One reason for this is that, to date, no one in the community
understands the issue sufficiently to lead the process of drafting a
written regulation. The Ciptagelar Kasepuhan do have a map of their
customary area as a result of a participatory mapping exercise that they
initiated in 1999. However, adat rules regarding the forest make no
reference to administrative boundaries at village, subdistrict, district
or province level. The community should therefore, in the near future,
create a village regulation regarding the management of forests and
other natural resources. The process to draw up this regulation needs to
start immediately.
2. Customary versus administrative governance structure

Within the Sirnaresmi village administrative structure, there is no specific
post for environmental and forest issues. This contrasts with the adat
governance system where the Kemit Leuweung (customary guardian) is
clearly in charge of ensuring that rules on the forest are observed.
31
Pendidikan Kesejahteraan Keluarga, PKK (see also the Toro case study)
32
Badan Perwakilan Desa, BPD
52
Also, administrative positions are only for a certain legislative period

and filled by election, whereas customary positions are for life. For
example, once the customary guardian is too old to carry out his duties,
he passes on his mandate to one of his offspring.
The customary and administrative structures of the adat community

and Sirnaresmi village are not entirely separate since the people holding
administrative positions in the official bureaucracy are indigenous
Ciptagelar Kasepuhan. In other words, the members of the village
executive are members of the indigenous community, elected by the
indigenous community. People who hold customary positions are
also responsible to the village community, the majority of whom are
indigenous people. Indigenous people make up the village assembly too.
Another difference between the administrative and the customary

governance structures is the territory which each controls. The
Kasepuhan customary area extends far beyond the administrative
village boundaries; covering parts of three districts in two provinces.
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Kasepuhan women pound rice to remove the husks
53
While the Ciptagelar Kasepuhan community now has its geographic
centre in Sirnaresmi village, culturally its members even include those
living outside Java.
3. Village activities versus customary activities

As most of members of the village’s official bodies are indigenous
Kasepuhan, there is rarely any conflict between the activities carried out
by the village and customary structures in Sirnaresmi. Administrative
village programmes are usually accepted and integrated into the
indigenous community’s programmes and vice versa. The important
point for the indigenous leaders is that the interests of the indigenous
community are taken into account in village development programmes,
despite the very different planning procedures and sources of funding
of the two systems.
The various customary ceremonies and meetings are used to discuss

and plan activities related to adat issues or to the overall wellbeing of
the community. In the customary system, the process is self-managed
and everything is usually financed through the community’s own
resources. Jopi [AMAN]
A community meeting in Kasepuhan Sinaresmi
54
Internal External
Since the Ciptagelar • The local government has

Kasepuhan community is part supported the community
of the greater Banten Kidul by funding the construction
community, there is mutual of public facilities including
recognition of their protected school buildings, a local
and ‘closed’ forests because health clinic, road surfacing,
these are all part of one larger irrigation infrastructure and
adat domain. bridges.
• The central government’s
acknowledgement
of community forest
management is expressed in
the following clauses of the
Forestry Law 41/1999:
o Chapter I: article 1
paragraph f, article 4
paragraph 3;
o Chapter II: article 5
paragraph 3;
o Chapter V: article 34
paragraph a, article
37 paragraph 1;
o Chapter IX: article 67
paragraph 1 point a.
• Concession of authority
to manage 2,150 ha of
customary forest32.
32
This refers to the area of customary land formally used by Perhutani which has been
reclaimed and is being reforested. After the Suharto regime fell in 1998, there was a
‘free for all’ in many areas designated state forests with local people, outsiders and
even forestry officials carrying out logging and local communities reclaiming land for
agriculture. The Kasepuhan have no adat sanctions against outsiders: they trust that the
belief that misfortune will befall anyone who breaks their rules is sufficient deterrent.
55
Within the official administrative system, it is the village executive
and the village assembly who plan activities and agree budgets. If the
village wishes to implement certain projects, they will apply to a higher
administrative level – usually district or province – for government
funds through a project proposal. Such projects are often for more
infrastructure (roads, schools etc), but may might also cover interests of
the indigenous community. Activities related to programmes developed
at a higher administrative level are usually funded by regional or
national development budgets or through international development
grants outside the state budget.
As mentioned above, the village administration does not run any forest-
related activities. This contrasts with the customary system which
provides regular forest surveillance, reforestation, protection of water
sources and watershed areas and other services.
VI. AREAS OF RECOGNITION AND CONFLICT
1. Recognition
Community members who are part of the administrative village
structure are regarded as conservation cadres. They receive formal
training from the Gunung Halimun-Salak national park and act as the
park authority’s partners. So far, the government has not questioned the
community’s reforestation activities as these people are part of official
village executive and the replanting falls within its remit of promoting
the welfare of the community.
2. Conflict resolution mechanisms related to natural resource

management
Internal conflicts are resolved in a meeting chaired by the Sesepuh and
witnessed by the customary leaders. To reduce external conflicts, the
Kasepuhan community has held joint meetings with representatives of
the district and province level authorities, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Forestry Department, Halimun-Salak National Park and Perhutani to
discuss the use of their customary land33.
33
Both the national park and Perhutani are courting local communities, for example
with community-based forest management projects, to gain support in their struggle
over this area. So Kasepuhan communities in Gunung Salak have formed an alliance to
improve their bargaining position in negotiations with the two competing authorities.
56
In exchange for allowing adat land to become a national park, the au-
thorities relinquished land elsewhere that had been used for large-scale
plantations. For example, some 480 ha of ‘state land’ in Sirnagalih vil-
lage, Cibeber district, Banten has now been recognised as adat land.
One tactic that the Kasepuhan community uses to strengthen its po-
sition when attempting to resolve such disputes is to present the au-
thorities with examples of their customary forest management system.
This includes the way they have reforested ‘critical land’34, regardless
of who holds the rights to manage it, and protecting and taking good
care of the forest in an equitable way. Reforestation activities always
involve the whole Kasepuhan community to enhance a sense of togeth-
erness and mutual support.
3. Initiatives to restore customary forest

For several years now,
Jopi [AMAN]
under the leadership of
Abah Anom as Sesepuh,
the Ciptagelar Kasepuh
community, has carried
out extensive planting
of manglid trees in vari-
ous locations where for-
est had been destroyed or
degraded. This is particu-
larly important since the
affected areas belong to
the protected forest zone
(hutan tutupan) which acts
as a buffer to protect the
sacred forest from further
destruction35. Abah Anom
34
‘Critical land’ is a government term for land which has been degraded or is at risk of
erosion, usually due to deforestation or poor land management.
35
Abah Anom was awarded a local environmental prize in the late 1990s for protecting
over 2,000 hectares of adat forest.
57
This reforestation serves other purposes besides rehabilitating the cus-
tomary forest. It is also one way of reclaiming it. This is important since
several of the affected locations are in the area formerly claimed by Per-
hutani which were just left to be degraded by illegal logging. By taking
positive steps to reclaim their land, the community hopes to improve
the outcome of negotiations to settle conflicts with the authorities over
their ancestral forest land.
In the past, the government always questioned the indigenous

community’s capacity to manage the forest. By replanting areas of
degraded forest without raising any questions about its ownership, the
Kasepuhan can improve their image as forest resource managers.
4. Using the public media and eco-tourism to improve community

livelihoods
Around five years ago, Indonesian newspapers and television started to
cover issues related to indigenous peoples36. These reports covered conflicts
over access to natural resources, traditional ceremonies regarded as tourist
attractions and even indigenous peoples’ natural resource management.
Jopi [AMAN]
Seren Tahun is attractive to the media and the wider public
36
Under Suharto’s dictatorship, the media had been subject to tight restrictions. The
fall of Suharto was followed by liberalisation of the press. The first national congress of
indigenous peoples was held in March 1999.
58
Overlay map of the original (Gunung Halimun) national park and Perhutani
concession including Perhutani protection forest with Kasepuhan communities
The Ciptagelar community makes use of this trend by inviting the

media to report on different aspects of their lives. Customary rituals are
attractive to the media and the wider public. As a result, the Kasepuhan
harvest festival Seren Tahun has become well-known. This has had
a positive impact by increasing public awareness of the Kasepuhan
community and its way of life.
Furthermore, once the community becomes better acquainted with the

media, the next strategic step is to use the media as an advocacy tool
to increase public support for its cause. The Kasepuhan people hope
that this will eventually strengthen their position in negotiations over
the recognition and protection of their rights to access and utilise their
land and natural resources37.
37
This is now happening as the media (TV channels and newspapers) cover all big adat
occasions such as Seren Tahun. Usually the community invites the head of district, gov-
ernor and other important government figures. So these events become an opportunity
to extend the dialogue between indigenous people and the government with regard to
the problems that they face.
59
Furthermore, as more people know about and get interested in the
Kasepuhan people’s culture, the community can develop this as a tourist
attraction. Their overall aim is to achieve recognition of their existence
and an improvement in the local economy. One example of this is
an unsurfaced road which the community is currently constructing
to connect the Kasepuhan villages of Ciptagelar and Ciptarasa. This
leads around the sacred forest and could be developed as an ecotourism
route. The community is building shelters along the road as rest points
and intends to refurbish some abandoned houses in Ciptarasa to be
used as guesthouses.
The community is also working towards developing skills to manage

tourism. Attractions on offer include traditional rituals, the everyday
life of the Kasepuhan people and nature and customary forests in the
adat domain. Again, the purpose is to gain greater recognition by the
wider public and to strengthen the local economy.
VII. HOPES FOR THE FUTURE
The Ciptagelar Kasepuhan population is growing, as elsewhere in

Indonesia, but the current Forestry Act38 does not make any allowance
for this. The Ciptagelar community hopes for legal reforms and
government initiatives that will enable them and future generations to
continue to live as forest peoples - sustainably and with a reasonable
standard of living.
FOREST POLICY REFORMS
One of the objectives of the Forestry Department’s 2005-2009 Strate-

gic Plan is to make better use of biodiversity resources in sustainable
ways. This may be a step towards realising the Ciptagelar Kasepu-
han’s hopes to reach agreement with the Gunung Halimun – Salak
National Park authorities over the their use of and control over forest
lands. Rice farming is much more of an issue with the park authori-
ties than use of the adat forest because the Kasepuhan can use their
38
No. 41/1999
60
agroforestry plots as a source of timber for construction, firewood or

income generation but they need rice as a staple food.
One possibility is a partnership or co-management scheme. A minis-

terial regulation in 20041 sets out the framework and conditions for
the greater involvement of various interested parties in the sustain-
able management of protected areas. One of its aims was to help in-
crease the effectiveness of protected area management and to ensure
greater benefits for communities. Local communities are specifically
mentioned alongside the government, private sector, academics and
national and international NGOs as potential partners in identifying,
planning, and running and evaluating forest management activities.
Nevertheless, this policy document is not a charter for indigenous
communities. It makes quite clear that the status of the forest re-
mains unchanged and that the department of forestry retains ultimate
control.
Another approach is for part of the Kasepuhan’s customary lands to

be zoned as enclaves within the park. A regulation is in the pipeline
on zoning within national parks2. The 2005 draft of this regulation
recognised that indigenous communities had lived in and around
forests, managing them sustainably, long before these areas were
declared national parks. It also acknowledged the economic and cul-
tural importance of forests to such communities and presented the
possibility of ‘traditional zones’ where communities could continue
their customary practices. Other zones for rehabilitation, cultural
practices and ‘special uses’ were included too. However, the content
of regulations can change substantially between drafting and the final
version.
The real solution to the problems faced by the Kasepuhan and other
indigenous communities is the reform of the 1999 Forestry Act to
give greater recognition of their customary rights.
1
Forestry department regulation (Peraturan Menteri Kehutanan), No. 19/2004,
Kolaborasi Pengelolaan Kawasan Suaka Alam dan Kawasan Pelestarian Alam
2
Draft forestry department regulation, 2005, Pedoman Penataan Zona Taman Na-
sional
61
62
4
THE GUGUK INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY

JAMBI
Protecting customary forests with local regulations
Datuk H. Abubakar

The author is customary leader (Pasirah) of the Guguk community. He used to be
customary leader of the whole Marga Pembarap community and holds the traditional
title of Depati Mangkuyudo (see later). He has now retired as village head, but is still
considered Guguk’s community leader. He is also an adviser to the government-backed
indigenous association for the area - Lembaga Adat Merangin. As Datuk Abubakar is
over 80 years old, this chapter was partly dictated by him and partly complied from
material he wrote for the first AMAN Congress in March 1999. This was done at his
behest. The former and current village heads, Yari Suni and Mahmud Rasali, and the
head of the forest management groups, Abusama, also provided information for this
chapter. Supplementary material was gathered during field visits to Guguk by DTE and
the Jambi-based forest conservation NGO, Warsi.
63
64
I. INTRODUCTION
The community of Guguk is determined to protect forests as a resource

for future generations. It has set aside part of its land as hutan adat
(customary forest) to provide an example of good practice for other
communities. The people have used a combination of customary law and
official regulations to protect this forest from logging companies and
illegal loggers. The local administrator (bupati) has issued a letter which
formally recognises the status and boundaries of nearly 700 hectares of
forest as hutan adat, a policy that has been further strengthened by a
Outskirts of Dusun Guguk with Bukit Tapanggang beyond

Legislation passed by the state, whether at the national or local level, is often called hu-
kum positip by indigenous communities to distinguish it from customary law (hukum adat).
Unusually, Guguk’s customary law is written down in a document nearly 300 years old.
65
village regulation. These decisions are the direct result of a grassroots
initiative on forest conservation. Few villages in Indonesia have tried
to protect their forests through the formal legal system. Indigenous
communities can now take inspiration from Guguk and other villages
in Jambi who have followed this route.
II. BACKGROUND
1. Location
Guguk is located in the Sungai Manau subdistrict of Merangin in
Jambi province. It lies along the main route between the major towns
of Bangko (district capital of Sarolangun-Bangko) and Sungai Penuh
(district capital of Kerinci) and has boundaries with the villages of
Muara Bantan to the north, Marek to the east and Parit to the west.
The southern boundary adjoins Lubuk Beringin village and the logging
concession of PT Injapsin. This hilly area near the River Merangin
forms part of the watershed of the Batanghari, Sumatra’s longest river.
The indigenous community of Guguk is part of a broader community

called the Marga Pembarap or Batin which first controlled the local
area when Jambi was a sultanate or kingdom, many centuries before
Indonesian independence. Since the village governance acts in the
1970s, the Marga Pembarap’s customary lands have been split into
Guguk and three other villages: Parit Ujung Tanjung, Air Batu and
Merkeh.
What is officially called ‘Guguk village’ (Desa Guguk) now consists of

four separate settlements or hamlets between one and three kilometres
apart covering a total area of 83,000 ha. Over a period of time, the
community has gradually shifted away from the banks of the Merangin
towards the main road. The administrative centre, Simpang Guguks
is 1.5 km from the river and has a few shops, a small mosque and a

Peraturan Desa (Perdes) or local by-law

Guguk is around 35km from Bangko and 290km west of Jambi’s provincial capital,
also called Jambi.
66
Liz Chidley [DTE]

Guguk village map
junior high school as well as a primary school. Simpang Guguk and

the newer hamlets of Marus and Padang Kulim are easily accessible
by motorbikes, cars and trucks. The older Dusun Guguk now lies on
the north bank of the River Merangin. The original settlement was to
the south of the river at a location called Pelegai Panjang, but moved
to the opposite bank in the 1950s in order to have better access. The
site of Pelegai Panjang, marked only by graves and fruit trees such
as durian and langsat (Lansium domesticum), has become part of the
forest again.

Lit. Guguk crossroads

Marus and Padang Kulim also used to be located on the banks of the Durian Daun, a
tributary of the River Merangin. All of the forest there has been converted to agrofor-
estry, plantations or fields.
67
2. Population and livelihoods
According to official village data, the population of Guguk village is
1,417. The majority is indigenous, although some inhabitants - mainly
in Marus and Padang Kulim - are of Javanese, Minangkabau or Batak
ethnic origin. The people are predominantly Muslim with a small
minority of Christians and other religions.
Dusun Guguk has a more traditional appearance, consisting of two rows

of wooden houses. The two storey buildings, made from local timber,
are raised up on platforms to reduce flood damage. The upper floor is the
living area while the space underneath is used for storage and livestock.
Some houses in the rest of Guguk village are brick or concrete, but
many people still prefer traditional houses which are cooler and less
dusty. No single building is outwardly special: the customary leader
lives in a modest bungalow and there is no village hall. Wherever the
community’s historic documents are currently stored is considered to
be the rumah adat (customary house).
The majority of Guguk’s population now makes a living from cultivating

and selling rubber. This is considered to be the most suitable crop for
local soil conditions and the most profitable. The whole community
now depends heavily on this single commodity. Plantations and fields
are individually owned and most people have some land. Landless
families pay to plant crops on other villagers’ land by profit sharing.
Rubber plantations have been set up throughout the village by clearing

scrub, secondary forest10 or plantations of other tree crops which are
no longer productive or profitable. Mostly hybrid varieties of rubber
and modern planting patterns are used. Historically, upland rice (padi
gogo) and other crops were planted on cleared land at the same time as

Monografi Desa Guguk, November 2005. There were 707 men and 710 women, mak-
ing up 367 households.

In some accounts, the indigenous people of Guguk and neighbouring communities
are called Sei Manau or Melayu Jambi (lit. Jambi Malays) but, according to Datuk
Abubakar, they are Marga Pembarap or Masyarakat Adat Guguk.

The Minangkabau are the dominant ethnic group in West Sumatra and the Batak are
the indigenous peoples of North Sumatra.
10
Locally known as sesap.
68
rubber seedlings and fruit. Men tap the trees every morning throughout
the year. The rubber sap is collected and formed into large blocks which
are taken to market by truck. Around two kwintal (200 kg) of rubber is
produced each day from one hectare of plantation11.
The gradual rise in rubber prices in recent years has made Guguk
more prosperous than indigenous communities in many other areas
of Indonesia12. This relative wealth has reinforced some aspects of
adat law because people can make a living without overexploiting the
remaining forest. There have been strict limits on the permitted harvests
of timber and NTFP throughout the community’s history. In contrast
with the inhabitants of neighbouring villages, even today no-one from
Guguk works as a logger or in a sawmill.
Liz Chidley [DTE]
Rubber plantations are individually owned
11
Production is lower in the rainy season (October-February in Jambi).
12
The local price of rubber was Rp5,000/kg in late 2005 and is still high, mainly be-
cause the price of synthetic rubber increased with the rise in world oil prices. Raw rub-
ber can be stored for several months, so farmers can sell their produce when prices are
most favourable. A 10 ha plantation can produce 1 tonne of raw rubber slabs per month
(one truckload) worth approx US$500 at local prices. Most people’s land holdings are
under 1 ha. Even so, this illustrates why the people of Guguk are comparatively well-
off, given that the GDP per capita in Indonesia was US$1,280 in 2005 (http://kompas.
com/kompas-cetak/0504/28/sumbagsel/1715866.htm; http://devdata.worldbank.org/
wdi2006/contents/income.htm).
69
On the other hand, income from rubber has significantly affected
traditional livelihoods and occupations. For example, levels of formal
education in Guguk are high. More people can now afford to send their
children - boys and girls - to high school, instead of just to Islamic
education classes. Some are civil servants (school teachers and
administrators) in the village or the nearest town (Bangko) and several
of Guguk’s indigenous community have university degrees.
Another result is the reduction in cultivation and collection of other

products. A range of other tree crops used to be important to Guguk’s
local economy, including coconuts, coffee, candlenut, cinnamon and
– for a time – cloves13. Some cinnamon trees are still grown along the
River Merangin. However, prices of cloves and coffee gradually have
fallen so these plantations have largely been replaced by rubber.
Forest commodities in Guguk include firewood, rattan, medicinal

plants, honey and the fragrant resin kemenyan (see note 29 in Chapter
3). Some forest plants are also collected as vegetables. Many people
still grow some vegetables, keep a few goats and chickens and also fish
for their own consumption, but traditional activities such as gathering
forest products and even rice farming are diminishing as it is more
profitable to grow rubber and buy in other necessities. Consequently,
trading foodstuffs and other basic commodities has become another
important occupation in Guguk.
Fruits remain an important additional source of income in Guguk at

certain times of the year. Most homes are surrounded by several different
kinds of fruit trees which generate seasonal earnings and create a green,
pleasant environment in the village.
Overseas employment provides yet another source of revenue for

Guguk. Between 30 and 100 members of the community are currently
working in Malaysia, mainly as workers on oil palm and rubber
13
Datuk Abubakar instructed the community to plant these trees during the 1950s and
60s. He also encouraged people to plant fruit trees such as jambu air (Syzygium sa-
marangense), duku (var. Lansium domesticum), kelengkeng (Litchi chinensis), rambu-
tan (Nephelium lappaceum), duren (Durio spp), ambacang (k.o. mango) and manggis
(mangosteen).
70
plantations14. Another ten are employed in the Middle East as drivers

(men) or domestic staff (women).
3. The history of the Guguk community

The customary land rights of the indigenous community of Guguk (or,
as it used to be called, Pelegai Panjang) go back long before the colonial
era. Customary leaders and local legends trace the community’s ancestry
back to the three women from the aristocracy of Central Java and three
Minangkabau noblemen who founded the Batin people15. The Batin and
other ethnic groups, including the Orang Rimbo16 and Melayu Jambi,
gradually dispersed through central Sumatra looking for suitable land.
The Batin people moved up from Sarolangun through the highlands

towards Kerinci during the Majapahit period and one community
eventually settled at Pelegai Panjang17. This became the centre of the
Marga Pembarap’s lands. As that community grew, more and more
homes were built and the settlement’s name changed to Guguk18. These
customary lands were formally recognised by the Sultan of Jambi in
the 18th century in the form of decrees (piagam) written on leaves of
the lontar palm19. The decree for the Marga Pembarap community is
14
Employment in Malaysia is not stable as the authorities have periodic clampdowns
on foreign workers.
15
The name of the Batin people may be derived from the local word batino which
means female or woman. The female ancestors from the ‘Mataram kingdom’ were Pa-
natih Lelo Majnun, Panatih Lelo Baruji and Panatih Lelo Majanin. The Minang found-
ers were Syech Rajo, Syech Beti and Syech Saidi Malin Samad (Warsi/KpSHK, 2000,
Ketika Rakyat Megelola Hutan – Pengalaman dari Jambi).
16
The Orang Rimbo, also known as the Kubu or Suku Anak Dalam, are indigenous
people who follow traditional lifestyles in and around the forests of mid-Sumatra.
17
The Hindu Majapahit kingdom existed from around the 13th to the 16th century AD.
Originally based in East Java, its control extended up through Sumatra by the late 14th
century. Later Islamic sultanates, including that based in Mataram (on Lombok island),
claimed connections with the Majapahit rulers. Datuk Abubakar uses the terms ‘Mojopa-
hit’, ‘from Java’ and ‘Mataram’ interchangeably in his account of Guguk’s origins.
18
The name Guguk is believed to be a corruption of gubuk - the Indonesian word for
a simple house.
19
The decree, called the Piagam Lantak Sepadan, was issued by Sultan Anom Seri
Mogor to indigenous communities (Kedepatian or Batin) in 1170 Hijriah (1749 AD).
This historic document, which proves Guguk’s land rights, is considered sacred and is
stored under the roof in the rumah adat.
71
Liz Chidley [DTE]
Grave at site of Pelegai Panjang
still preserved in Guguk and forms the basis of the community’s adat
rights.
These lands became known as Luak 16 because the Marga Pembarap

formed a loose association with fifteen other communities20. These later
coalesced into eight villages in the traditional sense. Pembarap was the
most important of these communities and where the customary leader
(Depati) with the highest authority lived. All major decisions involving
customary law within the broader area were made in Pelegai Panjang.
20
The six main communities were Pembarap; Tiang Pumpung; Sanggerahan; Peratin
Tuo; Serampas and Sungai Tenang. There were also ten smaller communities, hence
the name Luak 16.
72
III. CUSTOMARY LAW, LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
1. Governance
The Marga Pembarap indigenous community was traditionally controlled
by a system of dual governance called Nan Duo Silo whereby leaders
were selected alternately from the two ancestral lines21. The village
leader was also the customary guardian and governed the community
according to customary law. This system continued largely unchanged
throughout the Dutch and Japanese colonial periods and into the
1970s22.
The 1979 law on village governance significantly changed life for

indigenous communities, including Guguk23. As communities were
split to form new administrative ‘villages’, some cultural practices and
adat laws were lost. Marga Pembarap was divided into four villages,
each run by government-approved officials rather than adat leaders.
Also adat links with neighbouring communities were broken. For
example, Lubuk Beringin which lies to the south of Guguk became part
of a different subdistrict (Muara Siau). As a result, many people outside
Guguk have forgotten their traditional heritage and their everyday lives
appear superficially similar to those of the Jambi Melayu and other
ethnic groups in Jambi.
Only in Guguk, the centre of the Marga Pembarap’s traditional

governance, have there been active efforts to retain adat-based practices.
The indigenous community in Guguk is comprised of extended families
21
The traditional term for the system of governance refers to the two (duo) leaders
or Depati, linking back to the dual origins of the indigenous community. There are
two types of Depati: historically, the Depati Mangkurajo dealt with civil affairs while
the Depati Mangkuyudo was responsible for military issues. Customary leaders were
chosen alternately from the two hereditary lines. In the local language this is expressed
as Sandan bagilir pusako baganti. Highly esteemed people may also be given the hon-
orific title of Depati.
22
The Dutch authorities changed the term for the community leaders to Pasirah, but
the term Depati is still commonly used. After Independence, it was no longer essential
that the Pasirah come from noble ancestry.
23
Although UU No 5/1979 stripped indigenous communities of their political power,
the Suharto regime wanted to use adat as a vehicle to promote development, so it later
established government-approved adat organisations at provincial and district levels.
73
or sub-clans known as kalbu24. Kalbu heads or their representatives
make up the Adat Council which is headed by the customary leader25. In
general, the customary leader is responsible for adat issues as a whole
and acts as co-ordinator of the kalbu heads. The Adat Council settles
problems between individuals in the community; it also selects the
customary leader.
Nowadays, most as-

pects of social, politi-
cal and economic life
are officially under the
control of the village
head, village council
and other institutions
such as the village
co-operative and vil-
lage security body im-
posed by national leg-
islation26. However,
Liz Chidley [DTE]
as the majority of the
community is indige-
nous, inputs from adat
figures - particularly
community elders and
the customary leader
– are still considered Datuk Abubakar was the Marga Pembarap’s adat
leader and later Guguk’s village head
important in Guguk.
In effect, the Adat Council and religious council (Lembaga Syara) make
decisions on land ownership, natural resource use, security and social
issues, including deaths and marriages. This is exemplified by the adat
rules (Adat lamo pusako usang) still in use in the community. Roughly
paraphrased, these say, “Everything has its own rules.
24
The four main kalbu in Guguk are Mengkai, Malindan, Senggerahan and Dagang.
25
The Adat Council is also known as the Ninik Mamak or Tuo-tuo Tengganai (Council
of Elders).
26
Kepala Desa (kades); BPD (Badan Perwakilan Desa); LMD (Lembaga Masyarakat
Desa); and LKMD (Lembaga Ketahanan Masyarakat Desa). Community members
now elect the village head and members of the village council.
74
The village boundaries must be marked and the area within them con-
trolled in accordance with adat, even down to people’s behaviour at
home and in public bathing places”27. Another example is that the con-
sent of the community elders, not just the two families, is needed before
a couple can get married.
Guguk’s Adat Council helps to maintain an understanding of customary

law within the indigenous community through communal meetings
called kanduri. These are held at least once a year and more often if
necessary. A big adat ceremony is held in Guguk every year at the end
of the Muslim fasting month28. The lontar palm leaves on which the
community’s adat rules are inscribed are removed from storage under
the eaves of the rumah adat, cleaned and read in front of everyone. Then
any outstanding problems are discussed publicly and settled according
to customary law. A buffalo is sacrificed and its meat is shared out as a
symbol of community solidarity29.
Today, only a few community elders are able to read the historic
documents. Nevertheless, the people of Guguk are proud of their
traditions and do not want them to be lost as has happened in most of
the surrounding areas. Hence adat training for the younger generation
is now part of the current village head’s programme of work.
2. Traditional patterns of land and natural resource ownership and

management
Under adat, all of the forest in the customary domain belongs to the
indigenous community as a whole and is controlled by adat institutions.
According to Guguk’s sacred charter, “Every drop of water, crumb of
soil and single fish belongs to the community. The fish are for everyone
27
In the original (Jambi) language: Dusun nan bepagar adat, tapian nan bepagar baso,
tebing nan bepagar undang, rumah nan berico, berpakaian berpantang berlarang.
28
Traditionally, this is held on the second day after Lebaran as people always return to
their family homes to celebrate Idul Fitri.
29
The ceremony is called Makan Jantung (lit. Eating the Heart). A buffalo is the price
under adat law for taking the community’s charter (piagam) outside its storage place.
Similar ceremonies used to be held in many villages in this part of Jambi but, as Guguk
is one of the very few to continue this practice, the event attracts visitors from many
places including local dignitaries and some tourists.
75
Warsi.doc
The annual Makan Jantung ceremony outside the rumah adat
to share. The land is for everyone to farm”30. As well as rights, there

are responsibilities: taxes are payable to the adat institutions unless the
land or resources are for personal use31. Other parties, including other
communities may be permitted to use part of the forest, but only in
accordance with customary law.
Traditionally, the nature of agreements over land use depended on

exactly who was involved. For example, if the request for land came
from another community within the Marga Pembarap area, it was
sufficient for the leaders of both communities to reach an agreement
after weighing up their interests; no payments were required. In the case
of outsiders, the Adat Council decided an appropriate fee which was
payable to the customary leader.
The people of Guguk distinguish between several types of land/forest

use and, traditionally, there were different rules for each. Rotational
30
The original, translated into a mixture of Indonesian and the local language states:
Satu tetes airnya, satu bingkah tanahnya, satu ekor ikannya adalah milik masyarakat
adat daerah tsb….Ke air sama-sama diberikan ikan. Ke darat sama-sama dipaomo.
31
Ke air berbunga pasir, ke darat berbunga kayu, tambang pendulang berbunga daun,
umo (sawah) ladang berbunga emping, terkecuali hasil-hasil tersebut untuk dipak-
ai sendiri.
76
land use/shifting cultivation was practised until the 1960s. Mature

forest (rimbo) belonged to the whole community, but some areas could
be cleared for cultivation as needed. Certain areas of forest, mainly on
the steepest slopes, were protected (rimbo larangan). Under adat law,
plots of land belonged to the first person that cleared the forest. Special
marker posts (lembeh) showed the rightful owner and the potential land
use. Usually, each family only cleared about two hectares as that was
as much as they could cultivate. It was their responsibility to plant,
manage and generally look after their plot. If an area of cleared forest
was left untended for ten years, then it reverted to communal ownership
and the community leader could determine who should take it over.
Cleared areas were usually planted with upland rice and a number of
different kinds of tree crops. Relatively little land in Guguk has been used
as paddy fields to grow irrigated rice – only along the River Merangin
– because the hilly terrain is better suited to other land uses. After three
years, the soil was no longer sufficiently fertile for farming and was left
fallow. The fruit, timber and rubber trees originally planted along with the
rice were allowed to grow, initially forming scrub (sesap rendah/tanah
belukar) or an agroforestry area which eventually became secondary forest
(sesap parimboan), depending on the type of planting and management32.
If someone wanted to cultivate secondary forest which had not been
actively managed for over three years, he first had to seek the consent of
the original owner, a process locally called tuek tanya.
There were also adat rules about where plots of agricultural land
could be located and the community’s collective responsibilities.
A widow’s land had to be in the middle of other plots. Everyone
had to work on the shaman’s land once a year and on the land of
the community leader and other adat leaders twice a year. People
had to voluntarily help each other to clear land, cultivate it and
harvest crops to make the work easier (even though fields were
owned individually) and selected a leader to co-ordinate their efforts.
32
Although (to an outsider) sesap looks like forest, it is still called ‘land’ (tanah). The
rubber trees in these agroforestry plots soon become unproductive, but the fruit trees
are harvested regularly and the area is an important source of timber for local needs,
such as building houses.
77
Livestock owners had to put their animals in pens overnight, while
farmers had to protect their fields from damage by grazing livestock
during the day33.
3. Changes in land and natural resource management

Although the Indonesian Constitution says that the state controls all land
and the resources on, under and above it34, the people of Guguk have
their own (customary) law which they have lived by for nearly three
centuries. The fundamental principle was and remains that it should
Liz Chidley [DTE]
Secondary forest (sesap) is cleared for fields and agroforestry
33
Umo ladang janda harus diletakkan di tengah-tengah, Ladang/sawah bidan (dukun)
digotong-royangkan 1 kali dalam setahun, dan ladang/sawah nini mamak digotong-
royongkan 2 kali dalam setahun oleh anak dusun yang bersangkutan…. Mengerjakan
sawah ladang dipakai berhari-harian/julo (bersama-sama)….Berhumo berladang ha-
rus berbanjar merencam bertanam harus serempak dan ditiap-tiap banjar harus ada
yang dituakan…. Ternak berkandang malam, humo (ladang) berkandang siang.
34
Indonesian Constitution 1945, Clause 33, subclause 3
78
be Guguk’s indigenous community who determines how land and

resources are used and by whom. Like other indigenous groups, they
want their adat laws to be recognised by the state. At the very least they
expect to be consulted on developments which threaten their land use or
their rights to natural resources, such as the allocation of land to logging
companies, plantations or transmigration schemes. Consequently, the
people of Guguk strongly resented the way that the Suharto government
allocated forest within their customary lands as a logging concession.
Even today, the status of the remaining forest in Guguk is – according
to central government – Production Forest.
Changes were already taking place in the indigenous community of

Guguk when Suharto came to power in 1965. Most of the mature forest
nearest to the settlements had already been cleared. Gradually, people
stopped the traditional form of rotational cultivation and adopted a
more settled version whereby secondary forest (sesap) was cleared in
order to establish plantations of tree crops – coffee, cloves, cinnamon,
candlenut, rubber and various fruits. In time, rubber and fruits have
become the dominant crops. They also moved their settlements away
from the river towards the main road to increase accessibility to markets
for their products.
However, national legislation which standardised the village governance

in the 1970s further weakened adat control over land and natural
resource use. The boundaries of villages were redrawn and the people
of Guguk lost their collective control over the remaining areas of forest.
No longer did everyone help to clear their neighbours’ plots and gather
the harvests by the traditional practice of gotong royong; families
worked in their own fields and plantations uncoordinated by adat.
Most of Guguk’s customary lands are now under individual ownership

and are covered with fields, plantations and secondary forest, with the
exception of the forest on Bukit Tapanggang which became a logging
concession. The community’s five-year struggle to gain government
recognition of its right to control this area has pulled the community
together and brought about a revival of adat.
79
Types of Land Use
Land use Area (hectares) 1
Desa Guguk (total ) 83, 000
Paddy fields (sawah) 140
Other (rain-fed) fields (ladang) 4,500
Tree plantations (now mostly rubber) (kebun karet) 1,200
Customary forest (hutan adat) 690

Other mature forest (rimbo) 700
Plantations/fallow land (tanah perkebunan) 14,500
Young secondary forest (tanah belukar/sesap rendah) 23,000
Mature secondary forest (tanah sesap/sesap
37,000
parimboan)
1
Official data (Nov 2005) from Guguk’s Village Head. These categories of land
use and the areas may not be strictly accurate. They are estimates, not the result
of up-to-date participatory mapping. Also, some types of land use overlap. For
example, fields are planted with rubber trees and eventually turn into plantations;
fallow land may become secondary forest. Other cultivated areas may be planted
with a mixture of tree species for timber and other products (e.g. fruits).
IV. THE STRUGGLE TO PROTECT GUGUK’S CUSTOMARY

FOREST
1. Challenging the loggers

The extensive forests on the rugged hills across the River Merangin
from the settlements of present day Guguk were zoned as ‘Production
Forest’ by the Indonesian government’s forestry department35. Even
though this area was part of the Marga Pembarap’s customary lands,
there was no consultation with the indigenous community. In 1984, it
35
Community representatives are unclear whether this took place in the late 1960s or
mid-1970s.
80
was granted as a 51,000 ha logging concession (HPH) to PT Injapsin,

a joint company backed by investors from Indonesia, Singapore and
Japan.
The people of Guguk were deeply opposed to this decision, but lacked
the power to challenge it publicly during the Suharto years because the
HPH system of forest exploitation formed part of central government
policy and the regime was backed by the military. Another reason why
there was no open conflict during this period was that, for over ten
years, the logging company operated far away from Guguk village.
However, in early 1999, PT Injapsin logged 1,500 ha of forest close

to Guguk and the neighbouring village of Parit. Although HPH
concessionnaires were required to carry out selective logging and
replanting, PT Injapsin’s activities were highly destructive. The people
were furious, not least because the timber company had not contributed
towards community development during its years of operations, despite
the legal obligation to do so.
At this point Indonesia’s government was in transition. Suharto had been

forced to step down and President Habibie was promising political reform
and free elections. His interim government was also drafting legislation
on regional autonomy intended to give more political power and financial
responsibility to local government36. Indigenous communities throughout
the archipelago seized this opportunity to start voicing demands for
recognition of their customary rights over land and resources.
It was in the context of this ’era of reform’ that the communities of Guguk
and Parit dared to confront PT Injapsin and call for a stop to the over
exploitation of their forests. Datuk Abubakar went to Jakarta to present
a paper about the case at the inaugural conference of the Indigenous
Peoples’ Alliance, AMAN, in March 1999. The two communities also
wrote letters to central and local governments complaining about the
destruction of their customary forests and demanded that Merangin
district government took steps to protect Bukit Tapanggang.
36
These became the regional autonomy laws No 22/1999 and 25/1999 which came into
effect in the year 2000.
81
The conflict took a turn for the worse when PT Injapsin staff seized three
local men who were collecting timber along the banks of the Merangin.
The company accused the villagers of illegal logging. A public meeting
between the timber company and the community which was intended to
settle the charges broke down completely when it became obvious that
the concession boundaries had never been officially marked and that
the company and authorities were working from different maps. The
case went to the local government in Bangko where the forestry service
finally established that PT Injapsin’s maps were wrong.
The indigenous people of Guguk and Parit demanded that PT Injapsin

pay a symbolic fine of one buffalo, 100 tins of rice37, 100 coconuts and
other foods including cooking spices, sugar and coffee in accordance
with adat law. According to the customary chief of Guguk, the
importance of this fine was not the monetary value but recognition
of the principle that indigenous peoples have the right to control their
natural resources. PT Injapsin were also required to pay Rp 42 million
(approx US$ 4,000) in village development funds (Bina Desa). It is
very unusual for a community to challenge a large, powerful company
so successfully.
2. Recognition of adat rights

The Marga Pembarap community then submitted its own proposals
for management of the forest to the logging company and the local
government. Although PT Injapsin’s concession rights were only
officially due to end in 2006, the company handed the Bukit Tapanggang
area back to the community in late 199938.
Because there was nothing in statutory law that recognised the status
of the reclaimed area as customary forest (hutan adat), the Guguk and
Parit communities started to discuss how best to provide some form of
legal protection. Initially, both villages agreed that the forest should be
shared as hutan adat and called in the local NGO, Warsi, to help them
carry out participatory mapping. This first mapping exercise estimated
37
Around 320 kg
38
PT Injapsin abandoned the concession in 2001 because there were so many illegal
chainsaw operators that made its operations unprofitable.
82
Guguk’s customary lands at 960 ha, but the result proved controversial.
Representatives of Parit, influenced by the owner of a local sawmill,
wanted to manage the forest for timber production and claimed a larger
part of the area. Eventually, Parit withdrew support for the hutan adat
proposal. So it was only Guguk that submitted a formal request to the
Merangin district authorities in 2001 for recognition of its customary
forest.
Warsi.doc
The head of the local forestry service and Guguk’s community leader agree
on the management of Bukit Tapanggang as hutan adat (customary forest)
The local forestry service was reluctant to release control over so much
land to local people, so the district administrator (bupati) set up another
mapping team comprised of staff from the Merangin Land Agency
office (BPN) and the local forestry service plus representatives of both
communities to settle the boundary issues. That team decided the total
area of the Bukit Tapanggang was only 800 ha and that Guguk’s portion
of the forest was 690 ha39. Guguk’s community leaders then wrote
again to the local government requesting official recognition of their
customary forest. In 2003, Rotani Yutaka SH, then Merangin’s bupati,
39
Warsi, press statement, 11/Oct/03
83
issued a formal statement confirming that this area of customary forest
belonged to the people of Guguk40.
A large traditional ceremony was held in Guguk in October 2003 to

celebrate the bupati’s decision. This occasion was also used to make
the whole community aware of how the customary forest was to be
managed. Representatives of the community drew up a new charter
(piagam) entitled An Agreement to Manage and Protect Guguk’s
Customary Forest. Among the rules were that it was forbidden to clear
any of the hutan adat for agriculture; people who already owned land
there could not extend their plots, but were allowed to make use of them
by planting tree crops. The heads of hamlets, the village head, adat
leaders, religious leaders, representatives for women and young people
and the village council all signed this agreement.
3. A village regulation
The Guguk community still felt that it was essential to have a stronger
form of protection for their forest than the bupati’s letter, their historic
documents and the new management plans, and that this should be in
place before there was any further utilisation of the area. The original
charter was an official decree, but it was over 250 years old and written
in quite general terms. For example, it is hard to use customary law
to prevent outsiders from illegally clearing forest and establishing
fields or plantations. Also, the lack of any clear procedure to decide
how any forest exploitation should be approved or exactly how much
timber could be extracted might lead to a free-for-all. On the other
hand, the new charter derived from it was more detailed and adapted to
current realities, but had no legal standing. So there was a real risk of
overexploitation of resources.
It was agreed that a village by-law, based on the new customary forest
management charter, would support adat regulations and enable the
district authorities to pursue any offenders through the formal legal
system. In April 2004, Guguk’s village assembly held a public meeting
to discuss and agree on the details41.
40
Surat Keputusan Bupati Merangin No 287, 2/Jun/2003, Penukuhan Kawasan Bukit
Tapanggang Sebagai Hutan Adat Masyarakat Hukum Adat Desa Guguk
41
Warsi, press statement 28/Apr/04
84
This public meeting was formally opened by the head of the district
forestry service and a number of provincial government officials also
attended. However, the people of Guguk were still active in providing
criticisms and comments on the draft version of the regulation,
especially on crucial aspects relating to forest conservation. They raised
issues about the need to prevent the sale of forest use rights; the annual
quota of timber harvests; the maximum size of trees that may be felled;
the amount of timber any individual may extract for personal needs;
and the replacement of felled timber42. They also discussed the need
for broader measures to protect the ecosystem, such as preventing all
logging within 25 m of streams and 50 m from river banks.
Other invitees included representatives of neighbouring villages and

members of the indigenous communities of Batu Kerbau43 (Bungo
Liz Chidley [DTE]
The boundary of Guguk’s customary forest
42
Traditionally, an adat fee called bungo kayu (lit. ‘timber interest’) is payable when
any timber is extracted. This is used to fund replanting.
43
The customary forest of the indigenous community of Batu Kerbau was formally
recognised by the bupati of Bangko in August 2002 (see http://www.mfp.or.id/v3/h01-
1n-cm.php?id=391_0_72_0_C).
85
district) and Batang Kibul in order to present opportunities to share
knowledge and experiences. Staff from Warsi who had helped Guguk
and many other indigenous communities to formulate and present their
demands to the local authorities were also present.
V. CURRENT FOREST MANAGEMENT
1. Uses of the hutan adat

Guguk’s customary forest is high in biodiversity. The calls of gibbons
and siamangs can be heard at dawn and dusk. Several species of
monkey and bears are found there. Pairs of hornbills fly between the
trees while eagles circle above the forest. The tracks of deer, wild pigs
and even tigers can be seen in muddy ground44. Elephants sometimes
come through the forest; a group of four came into the village four
years ago. At least 84 tree species grow on Bukit Tapanggang, including
commercially valuable timber species such as meranti and balam
(Shorea spp), mersawa (Anisoptera sp) and tembesi (Diospyros sp) 45.
Various kinds of forest fruits are also present, such as tampoi (Baccaurea
macrocarpa), bidaro (Eurycoma longifolia), ambacang (a kind of
mango) and rambutan hutan – the ancestor of modern varieties.
Nevertheless, the local community does not regard this hutan adat
simply as a conservation area. The charter attached to the Guguk by-
law is a forest management plan which allows for some exploitation
and the eventual aim is to run a community-based sustainable logging
operation. However, no-one is allowed to use the hutan adat for the first
five years – this period is for rehabilitation, assessment and planning.
The types of forest resources that may be extracted, the methods,
amounts and financial arrangements are specified in the by-law along
with the fines for any violations. These local regulations apply to all
members of the community as well as outsiders.
The functions of the hutan adat specified in the village by-law are to
provide the community with a source of timber for their homes and
44
Local people believe that a tiger’s roar is heard at night if adat rules have been bro-
ken or there is some other problem in the village.
45
Kompas, 27/Oct/03 The people behind (the protection of ) Bukit Tapanggang
86
village facilities; as a source of honey, fruits and medicinal plants46; to

protect wildlife; and as a location for ecotourism. Collecting fruits is
allowed, as long as trees are not damaged. An adat fee is charged for
any timber felled to meet domestic or community needs (see footnote
43). Otherwise, people can buy timber from elsewhere or fell trees
along the river in areas outside the hutan adat. Everyone in Guguk is
quite clear about where logging is and is not permitted.
Anyone breaking the local regulation on the use of the hutan adat is
fined as follows: felling trees, cultivating land or selling timber illegally
taken from the customary forest - Rp3 million47 (US$300); damaging
forest trees while collecting fruits – a goat and twenty cans of rice or the
cash equivalent (Rp500,000 or US$50)48. Any fines or fees collected are
divided up between the village treasury (40%), the forest management
group (30%), the clan funds (kas kalbu) (20%) and the village youth
organisation (10%)49. If the offender refuses to pay, s/he will be
prosecuted through the formal legal channels.
The only exception is the Orang Rimbo who occasionally visit the
hutan adat to collect non-timber forest products such as tree resins.
These forest dwellers have their own customs and do not always respect
those of other communities. Because they cause very little damage to
the forest, their activities are overlooked.
2. Managing the hutan adat

Officially, Guguk’s Forest Management Group (Kelompok Pengelola
Hutan Adat) is responsible for managing the hutan adat. This group
of 10-15 men, all respected members of the community, was selected
by Guguk’s community leader in 2003. They carry out regular patrols
46
The people of Guguk still use some plants as traditional medicines, for example, the
bark of certain trees is used during child birth or to treat fevers; certain leaves also re-
duce fevers; and the roots of the pasak bumi (Eurycoma longifolia) make a medicine to
cure aches, pains and injuries. However, these species are readily available in secondary
forests near people’s homes, so the hutan adat is not an important everyday source.
47
This amount is roughly equivalent to the adat fine of a buffalo, 100 tins of rice, 100
coconuts and various spices (see section IV, 1 above)
48
Warsi, press release, 17/Jun/03
49
Kompas, 28/Oct/03
87
Liz Chidley [DTE]
Seedlings are planted to enrich the reclaimed hutan adat (customary forest)
of Bukit Tapanggang, including to the furthest boundaries – some two

days walk away – then report back to the group’s fortnightly meetings.
In practice, the whole community plays a role in protecting the forest
as anyone who hears a chainsaw will go to find out what is going on.
The group will also approve applications to extract timber from the
hutan adat. So far, there have not been any such requests as there are
sufficient supplies of timber from elsewhere.
The eventual aim of the Forest Management Group is also to actively

restore and enrich areas of the hutan adat previously damaged by PT
Injapsin’s activities, illegal logging or traditional cultivation. It has been
helped in its efforts by the district government. In 2004, the Merangin
forestry service provided Guguk with 50,000 tree seedlings, worth
Rp300 million (US$30,000) as part of its Watershed Rehabilitation
project. These included hardwood timber species such as meranti
88
(Shorea spp), species that produce commercially important gums and

resins like mata kucing (Shorea javanica) and gaharu (Aquilaria sp)
and giant rattan (Calamus manan). The seedlings, grown in plastic
containers, were brought by truck to a site on the bank opposite the
hutan adat. Forestry service staff also provided some instruction on
planting techniques to the Forest Management Group.
The whole community was involved in the forest restoration work

on Bukit Tapanggang. The most distant parts of the hutan adat were
replanted under a work creation scheme (padat karya) but the rest was
done by villagers working together voluntarily in their spare time.
Despite the steep terrain, whole families - including young children
and the elderly - planted seedlings over a period of six months. The
reforestation was completed by December 2004 and since then, people
have returned to make sure the seedlings are weeded and supported.
This community effort has been highly successful: some 90% of the
seedlings have survived.
3. Conserving fish stocks

The Marga Pembarap indigenous peoples have always regarded the
forest and rivers as parts of a single ecosystem. A traditional method of
conserving fish stocks is to set up a protected zone or lubuk larangan,
governed by adat rules. Fishing is then prohibited in this section of the
river to allow fish to breed and grow. After fish populations have built
up, a special ceremony is held and the fish can be harvested.
A lubuk larangan was established in the River Merangin close to Dusun

Guguk in 2004. The 800m stretch of water is marked by a board strung
across the river. The people of Guguk wanted to create this protected
area because fish were becoming more scarce due to practices such as
stunning catches with toxic plant extracts (tuba) or electric currents.
They really wanted the village regulation to cover this part of the river
as well as the adjacent forest, but this was not possible as different
local authorities deal with fisheries and forests. Even so, the community
penalises anyone who breaks the adat rules pertaining to the river with
the same fines as for violating the hutan adat regulation. Over the last
two years, two people have been fined for fishing in the lubung larangan
– one from Guguk and an outsider.
89
Liz Chidley [DTE]
The Merangin river limits access to the customary forest
VI. SUCCESSES OF GUGUK’S ADAT FOREST
1. Positive indications
If the people of Guguk continue to manage their hutan adat as planned,
this area and its resources have the potential to become an income-
generating alternative for the community, for example, through
ecotourism. Guguk’s hutan adat has already received considerable
attention from the press and national and international agencies.
Around twenty journalists from Jambi and West Sumatra attended the
adat ceremony held when Merangin’s district administrator officially
recognised Guguk’s customary forest50.
Since then, Guguk has become a sort of ‘celebrity village’ which has
been visited by observers from elsewhere in Indonesia and overseas.
The visitors book in the village head’s house contains the names and
positive comments of forestry experts from the Centre for International
Forest Research (CIFOR); representatives from the European Union
50
Warsi, press statement, 11/Oct/03
90
and Japanese government; development agencies such as the UK’s

Department for International Development (DFID); high-ranking
officials from the Forestry Department in Jakarta; and many NGOs.
There are also visitors from indigenous communities. Villagers from
Logas Tanah Darat (Riau) came to Guguk on a study tour facilitated by
WWF and DFID to see how communities can protect their forests51.
Guguk’s successful struggle to protect an area of customary forest

and manage it sustainably has also been recognised by the provincial
government, who awarded the village with the Kalpataru, a prestigious
environmental prize52. In October 2006, Datuk Abubakar as leader of the
indigenous community and Abusama, head of the Forest Management
Group, went to Jakarta to receive a CBFM award from the minister of
forestry, Kaban.
It is interesting that the neighbouring community, Parit, has recently

renewed interest in gaining formal recognition for its customary forest
since two of the three sawmills there have closed down. However, it
is doubtful whether a large enough area remains to make this process
worthwhile.
Liz Chidley [DTE]
Information about Guguk’s hutan adat (customary forest) in the village centre
51
WWF, wwf.or.id/tessonilo, 1/Oct/04
52
Buletin Alam Sumatera, Vol I No 7, July 2004, (Warsi), CBFM di Provinsi Jambi
antara Peluang dan Ancaman p21
91
Indigenous leaders in Jambi and the NGOs which support them want
to encourage the local government to develop policies that support
community-based forest management, such as Guguk’s adat forest by-
law. Merangin’s bupati has provided some support for communities
who are fighting to hold on to their customary rights, by officially
recognising four hutan adat areas: in the village of Pangkalan Jambu,
Sungai Manau sub-district (1996), Pulau Tengah, Jangkat sub-district
(2002) and Batang Kibul (2006) in addition to Guguk53.
The local forestry service has also been supportive, not only by providing
thousands of tree seedlings to regenerate damaged areas of Guguk’s
hutan adat, but also by its action to prevent encroachment from the
village of Air Batu. Shortly after PT Injapsin released control over Bukit
Tapanggang, Air Batu’s village head cleared 150 ha of Guguk’s hutan
adat in order to establish a coffee plantation, (backed by an entrepreneur
from the provincial capital). Adat leaders and the village head of Guguk
reported this to the Merangin bupati with the result that the local forestry
service stopped the development of the plantation.
Even so, similar steps need to be taken in other districts. The watershed
for the Batanghari River and its tributaries cuts across several districts
including Batanghari and Sarolangun as well as Merangin, so an
integrated forest conservation policy is required to safeguard the whole
area. There have been some hopeful signs: Sarolangun’s bupati closed
down two sawmills owned by the police in that district Also, the local
authorities have designated three natural resource management zones
in the district strategic plan, although this has yet to be implemented
despite discussions between adat leaders, local officials and NGOs54.
2. Reasons why Guguk has managed to protect its forest

There are a number of interacting factors which have contributed to
Guguk’s efforts to reclaim control over its natural resources.
53
Some communities in other districts in Jambi have also gained legal recognition for
their customary forest. Batu Kerbau received a formal letter from the district adminis-
trator of Bungo in 2002; Lubuk Bedorong (Sarolangun district) was waiting for formal
at time of writing.
54
Warsi, press statement, 15/July/05
92
a) Location
Bukit Tapanggang lies on the opposite side of the River Merangin from
Guguk village and the main Bangko-Kerinci road. Logging trails have
been closed and an old road built along the edge of the forest in the
Dutch colonial era has fallen into disrepair. The only access now to
the hutan adat is across the fast flowing river by canoe. This makes
it difficult to take logging equipment in or logs out of the forest and
means the villagers can control access from the more populated areas
to the north and east.
b) Strong adat leadership

Datuk Abubakar has been a community leader since he was a young man
and is well known even at the provincial level. He was the traditional
leader of the Marga Pembarap community for 11 years until 1957 and
Guguk’s village head in the mid-1970s. Prior to that he was a member
of Jambi’s provincial assembly. He was therefore able to encourage
people to respect adat rules and manage forest resources sustainably55.
He firmly believes that adat remains relevant in today’s world and that
it is important to protect resources for future generations.
Warsi.doc
The village charter (piagam) is read in public each year
55
Customary law does not wilt in the heat or rot in the rain (Adat itu tidak lekang oleh
panas dan tak lapuk karena hujan), Datuk Abubakar, quoted in Kompas 23/Oct/03
93
c) Strong local economy
The people of Guguk can make a reasonable living from rubber and
fruit plantations, so they are not tempted to profit from logging or saw
mills. They realise that it is only the owners of the wood processing
industry and a small elite at village and district levels who get rich from
illegal logging56.
d) Education
Levels of education in Guguk are relatively high, as people can afford
to send their children to school and even university. Those who now
work as lawyers or in local government can explain the implications
of legislation to other members of the community. For example,
communities have had the right to participate in local planning since the
1992 Act on Spatial Planning and subsequent operating regulations.
e) Political environment
The end of the Suharto government made central government weaker
and removed support for logging companies. The introduction of
regional autonomy (UU No 22/1999 & 25/1999) empowered village
assemblies to pass local regulations and created opportunities for greater
community participation in democracy and the control of resources.
f) Community involvement
The people of Guguk are generally aware of the importance of the
law and forest conservation. The whole community is committed to
managing and protecting the hutan adat because they have been
involved in drawing up the rules which were based on customary law.
g) NGO support
For several years Warsi has been trying to encourage the Merangin
district administration and assembly to pass legislation which recognises
areas of customary forest57. The NGO believes that this would be
more effective in promoting forest conservation than individual
village regulations. Prior to that, Warsi ran a programme to promote
community-based forest management in a number of villages in Jambi,
including Guguk.
56
ibid
57
Warsi, press statement, August 2002, Bupati Bungo Kukuhkan Hutan Adat dan Lind-
ung Desa, http://www.warsi.or.id/News/2002/News_200207_CBFM.htm
94
Liz Chidley [DTE]

Guguk women support the hutan adat (customary forest) initiative
WARSI’S CBFM PROGRAMME
Elements of this Jambi-based conservation NGO’s community-based

forest management programme included:
• Documenting indigenous knowledge about natural resources;

• Initiating debate with communities about forest management
as part of reciprocal learning;
• Reaching a consensus through discussion about different
models of forest management, so that the final decision
genuinely represented the communities’ position and could
be presented to the local authorities for official recognition;
• Helping communities to carry out participatory mapping of agreed
areas of hutan adat and Protection Forest in their villages;
• Establishing representative bodies to discuss, draft and take
forward agreements on forest management that are equitable
and protect the environment as decided by the community;
• Drawing up village development plans which improve the local
economy while taking natural resource protection into account;
• Developing enterprises to improve the local economy and
livelihoods.

Warsi, press statement, June2002, Warsi Dorong Pengelolaan Hutan Berbasis
Masyarakat, http://www.warsi.or.id/News/2002/News_200206_CBFM.htm
95
Warsi.doc
Warsi worked closely with the community and local authorities
3. New initiatives
Members of Guguk’s indigenous community are continuing to
investigate new crops that might further improve their livelihoods.
Some farmers are experimenting by planting small areas with citrus
fruits or oil palm. Oil palm is not yet popular because, unlike rubber,
the product cannot be stored to take advantage of price fluctuations.
Also, when it is time to replace trees, the soil is hard and dry. There is
currently more interest in hybrid coconuts – both as a source of food
and for timber, especially as timber prices are rising locally.
It may also be possible to revive production of kepayang oil. This non-

timber forest product used to be produced locally in substantial qualities
in the days before cooking oil made from oil palm was available in
village shops. It tastes good but takes a lot of work to extract the oil.
The red football-sized fruits of the forest tree (Pangium edule) need to
be boiled then soaked in the river to remove a toxin. The fruit is then
dried for a week before the seeds are extracted, pounded, boiled again
and then pressed. Four large pans of kepayang fruit produce about a litre
of oil. Two foreigners visited Simpang Parit in 2004 and made intensive
enquiries about the location of kepayang trees, so this stimulated interest
in the local community about its potential.
96
VII. FUTURE CHALLENGES
Although the people of Guguk have succeeded in getting some degree

of recognition for their hutan adat, they are not complacent. A key issue
for the community leaders is how traditional knowledge can be used
to improve livelihoods in the community. They are concerned that if
- for whatever reason - local incomes decrease, the future of the forest
Guguk has tried so hard to protect could be at risk.
In the past, there were 40 sawmills in the vicinity of Guguk and

many nearby villages have little or no remaining forest left. Although
Merangin’s bupati closed down several sawmills in Sungai Manau
subdistrict, most have simply relocated to the neighbouring district
of Bangko. Guguk community leaders strongly believe that the local
authorities should close off the tracks used by illegal loggers and refuse
to issue any further permits for large-scale plantations in that part of
Jambi province.
So far, Guguk has rejected sawmills and oil palm plantations, but it
remains to be seen what will happen when traditional community
leaders like Datuk Abubakar have passed away. Will the well-educated
younger generation continue to uphold adat regulations? Are the village
regulations on hutan adat, adat institutions and the Forest Management
Group sufficiently robust to maintain sustainable forest management
practices? What would happen if the presence of mineral deposits
triggered a gold rush58?
Around 80% of Guguk’s economy currently depends on rubber

plantations. This makes the community highly vulnerable if prices of
rubber fell or their plantations were damaged by forest fires or pests.
The dependence on rubber is likely to increase further if an application
by the village administration to Jambi’s governor is successful for
funding to replace 14,000 ha of agroforestry plots and scrub with more
rubber plantations.
58
Deposits of gold have been found in the Merangin district: see the local government
website http:/www.merangin.go.id/mineral.htm
97
Liz Chidley [DTE]
Traditional houses in Dusun Guguk
One of the main factors which has protected the customary forest on
Bukit Tapanggung to date has been its relative isolation. Now some
villagers want to apply to the local government for a footbridge to be
constructed across the River Merangin to make it easier for them to use
the hutan adat for small-scale timber production. There has also been talk
of reopening the old Dutch road along the river. But any improvement
in transport infrastructure will facilitate access by outsiders, including
illegal loggers.
At 690 ha, Guguk’s customary forest may be rather small to be managed

for community-based sustainable logging. Even though local awareness
98
is spreading about the fines imposed for violating adat regulations, not
everyone shares the same values. The western part of Bukit Tapanggung
is so far from Guguk that it is particularly hard to protect. If tensions
with neighbouring communities over illegal logging are to be avoided,
it is essential that they are involved in similar initiatives to protect and
develop their forest resources.
The commitment of the local authorities in Jambi to sustainable forest

management by communities and recognising indigenous peoples’
resource rights is also not clear. Local forestry services have been
supportive of initiatives to revitalise areas of customary forest primarily
because such measures reduce illegal logging. As long as the requests
for recognition of indigenous rights only involve forest areas which the
government has zoned as ’Other Uses’ (Areal Penggunaan Lain, APL)
these are not contested. But, as the head of the Merangin forest office
explains, ”If they are asking for (areas zoned as) Production Forest we
may need to be careful. Do these people want to protect the forest or
exploit it?”59
And, while the bupati of Merangin was awarded the honorary title
of Depati Mangkuyudo by Guguk’s adat leader for recognising
the indigenous community’s rights over Bukit Tapanggung, no
similar official letters have been issued to other communities since.
Furthermore, after the introduction of regional autonomy, the bupati
of the neighbouring district Bungko issued large numbers of logging
permits60, some adjacent to forest areas which communities are trying
to protect61. If local governments – at district or provincial levels – are
serious about supporting community-based forest management by
indigenous peoples, then government efforts to revitalise adat and the
management of customary forests and to increase local capacity to do
this must be genuinely directed towards improving people’s livelihoods
and not simply seeking political support.
59
Takat Himawan, Kepala Dinas Kehutanan Merangin , quoted in Buletin Alam Sumat-
era, (Warsi) Vol I No7 July 2004, Hutan Adat, Wujud Desentralisasi Kehutanan
60
Ijin Usaha Pemanfaatan Hasil Hutan Kayu, IUPHHK
61
Buletin Alam Sumatera, (Warsi) Vol I No7, July 2004 , Mempertegas Otonomi
99
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
101
5
the Kiyu Dayak indigenous community

MERATUS, SOUTH KALIMANTAN
Strengthening alliances to campaign for forest protection
Andy Syahruji (team leader), Balai Kiyu
1
Other members of this team were M. Noorsewan (secretary), Balai Batu Kambar,
Desa Hinas Kiri; Mido Basmi (treasurer), Balai Datar Ajab, Desa Hinas Kanan; Makor-
ban, Balai Kiyu; Pinan, community leader Balai Juhu; Misu, Balai Datar Ajab; Dadang,
Balai Datar Ajab; Basuni, wedding organiser (pangulu) Balai Batu Kambar; Kawi, com-
munity leader Balai Batu Kambar; Maliburan, adat leader (sesepuh) Balai Datar Ajab.
Although only Syahruji and Makorban live in Kiyu, the other contributors are from
closely related neighbouring communities who share the same customary practices.
101
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Location
Meratus is a mountainous area in South Kalimantan of approximately
600 km², most of which is covered by low montane forest2. These
mountains extend southeast from the north of the province bordering
East Kalimantan, effectively dividing South Kalimantan into two parts.
They spread across nine districts: Tabalong, Hulu Sungai Utara, Hulu
Sungai Tengah, Hulu Sungai Selatan, Tapin, Banjar, Tanah Laut, Tanah
Bumbu and Kotabaru.
The Kiyu Dayak customary lands lie along the Panghiki River at the foot
of Mount Calang in the northern part of the Meratus mountains3. They
cover an area of around 7,632 hectares within the River Alai watershed.
In administrative terms, this is part of Hinas Kiri village in the Batang
Alai Timur sub-district of Hulu Sungai Tengah in the province of South
Kalimantan4. In terms of customary law, the Kiyu Dayak belong to the
broader community of Hulu Alai.
The village of Hinas Kiri - Batu Kambar is accessible by car via an

asphalt road from the district capital, Barabai, about 40 km away. From
there it is a short ride by motorbike or half an hour’s walk along a track
to Balai Kiyu.
2. Population
The settlement called Balai Kiyu is made up of two communities:
2
Much of the remaining forest in South Kalimantan is in the Meratus mountains. These
mountains are not high (the highest peak, Mt Besar is 1,892 m), but the terrain is rugged
and steep. There are few roads suitable for motor vehicles and villagers may walk up to
twelve hours to get to market or to vote.
3
The Kiyu, like many other Dayak groups in the southern and eastern parts of Kali-
mantan, use the term balai for their customary lands. They also use the same word for
the community itself and for the traditional building where many families live together
or gather for important ceremonies. There are around 150 balai in the Meratus moun-
tains.
4
The area officially called Hinas Kiri village (following the 1979 village governance
law) actually comprises a number of communities living in separate valleys which share
common ancestors and strong adat links. As the administrative centre of Hinas Kiri is
located at the settlement of Batu Kambar, the village is locally called by both names.
102
Location of Batu Kambar Village in South Kalimantan
 Protection Forest
 Production Forest
 Commercial Production
Forest
 Protection Area
ns
tai
un
Batu Kambar
Mo
us
rat
Me
105
Balai Kiyu and Balai Haraan Hulu. The population is 217 people or 54
families. The majority of Kiyu community members follow the Balian
faith - an indigenous religion also called Kaharingan; only a minority
has converted to Christianity (Protestant and Catholic) or Islam.
According to data from the Regional Planning and Economic Development

Agency and from the South Kalimantan Bureau of Statistics, the Dayak
population in the Meratus area totalled 5,569 families in 1995 and 5,308
families in 1998 - a decrease of 260 families.
The number of Meratus Dayak living in balai is in continuous decline.

Between 1996 and 1997 a significant number of families (438 out of
5,684) moved out and eventually ceased to be part of a ‘longhouse’
community. There are two main reasons for this. Some families leave
because their incomes increase and they see building their own house
as a step towards adopting a more ‘modern’ lifestyle. In other cases, the
opposite happens: people become poorer as access to natural resources
is restricted. So they have to leave their birthplace and relocate or join
other communities. Since state control over land tenure has tightened,
indigenous communities have found it increasingly difficult to access
natural resources. The following quote illustrates indigenous peoples’
attitude to intervention by the Indonesian state10:

A family (umbun) in this context means 2-5 people.

More of the inhabitants of Batu Kambar are of Banjar origin or have converted to
Islam. This has important implications for the traditional governance system. See Sec-
tions V and VI of this chapter.

According to the 2000 census, the population of ‘hill tribes’ (Suku Bukit) - which gen-
erally means the Meratus Dayaks - was 35,838 individuals or roughly 7,000 families
(http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalimantan_Selatan#Suku_Bangsa).

These communal houses differ from the longhouses of northern Borneo. Balai are
usually large rectangular buildings with family rooms on all four sides of a communal
space. Families may also have simple, individual houses close to their fields and agro-
forestry plots. These are often widely dispersed.

The original term (turun balai) literally means ‘ to come down from the communal
house’. This expression is also used for members of the community who officially con-
vert to Christianity or Islam. People who become Muslims no longer call themselves
Dayak – another reason for the apparent decline in the indigenous population.
10
The speaker was a member of the team who wrote this chapter. The terms suku tera-
sing or suku terpencil literally mean ’remote’ or ’isolated’ but are generally understood
in Bahasa Indonesia as meaning uncivilised or backward.
104
“From now on we refuse to be called ‘remote’ or ‘isolated’. It is the

government itself that has marginalised us – we want to be treated
as equals to other Indonesian citizens,” said one of the congress
participants.
“We are called ‘backward’, but during election campaigns, political

candidates are keen to talk to us and tell us that we have the same rights
as other citizens,” says Pinan. However, as soon as the elections are
over, indigenous people are forgotten and discriminated against.
Source: Kompas, 1/Jul/03
During the 1970s and 80s, the Department for Social Affairs launched
a project called Welfare Development for Isolated Communities11. The
sub-district of Hulu Batang Alai - including Batu Kambar village and
the Kiyu community - was chosen as one of the target locations. The
project consisted of building houses for resettlement12. During the years
that followed, these houses also became the homes of Banjar Hulu
migrants who had started trading and farming in the area. In 1978, the
central government transferred responsibility for ‘welfare development’
to the regional authorities.
Most of the Dayak people targeted in the resettlement programme

eventually returned to their original balai. The main reasons were to
avoid conflict with the Banjar Hulu population (who have different
socio-cultural values) and to be close to the fields and forests that
provide their livelihoods13. They also missed their relatives and their
11
Pembinaan Kesejahteraan Masyarakat Terasing (PKMT)
12
Resettlement projects usually move communities away from the mountains and clos-
er to roads so they are more accessible to government administration. Instead of large
communal buildings, new homes are small houses for individual families, arranged
in lines like transmigration sites, which the government considers more modern and
healthy – both physically and morally.
13
The Kiyu Dayak describe their agriculture system in terms of huma (dryland farming
of annual crops) and kebun (perennial crops like rubber, cinnamon and fruit trees). The
same words are used by other indigenous communities, but often with different mean-
ings (e.g. the Kasepuhan in Chapter 3).
105
homeland14. This ‘homesickness’ is related to the Kiyu Dayak belief
system and reflects how the mountain, forest and water spirits call out
to those who have left their village.
The basis of Kiyu Dayak livelihoods is farming and agroforestry.

Some members of the community also engage in trade as an additional
source of income. This may result from their interaction with the Banjar
Hulu people who are renowned as traders, but the Kiyu’s traditional
occupation is agriculture which is part of the adat system passed on
from their ancestors.
3. Natural resources and their potential

The ecosystem of the Meratus mountains is characterised by a high degree
of biodiversity. Prominent tree species include red and white meranti
(Shorea spp), Agathis sp, kanari (Canarium sp), nyatoh (Palaquium
sp), medang (Litsea sp), durian (Durio zibethinus), gerunggang
(Crotoxylon arborescens), kempas (Koompassia malaccensis) and
belatung (Quercus sp).
The Meratus mountains with their forest cover are the main water
catchment area of South Kalimantan and are thus crucial for the
province’s water supplies. At the same time, this is a very fragile
ecosystem, due to the steep slopes and a soil type particularly vulnerable
to erosion. As these forests provide environmental services for the
lowland population of South Kalimantan, they must be protected from
commercial development. It is therefore vitally important that the area
remains classified as Protection Forest15.
Government agencies recognise two land use zones: montane forest (approx
37,690 ha) and non-productive dry lands (approx 8,310 ha). However, even
casual observation shows that most of the latter area is covered by crops,
secondary forest, bush fallow and local agroforestry systems.
14
Bubuhan - place of origin in the local language - is also used by the Kiyu to mean
extended family (several dozen people descended from the same grandparents), com-
munity or village.
15
Hutan lindung (Protection Forest) is one of Indonesia’s major categories of state
forest: see Chapter 1, p4.
106
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]

View of Kiyu customary land, cultivated land and agroforestry areas
Annual and perennial crops are grown in fields and agroforestry

plots. Annual crops include local rice varieties, maize and vegetables,
while perennial crops include rubber, cinnamon and fruit trees such
as banana, candlenut (Aleurities moluccana), cempedak (Artocarpus
integer), durian (Durio sp), rambutan (Nephelium sp) and jengkol
(Pithecellobium lobatum) and various bamboos.

Overall, the forest which makes up the major part of the Kiyu Dayak
customary domain is in good shape and has high biodiversity. Some
areas are in the process of recovery, because the government had
designated them as a logging concession. Commercial exploitation by
PT Daya Sakti caused serious damage here16. This timber company
ceased operations in the Hulu Sungai Tengah district in 1987, after the
community succeeded in driving it off their land.
16
PT Daya Sakti controlled 8 logging concessions covering 742,000 ha in South and
Central Kalimantan until the early 1990s. It now manufactures plywood, veneers, floor-
ing and mouldings. The group is owned by Indonesian-Chinese businessman Windya
Rachmat. (http://www.geocities.com/davidbrown_id/Atr_report.doc)
107
The Kiyu Dayak’s customary lands are important for water resource
management since they include the source of the River Alai and act as
a water catchment area. Due to the abundance of water, the Hinas Kiri
- Batu Kambar area has considerable potential for fisheries and this is
under development. However, the provincial authorities are planning to
reclassify the Meratus mountains as Limited Production Forest.
In addition to timber from the forests, other natural resources in the

Meratus mountains make the area attractive to domestic and foreign
investors, such as large deposits of gold and coal. A considerable
number of logging and mining companies is currently operating there.
The regulation passed by the central government allowing mining in
protected forests will definitely contribute to the further deterioration
of forests in the Meratus area.
THE STATUS OF MERATUS’ FORESTS
The central government classifies 1,839,494 ha of South Kalimantan’s total

area of 3.7 million ha as ‘state forest’, with 554,139 ha zoned as Protection
Forest (hutan lindung) – most of which is in the Meratus mountains. (http://
www.dephut.go.id/informasi/statistik/StatBaplan_03/IV1102.pdf)
Generally, indigenous people reject classification of their adat lands as state

forest and are strongly opposed to Protection Forest status as no cultivation
or settlement is allowed in this forest category. Meratus Dayak communities
like the Kiyu have their own traditional concept of protected forest - katuan
larangan. However, the fact that the Kiyu Dayak publicly support the official
forest zoning reflects local concerns about the level of commercial pressures
to exploit the Meratus area and the threats these present to traditional
livelihoods.
The Meratus forests were zoned for watershed protection by the Dutch in
1928. South Kalimantan’s Provincial Land Use Plans (1984) also designated
the Meratus mountains as Protection Forest and confirmed this in the 1998
revised integrated zoning. However, in 1999, South Kalimantan’s governor
proposed some logging of this forest as part of a deal for an economic
development zone near the coast. The minister of forestry approved a new
logging concession for PT Kodeco. Despite strong, widespread protests, this
change in official status of 42,000 ha of Protection Forest in the Meratus area
108
was included in the provincial planning regulation (Perda Tata Ruang 9/2000).
The controversial decision about the logging concession was reversed after a
change in forestry minister. Around 2002, the local parliament (DPRD) also
confirmed that the Meratus mountains should remain as Protection Forest.
Nevertheless, community organisations and local NGOs remain concerned

about the status of these forests as South Kalimantan’s governor has yet to
authorise any change to the local planning regulation. Also there are tensions
between central and local government over forest zoning: local forestry
and conservation authorities have their own priorities. At least one district
administrator (bupati Kotabaru) violated central government policy by issuing
a number of local logging licences (IPK). Illegal logging, often controlled by
urban elites and sometimes with the complicity of local authorities including
the police, is a growing problem in the Meratus area. For more detail see
Analisa Konflik Sektor Kehutanan di Indonesia 1997 – 2003, YC Wulan et al (2004),
CIFOR, pp49- 54 and Meratus – Permerkosaan Hutan Perawan, January 2008,
Forest Watch Indonesia, http://satudunia.net/referer.php?ref=http://www.
fwi.or.id/?NewsID=39&buka=artikel.
Overlapping concession rights is another common problem in Indonesia due
to lack of co-ordination between government departments. Mining companies
– including those with interests in coal and gold in the Meratus mountains
– put pressure on the government to reverse the 1999 Forestry Act that
prohibited open pit mining in protected areas. (Then) President Megawati
issued a decree in 2004 allowing 13 contracts which preceded the Forestry
Law to go ahead. No further exemptions have been allowed to date, but the
possibility of more mining in protected forests remains (see June 2006 joint
statement by Indonesian CSOs at http://www.walhi.or.id/kampanye/hutan/
shk/060602_dykmeratus_sp/ and DTE Newsletter 76-7, May 2008, for
more information).
II. PROFILE OF THE KIYU DAYAK INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY
1. Early History
The Meratus Dayak are also known as Orang Bukit, the mountain
people. There are two versions of how they got this name. The words
Orang Bukit can be taken in a geographic sense, as a reference to the
fact that these people live in a mountainous area. However, this term
could reflect the prejudices of outsiders as, in the Banjar language, it
109
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
View inside the balai adat before a healing ritual
means ‘primitive people’. This negative stereotyping or stigmatisation

by other ethnic groups is similar to the Indonesian government’s use of
the words ‘remote’, ‘isolated’ or ‘underdeveloped’ to refer to indigenous
people.
Ethnologically, according to the 19th century Dutch missionary W.

Gabrowski, the Kiyu Dayak belong to the Ngaju Dayak group – the original
inhabitants of much of South Kalimantan. According to Meratus Dayak
oral history, their earliest ancestors came from the lowlands and the coast.
As the number of migrants increased – mainly due to Banjarese traders,
but also traders from other ethnic groups - the indigenous population
gradually moved upriver into the mountains. This relocation was caused
by long-standing social and economic tensions: the newcomers exerted
pressure on the Meratus Dayak to convert to their religion and at the same
time sought to take over the fertile agricultural lowlands.
Other signs that point towards the Meratus Dayak’s coastal origins are
the ritual objects used in adat ceremonies which symbolise a coastal or
110
estuarine way of life17. Terminology used in traditional ceremonies also

indicates a nomadic culture18.
Kiyu Dayak oral history tells that the origin of their community goes
back many generations to a conflict between Datu Kisai, the ruler of
Hinas Kiri19, and his grandson. One day, before leaving the hut to go to
work his land, Datu Kisai left a mango behind and asked his grandson
to take care of it, making sure that nobody ate or even peeled or sliced
the fruit. When Datu Kisai returned from his fields, he wanted to eat
the mango and became very angry when he discovered that the fruit had
disappeared. As a punishment he decided to sell his grandson as a slave
in Tabalong, but the grandson defended himself fiercely.
The confrontation was reported to the king in Muara Kayu Tangi who
decided to arrest Datu Kisai for wanting to sell his own grandchild. When
the king and his soldiers arrived in Hinas Kiri, Datu Kisai fought back but
lost the battle. When he was about to be beheaded, Datu Kisai asked to
be granted one last wish: he wanted to die at the estuary of the Hamputi
River. The king agreed but, when they arrived, they found they had no
swords sharp enough to behead Datu Kisai. Eventually they succeeded by
using a sharp bamboo blade. Datu Kisai died and his body was cremated,
but his bones would not turn to ashes. They threw his bones into a cave
called Rajang Samatulang, close to Mount Peniti Rangang in Datar Alai.
His grandson then founded a new community in Hinas Kiri who became
the ancestors of the people who now live in Balai Kiyu.
2. Customary institutions
Traditionally, communities around the upper reaches of the Alai River
were all led by one Tamanggung (customary chief) - the highest position
in the institutional structure under customary law. A Tamanggung often
had control over four or five communities (balai) including the one
where he lived. He was also the person responsible for maintaining and
implementing customary law (Kepala Adat) within all these balai and
was called on to settle land dispute cases between families (bubuhan).
So although the communities of Balai Kiyu, Balai Batu Kambar, Balai
17
For example, boat-shaped containers filled with sticky rice, palm sugar, bananas and
coconut are presented as ceremonial offerings.
18
The term balai bajalan literally means ‘shifting settlement’.
19
Datu is an honorific title given to the leaders of many Dayak communities.
111
Juhu, Balai Datar Alai and Balai Datar Ajab are spread out over a wide
area, they were all closely linked by adat as they shared a Tamanggung.
Geographically, but also culturally, Batu Kambar is the centre of this
broader community as it is where the Tamanggung lives. Each community
had a communal building which the community used for occasions such as
rituals and traditional ceremonies.
In the old days, the Tamanggung had two main aides: the Pangiwa and
the Panganan. The Pangiwa was mostly concerned with issues related to
conflict, disintegration and lack of harmony within the community. He was
assisted by the Penangkal and Malang who maintained order and guarded
the whole community. The Panganan was responsible for activities related to
community welfare, including determining the timing of social, agricultural
and ceremonial events (together with the community elders). He was often
the community scribe too. His assistants, the Cangkingan and Penghantar,
acted as community organisers who carried out the Tamanggung’s orders
at the lowest level, such as mobilising people to work together on their
collective land and to prepare for ceremonial events. These posts were not
hereditary: the community chose the people best suited to the job.
Adat Institutional Structure

Customary chief
(Kepala Adat/Temanggung)
‘Left-hand aide’ ‘Right-hand aide’

(Pamangku Kiri) (Pamangku Kanan)
Conflict prevention Community welfare
manager manager (Panganan)
(Pangiwa)
Land manager
(Kepala Padang)
Assistants who guard the Assistants who carry out

community and maintain peace the leader’s commands and
(Penangkal /Malang) organise people at ceremonies
(Penghantar/Cangkingan)
112
The Kepala Padang assisted the chief in all issues related to agriculture,
such as determining which parts of the forest could be cleared for
cultivation. He knew the history and boundaries of all the plots of land
managed by the community, including which areas could and could not
be cleared for farming. His advice was also sought in boundary disputes
between neighbouring communities.
Decision-making was primarily through the customary chief and

community elders (Tetuha Adat). The head of each balai would then
inform all members of his community about decisions agreed in meetings
in other balai under the same chief. Community elders also played a key
role as the jury in land disputes because, like the agricultural manager,
they knew most about tenure issues. Other significant figures in the
community were the Kepala Balian who took the lead in traditional
religious ceremonies such as Aruh Adat, and the Pangulu/Penghulu
- responsible for organising weddings according to Dayak custom.
Additional positions important in the adat institutional structure are
shown in the diagram on p114.
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Woman in her garden (huma)
113
Hulu Alai Social Class System
Role within
Religious
Rank Social role village
role
governance
Great
Customary chief Senior village
Highest spiritual
(Temanggung/ head
leader
Kepala Adat) (Pembekal Tuha)
(Guru Jaya)
Senior
spiritual Junior village
High-
leader Community elders head
Middle
(Balian (Tetuha Adat) (Pembekal
Tuha/ Muda)
Juru Patati)
Intermediate
spiritual
leader Aides to the
(Balian customary chief: Village secretary
Tangah) (Kepala Padang (Pangerak)
Middle Panganan
Junior Pangiwa
spiritual Malang Scribe
leader Cangkingan) (Juru Tulis)
(Balian
Muda/
Patati)
Spiritual
novices
Lower
(Calon
Balian/
Pemula)
community community community

members members members
114
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]

Ricefields and field house
Three decades ago, the government introduced a different administrative

structure at village level20. This was around the same time that the
government set up indigenous community resettlement projects. As
a result, many of the customary institutions no longer operate today.
Most of the leadership functions of the Tamanggung/Kepala Balai
are duplicated in the village administrative structure imposed by the
government. The village head is now elected, not selected, so the
customary chief’s role is restricted to ceremonial aspects of the adat
system.
The main position in the customary structure that retains its importance
is that of the land manager (Kepala Padang). He continues to determine
where and when the different types of land can be used and still maintains
information on the boundaries of the customary land and land use zones.
Also, the Pengulu Adat still carries out weddings under customary law.
20
Primarily the Village Governance Act No. 5/1979 which created a standard system
through Indonesia and did not recognise customary governance institutions. See similar
comments by indigenous authors in Chapters 3, 4 and 7.
115
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Reforestation areas initiated by the Batu Kambar community
The (government) village head (Kepala Desa) is now responsible for

making decisions regarding the community’s welfare and settling any
conflicts arising within the community or with other villages. However,
in practice, the former village head in the customary law system
(Pembakal Tuha) still acts as an advisor on any issues concerning the
village. Also the balai system still operates on a day-to-day basis with
the head of each community combining the traditional functions of
Kepala Balai and Kepala Adat.
3. Spiritual Leadership
Although some Meratus Dayak have converted to Christianity or Islam,
the indigenous Kaharingan faith and associated customary practices
and ceremonies are still very much alive in the Kiyu community21.
The spiritual leader is called a Balian. There are different levels
of spiritual leadership, ranging from Balian Muda (junior), Balian
Tangah (intermediate) and Balian Tuha (senior) to Guru Jaya (great
21
Members of the Balai Kiyu who have become Christians or Muslims generally still
practise traditional land management, but do not take part in the balian ceremonies that
are part of land clearance, planting and harvesting.
116
spiritual leader). Only a senior spiritual leader capable of conducting all

customary and religious ceremonies from beginning to end, including
their supernatural elements, can reach the highest level. He must also be
able to officiate at a series of major adat and religious ceremonies for
different communities one after the other. Frequently a great spiritual
leader will also act as a healer or shaman to treat various illnesses.
Usually each community has several spiritual leaders including one

at senior level and several at junior or intermediate levels. In small
communities, the head of the extended family or clan fulfils all the
adat roles as head of the community, customary leader and spiritual
leader (Tetuha Bubuhan/Tetua Adat/Tetuha Balai). Communities linked
through marriage ties tend to share a common Guru Jaya regardless of
the geographical distance between them.
4. Land and forest management

The customary lands of the Kiyu Dayak have been handed down from
the community’s ancestors for many generations - long before the Dutch
were there. The tenure system includes both communal and individual
ownership. Traditionally, Meratus Dayak societies only cleared as
much forest as needed to support their livelihoods. Each family had
the right to six payah (around 3 ha) although this could be extended if
they needed and could cultivate more. The rest of the forest was held
collectively and any use had to be agreed by the whole community.
Men and women had the same inheritance rights over agricultural land:
these passed to the oldest child on the parents’ death. These practices
continue today.
The Meratus Dayak differentiate between two types of tenure and land-
use:
• Permanent ownership and management rights that cover land
used for agroforestry (kebun) where tree species such as rubber
and fruit trees (rambutan, coconut, durian, etc) as well as
bamboo are usually planted;
• Temporary ownership and management rights that cover land
used for agricultural crops, such as upland rice and maize. This
land can be bequeathed to or managed by non-family members
who belong to the same community with the approval by the
head of the community.
117
No Kiyu land has ever been sold to outsiders
The land ownership system is based on trust and agreement within the
adat framework. No written documents are used. So no member of the
Kiyu community holds a land title certificate, even though these people
have owned the land for generations. Boundaries are marked by natural
features like rivers or by planting trees, such as rubber, cinnamon, betel
nut palms (Areca catechu) and Peronema canescense22, and clumps of
bamboo. Owners of all neighbouring plots agree boundaries in order
to avoid future conflicts. It is the task of the traditional land manager
(Kepala Padang) to memorise all boundaries between individual
properties and between settlements.
22
A distinctive hardwood tree, also known as sungkai, with a very straight trunk and
no low branches.
118
In the Balai Kiyu community, land ownership generally depends on

whether it has been inherited, acquired by marriage, bought or rented.
When parents bequeath their property, the children’s capability to manage
the land is more important than their sex, although the eldest child is
favoured. Outsiders who marry into the Kiyu community and decide to
live in Balai Kiyu may be given land and/or granted management rights
within the customary domain.
Land may be bought or sold, but only within the Kiyu community. Land
can also be rented with the consent of the community agricultural manager,
but only for annual crops like seasonal vegetables. Usually the landowner
receives a 25% share of the harvest as rent, agreed in advance.
Land ownership rights are lost only if the owner dies or if the owner has
been absent from the community for a long time and did not plant any
tree crops. Anyone who had been managing that land then gains tenure
rights. To date, no Kiyu land has ever been sold to outsiders.
III. attitudes towards natural resources and their

management
For the Meratus Dayak in general and the Kiyu Dayak in particular,
the customary forests and land are their life source. The forests are
their pharmacy, food store, kitchen, classroom and bank. They regard
forests as their mother who must be honoured because she gives and
sustains life. The adat system of forest management is the basis of local
livelihoods.
The Kiyu Dayak have always believed that their customary forests and
agricultural land can provide for their families’ needs. This attitude still
prevails today. Traditionally, the Kiyu Dayak have always followed adat
rules for managing their customary forests and other natural resources.
Only certain parts of the forest may be cleared for agriculture and no
trees may be felled in areas considered sacred. The Kiyu Dayak believe
that, if they lose their forest, they will lose their adat culture too. Anyone
violating adat rules is still subject to adat penalties.
119
The Meratus Dayak have developed rotational land use over many
generations as a means of overcoming natural limitations to cultivation
and, at the same time, of protecting their forest resources23. The Kiyu
people, like other Meratus Dayak, divide their customary lands into a
series of land use zones: bush fallow (balukar anum) - 1 to 7 years after
clearing; young secondary forest (jurungan) - 7-12 years old; fields
(pahumaan); plantations; forest (katuan) and areas for housing24.
The forest covering the mountains at an altitude of 700 metres and

above - an area close to 6,900 ha - is classified as protected forest
(katuan larangan). This cannot be used for agriculture because it is
believed that the spirits of
the community’s ancestors
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
(keriau) live there. Nobody

can cut down trees on pain
of punishment by the spirit
world, but members of the
Kiyu Dayak community
are allowed to extract non-
timber forest products.
This zone serves to protect
plant and animal species
and the community’s water
resources.
The other category of for-

est which the indigenous
community is allowed to
exploit is called adat for-
est (katuan adat), which
Balian (shaman) performing a healing ritual covers some 290 ha. This
23
The Kiyu Dayak, like most indigenous peoples, reject the term ‘shifting cultivation’
(peladang berpindah) because – as used by the government – this has negative associa-
tions of uncontrolled ‘slash and burn’. They prefer to describe their land use as ‘rota-
tional’ to emphasise customary practices which take environmental carrying capacity
into consideration.
24
The total of customary land in this section (7,565 ha) differs slightly from the amount
mentioned previously due to approximations of land uses.
120
is used on a rotational basis for agriculture and agroforestry25. The Kiyu

may also take timber from this zone for firewood or to build their hous-
es. Some of this forest is cleared and cultivated (pahumaan)26. Two to
three annual crops of rice will usually be grown27. Intermediary crops
are used to preserve soil fertility and to reduce the risk of erosion. When
a plot is no longer suitable for growing rice or vegetables, it can be
planted with trees then left to regain its fertility and turn into secondary
forest (jurungan) before clearing for agriculture again some time in the
future. Meanwhile, the family uses other plots for growing rice. Agro-
forestry is therefore an integral part of the cycle28.
A zone of around 30 ha is considered sacred forest (katuan keramat).

This is where the community’s ancestors were buried and must not be
used for any purpose other than burial. Sacred forest is usually located
on the higher mountain slopes. In Balai Kiyu, the sacred forest and
protected forest zones form the boundaries with neighbouring villages.
Other land use zones include rubber plantations (kebun gatah, 278 ha)
and fields (huma, 156 ha). Rubber is planted as a cash crop while the
agricultural plots are used for subsistence farming. Common subsistence
crops include annual plants such as rice, chillies, yams, cucumbers,
aubergines and other vegetables. These fields are usually located on
lower land which is flatter and more fertile.
25
This whole zone is common property which may be used for rotational cultivation,
following the adat rules for assigning plots to individual families. Once the plots are
allocated, ownership may be temporary or permanent as described in section II.4.
26
In common with most other Meratus Dayak groups, the Kiyu traditionally use fire to
clear land for cultivation. They maintain that this does not contribute to forest fires as
they only burn jurungan and burning (primary) forests is prohibited under customary
law. There are also strict adat rules on how fire can be used to prepare fields for plant-
ing. In addition to clearing a firebreak around the edge of the plot, these include only
burning at certain times of day and when the wind is in the right direction. However,
with increasing population pressure, the Kiyu admit that not everyone follows these
rules.
27
Usually a family goes together to their land - men, women, old and young - to plant,
tend and harvest the crops and even to sell produce at the market.
28
In the past, cultivated land would be left to turn into secondary forest for 10-15 years
before it was cleared for reuse as fields. Now the cycle is only 5-7 years, apparently due
to population growth. It is likely that, rather than sacrifice their protected forest, rota-
tional cultivation will soon be replaced by more settled practices. Rubber plantations
are the favoured option in other parts of Kalimantan.
121
Only a tiny proportion of the Kiyu’s customary lands (less than 2 ha)
is taken up by housing, including the community hall (balai adat).
This settlement zone is usually located in the valley or on the lower
hillsides.
For the Meratus Dayak, it is vital to know which parts of their customary
lands can and cannot be used for cultivation - not only for food security,
but to avoid being cursed by ancestral spirits. Areas for fields are selected
according to calculations based in traditional knowledge, not just where
people want to farm. These skills are highly valued because the annual
rice and maize harvests are so important to the community’s subsistence
and choosing the wrong locations may result in low crop yields.
Meetings to decide where to clear secondary forest for agriculture can

last several months as many factors must be carefully considered, such
as the slope of the land and soil fertility. The Meratus Dayak use a
variety of signs to assess soil fertility, including its colour and indicator
species which mark the stage of succession within the cultivation cycle.
Usually the Kiyu choose plots for cultivation where the gradient is about
45 degrees to avoid damage by wild pigs. These factors are also closely
linked to the agreements on land use zoning passed down through the
generations (peranggan)29. For example, rice can only be planted up to
around 700 metres above sea level - an area called munjal - as forest on
the higher slopes is protected under customary law.

The different steps of the rice cultivation cycle are as follows:
• Batunung: choosing an appropriate plot. This is usually done by
seeking guidance from the spirit world, interpreting dreams and
other signs.
• Manabas: cutting down the vegetation. This is done collectively.
A firebreak approximately 4 to 6 metres wide is cleared before
burning to prevent the fire from spreading.
• Menyelukut: once the plant matter has dried out and a firebreak
has been prepared, the land is cleared by burning any remaining
plants.
29
Within the Meratus Dayak, the details of agreements on land use by families (bubu-
han) and communities (balai) may differ, but the basic rules and terms of land use
zoning remain the same.
122
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]

View inside the field house
• Manugal: rice planting30 - usually local upland varieties with a

growth cycle of approximately six months.
• Protecting the crop from pests until harvest time.
• Harvesting, threshing and storing the rice.
Each stage is associated with special rituals or ceremonies (Aruh), see
Section IV, 1.
IV. THE ROLE OF ADAT IN MAINTAINING THE BALANCE

BETWEEN HUMANS AND NATURE
The Meratus Dayak feel very closely attached to their natural

environment and honour it as the source of their livelihoods in different
adat ceremonies. These are indirect ways of reminding all community
members to continue to take care of the balance between humans, nature
and the guardian spirits.
30
In the Meratus mountains, including the Kiyu community, upland rice is still planted
traditionally by making a hole in the soil with a pointed stick to plant each rice seed.
123
Boundaries are marked by natural features like rivers or by planting trees
Rice cultivation traditionally plays an important role in Dayak life

because the rice plant is regarded as a gift from heaven which has
sacred properties. Sticky rice, cooked inside a piece of bamboo, is an
essential part of all adat ceremonies. This is why Dayak people have
always grown rice, even where they live in places where its cultivation
is difficult – such as hilly areas with low soil fertility. Rice farming still
remains the main occupation of the Meratus Dayak because of its socio-
cultural importance.
People use forest products to supplement their diet, especially as it

was traditionally prohibited to buy or sell any rice stored in the rice
barns31. The Kiyu Dayak also sell various non-timber forest products to
purchase goods and services that they cannot provide for themselves.
These include damar resin (from the Agathis tree), rattan, bamboo,
rubber, sap from the jelutung tree32, candlenuts and honey.
31
Members of the extended family would share their stores if their relations ran short
of rice or, in times of severe shortage, people resorted to yams as their staple food until
the next harvest. Now that rice productivity is higher and it is possible to get to town by
road to buy rice, such shortages rarely occur.
32
A rubber substitute can be made from the sap of this tree.
124
1. Adat ceremonies (aruh)

The Meratus Dayak celebrate nine different ceremonies throughout the
agricultural year:
a) Mamuja Tampa: blessing the agricultural tools;
b) Batunung: choosing the right plot of land to clear;
c) Patilah: before cutting down any bamboo growing on the chosen plot;
d) Katuan or Marandahka Balai Diyang Sanyawa: honouring the
spirits believed to live in the highest tree on the chosen plot of
land before felling it. This ceremony is the last step in the land
clearing process and is a way of asking the spirits guarding the land
to release it for cultivation33;
e) Bamula: marking the beginning of rice planting;
f) Aruh Basambu/Basambu Umang: asking the spirits to protect the
growing rice plants from disease and other disasters and to nurture
the crop;
g) Menyindat Padi: young rice plants are tied together to protect the
crop symbolically against wind and pests. Similarly, in the ceremony
called Manatapakan Tihang Babuah, a ripening rice plant is tied to
a stick to symbolise support in order to keep the plants healthy and
upright until harvest;
h) Bawanang: asking the spirits’ permission to harvest and process the
rice34;
i) Mamisit Padi: celebrating the rice harvest and storing it in the barn.
The first three ceremonies are celebrated by the family (umbun) who will
cultivate the land, while the rest are held together with other families
as a community. The peak of the agricultural year is the rice harvest
and the Bawanang ceremony, often referred to as the great celebration
(Aruh Ganal). This takes place in the centre of the settlement and is led
by the community leader. The celebrations last from five to seven days,
during which time it is taboo to carry out any form of work.
Many different offerings are needed during this ceremony, including

cooked rice and the newly harvested rice. All the spiritual leaders join in
33
Additional information from the article Religi Dalam Tradisi Bercocok Tanam Seder-
hana by R Cecep Eka Permana, 23/May/03 (http://arkeologi.net/index1.php?id=view_
news&ct_news=45)
34
ibid
125
prayer and then dance around the adat house shaking a kind of musical
rattle (hiang), accompanied by four women playing small drums, one at
each corner of the large room. As they move around they bless people
with coins, strings of young coconut leaves, red and white flowers and
fragrant leaves35. After the feast, the agricultural cycle starts all over
again and this is how life continues.
2. Adat rules and sanctions

The Meratus Dayak view their forest as the source of their values, social
fabric and livelihoods and are therefore very aware of the need to take
care of it properly. They believe that God will curse those who harm the
forest36. The Meratus Dayak and their forest belong together and they
protect each other.
The management of the forest and its resources is regulated by adat rules
which the community has agreed. It is the role of the customary chief to
determine the penalties for any transgressors. Cutting down trees without
permission or causing harm to someone else within the Kiyu’s customary
domain are serious offences as the following examples of sanctions
show.
• Felling a fruit tree – a fine must be paid to the tree’s owner or
his/her descendents.
• Felling a tree bearing honeycombs – a fine of 10 - 15 antique
plates or the equivalent in cash.
• Felling a sacred tree37 – the offender has to pay a fine to the head
of the customary leader.
• Felling a damar resin tree (Agathis sp)38 – the family on whose
land the tree was can fine the offender and the fine is handed over
to the customary leader.
• Cutting down a fruit tree or causing the fruits to fall off a tree,
whether one’s own or someone else’s - fine according to the
damage caused.
35
Outsiders are allowed to observe this ceremony, but their host must make a contribu-
tion of 2-5 litres of rice per visitor.
36
The highest spiritual power in the Kaharingan religion is called Jubata or Dwata.
37
A sacred tree is one growing at a burial site (usually in the water catchment zone).
38
Agathis trees may be 200-300 years old and are particularly valued for the fragrant
resin they produce.
126
• If a person’s house or shelter is damaged by someone felling a

tree, s/he must pay compensation to the owner of the building.
• If someone loses control of the fire when clearing land and the
fire damages someone else’s crops, the owner of the field has to
be compensated according to the value of the lost crop.
These adat fines can be imposed on anyone who breaks the community’s
rules, regardless of social status. The community determines the cash
equivalent collectively39.
Dayak culture is based on five basic principles: sustainability,

solidarity, biodiversity, subsistence and compliance with adat law.
Applied properly, these principles will bring about a form of sustainable
development which is economically viable, environmentally friendly
and culturally sensitive. They enable the Kiyu Dayak to protect their
environment rather than destroying it, as they are often unjustly accused
of doing40.

Kiyu Dayak adat sanctions have also been applied without discrimination
to anyone breaking customary law since time immemorial – including
outsiders. Offences against adat law carried out by outsiders are regarded
as an insult to the whole Kiyu community. These include offences such
as theft, murder, rape and other actions considered crimes under adat
and formal law.
Penalties for offenders have been adapted to modern times. For instance,
theft used to be punished by cutting off the thief’s hand. Nowadays the
offender is fined in money or in kind, depending on the value of what
was stolen.
3. Adat meetings
Meetings are held as the need arises. They may be used to prepare for
or to celebrate an adat or religious ceremony, such as a wedding or
39
Formerly, it was common for fines to be in the form of antique porcelain plates, but
now these are translated into a cash sum. One plate (tahil) was equivalent to Rp120,000
(approx US$12) at the time this chapter was written. These fines are more a show of
community disapproval than financial compensation. However, much higher fines -
based on the actual economic value - are imposed on outsiders who break adat rules.
40
See also footnotes 23 and 26 in this chapter.
127
to clear land for cultivation, or as a response to threats from outside
the community, for example, plans to exploit local forest resources.
Decisions are based on consensus and all community members may take
part41. In the past, Kiyu Dayak women were not involved in decision-
making. Now they have the same rights to express their opinions and to
vote in decision-making processes.
V. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ADAT INSTITUTIONS AND THE

VILLAGE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE
In administrative terms, the customary lands of the Balai Kiyu commu-

nity are now officially part of the village of Hinas Kiri - Batu Kambar.
This change in governance structure has not had a great impact on the
management of natural resources, since the indigenous community is
given full rights to manage the resources within its customary area ac-
cording to adat rules42.
Despite the significant differences between the two systems, the Hinas
Kiri – Batu Kambar village administration supports the adat regulations
that prevail in the indigenous communities, including Balai Kiyu, and
recognises the importance of adat institutions43. For instance, activities
where the whole community cooperates, such as keeping the village
roads clear or building bridges, may be coordinated by adat or village
governance institutions44.
41
People are considered adult at around 17 years old, or younger if they already have
children.
42
In the official village structure, the village assembly (BPD) acts in consultation with
the village head. Usually, adat leaders (such as the Kepala Balai and Tetuha Adat) are
members of the village assembly. The village head will therefore have to take their
views into account. If the customary leader is elected as village head, adat rules will
automatically be taken into account. This minimises conflict between the government
and adat systems of governance at village level.
43
Pre-1979, Batu Kambar and Balai Kiyu both had village status. Now Balai Kiyu
is administratively part of Batu Kambar where more of the community is from the
Banjar ethnic group which does not have the same beliefs and traditional land use
system. However, the Hulu Sungai Tengah district authorities currently take a tolerant
approach to traditional land clearance methods.
44
See Section VII on community support for the government’s reforestation programme
through a tree nursery.
128
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]

Batu Kambar village
“Let us live with our customary forest. We know how to manage and
protect it properly and we do not destroy it. We, the Kiyu Dayak, and
our forest belong together. To destroy the forest is to destroy our exist-
ence. We want to continue to manage our forests sustainably, as we
have done for many generations, according to the culture we have in-
herited from our ancestors.”Olicum quam tesseniu
Another example is the local by-law (Perdes) on natural resource man-

agement which the village has drafted.
In forest management at the village level, the two institutional structures

act as partners looking jointly at different people’s interests and how
land is being used. Both support each other automatically. Decisions
about cooperation are generally reached by discussion and consensus.
In the event of a difference of opinion, the two systems would seek a
compromise. However, so far, there has never been any such conflict at
the village level.
An example of such co-operation on forest related issues is the

mediation in cases of land claim conflicts within Balai Kiyu or between
neighbouring villages.
129
VI. CONFLICTS CONCERNING NATURAL RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
Relations between the indigenous community and the regional and

national authorities have not been so close45. That the government looks
down on the indigenous Meratus Dayak communities is clear from
various policy decisions. These include issuing large-scale logging
permits (HPH) which exploit customary forests without giving any
information to the affected communities beforehand or seeking their
consent.
The rights of the indigenous Meratus communities are often violated

in other ways too. For example, funding intended for communities is
siphoned off as it is passed down from the provincial to the district
and sub-district authorities. While local government supports some
communities by providing places of worship (usually small mosques),
the Dayak’s Kaharingan religion is completely ignored. There is also
a lack of justice in the courts. The police and legal system do little to
prevent outsiders from stealing timber from Dayak customary lands, yet
members of the indigenous community are accused of illegal logging
for using their own timber.
When conflicts arise, the indigenous communities try to resolve them by

engaging all stakeholders in a dialogue, including the local authorities,
adat leaders and the investors operating in the area. This has not always
been possible. One example is the clash between the Kiyu and the
logging company PT Daya Sakti. The community successfully resisted
the destruction of their forest in various ways without casualties on
either side.
45
Although technically the village administration of Desa Hinas Kiri - Batu Kambar
is part of the regional governance system, the indigenous authors of this chapter draw
a clear distinction between relations with the official system at village level and those
with the higher echelons of the hierarchy. Few local government officials at the sub-
district or district levels are Dayak, partly due to their lack of formal education. The
Kiyu Dayak feel that ethnic groups such as the Banjar from the coastal region, Bugis
(originally from Sulawesi) and Javanese do not fully understand their needs or value
their culture.
130
THE DAYA SAKTI CASE
PT Daya Sakti started to log the Kiyu Dayak’s forests in the early 1980s,
causing serious damage to their fields and agroforestry plots. Two local
people died in a landslip which was believed to have been triggered by
commercial logging.
The community initially asked the company to negotiate with them and
proposed compensation for the use of their natural resources. PT Daya
Sakti rejected any dialogue or consideration of compensation. This
caused an increase in community resistance to commercial logging and
led to a series of blockades of roads and logging camps. The community
confiscated some heavy equipment. In addition, they used their traditional
beliefs to protect the forest by calling on supernatural forces.
They also protested to the company, to local and central government

and to (then) President Suharto by letter about the negative impact of
the company’s operations on their livelihoods. Representatives of the
community, supported by local NGOs and students, demonstrated at the
local forestry office and provincial assembly in Banjarmasin. Eventually,
PT Daya Sakti withdrew completely from the area in 1987.
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Secondary forest which was part of the PT Daya Sakti logging concession
131
Customary law remains the reference system for preventing conflicts.
For all Meratus Dayak, including the Kiyu community, adat rules are
the basis of their lives. Wherever possible, problems are settled by adat
rather than resorting to formal law. Anyone who interferes with the way
the Meratus Dayak manage their forest resources or violates their right
to manage their resources according to their customary rules is regarded
as an intruder and a cause of conflict.
VII. INITIATIVES TO STRENGTHEN INDIGENOUS FOREST

MANAGEMENT
The Balai Kiyu community has undertaken various initiatives to

strengthen their traditional community-based forest management
system. A tree nursery has been set up which produces hundreds of
thousands of meranti seedlings for reforestation work. In 2002, the Kiyu
also established a credit union as a source of micro credit to support
economic activities that are not forest dependent46. Through the credit
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Tree nursery: Peronema canescens seedlings shaded under rubber trees
46
More information on the Credit Union Bintang Karantika Meratus, based at Hinas
Kiri – Batu Kambar, is included in a Kompas article (27/Jan/2004) entitled Pedalaman
Memadukan Ekonomi Lingkungan, reprinted at http://www.eu-flegt.org/newsroom_de-
tail.php?pkid=228&lang=indo.
132
union network, the community cooperates with groups in other parts

of Kalimantan. Other initiatives include setting up a co-operative of
rubber farmers, community mapping and a village regulation based on
adat rules.
The Dayak Alai Co-operative (Koperasi Dayak Alai, KDA) was set up
in February 2003 as part of moves to strengthen the local economy in
indigenous communities in the Meratus mountains. Its office is in Batu
Kambar. Within two years it had 58 members in communities (balai)
in Hulu Sungai Tengah. Most of these are rubber farmers as rubber is
a major product in this district. The co-operative is still a relatively
new venture and faces problems of competition with middlemen and
larger traders, but its membership continues to expand. It has helped its
members to learn from rubber processing companies how to improve
the quality of their product so they can increase their income.
The PT Daya Sakti case and the proposals to allow logging and mining
in the Meratus area did much to increase awareness within indigenous
communities about the importance of adat in maintaining control over
their natural resources. They have also attracted various types of help
from NGOs. Over 30 local organisations have joined forces as the
Meratus Advocacy Alliance to support communities opposed to the
destruction of this area of forests. In addition to lobbying the authorities,
this group has provided capacity building and training in sustainable
forest management techniques for local people.
The local NGO LPMA Kalsel has worked closely with the Kiyu Dayak
over the past decade, encouraging the community to value its customary
practices and beliefs. One part of its programme, supported by the
national organisation HuMA which promotes indigenous rights, is to
help develop local regulations (Perdes) on natural resource management
in the Hulu Sungai Tengah district. Progress was slow in Kiyu and Batu
Kampar due to a reluctant village head but, in 2003, neighbouring Hinas
Kanan became the first village in South Kalimantan to introduce such
a by-law. The hope is that other villages will follow suit, forcing the
district authorities to pass a higher level regulation recognising adat
institutions.
133
MERATUS BY-LAW TO PROTECT FORESTS AND INDIGENOUS
COMMUNITIES
Local by-laws which protect the interests of indigenous comunities and their
forests have recently been enacted in several villages in the Meratus mountains
in South Kalimantan. These lay down some very important rules which
recognise the role of indigenous knowledge in exploiting and managing natural
resources and provide greater opportunities for indigenous communities.
The three villages of Juhu and Hinas Kiri (in Batang Alai Timur sub-
district) and Hinas passed the by-laws between July and August 2005. They
include strict measures to protect sacred forest, (other) customary forest and
protection forest. Only non-commercial uses of these forests by members of
the local community are permitted which take conservation into account and
then only with the approval of the customary leader. The Hinas Kiri by-law
also regulates the exploitation of wildlife. For example, it is forbidden to catch
certain species of bird considered sacred. Violations of the by-law, punishable
by fines, are to be referred to the customary leader with the approval of the
village head.
It is hoped that these by-laws will enable local communities to protect the
natural resources of the Meratus mountains and promote their sustainable use
so that future generations will also be able to enjoy them.
Source: BALIan (LPMA newsletter), July-Aug 2005, http://groups.yahoo.

com/group/berita-lingkungan/message/8384
Another example is the participatory mapping done by communities

with technical assistance and equipment from NGOs. This was seen as
a way for indigenous communities such as the Kiyu and its neighbours
to defend their customary lands from companies. These maps have
also proved useful since the introduction of regional autonomy as
communities need to be able to show the limits of their customary lands
on paper in order to use the legislation to gain greater recognition of
their land rights.
A final example was a gathering of 300 indigenous communities from

all over South Kalimantan, including representatives of Balai Kiyu, held
134
in 2003 with support from local NGOs. The aim was to build solidarity
between communities so that they can press the government at local
and national levels to support their interests. One outcome was that a
well-known Meratus Dayak figure, Zonson Masrie, stood as a candidate
for the local assembly in the 2004 elections. He was not elected, but his
achievement has encouraged members of indigenous communities in
Hulu Sungai Tengah to see political action as a real possibility.
We shall continue to fight for the rights of indigenous communities!
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Fishponds and field house
135
KIYU DAYAK PROTECT THEIR RESOURCES
A barrier across the road prevents trucks from passing through while
allowing access to private cars. It turns out that this is intended to
stop trucks coming into the area which are often used to transport
illegally felled timber out of the Meratus mountains.
Yasir Al-Fattah, director of local NGO Lembaga Pemberdayaan

Masyarakat Adat (LPMA), said that the local community had
constructed the barrier on their own initiative to prevent logging of
the forests in the Meratus area.
The indigenous Meratus Dayak communities in the Alai Timur sub-
district of Hulu Sungai Tengah in South Kalimantan are vigorously
promoting forest conservation. The deteriorating condition of forests
in the area has made them realise that forest destruction will have
negative impacts on the local economy. “We now understand that
destruction of the Meratus forests could also affect our livelihoods.
Our lives depend on the forests,” said Andy Syahruji, a young man
from Batu Kambar who has become an environmental activist.
Andy’s comments are supported by evidence from the field. As a

result of forest destruction in the Meratus mountains watershed, the
Panghiki river - a tributary of the River Alai - often causes flooding
and logging trucks are carried downstream in its muddy yellow-
brown waters.
The critical state of the forests in the upper reaches of the R. Alai
causes erosion of river banks and threatens communication by road.
Several roads which connect communties have been blocked by
landslides within the past year.
Source: Kompas, 27/Jan/2004 published on http://www.eu-flegt.org/

newsroom_detail.php?pkid=228&lang=indo
136
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
View of Kiyu customary land, with field house, cultivated land and agroforestry areas
102
INDIGENOUS PEOPLE DEMAND THEIR RIGHTS
The Association of South Kalimantan Indigenous Peoples is

demanding that the provincial government and local assembly
respects their rights to the land and natural resources where they
live, particularly in relation to plans for commercial exploitation of
the forest and transfer of powers over it. This is because indigenous
communities have lived in these places for generations but are
now being marginalised by the activities of companies who are
exploiting the forests, explained the head of the association, Zonson
Masrie. He made this point in discussion with H. Mansyah Add,
head of the South Kalimantan Assembly, and other local politicians
H.Sofwat Hadi, Addy Chairuddin and Agus Martadi, during the
Congress of South Kalimantan Indigenous Peoples in Banjarmasin
on Thursday.
Zonson Masrie was one of 750 indigenous participants at the

meeting, representing 300 balai or communities who stated their
position and declared 26th June as Indigenous Peoples’ Day in the
province. These indigenous communities pressed the provincial and
district authorities to recognise and respect them, including their
belief system, culture, customary law and tenure rights.
“These local authorities still do not acknowledge our customary

lands,” said Zonson, “so it is easy for the government to issue
permits to companies to exploit our forests”.
He and the other indigenous representatives want a stop to the

takeover of customary lands and the withdrawal of permits for
land use, logging, plantations and mining plus the certification of
customary lands and other projects as these activities are detrimental
to indigenous communities and their environments.
Source: Kalimantan Post, 27/Jun/03
138
Yuyun In
d
radi [DT
E]
Honey tree in Batu Kambar
102
TWELVE KEY ISSUES FOR SOUTH KALIMANTAN’S
INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES
The twelve main topics discussed at the South Kalimantan Indigenous

Peoples’ Congress (23-26 June 2003) were co-operation between
communities (balai), religion and language, political participation,
customary institutions, indigenous women, adat organisations and the
younger generation, education, health, territory and natural resources,
economy, infrastructure and development and adat regulations. Each
district was represented by nine people in each discussion group.
The participants seemed to take part enthusiastically in each of the

discussion groups, according to our reporter at the Congress. They
were not shy about expressing their opinions and were quick to
challenge statements which were not in line with their own views.
Although the discussions were serious, they were often punctuated
by laughter. The groups were facilitated by leading figures from
the indigenous community, including Zonson Masrie, Mido Basmi,
Bustami, Ali Udar, Noorsewan, Bahrudin, Ayal, Saleh and Ahdiyat.
Congress participants as a whole agreed that the autonomy of

indigenous peoples was the main demand for their community leaders
and the civil society organisations which supported them. This goal
had become more attainable with the opportunities presented in
the national law on regional autonomy (No 22/1999), particularly
because this allows the change from the standard government
concept of village governance to governance based on customary
law. Moreover, the framework legislation on Agrarian Reform and
Natural Resource Management (TAP MPR No IX/2001) provides
more recognition for the principles of acknowledgment, respect and
protection of indigenous rights.
One point that came out of the discussion was that, if indigenous
communities are to attain more autonomy, indigenous people must
brave the political arena. Engaging in politics provides opportunities
for indigenous people to participate in the whole process of
formulating and enacting change in government policies at local and
140
national levels. However, so far it has proved difficult for indigenous

people living deep in the countryside far from the centres of power
to engage in the political system. So it is hardly surprising that
indigenous communities are disadvantaged by policy decisions taken
by the authorities.
Source: Banjarmasin Post, 25/Jun/2003 (via http://www.indomedia.

com/bpost/062003/25/b-bungas/bungas5.htm)
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Pepper cultivation in pahumaan
141
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
101
6
THE SEMBALUN INDIGENOUS
COMMUNITY, LOMBOK
Building consensus to save adat forest on Mount Selong
Abdulrahman Sembahulun and Y. L. Franky
1
Abdulrahman Sembahulun is founder of AMAL (the Lombok Indigenous Peoples
Alliance) and an Islamic agricultural training centre in Sembalun Lawang. He has also
been a board member of WALHI NTB.
2
Y.L Franky was AMAN Programme Coordinator until 2007 and is now director of PU-
SAKA. He has presented some of the material in this chapter in an article entitled Reaktu-
alisasi Nilai Adat: Merehabilitasi Hutan di Sembalun, avvailable on www.kpshk.org/.
143
Location of Sembalun Village in Lombok
144
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Location
Sembalun is an area in northeast Lombok on the slopes of Mount
Rinjani. It lies in a valley at 1,200 m above sea level.
In administrative terms, Sembalun is a subdistrict of East Lombok in

the province of West Nusa Tenggara3. Located at about 35 km from the
district capital, Kota Selong, and 114 km from the provincial capital,
Mataram, it is possible to reach the village of Sembalun Lawang by
motorbike or 4-wheel drive vehicle.
Sembalun is surrounded by hills which are dominated by the peak of Mt

Rinjani (3,726 m), a semi-active volcano with its caldera lake - Segara
Anak. Mature tropical forest grows on some of the hillsides while others
are covered by coarse grassland dominated by Imperata cylindrica.
The people of Sembalun have traditionally managed various parts of the
forest (called gawar in the local language) in different ways, including
as agroforests. The valleys and lower slopes are used to grow rice and
vegetables.
Forest protection is important because the springs on the slopes of Mt

Rinjani and the streams which flow from them are vital water sources
for the whole population of Lombok. On 6 May 1990, the then forestry
minister Hasjrul Harahap formally established Mount Rinjani National
Park (Taman Nasional Gunung Rinjani, TNGR). It now has a total area
of 41,330 ha. This overlaps the major part of the Sembalun customary
domain, which covers roughly 10,000 ha.
3
The province of West Nusa Tenggara (Nusa Tenggara Barat, NTB) comprises the
islands of Lombok and Sumbawa.

Extensive, uncontrolled cattle grazing has, in recent years, been a cause of reduced
forest cover and an increased area of coarse grassland.

The Dutch colonial administration originally decreed Mt Rinjani as a Nature Reserve
in 1941. Harahap changed its status to a national park in an official statement (No. 448/
Menhut-VI/90) and this was confirmed in 1997 by (then) forestry minister Djamalud-
din (KepMenHut No. 208/Kpts – VI/1997. See www.santoslolowang.com/data/view-
ing/Lingkungan_Hidup/kepmenhut_280Kpts_VI_1997.pdf.
145
View of the peak of Mt Rinjani (3,726 m)
Important plant species present in the national park include

jelatang (Laportea stimulan), dedurenan (Aglaia argentea), bayur
(Pterospermum javanicum), banyan tree (Ficus benjamina), guava and
related species (Syzygium sp.), wild nutmeg (Myristica fatna), keruing
(Dipterocarpus hasseltii), rerau (D. imbricatus), edelweis (Anaphalis
javanica) and two endemic orchid species, Peristylus rintjaniensis and
P. lombokensis. Among the interesting animals found there are barking
deer (Muntiacus muntjak), rusa deer (Cervus timorensis), Javan Langur
(long-tailed monkey - Trachypithecus auratus), Malayan Pangolin (scaly
anteater - Manis javanica), an endemic species of civet (Paradoxurus
hemaproditus rinjanicus), Helmeted Friarbird (Philemon buceroides),
Dark-backed Imperial Pigeon (Ducula lacernulata), Black-naped
Oriole (Oriolus chinensis) and various species of reptiles.

Dedurenan is a tree whose bark and leaves have medicinal properties; bayu is used
locally for timber; keruing, rerau and mahoni are all commercially valuable tropical
hardwood species; the term jambu (Syzygium sp) covers several types of fruit tree,
including guava.

See National Park website: http://www.ditjenphka.go.id/index.php?a=kn&s=k&i=21&t=2
146
2. Population
The wealth of Sembalun’s natural resources, fertile soils, spectacular
landscapes and local culture have all attracted outsiders to settle there
and to ‘develop’ the area. This includes the district tourism authorities,
travel companies and tour operators who are developing Sembalun’s
tourist potential. However, the majority of the population is still
indigenous to the area.
The inhabitants of the Sembalun highlands live in six villages: Obel-

obel and Belanting (in Sambelia subdistrict) and Sajang, Bilok Petung,
Sembalun Lawang and Sembalun Bumbung (in Sembalun subdistrict).
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Children and Women at the old Bleq village
They are often called the ‘Sembalun people’ and identify themselves
as descendents of the Sasak – the oldest ethnic group in the area and
indeed in the whole island of Lombok, according to local history.

Sembalun Lawang village is the gateway to one of the main trails up Mt Rinjani.
Trekkers stay overnight in guesthouses on their way to and from the volcano’s crater
lake. The Rinjani Information Centre was set up there about 5 years ago as part of a New
Zealand aid project for eco-tourism (source: www.lombok-network.com/rinjani/).

These ‘villages’ are administrative areas (desa) which include a number of settle-
ments. The estimated population of Sembalun Lawang is 7,856 people.
147
During the last 25 years, Sembalun has experienced some immigration
from neighbouring villages and from Bali and Java, but some 90% of
the inhabitants are indigenous. The predominant religion is Islam.
The educational level in Sembalun is quite high compared with

neighbouring areas. Most people here complete secondary education10.
There is a primary school in each village and there are state high
schools in the area, as well as private schools. However, those who
want to pursue higher education have to go to the provincial capital of
Mataram.
3. Livelihoods
The Sembalun community depends largely on agriculture. This includes
dry land crops, agroforestry gardens, irrigated rice and rearing livestock.
Some inhabitants also earn a living as farm labourers11. Traditionally,
the main commodities grown in the area are jackfruit, banana, avocado,
local and improved rice varieties, maize, cassava, sweet potato, cabbage,
cauliflower, broccoli, tomatoes, potatoes, carrots, snow peas, garlic,
onions, chillies, coffee, tobacco, cloves and vanilla12. People also farm
freshwater fish and rear cattle.
Vegetables have been grown in this area for many years due to the
fertile soils and cool climate. Now these crops are grown not just for
local consumption, but also for sale in Java and Bali or even overseas.
Exactly what is planted depends on the market: there has been a surge
in chilli and garlic production during the last two decades13. The largest
10
In Indonesia, children attend Primary School (Sekolah Dasar, SD) from 7-12 years
old; Junior High School (Sekolah Lanjutan Tingkat Pertama, SLTP) from 13-15; and
Senior High School (Sekolah Lanjutan Tingkat Atas, SLTA) from 16-18.
11
Most people own and work their own land. The crops they plant depend on the mar-
ket. Much of the harvest is now purchased by the large commercial companies in the
area. Only around 800 people worked as farm labourers in 2006 – the majority for other
members of the indigenous community.
12
See also Section III
13
Chillies are commonly called lombok in Bahasa Indonesia.
148
buyer of chilli in the area is the company PT Indofood14. In 2000, 38,932

hectares in East Lombok province was used to produce a total of 50,449
tonnes of chilli and 51,240 tonnes of garlic15.
Local incomes rose significantly from the 1980s onwards after large-scale
investors established commercial farms and plantations in the area16.
These had a massive impact on the economic structure, agricultural
practices and social fabric of the Sembalun people. Agriculture changed
from small-scale production based on traditional knowledge, collective
work and mutual support to a commercial system based on modern
technology, paid labour, fertilisers and large-scale land clearing.
This has led to a number of social and environmental problems, including

land conflicts, landslips and reduction in numbers of springs (see section
IV). The ‘good news’ in this case is that there have been concerted efforts
by indigenous leaders gradually to move land and natural resource
management away from destructive forms of exploitation towards more
sustainable practices by reviving adat values.
4. Ethnic origins
The Sasak community of Sembalun has its own oral history about its
origins. In years gone by, the whole of Lombok was covered by thick
forest called gawar saksak in the local language17. It is said that at
the time the island was inhabited by a mysterious people who were
sometimes invisible.
Later, during the first century of the Muslim calendar18, several wavesof
migrants arrived on the island. The first settlers are believed to have
14
PT Indofood, a major Indonesian processed food company, produces instant noodles,
edible oils, soy sauce and chilli sauce. It has formed a joint venture with Nestle SA to
market its products internationally.
15
http://bankdata.depkes.go.id/kompas/Kabupaten%20Lombok%20Timur.pdf
16
Big business was boosted by (then) President Suharto’s first visit to the area in1987,
but local elites benefited most from this – see section IV)
17
The term for the indigenous community of Lombok, its language and forests – gener-
ally called Sasak – can be spelt in different ways, including Saksak and Sasaq.
18
The 7th century AD
149
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
The Bleq village, the original architecture and layout of old village in Sembalun
come from three different places: Persia, India and Samudera Pasai19.
They landed in the north and followed the River Sangkabira south by
boat, then climbed Mt Rinjani where they celebrated an ascetic ritual
while looking for a suitable place to settle.
The second wave of migration - from Sumatra, Java and Sulawesi –

occurred in the ninth or tenth century AD. It is not known how these
people arrived or met up. They too travelled up the Sangkabira River,
now the only river that flows all year long to the north coast. The new
arrivals did not immediately start to occupy the slopes of Mt Rinjani,
but stayed in a valley to the east called Mentagi before settling at a
spring (makem) in what is now the hamlet of Lendang Luar.
The third group of migrants comprised seven couples who came from
the south in the late twelfth century and settled in various places. They
went first to Mt Selaparang before moving north along the slopes of Mt
Nanggi to the top of Mt Seladara. From there they could see a beautiful
valley. Each time they looked at it, the first words that came out of
their mouths were “Subhanallah Uluun”, meaning Allah is the most
19
Also known as Samudera and sometimes called Samudera Darussalam, Samudera
Pasai was an important Muslim kingdom on the north coast of Sumatra, near the present
day town of Lhokseumawe, Aceh, from the 13th to the 15th centuries AD.
150
Holy and Highest of Gods. This phrase gradually changed into the word
‘Sembalun’, which has remained the name of the valley.
This group migrated several more times. After descending to the valley
they went north, moved down Mt Anak Dara, and settled at the current
site of the village Bleq on Mt Selong. Several historic buildings remain
at this ancient settlement: seven traditional adat houses (a number
permanently fixed by tradition), two traditional storehouses (geleng) for
community heirlooms and a community hall for adat meetings20. This
community spread to the other side of the R. Sangkabira where they
built a new village on the rocky hill called Bawaq Dewa. Eventually
they moved further north to the area of Bayan, where their descendants
ruled the land and continue to live there.
These old stories, passed down through the generations, show how
the Sasak community which now lives in Sembalun and its customary
social and governance systems evolved through the social and cultural
interactions between different waves of migrants. One of the earliest
community leaders was Datu Sembahulun who is said to have ruled
over the whole ancestral area21. He was succeeded by his two younger
brothers: Datu Bayan and Datu Selaparang22.
II. INDIGENOUS CULTURE AND ADAT RULES
1. Key elements of Sembalun beliefs

Wetu Telu is a traditional Sasak knowledge and culture system23.
There are different interpretations of the origin and meaning of the
term. One points to the fact that the ancestors of the indigenous pop-
ulation came from three different places (Sumatra, Java and Bali).
20
This building, known as poposan bale malang, is where the community gathers for
communal decision-making and traditional ceremonies.
21
Datu is an honorific term for a Sasak headman. As there are few written records of
Sasak history for this part of north Lombok, it is not known when Datuk Sembahulun
ruled.
22
These are now names of settlements in the Sembalun customary domain.
23
Wetu Telu, also known as Metu Telu, literally means ‘three times’.
151
Another links the
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]

number three to
the basic elements
of society and en-
vironmental har-
mony: God, nature
and human beings.
Yet another sug-
gests that it refers
to the three main
groups of living
creature in Sasak
tradition: menioq
(plants), meneloq
(birds and all egg-
laying creatures)
and menganaq
(mammals, in-
cluding humans
and four-legged
animals). Going planting
The ‘figure of three’ also reflects the threefold syncretism of the Sembalun
indigenous religion – the indigenous people say they are Muslims, but
hold animist beliefs and carry out Hindu rituals - and the triumvirate adat
leadership structure involving a religious leader (Pengulu Adat), resource
manager (Pemangku Adat) and social executive (Pemekel Adat). Yet other
interpretations relate it to the three main adat rituals of Loh Langgar,
Loh Dewa and Loh Makem or the three original settlements (Sembalun
I on Mt Rinjani, Sembalun II in the Mentagi valley of Mt Rinjani and
Sembalun III - also known as the village of Bleq - on Mt Selong).
This blend of beliefs and religions is often associated with an account of a

journey known as Lalo meta adat. The story goes that the village of Bleq
once decided to send three representatives to trace its different ethnic
origins in Sulawesi, Java and Sumatra. When the time arrived for them
to return, the one who should have gone to Sulawesi had only reached
Bali and brought back the knowledge and art of the Hindu culture. The
152
person who went to Java had gone to Cilacap and returned with Sanskrit
scriptures, a papyrus book and the teachings of Islam combined with
animism. The one who had left for Sumatra never came back.
The best way to describe the Wetu Telu culture is through its three main
adat rituals.
a. Loh Langgar: a ceremony celebrated once a year to commemorate

the birthday of the prophet Mohammed24. The purpose is to pray to God
(using Muslim prayers) for a good harvest, prosperity, safety, peace and
the sustainability of nature’s resources.
It consists of a procession and prayers led by the customary religious

leader. It starts by bringing various offerings to the langgar25 – usually
fruits and other natural products arranged decoratively on special
bamboo baskets called ancak. After the prayers, the leader’s assistants
(Kiyai) share the offerings among the participants. People who did not
enter the prayer house to attend the ritual go to the nearest trees and
shake their branches while saying Ammbein (Amen).
This ceremony reflects the central roles played by religious observance

and community service within Sembalun society26. These features of
everyday life are an integral part of people’s identity as Sembalun. A
popular account of the derivation of their name is that it comes from the
word sembah (meaning loyalty, obedience, submission and devotion)
and ulun (meaning high, tall and powerful), so that Sembalun means
‘loyal to God Almighty’.
b. Loh Dewa: an adat ceremony to celebrate and express gratitude for

the harvests from the paddy fields, upland fields, agroforestry plots and
forests and the products obtained from livestock and other sources. This
ritual is celebrated in that part of the customary forest which is still
intact (gawar kemaliq), to pay respect to the forest spirits who are the
source of the community’s livelihoods.
24
On the twelfth day of Rabi’ul Awal (the third month of the Islamic lunar calendar)
25
This was originally a sacred place where animals were kept (for sacrifice). Nowa-
days, a Muslim prayer house (musholla) is used instead.
26
The term gotong royong can mean any form of collective work which is carried out by inhabit-
ants of a settlement for the general benefit of the community, not for pay (see also chapter IV).
153
Loh Dewa is celebrated once a year and begins with a procession to the
ritual site. Members of the community walk in groups, depending on
their budut27, each carrying offerings of their produce. The procession is
accompanied by music played on the gamelan28, drums, gong and other
traditional instruments. Then the religious leader leads prayers to thank
and praise the Almighty and the spirits.
c. Loh Makem: A ceremony celebrated close to a spring once a year

at the beginning of the planting season. Its purpose is to acknowledge
the spirits who protect the water sources and to pray to the Almighty
to protect the crops from diseases and damage caused by prolonged
drought or excessive rains.
During this ritual a buffalo or cow is sacrificed. The religious leader

and his assistants read verses from the Koran and pray at the spring.
The ceremonial chef (Ran) prepares the meat of the sacrificed
animal which, with other food, is served on banana leaves to all the
participants. On the following day the tasks of the planting season
begin - sowing, planting and repairing irrigation channels. It is also
the time to inspect the state of the forest, decide which trees can be
felled and restore areas vulnerable to erosion that might otherwise get
washed away during the rainy season29.
The adat rituals of Loh Dewa and Loh Makem show the extent to
which the Sembalun people value their natural environment and the
importance placed on using natural resources in a rational, organised,
sustainable way30. These values are also expressed in the word sasak,
27
A kind of working group
28
A percussion orchestra made up of various brass instruments which is part of the
traditional music of Java, Bali and Lombok.
29
In the past, the Sasak in the Sembalun area practised a form of rotational cultiva-
tion which involved clearing forests for agriculture. However, this practice gradually
stopped in the 1970s. Now these ceremonies are used to encourage the whole commu-
nity to value the forests and to get actively involved in reforestation schemes.
30
As the community has become more strictly Islamic (due to partly to the presence
of the local Islamic training college) and most of the younger generation have been
through formal education, traditional beliefs were increasingly regarded as heathen or
old fashioned. Hence the adat ceremonies of Loh Dewa and Loh Makem were rarely
practised. However, as is shown later in this chapter, attempts are being made to revi-
talise adat - in particular to reintroduce the values of sustainability celebrated in these
traditional ceremonies to younger generations.
154
which can be translated as ‘equality’. This refers to the traditional

belief that the relationship between humans and the resources for
their livelihoods should be balanced and that all community members
should co-operate and act according to the principles of lomboq buaq
which promote the values of honesty, justice and integrity31.
The adat rules (awik-awik32) regulating the use of natural resources

are described later (see section III)
2. Traditional institutions
The Sembalun people have a traditional governance structure called
Wik Tu Telu comprising three institutions whose interrelated roles deal
with judicial, cultural religious and other social affairs.
a. Pengulu: responsible for religious affairs and moral guidance.

This body is mainly concerned with the value system of lombok
buaq, which promotes honesty, justice, integrity, sincerity and
fairness in people’s lives, and the teachings of sangkabira,
which require the Sembalun community to co-operate, be united
and help one another. It is led by the Pengulu Adat (religious
leader), who conducts religious ceremonies and adat rituals.
He is supported by six assistants (Kiyai), each of whom lives in
a different part of the village.
b. Pemekel: responsible for maintaining social structures and
practices such as marriage, festivals, harvest festivals and other
celebrations, and conflict resolution. The head of the Pemekel
is called the Mekel or Jero Kepala who used to function as the
village head. He has several assistants who all traditionally wear
red clothes: the Jero Warah who is in charge of communications
and public relations; the Jakse or Jero Tulis as the secretary; the
Keliang as the head of the area; the Langlang Jagat who is in
charge of security and also acts as an envoy; and the Pekasih
or Kesubakan who implements adat regulations related to
31
Lombok buaq is also the local name given to a type of tree which is very straight and
beautiful (see also footnote 22, Chapter 5). The principle of co-operation for mutual
benefit is locally called sangkabira.
32
Also spelt awiq-awiq or awig-awig
155
agriculture and water resources33.
c. Pemangku: responsible for the management and use of natural
resources including forests, water sources, agriculture and
agroforestry, as well as other environmental issues. The head of
the Pemangku, who is also called the Mangku Gumi, is assisted
by several other Mangku. The Mangku Gawar is in charge of
forests, especially the forest around Mt Rinjani and Segara
Anak lake; the Mangku Gunung looks after Mt Pergasingan;
the Mangku Makem manages water resources; the Mangku
Rantemas controls the area of Rantemas and Mt Gunung Anak
Dara; and the Mangku Majapahit preserves and manages
sites of cultural importance such as Bleq village, Ketapahan
Majapahit, Bencingah Kocit, Kraton Suranala, Mt Selong and
Pangsormas.
The Mangku are responsible for resolving conflicts and imposing

sanctions in cases related to natural resource management,
based on local practice and adat law.
In addition to these three institutions, another body (the pande) has the
more specific function of co-ordinating production of all equipment
needed for adat rituals as well as the agricultural tools used by the
community.
The participation of representatives of these adat institutions – Kiyai,

Mekel, Mangku and Pande - is an important part of all major ceremonies,
public meetings, family events and other social activities.
I I I . LAND OWNERSHIP AND NATUR A L R E S O U R C E

M A NAGEMENT SYSTEMS
According to local history, during the rule of Datu Sembahulun, the

Sembalun customary area extended north as far as the coast and the
Java Sea, south to Mt Nanggi (Selaparang), west to Mt Sangkareang
(Santong) and east to Mt Urat Suleman (Sambelia).
33
In Bali and Lombok, water for irrigating rice fields is regulated through a highly de-
veloped traditional system of ownership and control known as subak or kesubakan.
156
The Sembalun have customary rights to manage and exploit the land
and forest resources within this area, except the forest zones designated
as protected or sacred forest areas (gawar kemaliq). The management
of natural resources was traditionally based on the local system of
values, knowledge and custom and governed by the institutions under
the Wik Tu Telu structure. Anyone who wanted to use any natural
resources – without exception – had to first obtain permission and
guidance from the local adat leader.
1. Land uses
The Sembalun’s customary land use system distinguishes between the
following different kinds of land use:
 forest;
 upland agricultural plots;
 irrigated rice fields;
 pasture for livestock;
 areas for huts where harvests are stored temporarily (bale
bleq) and rice barns (geleng);
 settlements.
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Paddy field, Sembalun

157
Forests are further classified as:
• Gawar elet: mature, intact forest far from settlements;
• Gawar kemaliq: protected forest;
• Gawar tu luwey: forest where medicinal plants, fruits and other
non-timber forest products may be harvested (agroforestry);
• Kolan tu nyeran: hunting forest;
• Gawar aur: bamboo groves.34
Only the agroforestry zone is owned by individual families; all other

forest categories are held collectively by the community.
Various types of markers are used to show land boundaries – natural
and man-made - such as long-lived tree species, bamboo clumps,
rivers, irrigation channels, tracks, footpaths and the wooden or concrete
gateways at the entrances of hamlets within the village (lawangkuta).
2. Customary regulations on land and resource use

A series of adat rules, also called awik-awik, traditionally controlled the
Sembalun community’s use and management of natural resources.
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Bamboo garden, each cluster belongs to an individual family
34
What is and isn’t included under these classifications – particularly gawar kemaliq
- has shifted somewhat in recent years.
158
a. Entering the forest

Entry to the forest within the Sembalun customary area was only
permitted at the following places:
• Pelawangan - for the peak of Mt Rinjani and Segara Anak
lake;
• Urat Tibu Segara - for forests on Mt Pergasingan;
• Urat Pangsor - for forests on Mt Selong and Mt
Seladarak;
• Lahamban – for forests on Mt Kukusan and the hot springs
of Aik Kalak.
Before going to the forest, everyone had to obtain the permission and
approval of the Mangku Gawar, whatever the reason. This included
activities such as going for a walk, hunting, gathering fire wood, felling
timber for building, catching birds, meditation or testing the strength of
ancestral weapons at the hot springs.
Any known violations were punished by the local Mangku by adat

fines, public shaming or expulsion from the community. If an offender
escaped detection and punishment by the Mangku, the community
believed that nature would punish him/her. The person may get lost in
the forest, fall into a gorge or even die, depending on the seriousness of
the offence.
b. Hunting35
Before entering the forest, hunters had to say a prayer and make offerings
to the spirits who guard the forest lest the forest guardians spoil the
hunt. The Mangku gave directions to the hunters such as where they
were allowed to camp, rules to observe when lighting fires or cooking,
and which animal species may be hunted and in which quantities. For
example, the rules for hunting muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak) and deer
(Cervus timorensis) were that:
• It is only allowed to kill single adult animals - no fawns,
pregnant or nursing does, or animals in herds.
• Meat from any muntjac caught may only be eaten outside the
35
Hunting has been significantly reduced since much of the remaining areas of Sem-
balun customary forest became part of the Gunung Rinjani National Park.
159
village boundaries, for instance as supplies during a trip. Deer
meat can be taken back home.
c. Logging
No tree could be felled for whatever purpose without permission from
the Mangku, even if it was on privately-owned land. The Mangku first
had to assess the social and environmental impact that felling the tree
may cause and seek the agreement of community members who might
be affected. He also protected the area around it with prayers36. If a tree
was cut down without permission, the spirits who guard it may cause
unrest in the community and even kill the logger.
People co-operated to fell large trees. They first removed twigs and branch-
es, then fastened ropes around the trunk to minimise the risk of damaging
the surrounding vegetation. Whoever felled a tree must plant at least ten
new trees and take care of them to ensure that they grow. If any saplings
died, they must be re-
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]

placed.
d. Water
Water is a very im-
portant resource for
the Sembalun people.
In addition to its uses
for irrigation, drinking
and bathing, water was
also believed to cure
diseases in plants and
humans, keep people
young and enhance fer-
tility. Before any water
could be used for such
purposes, the Mangku
had to give approval
and could set certain
conditions in addition
to holding a ceremony. Customary protected forest, Suela, Sembalun
36
A process called mangku memangar
160
These following rules applied to the use and management of springs:

• No-one was allowed to approach directly the place where water
emerges from a spring, except the three adat leaders (Tu Telu
Datu). Even they should only do so as part of an annual adat
ritual or in an emergency, for example, if there were signs that
floods or mudslides had disrupted the flow of water.
• Anyone passing a water source on a horse or water buffalo had
to dismount, to avoid the risk of mudslides or disturbing the
forest spirits around the spring. Anybody caught breaking this
rule could be punished according to adat rules. Alternatively, s/
he may experience some sort of natural punishment – the rider
might fall from his horse or become ill or the horse may die.
• Certain celebrations could only be held at particular locations
within a 500 – 1,000 m radius of a spring and had to be led by
the Mangku.
• Collecting water for its special properties without permission
was considered theft. Any stolen water would not benefit the
thief anyway – on the contrary, s/he would be punished by
nature or by adat.
• Only the Mangku, or the irrigation manager (Pekasih Subak)
acting on his behalf, was allowed to take or redirect water for
irrigating fields.
e. Forests, agroforestry gardens and agricultural land

Until around thirty years ago, the people of Sembalun still practised
rotational cultivation: clearing patches of forest to grow upland rice. At
the same time, bamboo and tree crops such as fruit trees, timber species,
coffee and bananas would be planted. These would shade out the rice
crop within a few seasons and form a stand of man-made forest which
would be cleared several decades later to grow more rice.
One crop of swamp rice was grown each year on the lower marshy
areas near seasonal water sources. During the dry season, this land was
used to grow vegetables.
Community members could request a plot of land anywhere they liked

and as large as they could handle, as long as adat requirements were
161
met and the land use was in accordance with adat zoning. Before a
piece of land was settled or farmed, the location had to be checked
by the adat leader. Only then could the boundaries be marked, usually
by planting special trees37. The adat leader would establish how many
trees needed to be planted to make up for clearing the land to create
fields for vegetables or irrigated rice, or to build a house.
IV. CONFLICTS OVER LAND AND RESOURCES
1. Land shortages
The policies of the colonial authorities and subsequent national
governments significantly eroded traditional systems for controlling
the ownership and use of land and natural resources38. The customary
governance structure was co-opted in the interests of those in power
and its roles and responsibilities weakened through legislation and
bureaucratisation. Economic pressures have also contributed to
widespread violations of adat law.
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Planting paddy
37
These trees are locally known as gerungsa.
38
As communities represented in the other case studies in this book also report, the
1979 village administration law severely restricted Sembalun’s adat governance.
162
At the time of Dutch colonial rule, customary forests and land were
nationalised and classified into areas for farming, protected forest,
wildlife reserves and other uses39. Land in private ownership was
registered and certified in order to make it easier to collect property
taxes – and this trend has continued40.
Pressures on land for agriculture really began when the Dutch desig-
nated the Rinjani area as a natural reserve in 1941, but land conflicts in-
creased under the Suharto regime41. First the government declared all
non-certified land to be state property42. It then handed over large parts
of this ‘state land’ as concession rights to private companies, zoned
some of the Rinjani area as Protection Forest (hutan lindung) and later
established Gunung Rinjani National Park. These policies significantly
limited the Sembalun people’s access to the land and natural resources
that were the basis of their traditional livelihoods.
Natural population increase has further compounded the problems of

lack of secure land title and reduced land availability. Land ownership
is quite uneven, ranging from several hectares to just enough to build a
house on. However, on average, people in Sembalun Lawang only have
6 are (0.06 ha). Typically, a family will use their land to grow a crop of
rice in the rainy season and to plant vegetables (garlic, chilli, potatoes
and tomatoes) in the dry season.
39
State-controlled land which local people are sometimes allowed to use for farming
is still known as ‘tanah GG’ which probably refers to the colonial term Gouverneurs
Grond (lit. the governor’s land). Farmers must pay tax but are allowed to transfer us-
age rights to others. See also footnote 22 in Chapter 3.
40
Communally-held customary land has progressively become certified individual
land and this has weakened adat controls over its use. For example, some GG land has
become privately owned, certificated plots.
41
Indonesia’s first president, Sukarno, promoted state control over land as an alterna-
tive to ownership by foreign powers, including the Dutch. His left-leaning government
was also opposed to control by large commercial interests. He was succeeded by Gen-
eral Suharto after a bloody coup in 1965. Suharto’s ‘New Order’ government actively
supported Western capitalism.
42
This included much of the indigenous community’s customary lands – both com-
munal and some individually-held - since not all Dutch land certificates (pipil) were
recognised by the Indonesian authorities.
163
Since the 1980s, the fertile soils in this part of Lombok have attracted
many big investors who have established agribusinesses there, such
as PT Sampoerna Agro, PT Agro Indo Nusantara, PT Putra Agro Sam
Lestari, PT Cipta Karya Sarana, PT Benete and PT Sembalun Kusuma
Emas43. These large-scale enterprises use modern methods and require
a lot of land which they obtain either by clearing forest or by buying it
off the indigenous population at low prices.44
Corporate agriculture in and around Sembalun has further contributed

to pressures on land and natural resources in two ways: modern cultiva-
tion systems demand substantial, reliable supplies of water in an area
where supplies are diminishing due to deforestation and droughts; and
outsiders have been attracted into the area seeking employment, thus
increasing the local population and also demand for land. In neighbour-
ing areas, an increase in land transactions has also led to more conflicts
over land in recent years45.
2. Lack of adat control

For many years, adat leaders seemed powerless in the face of
pressure from the government and commercial operators and controls
imposed by them. They tended to collaborate with the government
and private sector in promoting commercial development rather
than fulfilling their traditional obligations towards their community.
43
PT Sembalun Kusuma Emas withdrew from the area in the late 1990s. Its concession
was taken over by PT Sampoerna Agro - a subsidiary of one of Indonesia’s largest clove
cigarette manufacturers. In 2002 it established one of the first high-tech greenhouse
systems in southeast Asia to produce tomatoes, peppers, lettuce, broccoli, strawberries
and grapes on some 200 ha – mostly for export (http://www.pu.go.id/Humas/infoter-
kini/pww2005022.htm). The West Java tea company PT Airmas announced in March
2007 that it would set up a 300 ha tea plantation in Sembalun with a sprinkler system to
overcome any water shortages (http://lomboknews.wordpress.com/2007/03/24).
44
Companies with close links to the Suharto family were able to clear forest and pro-
cure land with impunity until the late 1990s. Local people throughout Indonesia found
their forest land had been taken from them without their knowledge or for very low
prices and did not dare to protest.
45
Another significant issue is that the boundaries of the national park and Protection
Forest are unclear on maps and/or not marked on the ground, so it is easy to move the
boundaries in line with the interests of investors and government.
164
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]

Customary protected forest, Sapit, Sembalun
This elite also gained access to certificated land for which they were
later able to claim compensation when government-supported projects
came in46.
The final blow to customary control systems in Sembalun was the rise in
price of various agricultural products, particularly garlic. Traditionally,
the Sembalun community had grown a wide range of different crops.
However, the reduction of land availability due to the establishment
of the national park, the entry of agribusiness and population growth
increased pressure to generate more profit from smaller plots. The surge
in garlic prices, which peaked around 1997, encouraged local farmers
to turn their backs on adat practices such as the communal management
of customary forests and to plant as much garlic wherever they could.
Both forests and traditional culture suffered as a result. The forested

slopes were increasingly cleared to make fields. The rise in local
46
In the early 1960s, the government started to register communal land for taxation
purposes. Often this was recorded in the name of a respected person in the community
or an adat leader. As the majority of the Sembalun community is indigenous, it was
usually the adat leaders who were selected to be the official village administration after
the 1979 village governance act was introduced. So, in many cases, the village head
had the power to allow developments or even sell customary land without consulting
the community.
165
incomes was obvious from the number of new brick-built houses and
increase in pilgrimages to Mecca.
However, the growth period was short: the boom in production caused
gluts; the 1997 financial crisis followed by a long economic slump
further depressed prices; the costs of fertilisers and pesticides rose
sharply; yields fell due to droughts, pests and reduced soil fertility;
some companies laid off workers; some people sold their land to meet
their religious obligation to visit Mecca. The shortages of land and work
led to illegal logging in the area. And, as yet, the indigenous community
gains little financial benefit from tourism since trekking to Mt Rinjani is
generally controlled by external operators.
3. Environmental impacts
By the mid-1990s there were serious concerns about the state
of Sembalun’s forests, which continue today47. The indigenous
community is well aware that forest degradation and a reduction in
the area of forest cover have occurred. The number of springs has also
declined over the last 15 years. There used to be over 44 springs in the
area; now only 14 of them still carry water in the rainy season and only
three in the dry season. Even the water levels in Segara Anak lake have
fallen. Droughts and floods are becoming increasingly frequent48. A
total of 157 cases of conflict over water were reported in Lombok in
200249.
47
The NTB governor reportedly stated that forests in the northern part of Lombok have
been badly damaged and that there are 1,700 ha of ‘critical land’ in Sembalun sub-dis-
trict (Suara NTB 26/Jan/06).
48
A landslide on Mt Rinjani is blamed for flash floods in East Lombok on 21st January
2006. The worst hit areas were Sembalun and Sambelia subdistricts. Three people were
killed and several hundred made homeless as at least 300 houses were badly damaged
by the floodwaters and the large boulders which they carried. Large areas of rice, vege-
tables and other crops were also damaged together with bridges and roads. Government
and voluntary organisations provided some aid for the communities (Tempo Interaktip
23/Jan/06).
49
LP3ES, cited at http://www.worldagroforestry.org/sea/Networks/RUPES/mapsite_
indonesia.htm
166
These symptoms are closely linked to the progressive ‘conversion’

of forest to agriculture and plantations, logging, forest fires and
population growth in and around Sembalun. The forests on hillsides
closest to settlements are the most vulnerable, as are the sacred forests
surrounding springs, because they are more accessible.
Other problems have been caused by grazing livestock and hunting by

groups from the city. Local people believe that fires were deliberately set
to clear the mountainsides of secondary forest, scrub and coarse grasses
so that new grass would grow. This would provide better grazing for
cattle but would also attract deer. It is then easier for visitors from the
coastal towns (and the armed forces) to shoot their prey with rifles and
automatic weapons instead of stalking wildlife through the forests with
dogs and spears as the indigenous community has traditionally done.
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Neighbouring village of Sembalun
167
The excessively rapid modernisation promulgated by the Suharto
regime was not balanced by education to promote critical thinking
in the Sembalun community. This has resulted in social and
cultural degradation and devastating environmental impacts. The
government and our leaders have got rich while the rest of the
community has been left behind impoverished50.
V. USING ADAT RULES TO SAVE CUSTOMARY FOREST
These challenges inspired indigenous community leaders to try to

convince everyone in Sembalun about the importance of saving their
environment, customary lands and natural resources.
One of their strategies has been to develop local people’s skills and
to provide models of sustainable natural resource management. The
establishment of an Islamic agricultural training centre in Sembalun
Lawang has been a key part of this. The pesantren was set up in 1996 as
a direct response to the impacts of commercial operations. The aim was
to reduce local farmers’ reliance on pesticides and artificial fertilisers
and to promote diversification of the crops cultivated. The pesantren,
which has been very successful, not only teaches about Islam but also
trains local people to manage their natural resources better, to develop
environmentally-friendly agriculture and animal husbandry and to
develop their own agricultural enterprises51.
The foundation which supported the pesantren, YAMI (Yayasan Al

Madu Islamiyah) reached out to other organisations, including student
groups in Lombok and Java. Together they held an NGO ‘jamboree’
in Sembalun, attended by 700 people from NTB province, to do
conservation work along the main trail to the peak of Mt Rinjani and
Segera Anak lake.
50
Statement made by a leading member of the Sembalun community.
51
The pesantren has been very successful in promoting ‘green’ farming techniques and
in improving local livelihoods but, as an Islamic institution, it is difficult to use this ve-
hicle to promote the revival of all aspects of adat, particularly traditional beliefs. Some
devout Muslims in the community are also resistant to the reintroduction of adat law.
168
Through this and other initiatives, a number of environment and

development organisations and members of the community met to
discuss local problems. They identified local governance institutions
and the adat law system (awik-awik) as important factors with the
potential to counter the negative social and environmental impacts
caused by current changes in the Sembalun area.
AMAL
The Alliance of Indigenous Peoples in Lombok was established

in Sembalun Lawang in 1999 in order to strengthen the position
of indigenous communities by increasing their understanding and
practising of adat. The founders, including Abdulrahman Semba-
hulun, were concerned that the Sasak culture was being eroded to
the extent that only the older generation knew anything about the
indigenous belief system of Wik Tu Telu and the rules governing
customary forest (gawar kemaliq)1.
AMAL aims to improve the status of indigenous peoples and restore

their self-respect through several parallel initiatives including edu-
cation through Islamic colleges about sustainable agriculture and
protecting natural resources; co-operatives to provide more security
for farmers and improve incomes; advocacy; and adat justice.
The organisation feels that it is making progress through the pe-

santren in Sembalun but needs more external support for its other
projects, including the adat forest. It is also interested in carrying
out participatory mapping of the Sembalun’s customary lands. It is
now a member of the national indigenous alliance, AMAN.
1
Abdulrahman Sembahalun has been a key person in reviving adat ceremonies in
Sembalun over the past 10 years: see Section II.1.
169
AMAL, the indigenous peoples alliance for Lombok52, proposed that
the priority should be to provide additional protection for remaining
areas of customary forest such as Hutan Selong, Hutan Rembang, Hutan
Nap-Nap, Hutan Pusuq and Hutan Sajang. These forests all surround
important water sources. The concern was that, unless adat rules were
strengthened, the forests and the springs they protected would vanish
due to uncontrolled logging, forest fires and livestock grazing. So AMAL
initiated a series of meetings within the adat community of Sembalun.
This was particularly important as one of the Mangku in the adat struture
has a mandate to manage natural resources.
It was agreed to focus initially on the protected forest (gawar kemaliq)

on Mt Selong as this area has particular cultural and historic significance
for the Sembalun community. The presence of the Islamic college
(pesantren) nearby was a significant factor because it plays an important
part in community life. Also, this forest is relatively close to the village
so it is easier to prevent and tackle forest fires. Covering an area of
approximately 300 ha, it is bounded to the north by the main road through
the district; to the south by the River Lokok Julu; to the west by the R.
Sangkabira; and to the east by Mt Anak Dara and Mt Bao Seladarak.
The forest is subject to three different types of tenure regime53:

 the land around the foot of Mt Selong is privately owned;
 the lower slopes of Mt Selong are classified as state land54;
 the upper slopes of the mountain, including its peak, are the
common property of the community55.
52
Another indigenous alliance (Perekat Ombara - Persekutuan Masyarakat Adat Lom-
bok Utara) has carried out similar initiatives to protect adat forest on the western slopes
of Mt Rinjani. For more information see http://dte.gn.apc.org/AMAN/kearifan/ombara.
html. The International Centre for Research on Agroforestry (ICRAF) and WWF also
started a joint project Payment for Environmental Services project in 2007 in the Rinja-
ni area in 2007: see http://www.worldagroforestry.org/SEA/Networks/RUPES/ENews/
index_edition8.htm.
53
This is the community’s view of land status. In the eyes of the government, the whole
area is state forest zoned as Protection Forest (hutan lindung), apart from the parts
which are privately owned and certificated.
54
The community still uses the old Dutch term, GG (see footnote 39 of this chapter).
55
Under customary law this is gawar elet and gawar kemaliq (see Section III.1).
170
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]

The Bleq village, the original architecture and it’s bamboo garden
Ideas about using adat to manage the forest were then discussed with
representatives of the village administration and village assembly. The
result of these negotiations was an agreement between the community,
their adat institutions and the local authorities. They decided that the
adat forest around Mt Selong should be co-managed by the different
stakeholders under the umbrella of a forest management organisation
called Pengaraksa Gawar Kemaliq Gunung Selong (PGKGS)56. The
key figures are the Mangku, village head and Park representative. Adat
rules (awik-awik), drafted by consensus, would form the basis of the
new forest management regime. They also agreed that the protected
forest zone may be used for nature tourism, cultural events and adat
ceremonies, as well as to harvest medicinal plants and fruits.
In April 2004, the bupati of East Lombok district, Ali Dachlan, formally
recognised the 300 ha area as Mt Selong customary forest and the
National Park authorities approved the management agreements. The
56
Pangaraksa is an institution or person who has authority to manage and protect
natural resources.
171
local government also provided 2,200 mahogany seedlings57 to replant
areas of adat forest that have been damaged or destroyed in order to
restore their original environmental functions58.
The following adat rules now apply to the management of the Mt Selong
protected forest:
 It is forbidden to damage or fell trees; to collect any sort of
timber, even dead wood; and to hunt or capture wild animals,
including jungle fowl.
 Only individual owners may use the privately owned forest and they
must obtain prior permission from the PGKGS to cut down any trees.
 The areas classified as state land and communal property may
only be accessed with a permit from the PGKGS and only via
two approved entry points: Ketapahan Majapahit and Pangsor
Mas.
 The adat forest of Mt Selong may only be used for nature tourism
and to collect medicinal plants and fruits for local consumption
– not for commercial trade. Exceptions may be granted by the
PGKGS59.
These awik-awik are enforceable by penalties. For example, the old rule
that anyone who cuts down a tree without permission must plant ten more
trees has been revived. However, the social sanctions, plus the threat of
legal action under the formal system have, so far, proved effective.
57
Mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) is native to the neotropics but, like teak, has
been cultivated in Indonesia for centuries.
58
Another indigenous alliance (Perekat Ombara - Persekutuan Masyarakat Adat Lom-
bok Barat) has carried out similar initiatives to protect adat forest on the western slopes
of Mt Rinjani. For more information see http://dte.gn.apc.org/AMAN/kearifan/ombara.
html. The International Centre for Research on Agroforestry (ICRAF) and WWF also
started a joint project Payment for Environmental Services project in 2007 in the Rinja-
ni area in 2007: see http://www.worldagroforestry.org/SEA/Networks/RUPES/ENews/
index_edition8.htm.
59
The negotiations between the community, National Park and local government were
relatively easy because a Provincial Regulation on community forestry was also in the
pipeline (Perda Propinsi No. 6/2004). East Lombok has since passed a local regula-
tion on community-based forest resource management (Perda No. 13/2006 - Pedoman
Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Hutan Berbasis Masyarakat).
172
In addition, the community decided to protect the following locations

as sites of cultural significance and water sources:
• The ancestral settlement of Bleq (see Section I, 4).)
• Ketapahan Majapahit – the grave of Gajah Mada60 and a
stone marked with a footprint once used as a throne by Datu
Sembahulun.
• Rantemas Waterfall, Pangsor Mas spring (a source of drinking
water for all the people of Sembalun since ancient times) and
Sembaga spring (the source of the R. Sangkabira which flows
into the Java Sea).
The group has even bought up forest land within a 3 km radius of any
springs in order to protect them.
These initiatives by community organisations have attracted attention

and support from the authorities and NGOs.
These adat rules are not a panacea to end all the problems associated
with the ways that the indigenous community has been using its land
and forest resources. Changing people’s behaviour requires a sustained
effort over a long period of time.
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Harvesting strawberries
60
A famous military leader of the Majapahit Kingdom in the 14th century
173
AGROFORESTRY AND AWIK-AWIK
Agroforestry is basically seen as a secondary support system by the

Sembalun people as their main livehood is agriculture. However,
agroforestry has always provided an additional source of income
(from fruits such as banana and jackfruit) in addition to supplying
materials constructing homes (bamboo and timber). Furthermore it
helps to maintain the hydrological balance, making water available
for agriculture activities.
The severe flooding and landslides which afflicted Sembalun and

adjacent areas in late 2005 and early 2006 began to change local
attitudes. While the majority of the community was only interested in
making money as quickly as possible, through annual crops such as
garlic and chillies, many now realise the importance of environmental
protection. So people have responded positively to initiatives to
revitalise knowledge to rehabilitate customary forest and to protect it
with regulations based on traditional law (awik-awik).
Some villagers are already replanting their land with fruit trees like
mangos and jackfruit and timber species. As they begin to realise
the potential of high value commodities such as vanilla and coffee,
the indigenous people of Sembalun will be encouraged to develop
agroforestry further, for the economic as well as environmental
benefits.
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Looking for grass
174
REVIVING ADAT VALUES
In early September 2004, hundreds of people from the Sembalun

highlands and further afield gathered at the village of Sembalun
Bumbung to celebrate the festival of Ngayuayu. The purpose of this
gathering was to thank the Creator for all that He provides and to pray
for protection of the environment and water sources on which the
livelihoods of the Sembalun community and the people of Lombok
as a whole depend. A central feature of the ceremony is when water
from fifteen different sources on Mt Rinjani is presented to be blessed
so that they will continue to support people’s lives.
The customary leader (pengulu adat), Haji Purnifa, explained that

Ngayuayu is also an opportunity for everyone to reflect on the state
of the local environment, including the forested slopes of Mt Rinjani
which are an important water catchment area. He hopes that the
four-yearly ritual which has been recently revived will raise public
awareness about the need to manage resources sustainably and that
it will stimulate discussion within the community about behaving
responsibly.
Although Abdulrahman Sembahulun is one of the founders of the

Islamic training college, he too strongly supports efforts to revive
adat ceremonies and laws and the principles of honesty, fairness,
openness and sincerity which underpin them. He sees the restoration
of adat forest on Mt Selong as an important step towards strengthening
people’s understanding and developing skills and social solidarity
as people get involved in replanting trees. He also hopes that the
community will, once again celebrate the rituals of Loh Dewa and
Loh Makam which acknowledge the guardians of the forests and
water supplies and revive the annual practice of paying respect to the
founders of the settlements that make up Sembalun.
Source: KPSHK, 2005 (www.kpshk.org)
175
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Paddy field work
RESTORING FORESTS
In 2003, YAMI and WALHI NTB developed a community-based

forestry project (SHK) in the Sembalun area. Its aims were to help
replace forests in important watersheds but also to revive and
strengthen traditional governance structures. The focus was on
replanting fruit and timber species in forests near the three main
settlements: Sembalun Bumbung (500 ha); Sembalun Lawang (300
ha); and Sembalun Sajang (100 ha). The project had mixed results.
Some of the saplings were eaten by cattle allowed to graze freely in the
planted area. Other were destroyed in fires, possibly set deliberately
by people who wanted the place to remain grassland for livestock
or hunting. But there were successes too: 100,000 trees planted at
Memerong survived to form a 52 ha forest.
Source: KPSHK, 2005 (www.kpshk.org)
176
Abdulrahman Sembahulun, the author
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]

102
Road to Ngata Toro
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
7
THE INDIGENOUS NGATA TORO COMMUNITY

CENTRAL SULAWESI
Reforming Adat to promote environmental,
economic and cultural sustainability
Rizal Mahfud and Rukmini Paata Toheke

Rizal Mahfud is a chairman of the Central Sulawesi Indigenous Peoples Alliance;
Rukmini is chairman of the Ngata Toro Indigenous Women Organization.
179
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Historical background
There are no accurate written records of when Ngata Toro was founded,
but there was a well-established community before colonial times.
Village elders differentiate three historical periods - Mpone, Ntomatu
and Menanca (also called Balawo) - based on the name of the village
leader at the time. According to local oral history each of these periods
was quite long,
The group of settlers who became Toro’s first inhabitants was led by Mpone.
Local legends say that these were the survivors who fled their ancestral
village of Malino, some 40 kilometres away, because it was haunted by
bunian – invisible malign forest spirits (see box on Toro origins).
It was under the leadership of Balawo that the community started to clear
the forest and organise their village more systematically. During this
period, the Toro community grew significantly, mainly because several
relatives of Balawo’s wife decided to move there from Rampi - a place
now in Luwu district in South Sulawesi. When they arrived in Toro,
Balawo gave them land so they could make a living. Through marriage,
the Rampi incomers eventually integrated with the Toro community.
During the pre-colonial era, Toro and the surrounding villages functioned
as ‘village republics’ in that they had their own property and the authority
to manage their own affairs. The Muslim kingdom on the coast paid them
no attention, because the hilly hinterland was far away and the sultanate
focused on trade by sea with other islands and regions.
Toro and its neighbours established a kind of loose federation within

which each village retained its autonomy. Initially this was created for
political reasons so villages could defend themselves in tribal conflicts.
Over time the links grew stronger through the development of economic
relationships, family ties, shared values and solidarity among the
different communities.

The local term for village is ngata.
180
Participatory map of Toro Village
TARI MUNTU PELOTUAA
181
DODOHA TOI TOLO

PETA TEMA PEMANFAATAN
TANAH ADAT ORANG TORO
Dala Ngata (Village Road)
Ue (River)
Bulu (Mountain)
Pongata (Settlement)
Polidaa (Paddy Fields)
Oma – scrubby forest that has
regrown after cultivated land
was intentionally left fallow
for a certain period. Individual
property rights (dodoha) apply
here.
Pangale – mature forest which
has regrown over several decades
on land formerly used for farm-
ing and agroforestry (kebun).
Wana - primary forest located
immediately below the wana
ngkiki zone.
Wana ngkiki – primary mon-
tane forest, dominated at high
altitude by grasses, mosses and
low-growing plants. This zone,
close to the mountaintops, is of
great importance as a source of
fresh air (winara) and must not
be used for any purpose.
The integration of Toro into this local political structure presented a
stimulus for significant and wide-ranging changes during the colonial
period and after independence. More recently, policies imposed
during the Suharto era have resulted in an even more fundamental
transformation of the Toro community, redefining its identity, religion,
territorial boundaries, governance system and the local landscape and
bringing other general social changes.
2. Location
Administratively, the village of Toro is part of the Kulawi sub-district
of Donggala, in Central Sulawesi. The whole area is predominately
mountainous, with intervening hills and valleys. Some of the larger
rivers in the area are the Sopa, Biro, Pangemoa, Alumiu, Pono, Bola,
Mewe and Kadundu.
The Toro’s customary lands are bounded by:

• Mount Taweki to the north – this coincides administratively
with the villages of Mataue and Lindu;
• Mount Podoroa to the east – administratively, the villages of
Kaduwa (Ue Biro) and Katu Ue (Ue Hawuraga);
• Mount Mahue and Potovoa Noa to the south (O’o Parase and
Lawua);
• Mount Tobengi and Ue Halua to the west (Sungku and Winatu).
The development of the village has followed the topography of the

landscape and resembles a letter W when seen from the higher slopes
of the land now claimed by Lore Lindu National Park. The settlement
is concentrated almost symmetrically in the centre of the valley while
the main ricefields stretch along the arms of the W-shape between two
mountain ridges.

Over three quarters of the Toro’s customary lands are now part of Lore Lindu National
Park. The village governance law and the forest zonation system which designated part
of Ngata Toro as a Protected Area were introduced in the 1970s. The traditional belief
systems of indigenous peoples were not recognised under Suharto’s interpretation of
the national philosophy of Pancasila. Only one of the five approved major religions
could be recorded on official documents including individuals’ identity cards. People
had to conform as to register no religion was interpreted as being a member of the
(banned) Communist Party.
182
3. Demography and settlement structure

In 2004 Toro had a population of 2006 inhabitants (543 households). The
population density, averaged over the total extent of the community’s
customary lands), is 87 people per km². More data is given in the table
below.
Demographic data Toro village

Feature Total
Village area 22,950 ha1
Population 2006
Number of households 534
Religion
• Protestant 1,777
• Islam 229
Age (years)
• 0–6 364
• 7 – 12 192
• 13 – 18 389
• 19 – 45 772
• 46 – 60 196
• above 60 93
The authorities officially recognised the existence of Ngata Toro in

the 1950s. Around that time, Toro experienced a substantial influx of
people from Rampi who had been displaced by the DI/TII uprising.
Other communities have also contributed to the diversity of the Toro
population. The late 1960s saw the arrival of Uma people from the
western part of Kulawi due to a forced resettlement programme targeting
indigenous societies deemed by the government to be ‘isolated and
underdeveloped’.
Due to its demographic history, the population of Toro village mainly

consists of three groups: the Moma, considered to be the original settlers
and still the largest component, plus significant numbers of Rampi and

The Darul Islam/Tentara Islam Indonesia movement aimed to set up a separate Is-
lamic state under the leadership of Kahar Muzakar. The conflict between the DI/TII
and Indonesian armed forces caused great loss of life and lands for many indigenous
peoples throughout the southern and central parts of Sulawesi in the 1950s and 60s.
183
Uma immigrants. An interesting feature of the settlement structure is
that each group tends to cluster in separate hamlets (boya). The majority
of the Moma live in Boya 1, 2, 3 and part of Boya 4; Rampi people mainly
live in Boya 5 and 7; and the Uma are concentrated in Boya 6.
Despite the ethnic homogeneity of each hamlet, descendents of the first
settlers and incomers are linked through family ties and a sense of tolerance
and mutual respect. They all consider themselves to be Toro people.
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Ngata Toro hamlet
4. Origins
Origin myths are very important to the Toro people. They are central
to the development of the community’s collective identity and to
strengthening awareness of people’s unity and diversity. These processes
have been crucial in building an inclusive society which encompasses
groups from different backgrounds.
Although myths are stories of phenomena not normally experienced

in the real world, they are not simply meaningless fantasies. Toro
mythology relates past events as a reflection of our present lives. It is

Each hamlet (boya) within Ngata Toro has its own local name: these are labelled Boya
1-6 here for simplicity.
184
an expression of the community’s history and identity, reflecting social

norms that have evolved from different elements such as actual events,
peoples’ everyday lives and the physical environment.
The Toro people have three myths relating to their origins and collective
identity. All three are inter-connected and describe how the village, its
inhabitants and the surrounding landscape came into being.
The first relates to the location of Toro village. It tells how the original
settlers - the Moma people - left when a huge flood and mudslides
devastated the area. A lake formed where the village had once been.
The second relates how spirits drove the inhabitants of Malino from
their village. The survivors resettled in what is now known as Toro. The
third explains how a Kulawi nobleman discovered a fertile valley which
had been a lake and encouraged the Malino people to settle there.
In the Moma language, the word toro means ‘left behind’. So Ngata
Toro’s name may refer to somewhere reclaimed by the forest after the
earliest inhabitants abandoned the site. It may also refer to the escapees
from Malino who eventually made their new home in a place deserted
by another group.
AMAN.doc
Women of Toro
185
The Origins of Toro
1. How a village turned into a lake

Two brothers were fighting over a golden drum. One of them cut
off a cat’s leg and used it to play the drum as loud as he could, even
though cats are considered sacred and must not be harmed. To break
this rule risks a major disaster.
Later that afternoon, there was a sudden tremendous downpour with
strong winds and a violent thunderstorm. For three days and nights
darkness engulfed the whole village; trees were uprooted by the storm
and the waters washed away the soil. The village was completely
destroyed and disappeared into the lake formed by the flood.
2. How the people of Malino left their village

Some Malino children were playing tops with the children of forest
spirits (bunian). The young bunian used golden tops and won the
game. Later, the Malino children told their parents that they had
played with some new children. They also described the shiny yellow
tops and how the strangers glowed with the same golden light. The
next day the Malino parents killed a spirit child who was playing and
took away its golden top.
That evening, a noise like soldiers fighting in battle thundered through

the village. No warriors could be seen, but swords and spears flew
through the air and attacked people. The Malino then realised that the
spirits were taking revenge for their child’s murder. They scattered,
trying to flee from their invisible aggressors. Most were killed but
seven families managed to escape.
The survivors eventually found a new home where they cleared the
forest to work the land and build their houses.
3. How the Malino people found their new land

Balu was a Kulawi ruler famous for his love of hunting. Not satisfied
with familiar localities, he liked to explore the mountains and valleys

Karatu bulawa
186
looking for new hunting grounds. During one of his expeditions he

discovered a valley with very fertile soil because it had once been a
lakebed. This was the site of an earlier village deserted due to a natural
disaster.
Balu showed the place to the refugees from Malino. They decided it
was suitable for their new settlement, so their leader (Mpone) bargained
with Balu. They agreed to pay seven gold nuggets, each the size of a
sparrow. The spot where the transaction was agreed later became known
as Kaputua, meaning ‘the place where a decision was made’.
5. Socio-cultural structure of the Toro

The Toro people’s long history of interacting with their environment has
produced both a mature cultural landscape and ecological stability. This
is reflected in the structure of their society and culture as well as in their
natural resource management system.
Toro society centres around two pivotal values. Hintuvu governs relationships
between people and is based on the principles of mutual respect, solidarity
and consensus. Katuvua determines relationships between human beings
and the natural environment and is based on an understanding of and
harmony with nature.
The Toro believe that there are three kinds of interrelated organisms which
nourish and give life to each other: humans (Tauna), animals (Pinatuvua)
and plants (Tinuda). Hintuvu and Katuvua govern the interactions between
them. The two principles constitute the framework for all social interactions
and provide the norms to differentiate between appropriate and inappropriate
behaviour - both towards other human beings and towards nature.
A series of adat laws and a judicial system have been developed to ensure
that these important values are respected by all community members.
Violations are punished according to predetermined sanctions. Enforcement
is the responsibility of the Council of Adat Elders (Totua Ngata), a local
governance institution which has retained its authority over time and still
functions today.
187
Toro.doc
Harvesting grass from old paddy fields to weave mats
II. NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
The Toro community has two kinds of land ownership. Basically all
land within the boundaries of their customary area is common land and
is an expression of the community’s shared control over their customary
domain (huaka). Individual ownership (dodoha) of a particular piece of
land is only possible for the person who first clears the primary forest for
agriculture (pampa). While members of all three groups in the community
practise the same land use, only Moma people have the rights under
customary law to own land – either collectively or individually. The
Rampi and Uma only have land use rights, unless they purchase land
from the Moma who were Toro’s first inhabitants. More information on
land ownership can be found in section V.2.
The Toro differentiate six kinds of traditional land use, according to

when the forest was cleared and the stage in the rotational cultivation
system.

In the rotational cultivation system traditionally practised, the Toro clear certain areas
of forest to grow rice and vegetables. At the same time they plant tree crops such as
cloves, coffee, cocoa and various fruit trees plus species useful for timber. Around thirty
years after these agroforestry plots are abandoned, they form mature forest.
188
Wana Ngkiki
Wana
Pangale
Oma
Pongata
Balingkea
Toro.doc
1. Wana ngkiki – primary montane forest, dominated at high altitude
by grasses, mosses and low-growing plants. This zone, close to
the mountaintops, is of great importance as a source of fresh air
(winara) and must not be used for any purpose.
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Primary forest on mountain ridges (wana ngkiki)
189
2. Wana - primary forest located immediately below the wana ngkiki
zone. This forms the habitat of rare plants and animals and is a
water catchment area. It is completely forbidden to clear this
forest. Felling any big trees is believed to be punished by natural
disasters. Forest classified as wana may only be used for hunting
and to harvest non-timber forest products such as damar resin,
incense, medicinal plants and rattan.
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]

Primary forest (wana)
3. Pangale – mature forest which has regrown over several decades

on land formerly used for farming and agroforestry (kebun). This is
held communally as ‘reserved forest’ which, in the long term, may
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Mature forest (pangale)

A fragrant resin produced by trees of the Agathis genus which is burnt as torches, but
also has high commercial value outside the community.
190
be used again to grow various crops, while the lowland is used for
irrigated rice. Pangale is also a source of rattan, timber for building
houses and other household needs, pandanus grass for weaving
mats and baskets, medicinal plants, damar resin and incense.
4. Pahawa pongko - a mixture of mature and secondary forest
resulting from forest land used for agriculture (kebun) then left to
grow back for at least 25 years. This eventually turns into pangale.
The large trees in this zone are felled by constructing a platform
or pongko so the men can climb up and saw off the trunk high up.
Shoots regrow from the tall stump forming a pahawa, which means
‘substitute’ tree.
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]

Forest classified as pohawa pongko
5. Oma – scrubby forest that has regrown after cultivated land was
intentionally left fallow for a certain period. Individual property
rights (dodoha) apply here. There are three different phases.
• Oma nguku – ‘fresh fallow’. Less than three years after
cultivation, the land is mainly covered with elephant
grass (Imperata cylindrica), other grasses and bushes.
• Oma ngura – ‘young fallow’. Land which was
cultivated then left for between 3 to 15 years is covered
by grasses and shrubs. The trees are still small and can
easily be cleared with a machete.
• Oma ntua – ‘mature fallow’. After a period of 16 to 25
years the soil has recovered its original level of fertility
and can be used again for agroforestry (kebun).

This process is broadly comparable to coppicing in broad-leaved temperate wood-
lands.
191
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Forest classified as Oma nguku
6. Balingkea – land which has been cultivated and will soon be left
fallow. The soil has lost some of its fertility but can still be used
to grow maize, cassava, beans, chilli and vegetables. Balingkea is
under individual ownership.
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Balingkea
In addition to their upland rotational land use, the Toro have a long
history of growing irrigated rice on permanent plots (polidaa). They
recognise many local rice varieties. Hamonu and toburasa are two of
the local upland rice varieties. Varieties of irrigated (paddy) rice include
lelo kuru, halaka, garangka, kanari, banca rone, togomigi, baraya and
bengawan. Other frequently grown varieties are raki, topada, tingkaloko
merah, tingkaloko hitam, sia, pulut bete and pulut karangi.

All local names for different rice varieties
192
The combination of rotational land use and permanent agriculture

allows the Toro to live in permanent settlements. The present settlement
area (called PoNgataa) has been used for many decades.
The different categories of land and ownership described above are

closely related to the Toro’s land use history. The dominant feature
is the rotational land use system of agriculture which provides an
ecologically stable pattern of land and natural resource management,
including forest protection, as the whole area surrounding the village
and its fields is traditionally a conservation zone (see Section V, 1)
This traditional system now forms the basis of the local environmental
protection agenda. Different forest zones (in the modern conservation
management sense) have now been classified according to categories in
the traditional land use system.
III. NGATA TORO COMMUNITY INITIATIVES
Since 1993 the Toro community has engaged in a range of initiatives

to reassert its socio-cultural identity. Ideas generated through
collective discussions and studies of Toro traditions have resulted in
the transformation of adat rules and institutions in order to promote
a sustainable and equitable community-based natural resource
management system (CBNRM). The initiatives share three goals:
1. To maintain the tropical forest ecosystems which surround this
community - now officially part of Lore Lindu National Park
- through local cultural norms and governance institutions. This
is being done by revitalising and updating traditional forest
management knowledge and practices, as well as customary
laws and justice systems and institutions, so that access to and
use of natural resources are managed wisely;
2. To maximise the benefits of protecting forest ecosystems to
ensure the sustainability of the community, including its socio-
political structures and the economic activities which depend on
the exploitation and management of local natural resources;
3. To ensure justice across generations with respect to the access,
control and use of local natural resources.
193
Over the past fifteen years, the Toro community has slowly but
surely strengthened measures so that local natural resources are used
sustainably. These developments can be seen as three successive
phases:
Phase I: Laying the foundations (1993 to June 2000)

The first step was to rebuild traditional meeting houses (lobo) which had
disappeared over recent decades10. These adat houses were an important
part of indigenous Toro society and its culture.
The community also decided to document and study in depth their adat
rules, laws and institutions and various aspects of traditional CBNRM
knowledge and practices. The overall aim was to provide a solid basis
for strengthening the harmonious, sustainable relationship between the
community and its natural resources.
The tangible results of this seven-year process were the new adat meeting
place (lobo) as a symbol of the community’s identity; documentation of
traditional land use patterns and natural resource management practices
and their potential; and the drafting of more explicit adat rules on natural
resource management and related adat sanctions.
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Adat House (Lobo) built in 1993
10
The imposition of a standard village governance system throughout Indonesia meant
that - from the late 1970s onwards – community meetings were held at the village
administration’s office, so many adat buildings became redundant.
194
Equally important was a participatory map of the Toro’s customary lands

which has become an important tool to define this area, the community
and the relationship between the two. It is this connection to which the
Toro always refer in communications with outsiders over their rights
and sovereignty over their lands.
This phase also included the first steps towards developing the local
economy, mainly through processing natural materials for handicrafts,
such as bark cloth, rattan baskets and brooms made of sugar palm
fibres.
Phase II: Recognition and consolidation (July 2000 -October 2001)

The second phase was dominated by negotiations between the Ngata
Toro and the Lore Lindu National Park authorities to gain recognition
of the indigenous people’s customary domain and their natural resource
management system. The map and the documents produced during the
first phase became important tools in this dialogue.
The process led to official recognition by the national park authority of

the Toro’s adat rights. The document explicitly says:
“[We] recognise that the approximately 18,360 ha of the Ngata Toro’s

customary lands that are located within Lore Lindu National Park will
be managed according to traditional Toro land use categories, since
these are consistent with the park’s zoning system.”11
In return, the Toro community formally expressed their commitment to

collaborative management of the national park. The first step towards
putting the community-based conservation agreement into practice
was to consolidate customary institutions and structures so they could
take on the new responsibility for managing the natural resources
autonomously, as recognised by the park authorities. One aspect of this
was to strengthen the traditional enforcement system for cases where
adat laws on natural resource management were broken. Another was to
create an adat women’s organisation. This has become very involved in
11
A letter from the Lore Lindu National Park Authority (BTNLL) No 651/
VI.BTNLL.1/2000 dated 18 July 2000.
195
OPANT
A Ngata Toro leader and the head of Lore Lindu National Park sign the co-
management agreement
various economic activities and in decision-making on natural resource

management policies (see Section VI, 1).
Phase III: Sharing the experience with other communities (November

2001 - present)
The Toro community’s initiative has developed into a wider local
movement. Other communities are learning from its experience. For
example, the Toro have:
• Facilitated adat revitalisation in Sungku, Bolapapu, O’o
Parese (Marena hamlet), Mataue, Dataran Lindu and other
villages in Kulawi sub-district.
• Established and developed the Ngata Toro Indigenous
Women’s Organisation (OPANT12) which has, with support
from the Asia Foundation, facilitated the process of
empowering women and revitalising adat in the villages of
Sungku, Bolapapu and Mataue.
• Participated in a series of official meetings (seminars and
workshops) organised by NGOs and the government at
local, national and international levels.
12
OPANT stands for Organisasi Perempuan Masyarakat Adat Ngata Toro in Indonesian.
196
The Toro community is keen to extend these initiatives to other

communities, since they realise that their sustainable natural resource
management system can only succeed if it is shared by their neighbours.
IV. THE Structure and function of adat institutions
1. Traditional management structure

The traditional Ngata Toro management structure was quite different
from the government model’s village head, secretary and treasurer. It
had three main elements:
• the Community Leader (Maradika also known as the Galara);
• the Council of Elders (Totua Ngata);
• the Women’s Council (Tina Ngata).
Prior to the reforms, people were appointed to these posts through a

village meeting (libu), but along hereditary lines. Their traditional roles
and responsibilities were as follows:
a. Community leader
• Managed relations with other villages (including declaring
war on them);
• Acted as the final arbitrator. If someone was sentenced to
death by the Council of Elders for committing a serious
offence, the Maradika could grant a pardon and make
an animal sacrifice instead if that was acceptable to the
community.
b. Council of Elders
• Managed and supervised adat rules agreed by consensus in
village meetings;
• Resolved conflicts between hamlets and at village level;
• Organised traditional marriage ceremonies and determined
bride prices according to the social status of the families
involved;
• Determined the amount to be paid as adat fines (givu);
• Provided leadership and guidance to hamlet elders when
197
assessing existing adat regulations, making changes and
developing new rules;
• Led the community;
• Led and performed adat ceremonies;
• Selected young men to become members of the village
security force (Tondo Ngata) to prepare them as warriors
and to defend the customary lands.
c. The Women’s Council

• Planned and organised the village work (since women know
most about the constellations used to guide the agricultural
year);
• Advised the Maradika and Totua Ngata when to tell the
villagers to carry out activities such as sowing, planting or
clearing new patches of land for agroforestry;
• Helped to arbitrate in cases of conflict within the village;
• Represented women and young adults in decision-making
processes within the different adat fora.
Most of the functions of these three traditional adat bodies have been
retained in the new governance system (see diagram, Section IV, 3).
AMAN.doc
Ngata Toro women in traditional dress
198
2 Initial proposal for changes

The Toro community faced some internal difficulties in its efforts to
consolidate and update the adat governance system due to differences of
opinion. Several adat leaders wanted to return to a pre-colonial model.
Others wanted innovations, for example on the role of women within
adat institutions and decision-making processes. ‘Transformation’
became a sensitive issue for the community and serious concerns were
raised about how far the changes would go. The main issue was whether
there would be a break with traditional values which would affect the
very essence of the society.
However, the work that went into studying oral history and historic
documents on the social, governance and decision-making systems
within the adat structure eventually made it possible to reach agreement
within the community.
This structure introduced several important changes:

• Broadening membership of the Adat Council to include
other leading members of the community in addition to the
Council of Elders (Totua Ngata);
• Reforming the village government to fulfil the same
function as the Maradika/ Galara who was instructed by
the Council of Elders in the traditional system;
• Forming a decision-making forum called the Village
Consultative Body13.
The result was a new local governance structure with a division of

executive and legislative powers similar to the national system which
also took pre-colonial local governance structures into account.
3. Further reforms
A second village meeting was held one year later14 when the community
agreed to a more pragmatic approach to reforming local governance.
13
Lembaga Musyawarah Ngata Toro literally means a body to reach concensus by
discussion. There is a similar, informal arrangement in the Hikong–Boru Kedang indig-
enous community (see Chapter 8)
14
Musyawarah Desa 25 – 30 October 2002
199
This put an end to the long debates about Toro’s original governance
structure which it was not possible to recreate anyway. The new idea
was to integrate four existing institutions into one governance system:
the village administration, Adat Council, village assembly and the
Ngata Toro women’s organisation (now called OPANT).
This new model combines the community’s desire to re-establish their

traditional customary governance institutions with the legal obligation to keep
the official village administration and assembly – albeit with considerably
reduced powers. The community also assigned clear responsibilities and
powers to OPANT to avoid overlap between the different institutions.
There were two interesting aspects to this whole process. Firstly, gender
balance became an important dimension. This new perspective had several
significant impacts. A woman’s right to participate in any of the decision-
making bodies is now protected by customary law. In order to achieve this,
it was necessary to transform the traditional women’s adat council into a
modern organisation. While only women descended from the local nobility
were represented in the Tina Ngata, OPANT can recruit members from all
women in the community and members vote for their leaders15. Another
crucial difference is that the Tina Ngata’s role had become one which
merely implemented decisions made by adat leaders, whereas OPANT
now plays a strategic role as part of the decision-making structure.
The second aspect is related to the first and that is representation in the
governance institutions. This was a concern of the Toro community right
from the start of moves to reform its traditional institutions. One problem
was that, according to traditional rules, only descendants of the nobility could
become members of the Council of Elders. So the issue of representation
was tackled through other channels. Part of the reform process was to create
OPANT as a new organisation and to modify the Adat Council as well as
the village administration and village assembly. It was agreed that all these
institutions should have the same status. The new governance structure and
relationships between its elements are shown in the diagram.
15
The Tina Ngata still exists as part of Toro’s culture, but it does not have the influence
that it had in the past.
200
201
LMA: Indigenous Community Organisation (Lembaga Masyarakat Adat)

Key : LPN : Community Representatives Council (Toro term for the Village Assembly - BPD
Line of accountability elsewhere)
Line of control OPANT: Ngata Toro Adat Women’s Organisation
BPPN: Community Financial Supervision Board (Badan Pengawasan Perbendaharan Ngata)
Line of co-operation Boya: Local term for hamlet or sub unit of a village
Line of representation Hintuwu Libu Ngata: The most powerful decision-making body in the Toro village structure,
comprising representatives of the community, local organisations and individuals
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Paddy Field
4. Adat institutions and Toro beliefs

The functions and authority of the adat institutions also had to be
reformed to fit the new system while upholding the Toro belief system.
The elements of the new governance system fulfil four functions

essential to Toro life:
• Hintuvu – governing relationships between community
members, how conflicts are resolved and how adat and other
life cycle ceremonies are carried out. These interactions
should always promote mutual respect (pomebila) and unity or
solidarity (mahingkau or mome panimpu).
• Katuvua - regulating human interactions with their natural
environment, especially the use of natural resources.
• Gagu ada – dealing with all adat infrastructure and equipment,
including the adat meeting place; traditional costumes,
performances and games; ritual objects; and the natural
resources within the customary forest.
• Supervising and enforcing adat law, including relationships
between people and people’s use of natural resources, is carried
out by the Tondo Ngata16.
Rules regarding the wise use of the natural environment have been
passed down through the generations. All important aspects of traditional
16
The Tondo Ngata also act as traditional forest rangers.
202
agriculture – whether on private or common land – are regulated by the

principles of Hintuvu and Katuvua as well as by rules implemented by
the village administration and the national park authority.
Implementation and supervision of the above functions take place at

hamlet level (boya) and are co-ordinated through the Council of Elders.
Council members are chosen in a village meeting on the basis of their
commitment to serve the community and their knowledge of adat rules
and customs (nopahu and hohora).
V. CUSTOMARY REGULATIONS
1. Natural resource ownership and management rights

Forest land is of central importance to the Toro community as it is
the basis of people’s livelihoods. For the Toro the forest is a natural
resource where they can find different raw materials to meet their basic
needs or which they can use to grow crops. Tenure is firmly based on
adat law. According to a Toro saying: “There is land for God, land for
our ancestors, land for our children and grandchildren, and land for
us”17. There are two kinds of ownership.
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Toro Village viewed from sacred forest
17
This local saying is called ‘Tanah Tumpu Kami’ by the Toro.
203
a. Communal property rights (Katumpuia Hangkani)
All land and natural resources within the customary domain
(huaka), including the village land18, are the common property of
the whole Toro adat community. Communal land includes high-
altitude primary forest (wana ngkiki), lower altitude forest (wana)
and mature secondary forest (pangale) and everything within them
except for damar trees which have been tapped for resin. This land
and its resources cannot be sold or rented out to anyone. They can
only be used in line with rules established and overseen by Toro
adat institutions.
b. Individual property rights (Katumpuia Hadua)
Land and natural resources in certain parts of the Toro customary
domain may become individual property once they have been
used for agriculture. Usually the person who clears the land for
the first time becomes the owner (popangalea). All land under
individual ownership is known as dodoha. Land can also become
private property through purchase (raiadai) within the community,
when received as a gift (ahirara) and as the result of negotiation
(perapi). Only damar trees in the wana zone and land which is part
of the rotational cultivation system (with all the natural resources
contained in them) can become private property. This includes
pahawa pongko, oma and balingkea (see p192).
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Paddy fields (polidaa), rainfed fields (balingkea), secondary forest (oma) and, in the
distance, mature forest (wana)
18
‘Village land’ (tanah desa) is usually the land in the immediate vicinity of a settlement
204
The differentiation between these two kinds of property rights is a

customary rule followed strictly by the whole Toro community. Even
within the boundaries of individually-owned land, the interactions of
humans and nature (Katuvua) are subject to adat law and the owner
must consult the relevant adat institutions - Maradik-a (now Pemerintah
Ngata), Totua Ngata (now LMA), Tina Ngata (now OPANT) - and these
bodies must reach agreement.
2. Adat customs when clearing forest and land

Individuals or groups must follow certain rules when they clear forest
land for cultivation. There are two essential steps.
Firstly, a farmer must confirm that the land is not someone else’s
property to avoid potential conflicts. The role of adat institutions is
very important during this step. If no-one claims the land, permission
is given to proceed. Outsiders may be permitted to clear forest or other
Toro land so as long as their intentions are good and they only need the
land for a limited period of time.
Secondly, it is necessary to obtain approval from the ‘forest guardians’

through an adat ritual. A white chicken is killed and its heart inspected
to judge whether the spirits of the forest consent. Only if the heart looks
good can land clearing proceed. The heart may also show that the spirits
are asking for a larger animal to be sacrificed. All members of the family
wanting to use the land are involved in the ritual and each man, woman
and child takes a specific role in it.
Plans to fell trees on individually-owned land to provide timber for

construction are also discussed at village meetings. Under adat law it
is not allowed to log upstream and on steep slopes (taolo) without prior
consent, especially if the timber is for sale to outsiders.
As a community that venerates its ancestors, the Toro must follow

a series of adat prohibitions or taboos regarding the management of
natural resources. These fall into two categories: toipetag and toipopalia
205
Toipetag include:
 clearing or using forest around water sources, including rivers
and springs;
• thinning or felling trees on the banks of rivers or small streams,
whether within the forest or the village’s settlement area;
• felling trees with known medicinal properties like the banyan
tree (Ficus benjamina) and melinjo (Gnetum gnemon);
• clearing forest or felling trees on steep slopes;
• clearing any primary forest (areas classified as wana ngkiki and
wana);
• clearing land owned by someone else (including pangale, oma,
balingkea and pohawa pongko).
Examples of toipopalia are:

• carrying large quantities of forest products such as rattan,
pandanus grass or bamboo shoots close to paddy fields when
the rice is ripening;
• soaking rattan in the river when the rice is about to start
producing its seeds because this will reduce the yield;
• clearing forest where there are damar trees (Agathis sp);
• felling trees that are the main food sources of forest birds.
3. Adat sanctions related to natural resource management

The following fines apply to anyone breaking adat rules on the
ownership or management of natural resources within the Toro
customary domain:
• Taking possession of land against adat rules: three buffaloes or
three cows, 30 antique plates, three pieces of traditional cloth
- worth Rp5 million (US$500);
• Harvesting forest products such as timber, rattan, resins and
fragrant woods19 against adat rules: three buffaloes or three
cows, 30 large antique plates, 30 pieces of traditional cloth;
• Trapping protected animal species (such as the endemic species
19
Such as pakanangi (a kind of fragrant wood), eaglewood (used for its fragrant resin-
ous material) and damar.
206
of dwarf buffalo and wild pig20): three buffaloes or three cows,

30 plates and 30 pieces of cloth;
• Gold mining in violation of adat laws: 7 buffaloes or 7 cows, 70
plates, 70 pieces of cloth - worth Rp11 million (US$ 1,100);
• Catching fish using chemicals to stun or poison them or using
electric currents: 2 buffaloes or 2 cows, 20 plates, 2 pieces of
cloth - worth Rp3 million (US$300);
• Using guns, air rifles or arrows to kill wildlife: 1 buffalo or 1
cow, 10 plates, 1 piece of cloth - Rp1.5 million (US$150).
4. Adat meetings
Different kinds of adat meetings are held to discuss:
• confidential issues - attended only by the Maradika, Totua
Ngata and Tina Ngata;
• the Tondo Ngata’s work in enforcing adat law attended by
the whole community, including women, young adults and
Toro.doc
Community meeting in Adat House (Lobo)
20
Sulawesi is home to many unique species found nowhere else. The dwarf buffalo (Anoa)
is Bubulus sp; the wild pig endemic to Sulawesi (babirusa) is Babyrousa babyrousa.
207
members of the Tondo Ngata;
• incidents such as the arrival of researchers to the customary forest
or the collection of traditional medicines by academics which
affect the Katuvua and Hintuvu balance in the village - attended
by the whole community, including women and young adults;
• forest degradation and its causes - attended by the Maradika,
Totua Ngata, Tina Ngata and Tondo Ngata;
• boundaries with other local communities - attended by the
Maradika, Totua Ngata, Tina Ngata and Tondo Ngata;
• land clearing and/or collecting of forest products by someone
without prior discussion - attended by Maradika, Totua Ngata,
Tina Ngata, Tondo Ngata, young adults and the person in
question.
5. Relationship between adat institutions and the village government

The adat institutions and the village administration co-operate as
partners in delivering public services to the community and protecting
the environment. Both institutions were reformed at the same time and
work together through the new governance structure in Toro village21.
Adat rules have been incorporated into village regulations through the
village assembly as part of the process of re-assessing which are still
needed and to avoid duplication22.
Village regulations pertaining to Katuvua and Hintuvu are developed

through community discussions until consensus is reached23, then
issued as formal guidelines for the different institutions to ensure that
their rights and responsibilities are clear.
21
As in the Kasepuhan case study, the village head and other administrative positions
are filled by people from within the indigenous community (as the majority of the com-
munity is indigenous), so they understand and practice adat in their everyday lives. The
village head (called Kepala Ngata in Toro) is now locally elected, not appointed by
provincial officials.
22
Some adat laws have been abandoned because they conflict with national law. For
example, prior to Indonesian independence, people who broke certain customary laws
were killed by drowning or multiple knife cuts.
23
Musyawarah Ngata
208
For instance, logging permits for building a house are issued by the village
administration and signed by the village head and the adat institutions.
The perpetrators of any logging activities in the Toro customary forest
who do not follow village regulations will be punished. Any illegally
obtained timber is confiscated and used for the general benefit of the
community.
6. Conflict resolution mechanisms in Toro adat law

a. Internal Conflicts
Disputes occasionally occur within the Toro community, as in other
villages. The first stage of resolving these is that all Toro government
institutions will hold a meeting. This is followed by the adat court
hearing of the Council of Elders in the traditional building (lobo) which
must also be attended by the parties involved in the dispute. The guilty
party is fined according to the offence in line with adat laws.
Offences related to the management of natural resources (Katuvua) are

usually resolved through a similar procedure. The Tondo Ngata reports
the case and a fine is imposed depending on the kind of offence, its
value being adapted to current times and agreed by majority.
Because of its importance as the main means of supporting livelihoods,

land often becomes a source of conflict. Among the Kulawi people in
general, including the Toro, disputes generally arise when someone
breaks a customary land law. Examples of traditional land law include:
• The boundaries of the village’s customary area such as forests
are marked by rivers or specific trees.
• The boundaries of individual land plots are marked with
living trees planted in the corners of the plot or all along the
boundaries (like a fence) or else by digging a one metre ditch
along the boundaries.
• It is not allowed to plant crops on the boundaries themselves.
The distance between the plants and the boundaries must be 2
metres.
• When bequeathing their property to their children/descendants,
parents must involve close relatives as witnesses.
Cases involving the above can usually be settled by mutual consent.
209
Sometimes there are conflicts between people who use adjoining land
plots for agroforestry. If for some reason someone is not using all of his/
her land, a neighbour may gradually extend his own plot by removing
the markers so that the boundary line becomes unclear. A dispute results
when the owner realises his/her land is being encroached on. If the case
is reported to the adat leader, an adat meeting is held involving both
parties and witnesses who know where the original boundaries were.
The guilty party receives an adat penalty24.
Land inheritance is another contentious issue. In cases where heirs

fight over land after their parents’ death, the family will usually try to
resolve this conflict quietly among themselves. If they cannot come to
an agreement they will approach the adat leader, but the case will be
treated confidentially since land disputes within families are considered
very embarrassing. During the adat law process various witnesses are
heard who know the ownership and inheritance history of the disputed
land. The party who wins receives the land; the other party is urged not
to cause further problems. The court process is followed by efforts to
reconcile both parties in order to avoid any resentment.
b. External conflicts
The concept of customary forest is linked to the local history of human
settlement: usually the descendants of the first settlers in a certain area
will claim it as theirs (see Section V, 1).
Where two villages claim the same area as their customary forest, a
meeting is held to assess whether both populations share the same
ancestry. If so, a solution is sought that will best suit their common
interests. This might entail dividing the land or an agreement for joint
management and control of the customary forest area.
The conflict between Katu village in Lore Tengah subdistrict and Toro
village (Kulawi subdistrict) is an example of how such cases can be
24
Previously, the adat penalty in land disputes (called Hampole Hangu) used to be
that any similar offence in future would be punished by ritual cuts with a machete
(men) or being stripped of clothing (women). Now a fine of 10 large plates, a buffalo
and ten cloths (or the cash equivalent) is imposed.
210
resolved through adat procedures. The dispute was settled through

mediation by the NGO Yayasan Tanah Merdeka (YTM) who had
facilitated participatory mapping in both villages. At a meeting held
on 7 November 2002 in YTM’s office in Palu, both parties explained
the basis of their understanding of the boundaries of their customary
areas. The Toro community took a historical perspective, saying that
the Malino area was their original home and still has great spiritual and
cultural significance to them. The Katu people acknowledged that claim,
but argued that the Toro left their old village for good when fleeing the
forest spirits. Furthermore, they argued that it is the Katu people who
now use and protect the area from exploitation by other stakeholders.
During this meeting both parties agreed on a compromise: to

acknowledge the historical claim of the Toro people to the Malino area
but, at the same time, to give the Katu people the right to manage it, as
described in the box.
Toro.doc
Adat law enforcement by the Tondo Ngata: illegal loggers huts are destroyed
and timber and rattan confiscated
211
Joint Agreement by the Toro and the Katu peoples
Both parties agree that:

1. The Toro people were the original settlers of the ancient Malino
village. Therefore the location remains their property and
constitutes the border between the Toro and the Katu customary
areas which shall be marked as follows:
• Bolo Watu (a special kind of bamboo, Dendrocalamus
strictus)
• Betel palm (Areca catechu)
• A mud boundary.
2. The Katu people are given the responsibility of taking care of the
area in and around Malino.
3. The Katu people retain the management rights over the part of the
Toro customary area that they currently use to grow coffee and
collect damar resin. It was also agreed that the coffee growing
area must not be expanded.
4. The large-scale commercial exploitation of forest products,
particularly rattan, shall be managed through joint meetings
between the Toro and the Katu people.
VI. STRENGTHENING THE ROLES OF WOMEN AND

YOUNG PEOPLE
Indigenous people in Indonesia have been discriminated against by the

development policies of the last three decades. Although the majority of
the Indonesian population are indigenous people, their situation is not
given the attention it deserves. They are systematically ignored in the
national political agenda. Top-down policy-making processes replicate
this pattern down through all lower governance structures, even at the
village/ngata level.
1. Ngata Toro Indigenous Women’s Organisation

Local values and knowledge have almost been buried under a pile
of national policies regarding the roles of women. For example, the
212
establishment of Family Welfare Programme25 institutions at village

level has weakened the position of women by imposing on them the
responsibility for all everyday domestic tasks. Nevertheless, even these
initiatives can still be used as the basis for strengthening the roles of
indigenous women. The Toro people used this as a starting point to
explore the functions that women held in their society in the past.
In addition to their role in the women’s organisation, Tina Ngata, (see

box) women were important within traditional society as the guardians
of adat knowledge (Tua Tambi). This concept is reflected in various
local practices.
Toro women who interviewed Adat Council members at the village and
subdistrict level found that, in the past, women were at the centre of many
activities both in terms of the range and degree of their involvement.
In the traditional trading system, the women of a family had to be involved

in any transaction such as selling the family’s livestock, land or any
other form of wealth. Lack of respect for the position of women within
the traditional social structure was punished with adat sanctions. For
example, if a man sold part of the family’s property without consulting
the Tua Tambi, despite knowing that he should have done so.
The awareness of women’s strong position in the past inspired indigenous

Toro women to start re-asserting their social status (poncuraa/pahu ada),
their rights and authority (mahipato and kahipatoana), as well as their
access to and control of decision-making processes (mekamata loga).
So, in August 2001, Toro women took the initiative to host a women’s
workshop. This resulted in decisions to abolish the government-imposed
PKK programme and to create the Ngata Toro Indigenous Women’s
Organisation (OPANT). They then went on to develop the organisation,
including establishing representatives in each Toro hamlet.
25
The Program Kesejahteraan Keluarga (PKK) was a ten-point national prorgramme intro-
duced by the Suharto government in the 1990s. It was intended to improve family welfare,
but many Indonesian women – indigenous and non-indigenous - objected because it placed
women firmly in the home, did not acknowledge their specific skills and knowledge and did
nothing to address their needs for more decision-making power or earning capacity.
213
AMAN.doc
‘Mothers of the Village’
Although the Indonesian people did not have a female president until
the 21st century, the Toro people have had female leaders since the
eighteenth century through the position of Tina Ngata in the Toro
village governance system. This Women’s Council had a similar
function to the Council of Elders and its leader (usually the wife of
the village head) was well respected in her own and neighbouring
villages.
One particular Tina Ngata called Hangkalea is still remembered today

and was feared by the Dutch colonial authorities of the time. Other
popular Tina Ngata were Lingkumene, Tobanawa and Ngkamumu.
The solidarity (Hintuvu) between the people, Council of Elders and
the Tina Ngata, plus the way the leaders of the time defended the
interests of the community, became their most effective weapon in
the fight against colonialism.
The Tina Ngata had to attend all important village meetings otherwise
any decisions taken were invalid. She also played an important role in
resolving conflicts within the village or with other villages. Conflicts
that could not be resolved internally were presented to the Tina Ngata
and Totua Ngata of the neighbouring villages (Tongki Ngata).

Both the traditional Women’s Council and its leader were called Tina Ngata – liter-
ally, ‘mother(s) of the community’.

Meetings where all elements of the village governance system are required to at-
tend are called Hintuvu libu Ngata.
214
2. The role of young people in village governance

The young people of Ngata Toro have been part of the local movement
for greater indigenous autonomy since the early 1990s. The church
and the mosque organised activities for youth groups, but there was no
organisation where young adults could discuss specific issues and take
their own decisions.
An organisation called Forum Hintuvu Torona Kabilaha (FOHTKA)

was established as a result of a meeting attended by 65 young adults
representing the different Ngata Toro hamlets in December 2002.
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Cacao is one of the primary commodities beside vanilla
215
The purpose of this forum is to bring together the young generation
– an estimated total of 400 people living in the village – and to serve
as a means of communication between them in tackling problems or
planning joint activities. It is also responsible for security at village and
at hamlet level.
The youth forum is independent of the governance structure but shares

the aims and objectives of its four institutions. Since their meeting in
2002, the young generation of Ngata Toro has played an increasingly
important role within the village’s planning and decision making
processes. For example, as part of the Tondo Ngata, they patrol and
protect the forest. They are also represented in the village administration
and assembly (LPN). Young women are always involved in OPANT as
note takers, facilitators or participants in its activities.
Toro.doc
The young generation of Ngata Toro
216
The Toro Youth Forum

Aim: To unify the young generation of Ngata Toro
Objectives:
• Foster the principle of Hintuvu among the young
generation;
• Strengthen solidarity without ethnic or religious
discrimination;
• Participate in maintaining the Katuvua principle within the
Ngata Toro in line with local traditional knowledge;
• Support all activities or programmes planned by the four
Toro village governance institutions;
• Co-operate with other youth organisations outside Ngata
Toro.
Activities:
• Hosted a meeting with the four Toro village governance
institutions (31 December 2002)
• Established representation at hamlet level (February 2003)
• Held a workshop on the role of the young generation in
sustainable natural resource management (5 – 6 August
2003)
• Hosted a joint religious service (30 December 2003)
• Co-operated with the NGO Yayasan Bantaya Palu on the
Training of Trainers course for Village and Land Reform
hosted in Ngata Toro with participants from villages in and
outside Kulawi subdistrict (March 2004)
• Co-operated with researchers of the German STORMA
project to carry out a census and socio-cultural survey of the
Toro people (April 2004).
VII. BROADER RECOGNITION
Apart from the recognition of the Toro’s sustainable land use system
and their traditional knowledge in the agreement with the Lore Lindu
National Park authorities, it is important for the Toro people to be
recognised by other environmental organisations and to develop joint
217
initiatives with them for the protection and management of their natural
resources. The Toro people are working in partnership with several
organisations, including
• the Nature Conservancy (TNC), Central Sulawesi;
• CARE International, Central Sulawesi;
• the Lore Lindu National Park Partners’ Forum;
• the Buffer Zone Forum created by the ADB-supported Central
Sulawesi Integrated Area Development and Conservation
Project (CSIADCP);
• Yayasan Jambata, an NGO which works for the protection of
animal wildlife and to support bark cloth production;
• Yayasan Tanah Merdeka, a Palu-based advocacy group
providing facilitation and technical assistance for mapping and
natural resource management;
• Lembaga Pencinta Alam Awam Green, a local environmental
NGO;
• STORMA, ‘Stability of Rainforest Margins in Indonesia’, a
research programme carried out by the German Universities of
Göttingen and Kassel.
One interesting result of the process of exploring local traditional

knowledge and customary land use systems was a social contract agreed
by the adat people of Central Sulawesi and the provincial assembly
regarding customary land use systems. This agreement was reached
during a seminar and workshop organised by various NGOs working
in Sulawesi on 17 – 19 December 2004. The workshop was attended by
indigenous peoples from the whole central area of Sulawesi, including
the Kaili, Kulawi, Behoa, Poso, Morowali-Bungku groups, Togean,
Wana, Bada, Banggai, Saluan, Balantak, Andio, Buol, Dampal and
Toli-toli (see boxes on following pages).
This social contract with the local government increases the political
space for the Ngata Toro to promote to other indigenous peoples the
right to access, control and manage their customary lands - a right
that has so far been violated by various stakeholders who benefit from
exploiting indigenous resources.
218
Indigenous people’s customary land use systems in Central Sulawesi
Function/ Constraints to its

Area Adat Rules
utilisation management
• Overlapping
Sacred • Adat fines claims as cus-
forest in cases tomary area
• sacred place,
(Hutan lar- of misuse by different
tourist attrac-
angan, lo- • Releas- people
tion
cally called ing a live • Controlled by
• animal habitat
Wana chicken the state (clas-
• water source
ngkiki, as an of- sified as state
• ritual place
Wana, Wa- fering forest land)
• harvest rattan,
nambongo, • Must not • Utilised by
damar etc.
Katumpua, be culti- logging, plan-
Kapali) vated tation or min-
ing companies
• Internal/
• To be passed external
on to future expropriation
Protected generations • Mogane • Controlled
forest (Hu- • timber for • Mompepoyu by the state,
tan cadan- building houses • Nobanta classified as
gan, locally • collect ingre- • Mehabi unused land
called Pan- dients for tra- • Mosambulu • Illegal
gale/ Ha- ditional medi- gana harvesting of
vayopo) cines • Givu by companies
• harvest rattan, • Sold to
damar, etc. outsiders by the
village head
219
• Nompehule
Managed Manu/Mom-
forest (Hu- pepoyu
• Agroforestry
tan Olahan • Vunca (ritu- • Boundaries
• Upland agri-
locally als of grati- • Land sold/
culture (La-
called Oma, tude to God) bought by in-
dang)
Balingkea, • Givu during dividuals
• Pasture
Pohawa the cultivation
pongko) • Nevula
• Mogane
Same as for the

Settlement • Rice paddies
managed forest
area • Houses
area
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Toro’s younger generation
220
Basic rights claimed by the indigenous peoples of Central Sulawesi
The indigenous people of Central Sulawesi urge the provincial

assembly of Central Sulawesi to:
1. take up the issue of the right of indigenous peoples of Central
Sulawesi to manage their land and natural resources,
2. make use of its right to take the initiative in drafting and
approving the recognition of indigenous peoples’ customary
lands in Central Sulawesi with the direct participation of the
indigenous peoples of each district,
3. stop all forms of natural resource exploitation and business
permits inside customary land areas in all districts,
4. monitor the situation in the field through inspections
involving the indigenous peoples of the different districts,
5. plan and provide budget resources for development activities
for indigenous peoples of Central Sulawesi for the year 2005,
with involvement of indigenous peoples of all districts.
Mandated by the Central Sulawesi indigenous community, represented by:

1. Ibu Rukmini: Coordinator of the Ngata Toro Indigenous
Women’s Organisation (OPANT)
2. Nudin, Raja Ide: Secretary General of the Central Sulawesi
Indigenous Alliance (AMASUTA)
3. Ramli: Luwuk indigenous people
4. Harun: Kungguma indigenous people
5. Rizal: Toro Youth Forum
6. Ridwan Janu: Banggai indigenous people
7. Naftali: Ngata Toro village head
8. Gandu: Lindu indigenous people
9. Yakob Taha: Kulawi indigenous people
10. Endi: Salena Bolonggima indigenous people
11. Jamrudin: Kamalisi indigenous people
12. Ibu Setia: Tawaili indigenous people
Source: Excerpt from the agreement between the indigenous peoples and
the provincial assembly of Central Sulawesi, signed 20 December 2004
221
Statement of the provincial assembly of Central Sulawesi
A. We accept the joint recommendations issued by all indigenous

peoples of Central Sulawesi outlining the rationale underpinning
the recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights to manage their
customary lands in their respective districts, based on local
settlement history and traditional knowledge. We are also
prepared to continue discussing these issues at committee and
general assembly levels until a regional regulation is issued to
legally recognise the position of indigenous peoples in Central
Sulawesi.
B. The provincial assembly agrees to involve indigenous people in
any of its sessions to discuss the drafting of a regulation and
spatial plans for customary lands in each district.
Based on the above, the provincial assembly of Central Sulawesi

will follow up the present recommendations by including them in its
agenda and making use of its right to initiate discussions and draft a
regulation to recognise the position of indigenous peoples in Central
Sulawesi.
Palu, 20 December 2004

Helmi. D Yambas, SE
(Deputy Chairperson of the provincial assembly of Central Sulawesi)
222
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
102
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
101
8
TANA AI INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES

EAST FLORES
Maintaining traditional culture as a way of

protecting the environment
Murray Muhammad H. Basyir

Previously known as Yosef Lewor Goban, an indigenous peoples activist of East Nusa
Tenggara. He changed his name to Murray Muhammad H. Basyir (as he also convert-
ed from Catholicism to Islam) as part of his protest against the Catholic church which
is occupying his customary land.
225
General Location of Tana Ai in Flores
226
Tana Ai
I. INTRODUCTION
Tana Ai is now described administratively as the eastern part of Sikka district

on Flores in Nusa Tenggara Timur province. However, several centuries
ago, it extended over most of the central and eastern parts of the island.
Central Sikka later came under the control of a local sultan (raja), but the
east remained as loosely associated customary domains - each with a key
ceremonial site (mahe). The several hundred communities (natar) who live
in that area still share strong cultural and historical links, including a bond to
Mother Earth, which is one meaning of the term Tana Ai.
The neighbouring traditional villages of Utang Wair and Likong Gete are
located around 34 km east of Maumere, the district capital of Sikka district.
Both are now officially part of the village of Nangahale in Talibura sub-district.
This is considered a coastal location, but the communities’ customary lands
– which together cover some 2,000 ha – include extensive upland areas.
The Utang Wair’s customary land is bounded by Le Watu Bain Wair Kolon
(in Talibura village) to the east; Wawa Wair Hekang (in Wair Terang village)
to the west; the Flores Sea to the north; and Reta Gele Bihat to the south.
Likong Gete’s customary land is bounded by the river Waer Hek (in Natar
village) to the east; the river Patiahu (in Runut village) to the west; the Flores
Sea to the north; and Tana Beta Beegawan (Runut village) to the south.

Mahe are symbols of community unity as well as sacred or ritual sites. They are often
marked by large stones, megaliths or ceremonial stone altars. Mahe Wai Brama is con-
sidered the ’mother’ of all other mahe and unifies Tana Ai communities. Mahe Tana is
a sacred site to ask for blessings for those living above ground. Mahe Nuhu is a sacred
site commemorating a battle.

Natar means ‘village’ in the local language. This is synonymous with an indigenous
community and its customary lands.

Confusingly for outsiders, both Talibura and Nangahale (also spelt Nanga Hale) are
also the names of neighbouring customary villages which have been adopted by the
government to designate much larger administrative areas. As in the other case studies
in this book, boundaries imposed by the government in the late 1970s and again around
2000 (following regional autonomy) have cut many traditional villages and customary
domains in Tana Ai into several pieces. Several natar are now included within the vil-
lage administration of Nangahale.

The spellings Wai, Wair and Waer seem to be used interchangeably in place names.
The term refers to a river or source of fresh water.
227
Tana Ai Customary Area
228
The total population of Utang Wair and Likong Gete is around 800
households or 3,000 people. Some 80 per cent of the indigenous
inhabitants can trace their ancestry back to the origins of the village
(see following section). They make their living from farming. The
‘outsiders’ (the 20 per cent of the community known as Pahar) mainly
originate from the Buton and Bugis ethnic groups from Sulawesi and
depend on fishing for their livelihoods.
Field crops include rice, maize, cassava, beans, peanut, sugar cane and
pineapple. Other commodities produced by agroforestry are banana,
mango, jackfruit, cocoa, cashew nut, candlenut, mahogany, teak, palm
sugar and bamboo.
II. THE UTANG WAIR & LIKONG GETE CUSTOMARY LANDS
1. Historical origins
Although the indigenous Utang Wair and Likong Gete communities are
closely located and contain many of the same clans, they have different
legends about how they acquired their customary lands. However, as
the following account shows, they share similar institutional structures
and indigenous knowledge and there are also similarities in their land
use planning and natural resource management systems. Both traditional
villages are part of the broader Natar Mage community within Tanah Ai.
a. Utang Wair
According to local legend, the first people to live in the Natar Mage area
were the two founding fathers, Moang Sugi and Dua Sao, together with the
following fifteen clans: Soge; Liwu Jawa; Liwu Urung; Liwu Anak; Liwu
Tana; Liwu; Liwu Kubang Bura; Watu; Lewar; Lewuk; Ipir; Dewa; Dewa
Lewuk; Mage and Mau.

Palm sugar is collected from the lontar tree, Borassus flabellifer.

The indigenous community strongly believes that the fact that the places described
in the traditional stories are still recognisable from natural features and still bear the
same names demonstrates their customary rights over the area and therefore these are
described at length.

Natar Mage is also the name of one of the traditional Tana Ai villages.
229
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Writing process and knowledge sharing, Flores, NTT
The community’s oral history tells how Moang Sugi and Dua Sao got
stranded on the coast near Talibura while on a voyage eastward from
their homeland on mainland southeast Asia. Hungry and thirsty,
they decided to rest there. They dried up all the surrounding sea and
dug holes along the beach to find fresh water. The area is now known
as Wair Kolong.
Moang Sugi and Dua Sao went to Pedan where they used their swords
to mark out land suitable for farming and building a settlement10.
They moved on to an area now called Sao Wair whose local name
recalls how the two pioneers dug up the beach to find drinking
water to quench their thirst. After a short while they continued their
journey to Nanga Hale where, by the riverside, they made a place to
hold customary rituals11. This site is still a traditional sacred place to

The original story, locally called Talibura Wua Bahang, names their origin as Tanah
Malaka. Malacca is now a state in Malaysia.
10
Pedan is short for Soge Pedan Tana Gere which literally means the place where
swords marked the ground.
11
In the story, this event is called Mula Nuba Nipar. The word nuba refers to any
sacred thanksgiving site.
230
pray for rain and to celebrate other ceremonies. Because Moang Sao
and Dua Sugi were so impressed by the shining water, the Nangahale
river was originally called Hulu Hilek after them12.
The two ancestors continued on to a place they called Wair Hek

Krada Wara because of the way the water kept changing colour13. Soon
afterwards Moang Sugi and Dua Sao returned to the area which is now
Likong Gete, celebrated in traditional stories for the beauty of the sea
and the mountains. They named it Likong Gete Wan Rua because it
was by the estuaries of two large rivers - Nanga Tahi and Nanga Wair.
Another local site still known by a name that recalls the community’s
ancestors is Mage Layar or Lajar Sewa Lian, where the sail from a ship
wrecked on the reef was blown ashore.

Moang Sugi and Dua Sao first started to work the land and to build
houses at Lirih Watu. The name of this location refers to the way
they built their homes using upright stone blocks14. This is where
they allocated land and the rights to control it to the 15 clans that had
migrated with them. The Soge clan was given land at Nuba Nanga
and entrusted with responsibility for the sacred areas15. From that time
onwards, these family groups have spread out in all directions.
Moang Sugi and Dua Sao moved on to Ledu Labang and decided to
settle down there. They cleared the forest so they could plant crops and
build houses but, when crop yields began to decline, the two men moved
further east to the current location of Natar Mage. There they cleared
another patch of forest for farming and their efforts were rewarded by
abundant harvests. At the sacred site, they inscribed the words: “We
hope for good harvests from our fields and lontar palms”16.
12
Hulu Hilek means ‘ancestors’.
13
Another local river estuary.
14
Lirih watu laba lepo sorong woga nora ua uma kare tua in the original. Watu = stone.
15
The settlement of Nanga Nuba is traditionally the heart of the Utang Wair com-
munity (Nanga = village; nuba = shrine).
16
The original says: Sugi Sao Saro Welin Wai Duu Welin Inan, Ua Uma Di Hiin, Kare
Tua Di Dolo, Mula Wua Plehok Mahe, Litin Gi’it, Ler Mangan.
231
That is why the whole Natar Mage indigenous community, including
the people of Utang Wair, honour Moang Sugi and Dua Sao as their
ancestors. It also explains the special significance of Nuba Nanga to
these indigenous people and their ancestral lands, and the role of the
Utang Wair in protecting this and other sacred sites.
As the community grew, Moang Sugi and Dua Sao decided to call the
area Natar Mage, meaning ‘Tamarind village’, because of an unusually-
shaped tamarind tree growing in the northern part of the inhabited area.
The tree is still there and is held sacred by the indigenous community.
b. Likong Gete
The people of Likong Gete have two different versions of the legend of
how their ancestors settled there.
According to the first version, the original settlers were Moang Krai
Soge and Moang Sugi Sao who came from ‘the land of Malacca’. Their
sailing boat was washed ashore at what is now Nangahale beach. Here
they created a site to hold rituals which they marked by planting crops17.
This also signified that the land was theirs.
Moang Krai Soge and Moang Sugi Sao then went to Wair Hek where
they also established a sacred site. The location’s name is connected
with the story that an old man fell into the river there and drowned.

The two ancestors later moved on to Ledu Labang, west of Natar Mage.
Here they cleared some forest to set up a settlement and to work the land.
However, after some time they agreed to split this area between them.
From then on Moang Sugi Sao controlled Natar Mage, while Moang
Krai Soge had the area to the west (Tanah Runut) from the mountains
down to the sea - including the area now called Likong Gete.
17
This site at Watar Anak is known locally as Mula Mahe (literally, the first sacred site).
It is also called the Mahe Tana as it is where traditional ceremonies are held to ask the
spirits for permission before planting crops.
232
Moang Krai Soge first settled at a place he named Mage Heni. This
village was burned down during the period when Sikka was ruled as
several small kingdoms. When the villagers rebuilt a settlement on the
same site, they called it Natar Holon. His descendents became the Soge
clan and were later joined in the western part of Tanah Runut by the
Liwu Urung, Liwu Jawa, Liwu Anak and Lewar clans.
The other version of the traditional story holds that the first inhabitants of
western Tanah Runut belonged to the Goban clan. They also originated
from the Malacca region and got shipwrecked at Dobo. According
to local legend, their boat was washed up onto high land. From this
vantage point, they had a good view of the surrounding countryside and
decided to go east.
They walked to the coast where they built a temporary settlement at

Hito Halok before continuing their journey to Watu Gete. There the
Gobo people founded the first settlement in the Runut area and cleared
some of the local forest for farming. Other groups followed, such as the
Watu people and the Liwu Jawa, Liwu Urung, Liwu Anak, Soge Laka,
Soge Rutak and Kali Raga clans.
The Goban later instructed the Watu people to build a place to hold adat
ceremonies and called it Gren Mahe. Since then, the Goban clan has
spread out to the current location of Likong Gete.

2. Sacred historical sites
• The boat-shaped rock at Talibura beach (in front of what now is

the military sub-district command office) is regarded as a relict
left by Moan Sugi Sao.
• There is a rock at Watu Baing/Wair Kolong showing a footprint
of Moang Sugi Sao, an arrow and the shape of a domestic
animal.
• The sacred tamarind tree at Natar Mage, after which Moang
Sugi Sao named the village, still survives.
• Other rocks of historical or spiritual value are:
233
- Wuu Letu at Ledu Labang
- Koja Wulan East of Natar Mage
- Mahe Papar North of Natar Mage
- Mahe Hiong Dueet in Karok Natar
III. THE INDIGENOUS LAND USE SYSTEM
1. Forest functions
The forest
• protects the soil from erosion;
• is a source of the plants needed for various adat rituals;
• provides materials for house construction;
• is a place for hunting.
2. Land use zoning18

The whole of Tana Ai, including Utang Wair and Likong Gete, is a
steeply hilly region close to the sea. So the only place to grow food is the
hillsides. The traditional land use system practised by the Utang Wair
and Likong Gete communities recognises a number of zones each with
different purposes. This system distinguishes clearly between forested
land which may be cleared for agriculture and forests that must be kept
intact19. No-one is allowed to use certain parts of the forest which are
inhabited by spirits. Other parts of the forest are protected as the resting
places of ancestors’ souls. Before someone dies, s/he tells the family the
chosen place in the forest where his/her soul will reside after death.
18
A more appropriate term may be ‘Traditional natural resource management’ since
this also includes fishing.
19
The customary lands of Utang Wair and Likong Gete together cover around 2,000 ha,
but the communities have access to very little of this. The Dutch colonial administration
designated the higher forested slopes as watershed protection in 1932 and the Depart-
ment of Forestry maintained this status following Independence, extending the area of
Protection Forest in the 1980s. A plantation company owned by the Catholic church (PT
Diag) also controls some of these customary lands. See box, Maintaining Adat Control,
later this chapter.
234
Tana Ai customary land use
235
a. Protected forest (Uin watur tuan loran)20
Extensive areas of forested land remain within the indigenous community’s
management system. No-one is allowed to clear this. The Utang Wair and
Likong Gete people see these forests as a source of water and also a place to
hold adat rituals. They contain sacred places where people commemorate
their ancestors and pray to them about their hopes and needs.
b. Forest for rotational agriculture (Opi kare tutun tepan)21

The indigenous communities have always cleared forests to grow crops
just as their ancestor, Moang Sugi Sao, did22. The fields, where rice,
maize and vegetables are grown for a few seasons, together with tree
crops, are a traditional form of agroforestry23 (see box, next page). Within
this zone are protected forest areas where cultivation is prohibited (tuan
dudun). These include:
• Steep slopes24
• Hunting grounds25
• Places inhabited by spirits.
These pockets of forest also safeguard water sources.
c. Ritual sites
• Places to pray for rain, a good harvest and protection from pests
and natural disasters (usually in clumps of forest by a river)26;
• Places for other traditional ceremonies and rituals (usually
marked with large rocks)27.
20
In other parts of Tana Ai, such as Hikong-Boru Kedang (see box, later in this chap-
ter), this protected forest is known as ope dun kare dunan.
21
In Hikong-Boru Kedang, forest which can be cleared for agriculture is called ope
dun kare taden.
22
The same term - ua uma kare tua - is used to describe both the first planting carried
out by Moang Sugi Sao in the community’s oral history and all fields and agroforestry
areas in the customary rotational cultivation system.
23
The whole of this zone is, in the eyes of the Forestry department, Protected Forest, so
any land clearance or farming is officially illegal.
24
The steepest land (with a gradient of over 60o) is classified as Repit goit raen ra’at
and, according customary rules, is not allowed to be used.
25
Wild pigs, deer, monkeys and porcupines may be hunted in the tige kopor/rakan lera
zones.
26
Nuba puan nanga wan – elsewhere known as wair puan
27
Wua mahe litin ler
236
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]

The protected forest and rotational agriculture areas
d. Housing/settlement area
e. Kroang Kleren
Where the adat meeting place is built and also where livestock is kept.
Traditionally, animals are kept in stables, stalls or pens but may be
tethered or allowed to roam freely.
f. Recreational areas28
g. Fishing grounds
• Tidal zones where people catch small fish at low water using a
plant extract (tuba) to stun them;
• Deeper waters where people go by canoe to catch larger fish.
28
Forests must not be cleared around what are locally called nari wain plo nain or
‘resting places’.
237
CULTIVATED PLANTS IDENTIFIED IN THE LIKONG GETE
AND UTANG WAIR AGRICULTURAL SYSTEM
1. Food crops: there are 14 local varieties of rice, 10 varieties of

maize, 10 different kinds of edible tubers and 9 different sorts of
beans.
2. Agroforestry species: at least 8 tree species including coconut,
papaya, jackfruit, mangoes, tamarind, candlenut, coffee and
resin-producing trees (damar).
3. Vegetables: 11 different kinds of vegetables including gourds
and aubergines.
4. Medicinal plants: more than 14 species are used for various
human ailments such as fever, headache, boils, swollen
limbs, diabetes, stomach ulcers, coughs, colds and kidney
problems; 8 different plants are used to fight pests of
agricultural crops; and 8 sorts of medicinal plant are used
to treat animal diseases.
5. Fruits: more than 17 species (see also agroforestry above).
It is important to note that farmers report that local seeds tend to

produce higher yields than introduced varieties.
3. Customary institutional structures

The customary institutions of the Utang Wair and Likong Gete
communities have similar structures and similar roles with respect to
determining land use.
Traditionally spatial planning (land use zoning) was the responsibility

of the community leader and other adat elders. Over time their role has
weakened and now their main function is to perform adat rituals.
The customary institutional structure is as follows:

a. Community leader (Tana Puan): overall ‘coordinator’; responsible
for determining customary land use zones.
b. Clan leaders: implement customary law within their clans and are
responsible for assigning land to clan members.
238
c. Bian Wuun: individuals with specific skills related to adat rituals.

These include:
• The Bian Sobe who carries the container holding the nail
clippings and hair of the deceased during the Wihi Loe
Unur and other rituals.
• The Bian Luka who is responsible for handing over the nail
clippings and hair of the recently deceased to the Bian Sobe
as part of the Wihi Loe Unur ritual.
• The Bian Henin who calls the souls of ancestors to escort
the souls of the recently deceased so that they can all be
reunited in the spirit world.
• The Bian Karat who makes the animal sacrifices during the
Wihi Loe Unur ritual.
• The Bian Seko or Gareng Lamen: circumciser for the
Gareng Lamen ritual.
• The Bian Marang: healer and fortune teller who makes
predictions by reading the livers of sacrificed animals.
• Bian Teli Apur: women who provide all the things necessary
for the rituals to be performed properly29.
• Bian Dua Puan: women who oversee the performance of
rituals and welcome guests.
d. Members of the adat community are divided into those from the
founding clans (Me Pu Ari Anak) and others (Ai Aur Wair).
In addition to these traditional structures, the Utang Wair and Likong

Gete have also created community organisations to defend their rights
to their customary lands and to manage their natural resources (see box
on Maintaining Adat).
3. Succession within customary structures

All posts within the traditional customary institutional structure are
hereditary: there are no community elections for these.
29
This and the following traditional role illustrate the fact that women play an impor-
tant part in adat ceremonies and in sustainable natural resource management in indig-
enous Tana Ai communities. Another example is that many of the dyes that women use
in making traditional cloths in Flores still come from forest plants.
239
4. Customary sanctions
If a customary rule is broken, the adat institutions hold a purification
ceremony. For example, if the customary marital law is violated, a
ceremony will be held to ask the Almighty to forgive the couple. This
is presided over by an adat institution called the Pati Demu. An animal
offering is made and handed over to the head of clan, witnessed by
the community leader. The community leader is also entitled to animal
offerings as payment of fines, generally if people have violated customary
law pertaining to environmental issues - for example, burning protected
forest or cutting down trees in that zone.
An example of customary rules on the environment (expressed as a

traditional poem) says that whoever cuts a tree or damages any other
plant in the protected forest will be severely punished by hunger, illness
or severe rains or drought. The Nu Ai Sube Tali ritual must be held in the
event of any violations. In this ceremony, offerings of a pig or goat, rice,
eggs and traditional cloths are made to appease the guardians of nature.
These also represent a kind of customary fine on the offenders.
5. Key principles of the customary land use system

1. Economics: Natural resources should only be used to meet
basic needs (for subsistence), not as commodities to be traded
or distributed to other places.
2. Social relations (kinship): The indigenous people of this area
have very close family ties due to the tradition of marrying
within the community. However, it is becoming increasingly
common to marry people from other places and ethnic origins.
• Culture: The values and physical and spiritual aspects
of the culture handed down through the generations
should be preserved.
• Politics: The community leader (Tana Puan) holds the
most powerful post within the customary governance
structure. The clan chiefs and the community elders
support him in his work.
• Security: The community holds certain ceremonies to
protect itself from any external dangers or risks.
240
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]

Preparing the offering before the ritual in the sacred place
6. Other cultural practices associated with customary rules

• Rau Ekak: a ceremony where food offerings are made to
the spirits of the ancestors so they will continue to guard
the community’s houses, agroforestry and agricultural
land from natural or man-made disasters. This ceremony is
usually celebrated at a special ritual site (mahe).
• Earth cooling: a ritual celebrated after clearing (burning) part
of the forest for agriculture. It is usually held in the middle of
the new fields to pray for soil fertility and a good harvest.
• Pati blatan tebo took: a ritual held for someone who has
been ill for a long time or if someone has committed an
offence such as theft or rape.
• Pati neni ihin dolo: a ceremony celebrated in the fields at
the beginning of the (agricultural) year after harvest time.
• Pati neni uran wair: a rain ritual, usually celebrated at the
sacred site of Nuba Nanga.
7. Traditional arts related to environmental conservation:

a. Dances: Wai Alu, Gong Ilin Puan, Labit to express gratitude
for a good harvest or some kind of victory.
241
 Other customary artistic expressions:
 Lagar (a kind of war dance)
 Hobo B1an Blean (a contest of physical strength)
 Gareng Lamen (a dance welcoming guests to the initiation
ceremony for boys who are going to be circumcised)
 Awi Labit (a victory dance)
 Togo Jago and Blasi/gatong: (dances expressing thanks
for friendships and engagements)
 Suling rang (a kind of flute used at celebrations and
thanksgiving ceremonies)
 Kara Lata (recitations of community history and prayers)
 Loru Lana (traditional weaving skills – ikat cloth and
baskets woven from palm leaves).
8. Land ownership system

Under customary law, land was held communally by the various clans,
based on the division of land carried out by the community leader back
in the days of Moang Sugi Sao. This system is no longer used and,
nowadays, clan chiefs allocate land to individual families/members of
their communities. Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Forest for rotational agriculture (Opi kare tutun tepan)
242
IV. INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE AND LAND MANAGEMENT
1. Land management system:

When agricultural land is allocated to members of the indigenous
community, the first step is to hold an adat ritual to ensure everything
goes well. This is followed by a clan meeting, chaired by the clan
leader, where the decisions are taken. Environmental aspects are also
taken into consideration when deciding whether a plot is suitable for
cultivation or not. This can be seen from the following detailed account
of the process.
a. Lohor Blupur
Once consensus has been reached regarding land allocation, offerings
are made to the ancestral spirits to pray for a good harvest and the health
of those who will work the land.
b. Patin Roin
On the first day, the ritual dedicated to nature’s guardians and all the
ancestral spirits is followed by the initial preparations. These consist
of the clan leader marking the boundaries of the section of forest to be
cleared.
c. Diri Mipin
Whether the land is suitable or not for farming is determined by the
clan leader’s dreams that night. A nightmare indicates that part of the
forest should not be used, whereas good dreams confirm that it is an
appropriate choice.
d. Proi Holin
The first stage of land clearance is to clear some of the surrounding
forest to prevent the fire getting out of control and spreading to areas.
e. Holo Roan
Bamboo torches and a special type of wood30 are used to light the fire
to clear the trees and other vegetation on the selected land. By tradition,
all those involved in land clearance should chew betel leaves, areca nuts
30
Klate boga is similar to Schleirosa oleosa, known as kesambi in Indonesian
243
and ginger and then spit on the torches. After burning the area, everyone
goes home and eats together.
f. Tege
The next step is to clear away the larger pieces of wood left by the fire.
g. Duen Dure Leen Lepeng

Once the land has been cleared, people mark the boundaries of the plots
assigned to them.
h. Planting
• Blatan Tana – Cooling the land. Traditional verses are recited
to ask the guardians of nature to allow the soil to cool so that
the crops can grow well.
• Pahar Wini – Preparing the seeds31. The spirits are asked to
protect the seed to make it yield a good harvest.
• Mula Ai Pua - The first part of the planting ceremony consists of
reciting traditional verses while planting a sapling in the middle
of the new fields. Its two branches are carefully orientated: one
must point East, towards the sunrise, to symbolise prayers to
God the creator of the universe/the guardians of nature; the
other must point West, where the sunset symbolises prayers
to the ancestors’ spirits. The small tree (Ai Pua) becomes the
site for further rituals during the agricultural year to pray for
the right balance between sunshine and rain and for a good
harvest.
• Pahe Nona - The first seeds are sown around the Ai Pua to
the accompaniment of more traditional verses. People believe
that the rice plants emerging from those first seeds contain a
spirit (Nalu Maeng) that will protect all plants in that field and
produce high yields.
i. Pati Papa Hewar

During the rainy season, once the plants have reached a certain height,
all adat officials must attend the Pati Papa Hewar ritual. The container
holding the ancestors’ sacred remains is brought to the special tree. This
31
Seeds are sorted by size then soaked overnight. Only those which sink are selected.
244
The head of clan is reading the pig’s liver before the customary ritual
invites the ancestors to visit the fields. The ceremony is intended to

honour the spirits prior to the harvest celebrations.
j. Rape Watar - Maize harvest

• Hemit Watar: a ritual meal is cooked when the cobs of maize
first appear. During this ceremony the community prays to the
ancestors to ensure a good crop when it is harvest time.
• Rape Watar – harvest of the ripe maize.
k. Poru Nalu – Rice harvest

Just before the rice is harvested a ceremony is held where traditional
verses are recited. This urges the ancestors to ensure an abundant harvest
245
which fills all the ceremonial containers. During the harvest, the holders
of certain customary positions are not allowed to wash until the day of
the main ceremony, Ri. If they do, the harvest will fail.
l. Mesu Nalu – Threshing ritual

A ritual is held to make sure the rice grains fall away from the stems
during threshing.
m. Ri and Wihi Loe Unur32

These ceremonies are held when the harvested rice is put into the rice
barn.
The Ri ceremony includes the following steps33:

• Plaha Kliat: a mat is spread on the ground for use later in the
ceremony.
• Pregang Tada Lero Wulan: palm, millet and papaya leaves are
tied to a bamboo stick as a decoration to honour the Creator.
• Long Nalu Howe e Kliat: the rice is taken out of the barn, spread
on the mat and symbolically cleaned before the Bian Luka
removes the first husks by hand. Then the Bian Luka takes the
ancestors’ nail clippings and hair and puts them into a special
container (sokar).
• Pati Widin Uma Ara: the animal that will be sacrificed as an
offering is presented.
• Pati Saden: the animal is sacrificed to honour a particular
ancestor or someone who has just died. Relatives will not eat
any meat from the sacrifice as it symbolises the soul of the
deceased.
• Pati Lepe Luka is a ritual to pray that the crop will last until the
next harvest.
• Pati Sobe expresses the family’s wish that the ancestors will
welcome the spirit of the recently deceased and include it as
one of them.
32
Wihi Loe Unur is a ceremony to welcome and show respect to the ancestral spirits. It
usually forms part of all major ceremonies, including the harvest festival.
33
Each stage of the prayers and offerings (pati) has a different purpose: to thank the
spirits, the ancestors and the land and to ask for good harvests in the future.
246
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]

Clearing the ritual site
• Wihi Bian Hiti Kare: prayers are recited when the ancestors’
sacred remains are put back.
• Wuwu: the final stage of the ceremony when rice and meat are
given to all guests.
2. Ceremonies to fight different pests and diseases

a. Animal pests: a ritual is used to drive out rats, locusts,
caterpillars and other insect pests of rice. The ceremony is held at
sea, usually in September or October before the planting season
begins. Only men can take part. The journey is conducted in
silence: no one on the boat is allowed to speak except for the
person who recites the traditional verses which urge the pests to
return to their place of origin and to not damage the crops. No-
one must look back on the way back to the shore. For four days
after the ritual no cultivation of the land is allowed and people
cannot light fires in their homes.
b. Fungal infections: Pieces of wood and other materials are
placed in each corner of the field and lit one by one following
the direction of the wind34. Whoever carries out the ritual must
not go to that field during the next four days and nights.
34
These offerings are sea salt (hini), mangrove shoots (tube), a specific bamboo (bawa
latan) and a kind of coral (tahi puhen).
247
c. Rice-stem borers (walang sangit)
Certain kinds of wood35, insecticide and paraffin are pounded
together then the mixture is poured over the plants. Whoever
carries out the ritual must not go to that field for the next four
days and nights.
V. CHANGES IN CONTROL OVER THE INDIGENOUS

COMMUNITY’S LANDS36
1. What is changing?
a. The customary land use system (zoning) has not changed.
b. The customary institutions still exist, although they now play a weaker
role.
c. Land ownership has changed from communal ownership (where
clan usage rights were assigned by the head of the community) to
individual or family ownership.
d. Agricultural practices and the physical conditions of the land remain
the same.
2. Factors of change
In recent years, the main drivers of change have been internal. There is a
trend within the community towards easier or more practical ways of doing
things. For example, the shift towards individual land ownership was due
to difficulties in sharing out the harvest between community members.
3. Land use conflicts
The communities of Utang Wair and Likong Gete are in dispute with the
local government who has issued a land use permit (HGU) to the company
PT Diag on their customary lands. Another part of their land has been
declared Protection Forest37 by the local forestry authorities who, in 1984,
extended the boundaries. Both these cases have yet to be resolved38.
35
A type of hibiscus (lili hear) and meranti (raon, Shorea sp)
36
Some additional information from the editors is presented in the box on Maintaining
adat control.
37
Protection Forest (hutan lindung) is a category of forest use employed by the Indone-
sian Forestry department to protect watersheds and to prevent erosion and flooding. No
logging, cultivation or settlement is permitted within this zone.
38
See also J M Prior (undated), The Church and Land Disputes: Sobering Thoughts from
Flores, Candraditya Research Center for the study of Religion and Culture, Maumere.
248
MAINTAINING ADAT CONTROL
Most of the Utang Wair and Likong Gete communities’ forest lands
have been under direct or indirect government control for over 70
years. In 1912, the Dutch colonial administration allocated 879 ha to a
plantation company. Ownership was soon transfered to a Dutch church
organisation as a means of supporting the spread of Catholicism in
Flores. This was done, not surprisingly, without any consultation
with the indigenous landowners. Since Independence, the Indonesian
government has continued the colonial policy and, in 1989, granted a
land use permit over the same area to PT Diag, a plantation company
owned by the archdiocese of Ende.
The church initially established a coconut plantation with some

cattle grazing. Later teak and cashew trees were also planted. This
concession extends from Nanghale to Patiahu and occupies customary
land traditionally allocated for rotational cultivation (opi kare tutun
tepan) and some important historic and sacred sites, including the first
settlement at Lirih Watu. Pressure on the indigenous communities’
customary domains was further increased when the forestry department
unilaterally extended the Protection Forest (hutan lindung) zoning in
1967 and again in 1984.
The Catholic Church in Flores is very powerful and enjoys widespread

respect and popular support, so the indigenous communities were
reluctant to challenge the occupation of their customary lands by the
plantation. However, community opposition to the extended watershed
protection zone was met by intimidation, violence and imprisonment
from the authorities during the Suharto era. So, for many years, these
indigenous people had little alternative but to try to continue their
traditional livelihoods as best they could.
The people of Utang Wair and Likong Gete are not against all
government forestry policies per se. Their resistance to the national
reforestation scheme (Gerhan) is a case in point. The original aims

Additional information provided by Emil Kleden and Yuyun Indradi.

PT Diag: Perseroan Terbatas Dioses Agung = Archdiocese Ltd.

Gerhan is an acronym for the Gerakan Nasional Rehabilitasi Hutan dan Lahan
(GNRHL) or National Movement for the Rehabilitation of Forests and Land.
249
of this central government initiative were to reduce the risk of erosion
and increase timber production by planting trees in deforested areas.
Unfortunately, unscrupulous contractors had sought to profit by logging
commercially valuable timber before replanting the denuded land. As this
illegal practice threatens forests protecting sacred areas and ritual sites,
the indigenous community has vigorously resisted the implementation
of the Gerhan programme by outsiders. Instead they demanded to be
allowed to carry out operations themselves. This, they argued, would be
more effective and bring genuine benefits for the community.
Nevertheless, the future role of adat in forest protection in Utang

Wair and Likong Gete is not clear. On the one hand, as in many other
indigenous communities in Indonesia, the adat governance structure
has officially been supplanted by the government administrative
bureaucracy for nearly three decades. Traditional animist belief systems
are not recognised by the government and are opposed by church
and mosque leaders; most communities in Flores have converted to
Catholicism. The adat structures and practices which remain could be
said to be largely ceremonial.
On the other hand, the continued practice of adat ceremonies by these

two indigenous communities has ensured that traditional structures
and beliefs also persist. Adat leaders can still transmit traditional
knowledge and skills associated with managing and protecting natural
resources. The current use of customary land use zoning again helps
to sustain the existence of adat structures, particularly the key role of
Tana Puan as community leader. In this way, customary rules – for
example about permanently protected forest and forest that may be
converted for agriculture - continue to be internalised and utilised by
these communities.
As the author notes, traditional practices are changing. Increasing

demand for agricultural land due to population growth means that it is
no longer possible to practise rotational cultivation, especially since these
communities do not have access to most of their customary lands. It
remains to be seen whether the people of Utang Wair and Likong Gete can
reclaim their customary rights over their land and resources or, at the very
least, negotiate new agreements with government and church agencies.
Despite the repressive political atmosphere, by the 1990s, indigenous
250
communities in Tana Ai were considering setting up new organisations

to challenge government decisions to change the status of their
customary forest lands to plantations or Protection Forest. Such ideas
were realised after the downfall of Suharto in 1998 when, with the
assistance of the environmental NGO forum WALHI, a network of
indigenous communities called JAGAT was set up in the province.
People from Likong Gete and Utang Wair became members.
Representatives of JAGAT took part in the inaugural conference of
the Indonesian indigenous peoples’ movement, AMAN, in 1999. Later
that year, communities from several villages, including Likong Gete,
founded the new local association PEMAT-TULI which became a
member of AMAN. Indigenous people in Utang Wair set up their own
community organisation too (Wairkung). These organisations have
taken part in the second and third national AMAN Congresses and
have also become a vehicle to raise issues of concern with the local
government.
Since 1996, villagers from Utang Wair and Likong Gete have written
numerous letters to the local administrator (bupati), governor of NTT
province and various ministers requesting that their land and resources
be returned to them. Representatives of their community organisations
have met with members of the district assembly and forestry service
and several meetings have been held with local government officials
and the police. In the absence of any concrete results, several families
reoccupied part of the PT Diag plantation in August 2000, cutting down
some trees to establish a new settlement. Ironically, since the Catholic
church promotes peace and human rights, this action was followed
by interrogations, arrests and mass protests. The conflict has yet to
be resolved. PT Diag’s licence expires in 2013 when the land rights
officially return to the district government.

JAGAT, Jaringan Gerakan Masyarakat Adat NTT, was founded on 28th October 1998.

PEMAT-TULI = Persatuan Masyarakat Adat Tuan Paut, Runut, Likong Gete.

Further information on community organisations and forest advocacy in eastern
Flores can be found in Chapter 8 of EL Yulianti et al (eds), 2006, Kehutanan Mul-
tipihak: Langka Menuju Perubahan, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
251
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Customary protected areas
4. The communities’ expectations

a. Spatial planning policies must not ignore indigenous peoples’
rights or violate their cultural values.
b. Customary institutional structures should be preserved even if
their role and functions become weaker or change.
c. The government should take peoples’ livelihoods more
seriously and address their real needs. The priority for the
Utang Wair and Likong Gete communities is to regain control
over land allocated to PT Diag and to return the boundaries
of the government-designated Protection Forest to their 1932
position. These are crucial issues because the communities are
running out of land for farming and building houses.
d. The government’s village administration should co-operate
with the customary governance institutions. There has been no
cooperation between the two systems to date.
e. NGOs working to improve indigenous peoples’ standard of
living need to show much greater commitment to their work
and more integrity. It is a great pity to see NGOs exploiting
252
the ‘backwardness’ of indigenous communities for their own

benefit39. NGOs should act as mediators in cases where the
government has acted unfairly to the indigenous people.
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study shows that the Utang Wair and Likong Gete people know their
historical roots, celebrate traditional rituals related to the management
of natural resources, value their customary laws and have a functioning
customary governance structure. They have sacred places and objects
for ceremonies which are symbols of their strong ties with their ancestors
and their natural environment. This is why they still retain their cultural
values, even though some have become less important or have changed
over time.
The indigenous communities of Utang Wair and Likong Gete therefore

make the following recommendations:
1. Future policies should involve indigenous peoples, not just be
decided by policy makers.
2. The support of all stakeholders is needed to recognise the
existence of customary governance structures and rules and to
preserve and further develop them.
3. The government and the indigenous community need a common
policy forum to discuss land use planning issues and to resolve
existing conflicts.
4. The existence of customary law needs to be officially acknowledged
and national law enforcement should accommodate it.
5. The state’s land use planning should not be based solely on
39
This is a sensitive issue since a whole range of NGOs operate in eastern Flores, all
with their own motives and ways of working. There are cases where NGOs have been
established by government officials primarily in order to access funding sources for
their own needs. Other problems have been project proposals which are too frequently
short-term in nature or drafted without community consultation or consent. These have
tended to increase dependency rather than building capacity or developing community-
led initiatives. In contrast, some NGOs have actively supported indigenous communi-
ties’ struggles for a number of years. For example, the community mapping organisa-
tion, JKPP, helped several clans to produce a map of their customary lands in order to
negotiate return of control from a plantation company.
253
macroeconomics because land issues are closely associated
with the existence and the rights of indigenous peoples. The
government should therefore support and promote small-scale
community-based economic development.
6. It is vitally important to accommodate indigenous land use
systems into measures to protect the environment and to sustain
ecological services.
HIKONG-BORU KEDANG
Introduction
Another upland community in Tana Ai, called Hikong-Boru Kedang,
located around 15 km from Utang Wair, is facing similar or even
more serious problems. Culturally both communities are similar, in
terms of history, custom, rituals, the way they manage their natural
resources and customary structures. Most of the population depends
on agriculture activities for their livelihood. The commodities which
they grow in Hikong-Boru Kedang include: coffee, cacao, cassava,
corn, rice and fruits. Access to Hikong-Boru Kedang is easy, with a
good asphalt road and the village just beside the road, on the border of
Sikka and East Flores Districts.
The population of Hikong village is less than Utang Wair, at around 200
households. The name Hikong-Boru Kedang refers to the community
who live in one customary area, which is split over two districts:
Sikka District (Hikong village) and East Flores District (Boru Kedang
village). This community faces the same problem of Protection Forest
being extended into agricultural zone of their customary area.
The approach of the two local governments has been different. The
Hikong villagers have been experiencing very strong pressures from
the East Flores local government, whereas the Sikka District authorities
has been more positive in that it has shown it is willing to resolve the
conflict. The text below is an attempt to picture the situation in Hikong
in more detail.
254
The customary land use map of

Hikong-Boru Kedang
(Redrawn by FWI)
hutan asli = original/natural forest

kampong = village
kemiri dan kelapa = candlenut and coconut
kopi = coffee
ladang = rotational agriculture
padang rumput = grass
sawah = wet rice
Changes in availability of land for farming

The reality facing the indigenous community is that there is far less land
available for cultivation. Much of the agricultural land bequeathed by
their ancestors was declared Protection Forest by the local government
(in this case by the forestry service) in 1984. Prior to that, there was
plenty of land. Since the official change in status of the Hikong-Boru
Kedang’s customary lands, people have experienced a shortage of land
for agriculture and even for housing.
255
Reasons for these changes
a) External factors:
• The extension of the protected forest area by the local
forest service has led to a reduction in the area available
to the community for cultivation.
• Government programmes, such as the five initiatives for
farmers.
b) Internal factors:
People are attracted to new things. This is particularly the case
for the younger generation who do not want to be labelled old-
fashioned. Also, levels of education and basic skills are still very
limited in the Hikong-Boru Kedang community.
Land conflicts and natural resource management

The main conflict at present is between the indigenous communities
and the government over the status of adat lands which the government
has declared as Protection Forest. The people of Hikong-Boru Kedang
never agreed to the boundaries set by the government in 1984. They
continue to defend their position because, according to local history,
the area now designated Protection Forest is land passed down through
the generations from their ancestors. To this day some members of the
community continue to live and to cultivate land there.
The rotational cultivation areas

Program panca usaha tani

Sumber daya manusia: literally human resources
256
A summary of continuing conflicts is presented in the table below.
YEAR INCIDENT
Members of the Hikong-Boru Kedang community

are forced out of the Kaliraga area because of the
1955
local forestry service’s first ‘regreening’ project - the
planting of eucalyptus.
The state’s Protection Forest area is extended by 2km
1967
from the 1932 boundaries.
Second stage of the ‘regreening’ project, intercropping
eucalyptus and johar. Hikong-Boru people cultivat-
ing their land in the Bao Logun area were evicted and
1979 - 80 fined by East Flores forestry officials. Members of the
community who continued to resist were arrested and
investigated by the security forces of Wulanggitang
sub-district, East Flores.
30 indigenous people were arrested because they took
part in a traditional hunt to drive away pests (wild pigs,
1982 monkeys and deer). Their hunting equipment was
confiscated and they were made to work as labourers
on a government project.
The Protection Forest boundary was extended by
4 km from the 1967 boundary (6 km from the 1932
boundary). From then on, the indigenous community
1984 has continued to protest against these boundaries,
which were imposed without their consent. They
reported this case to the Sikka regional assembly who
did not take it up.
50 indigenous people accused of forest clearance were

arrested and taken to the sub-district head’s office in
1999
Wulanggitang to be interrogated. They had to pay a
fine of Rp75,000 (approx US$7).
A survey by the East Flores local government for the

construction of a tourist information centre in Bao
Logun, on Hikong-Boru Kedang customary land, led
May 2001
to protests by the community. The Wulanggitang sub-
district head promised he would set up a dialogue, but
this never took place.
257
The Wulanggitang sub-district head made public the
September 2001 result of the tourist information centre survey. The
community protested.
The East Flores local government quietly began to lay

1 October 2001
the foundations of the tourist information centre.
The Hikong people occupied the site to disrupt a cere-

mony for laying the centre’s first foundation stone. As
8 October 2001 a result of negotiations with the East Flores security
forces and the building contractor, the workmen for
this project were sent home.
The indigenous people continued their occupation,

forcing the cancellation of the foundation stone cer-
emony. They followed this up by sending a statement
of their objections about the construction of the tourist
9 October 2001
information centre to the East Flores district assem-
bly and administration, with copies to the provincial
governor and the Sikka district government and as-
sembly.
The Sikka district assembly considered the letter and

6 Nov 2001
began a dialogue with the people of Hikong-Boru.
The site for the tourist information centre was moved

12 Nov 2001 30 metres to land which was still in Bao Logun on the
site of a former Hikong-Boru village.
The district head sent 1 lorry load of police from Sikka

and 2 lorry loads of soldiers from the East Flores divi-
sion to break up the community action and to frighten
the indigenous people. The district and sub-district
25 January 2002
forces arrived because the Wulanggitang sub-district
staff and the local government of East Flores did not
communicate properly and because the results of the
local government investigation were inaccurate.
258
Hopes for the future

The people of Hikong-Boru Kedang hope for:
• policy changes which provide recognition of their customary
rights over the area which the forestry service has declared
Protection Forest;
• intensive para-legal capacity building to enable them to
tackle future problems;
• a government which is more supportive of indigenous peoples
and respects their dignity and worth as Indonesian citizens;
• a greater contribution from the government’s village
administration to indigenous peoples’ lives and closer co-
operation with the indigenous community on many issues;
• closer co-operation between NGOs and indigenous
communities, with NGOs playing a mediatory role on behalf
of communities.
Alternatives for the Indigenous People of Hikong-Boru Kedang

The changes which are taking place have led to the development of new
responses at the community level. The indigenous people of Hikong-
Boru Kedang are aware that, if the hopes they have expressed above
are to be realised, a number of issues must be addressed. Foremost
among these are tackling institutional difficulties, strengthening
community representation and improving people’s basic skills and
education.
The community’s attempts to strengthen their society by addressing

weaknesses in its traditional institutions have included looking
into alternative organisational models. They are now trying to use
a different institution to build and develop links with other parties,
particularly in the areas of resolving conflicts over natural resources
and obtaining justice in their efforts to access to these resources. They
have set up a new indigenous peoples organisation called Nian Ue
Wari Tana Kera Pu of which all indigenous inhabitants of Hikong-
Boru Kedang are members.
259
A major reason behind the establishment of this organisation is the
very real prospect of ‘vertical conflict’ between indigenous peoples
and the (national) government. Government policies on land and
forest use are acting against indigenous peoples’ interests. Unilateral
government decisions on forest use zoning result in the loss of forest
resources to indigenous communities. This, together with rapid
population growth, explains why there is so much less land available
for cultivation – a serious issue which requires immediate action. The
overall effect of all these problems is that indigenous people suffer
from reduced food security due to the loss of their livelihoods.
The process of regional autonomy presents new opportunities

Indigenous people are aware that a centralised forest management
approach which only pays attention to timber management needs to
be replaced by a new system – one oriented towards multiple forest
uses which focuses on balanced ecosystems and community-based
forest management.
For indigenous communities, a forest is not merely a stand

of timber: it has a very strategic role as a source of life and as a
place for carrying out rituals which link us to the Creator. So, the
forest management concept that must be promoted is “prosperous
communities and sustainable forests” not “sustainable forests and
suffering communities”.
The people of Hikong-Boru Kedang are hopeful that, under the

new political system of regional autonomy, there are opportunities
for government programmes to increasingly accommodate their
aspirations and concerns as members of their community and
Indonesian citizens.
260
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
275
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
101
9
An Indonesian Overview
Indigenous Peoples’ Writing on Forest Management:
A Counter Discourse?
Suraya Afiff

The author is currently lecturing on the politics of conservation and the environment
for a post-graduate anthropology programme in the Social and Political Sciences fac-
ulty of the University of Indonesia. She is also director of the KARSA Institute whose
activities focus on studies and training related to rural and agrarian reform. One of
KARSA’s main objectives is to make critical academic studies more widely available
in order to support advocacy and other activities directed towards strengthening Indo-
nesian civil society.
263
I. Rationale
This book, initiated by AMAN and Down to Earth, looks at the

experiences of six communities and their relationships with the forests
and land where they live. Both organisations have their own reasons
for supporting this publication. As entities that press for the recognition
of indigenous peoples’ rights, they want to present to the wider world
examples of the traditional knowledge and management systems used
by indigenous communities to manage their forests that need to be
recognised and protected. The stories from these communities have
been selected to represent this picture.
This is not the first attempt to show that indigenous communities

possess forest management skills. However, most existing studies have
been carried out by academics, not the indigenous peoples themselves.
This book is different, as the Preface makes clear. These case studies
have been written by indigenous practitioners from their everyday
experiences. This initiative springs from AMAN and DTE’s shared
belief that indigenous peoples should be given the opportunity to speak
to a broader audience. They are the most appropriate people to talk
about their knowledge, struggles, hopes and dreams. Yet this rarely
happens.
In that case, what is the purpose of this chapter? I was invited to

contribute by the commissioning organisations in the hope that I could
provide some context and analysis for the case studies. My difficulty
is that there are many more things happening in the field which are not
apparent from the stories presented here. So, at the very least, I would
like to highlight some of these complexities.

See, for example, Centre for Environmental Law, HuMa, ICEL, ELSAM & ICRAF,
2002, Whose Resources? Whose Common Good ? Towards a New Paradigm of Envi-
ronmental Justice and the National Interest in Indonesia, CEIL, Washington DC; D Su-
hardjito, A Khan, W Djatmiko, MT Sirait & E Santi, 2000, Karakteristik Pengelolaan
Hutan Berbasis Masyarakat, Pustaka Kehutanan Masyarakat-Studi Kolaboratif FKKM,
Yogya; B Belcher, G Michon, A Angelsen, M Ruiz-Perez & H Asbjornsen, 2000, Culti-
vating (in) tropical forests? The evolution and sustainability of systems of management
between extractivism and plantations, proceedings of a workshop 28 June-1 July 2000,
Lofoten, Norway, World Agroforestry Centre/ICRAF
264
People who frequently visit villages in Indonesia, particularly those who

have been to one or more of the case study locations, know very well
that there are actually far more complex processes taking place which
need to be portrayed. The problem is not that the authors do not know
this – they certainly do. However, to observe these complex issues and
think them over, extract their significance and tell the whole story on
paper is not a simple transformation. It is by no means certain that even
someone with a university education would find it easy.
However, I would like to offer a different way of reading the accounts

from the villages presented here. I believe these stories can be seen
as an attempt to create a counter discourse that challenges some of
the premises that underpin the legitimation of state control over forest
lands.
One way of understanding the context within which AMAN and

DTE are promoting this challenge to the official line is to explore
what Vandergeest & Peluso have called the process of ‘internal state
territorialisation’ in the context of Indonesia’s forests. Those authors
argue that state control of forests is part of a strategy to gain power over
natural resources and access to their exploitation. It includes having a
hold over the population, through seizing territory, as will be explained
below.
II. The process of ‘internal state territorialisation’ of forests
Vandergeest & Peluso’s study starts from their observations about the
actions taken by states to secure the territory within their boundaries
once those external limits have received international acknowledgement.
According to these authors, all modern states then take measures
to control the natural resources and communities within the state
boundaries by “dividing up the territory within that state into economic
zones”.

P Vandergeest & NL Peluso, 1995, Territorialization and State Power in Thailand,
Theory and Society (24), p385–426

Vandergeest & Peluso, 1995, op. cit., p387
265
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Ngata Toro customary land and Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi
Using Thailand as an example, they show how the division of the state
into a number of administrative bureaucratic units and the classification
of land as forest - over which the state then claims power - are prominent
parts of the process of internal territorialisation.

NL Peluso & P Vandergeest, 2001, Genealogies of the Political Forest and Customary
Rights in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand, Journal of Asian Studies (60) 3, p637-643;
P Vandergeest, 1996, Mapping Nature: Territorialization of Forest Rights in Thailand,
Society and Natural Resources (9), p159–175
6
TM Li, 1999, Marginality, Power and Production: Analysing Upland Transformations,
in Li (ed.), Transforming the Indonesian Uplands, Singapore, ISEAS, p1-44; Vander-
geest & Peluso, 1995, op. cit.
266
The government classifies which areas are to be maintained as the forest

estate whose management is the responsibility of a specific state body. In
the case of Indonesia, this was the Department of Forestry. This department
then further divides the area under its control into smaller units with specific
purposes. In Indonesia, this classification established three zones: Production
Forest, Conversion Forest and Protected Forest. It then determines who
has access to each area (through issuing licenses), which activities are and
are not allowed there, along with the types of exploitation.
In this way the process of internal state territorialisation is basically one of

exclusion (restricting and alienating) and inclusion (putting in and drawing
together). In the case of forests, it is usually preceded by legislation which
formalises the state’s authority to divide up the land and determines its
function and usage. Maps and censuses are key instruments employed by
the state to support its actions.
III. The impact on forest peoples
I shall not go over again the whole history of state control over Indonesia’s
forests as that story has been told elsewhere. However, it is worth drawing
attention to several points to further our understanding.
Firstly, various studies show that the process of internal state territorialisation
over Indonesia’s forest resources began in the Dutch colonial period. The
authorities started by claiming important areas of teak forests in Java –
important, that is, to the colonial economy. The forestry office of the Dutch
colonial regime also tried to exert control over other islands, but this was
never as effective or extensive as on Java.
It should be noted that, in developing control over forests in the post-colonial

era, the body that became the present Department of Forestry derived
considerable advantage from the processes, bureaucracy and apparatus put
in place by the colonial regime.

See Introduction, p3-4

Li, 1999, op. cit.; Vandergeest & Peluso, 1995, op.cit.

Li, 1999, op. cit.; NL Peluso, 1992, Rich Forests, Poor People: Resource Control and Resist-
ance in Java, University of California Press, Berkeley; Peluso & Vandergeest, 2001, op. cit.
267
Secondly, and most ironically, once the Indonesian government had
freed itself from the yoke of colonialism, it employed what were
essentially the same legal instruments that the colonisers had used to
validate state control over forests and other areas. These state powers
provided the legal basis for the forestry department to designate vast
areas as Indonesia’s forest estate.
Thirdly, the scale of the impacts of the state’s powers over forests
outside Java only became apparent during Suharto’s ‘New Order’
regime, specifically with the introduction of the Basic Forestry Law
No. 5/1967. More than two-thirds of Indonesia’s total land area was
declared to be state forest, including almost the whole of Papua.
In contrast to the concept of control over spatial planning evident in

other legislation, the forestry department interpreted the designation of
Jopi [AMAN]
Abandoned sawmill, West Kalimantan

Peluso, 1992, op. cit.
268
state forests as automatically conferring ‘ownership’ of this domain10.

As such, the forestry department basically prohibited all activities taking
place within the area it claimed as state forest unless it had issued permits
for these. This meant that the whole of forest peoples’ lives - including
what they were and were not allowed to do and who was given special
permission to use areas designated as state forests - was automatically
controlled by the Department of Forestry. In the case of Papua and
other places where virtually the whole land mass was declared to be
state forest, all settlements, communities’ agricultural land and even
government offices and towns could be considered ‘illegal’ in the eyes
of the forestry department!
Fourthly, the designation of state forest by the forestry department was

based on a premise that Vandergeest & Peluso call ‘abstract space’11. In
other words, the state territory was seen as 2-dimensional empty space.
Forestry officials drew their lines on maps determining the area that
the department would claim as forest land. Although this forest zoning
in Indonesia was called (literally) the Agreed Forest Use Plan (Tata
Guna Hutan Kesepakatan, TGHK), in practice there was no process
of seeking agreement from the millions of people who lived in and
from these forests. In general, communities had no idea that, through
these lines drawn on a map as a planning exercise on paper, they had
suddenly lost their rights and access to forest lands that they considered
their own and which they had been using - in some cases long before
the Indonesian state came into existence.
Lastly, perhaps these people would not be so angry or feel such a sense of
injustice if the government – in the form of the Department of Forestry
– had behaved more wisely and taken on board communities’ needs.
It is no longer a secret that the marginalisation of local communities
by the state is often carried out under the guise of the need for
development or the broader public interest. Nevertheless, we have seen
how the exploitation of forests and other natural resources has always
been closely associated with the interests of the private sector and a
10
A Contreras-Hermosilla & C Fay, 2006, Memperkokoh pengelolaan hutan Indonesia
melalui pembaruan penguasaan tanah: Permasalahan dan kerangka tindakan, World
Agroforestry Centre ICRAF, Bogor
11
Vandergeest & Peluso, 1995, op.cit.
269
powerful government elite which collaborates with its close friends in
the business community12.
IV. Labels, legitimacy and illegality
The majority of those who derive most benefit from the licences for
forest exploitation are outsiders. Meanwhile, it is local communities -
many of whom live in poverty – who are criminalised, arrested, labelled
as forest raiders or accused of ‘illegal’ activities. This is the basic reason
why the culture of opposition takes root and grows in communities that
live in and around forests13.
Branding local people with terms that have negative connotations

– such as ‘forest raiders’, ‘timber thieves’, ‘shifting cultivators’,
‘agents of forest destruction’ – or labelling certain groups of society as
‘alienated tribes’, ‘primitive’, ‘neglected’, ‘traditional’ or ‘backward’,
is a strategy employed by government officials to exert power or control
over them through the use of language. These labels are not simply a
means of describing particular groups, but are closely associated with
the mechanisms used by the state to control the population14.
As the state is the only institution in society which can legitimately

(by rule of law) use force or coercion, there are serious implications
for the lives of those who are the objects of this labelling. Expulsions,
intimidation, shootings, criminalisation and imprisonment carried
out by agents of the state are declared legal on the pretext of law
enforcement. Often such methods are used without examining whether
the coercion is directed at appropriate targets or the reasons why local
impoverished people are carrying out the activities which the state
regards as ‘illegal’.
It is therefore not surprising that during the ‘Reform’ period following

Suharto’s resignation as president, there was a great deal of support
12
K Robinson, 1986, Stepchildren of Progress, the Political Economy of Development
in an Indonesian Mining Town, State University of New York
13
Peluso, 1992, op. cit.
14
See for example Chapter 5.
270
Jopi [AMAN]
Access for some indigenous communities is difficult, especially in the rainy sea-
son, Batu Kerbau Jambi
for groups who were increasing demands on the new government to

recognise the rights of forest peoples and to provide increased access to
land and forest resources for other impoverished sectors of society.
Given this context, this AMAN-DTE publication can be seen as a

contribution to the counter discourse against the branding or negative
labelling which the state has imposed on its people. The development
of challenges to these paradigms could also be regarded as a process of
countering internal state territorialisation.
The accounts presented in this book are therefore intended to portray

communities acting in very different ways from the labels forced on
them. For example, they want to show that indigenous peoples have
just as much understanding of forest management as people who
have had years of formal education - be they in academic institutions
or government offices. They illustrate that communities who are
often labelled as agents of forest destruction are actually completely
the opposite: they care deeply about forest protection. They strive to
depict everyday lives of forest peoples that are in harmony with the
surrounding environment.
271
V. The complexities of opposition and change
Another aspect on which I would like to focus is that of the complexities

of opposition which, unfortunately, are not fully expressed in these case
studies. Here we should bear in mind that the opposition of the poor
to state control of forests is not a new phenomenon in the history of
political power over Indonesia’s forests.
There is no better, more comprehensive account of this than Nancy Lee

Peluso’s book15. Rich Forests, Poor People depicts the long history of
state control of forests in Java and how the state criminalised the people
who live around those forests. It also covers communities’ culture of
opposing state agencies – in this case the state-owned forestry company
Perhutani – which has been handed down through the generations.
Peluso’s years of research illustrate the complexities of the implications
of state control for forest people (in that study, Javanese communities
living around teak plantations). She shows that the forms of opposition
were never solely collective demands against state control. Alongside
this ‘vertical conflict’ were ‘horizontal conflicts’ between individuals
within the community.
In Peluso’s view, this type of conflict may have arisen due to different
perspectives which themselves resulted from a process of differentiation
within the community. Such differentiation could reflect differences in
tenure (those with land and the landless); economic power (the rich and
poor); political power (village officials and the rest of the community);
heredity (local nobility and ordinary villagers). Her findings on the
complexities of social change, state control and the forms of opposition
adopted by farmers on the plantation fringes inspire me to question the
extent to which these problems also arise in the communities who have
contributed to this book.
Many analyses portray indigenous communities as single homogenous

entities. This point is well made by Agrawal & Gibson who point out
that - in reality - fragmentation, sub-groups or other differences are
15
A Bahasa Indonesia version of Peluso, 1992, op. cit. has been published by the Ja-
karta-based NGO Konphalindo in 2006 as Hutan Kaya, Rakyat Melarat: Penguasaan
Sumberdaya dan Perlawanan di Jawa
272
present in any community16. These differences may be based on class,

age group, political position, access to power, gender and a range of
other factors. As Peluso’s work also makes clear, it is important to
understand these differences within communities not only because they
may give rise to different forms of opposition but because they can also
motivate different forms of collaboration with outside parties.
VI. Future challenges
Similar findings are clear from more recent studies on natural resource
management by indigenous communities. For example, Thorburn’s
work on customary controls on marine resources in Maluku province17
appears to show that traditional forms of exploitation which were fairly
sustainable until recently are now no longer so, even though the adat
institutions which control harvesting remain quite strong. In another
paper, he takes up the issue of the growing international trade in live
fish, sanctioned by an agreement under customary law, as a cause of
destruction of coral reef ecosystems in the Kei islands18. These cases
and others show that village elites and/or adat leaders, as well as local
communities, do not always reject external finance or investors from
elsewhere and that such collaborations can be have extremely damaging
impacts on local natural resources19.
At the very time that such communities have gained increased access
to the wider world and vice versa, and a cash economy has become
increasingly important in their lives, the relationship between indigenous
peoples and their land and resources is undergoing a transformation.
Land and resources are increasingly valued as commodities. Under
these conditions, the picture of a village of people who all share the
16
A Agrawal & C Gibson, 1999, Enchantment and Disenchantment: : the Role of Com-
munity in Natural Resource Conservation, World Development, 27 (4), p629-649
17
Sasi lola is a system prevalent in indigenous communities in the Moluccas of control-
ling how, when and by whom certain fish and marine invertebrates may be harvested.
See C Thorburn, 2000, Sasi Lola in the Kei Islands, Indonesia: An Endangered Marine
Resource Management Tradition, World Development 28 (8), p1461-1480
18
C Thorburn, 2001, The House that Poison Built: Cyanide Fishing in the Kei Islands,
Indonesia, Development and Change 32 (1), p151-180
19
See also Chapter 10.
273
same interests and motives towards forests becomes harder to accept
as reality.
We need to study why certain communities have succeeded in

overcoming this problem, where its members have set aside their
different interests, with the result that there is some degree of sustainable
forest management, while other communities have failed to do this
– with disastrous consequences. Sadly these ‘stories from the village’
do not provide the all answers to this question. Nevertheless, they do
show that it does happen and, by furnishing examples of sustainable
community-based natural resource management, provide a basis for
future exploration.
274
AMAN.doc
102
275
Jopi [AMAN]
101
10
An International Overview
Indigenous Natural Resource

Management Systems at the Crossroads
Chip Fay

Fellow, The Samdhana Institute
277
I. The Politics of Recognition
The six case studies presented in the previous chapters are a snapshot
of what is happening throughout Indonesia. They are indicative of the
struggles, abilities and potential of local people to protect and make
productive the natural resources that make up their landscapes.
They tell the story of a country where these local abilities and potentials
are intentionally ignored by the central government and whose systems
of forest management and forest creation are made invisible by the
national forestry bureaucracy. Indonesia is also a country where
government fear of recognising local forest management systems is so
great that the (then) minister of forestry, impressed by what he saw
in Krui, Sumatra, in 1998, worried that he may need first to consult
President Suharto prior to taking a bold step to recognise and secure a
few thousand hectares of these remarkable agroforests. Meanwhile the
President’s right hand advisor, Bob Hasan, and other members of the
timber concession association were actively contributing to one of the
fastest national deforestation rates in the world - a trend that continues
today.
As discussed in the Introduction, the Indonesian government claims

control over roughly 70% of the country’s land base and reserves this
for the protection of forest functions: both production and conservation.
Most of these areas have been awarded to the forest industry and, in some
places such as Papua, millions of hectares of pristine rainforest continue
to be classified for conversion to other uses such as monoculture palm
oil plantations.
This process has thus far ignored Indonesian law that allows for the
gazettment of state forest areas only where there are no previous rights.
This is particularly explicit in the 1999 Forestry Law that divides the
forest estate into two types: ‘State Forest’ areas and ‘Private Forests’.

Minister Djamaludin Suryohadikusumo, pers com

http://www.dephut.go.id/INFORMASI/STATISTIK/2006/I11_06.pdf

UU No. 41/1999 Article 1, http://www.dephut.go.id/INFORMASI/UNDANG2/uu/
Law_4199.htm
278
According to official data from the Department of Forestry, the

government has legally established State Forest areas in less than 12
million ha or roughly 10% of the overall forest estate. Significant parts
of the remaining areas can and probably should be assumed to have
rights attached and to be classified as private forests.
The fundamental question is what happens in the overlapping and

contested areas? The State has already given out 60 million hectares to
the timber industry; 22 million ha to plantations and 58 million ha are
set aside as protected forests including national parks. Added to this
list are 482 mining concessions and transmigration areas.
The majority of local people whose views are presented in earlier

chapters can make a strong legal argument that forest industry contracts
in their areas are invalid since these lands and forests are not state forests
but should be classified as private. Yet, while these legal arguments are
significantly shaping the rights debate in Indonesia, there is likely to
be little genuine progress on the ground until Indonesia establishes a
functional judicial system.
The intransigence of the national government to take the steps needed

to recognise local land and natural resource rights is based largely on
the interest of the centre in awarding large tracts of land for agribusiness
and forest exploitation. It is the political economy of control over these
resources that drives their allocation. Local communities are tolerated
up to the point that the economic interests for large land or forest
acquisition reach these areas. As is also evident in the stories told in the
previous chapters, they are reluctantly tolerated or accommodated when
they successfully resist. When local voices are strong, particularly those
of adat communities, some provincial and district governments have
responded, as will be discussed later.
While Indonesian law is a compendium of often overlapping or

contradictory acts and regulations, there is ample legal basis within the

http://www.dephut.go.id/INFORMASI/STATISTIK/2006/I28_06.pdf

http://www.dephut.go.id/INFORMASI/STATISTIK/2006/I11_06.pdf; http://www.
dephut.go.id/INFORMASI/STATISTIK/2006/I26_06.pdf
279
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Meeting in the market, Batu Kambar, South Kalimantan
2000 revision to the 1945 Indonesian Constitution for the recognition

of adat territories and governance systems. Article 18B specifically
recognises and respects adat communities and their traditional rights,
although it does so only as long as such recognition is accordance with,
or does not threaten, national development priorities.
There was an important breakthrough in 1999 following the minister of

Agrarian Affairs’ visit to the inaugural Congress of Adat Communities
when the Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN)
was created. Struck by the number of land disputes reported by adat
leaders, he formulated a ministerial decree on Guidelines to Resolve
Adat Communal Rights Conflicts.
This decree set into motion a process that determines criteria for the
recognition of Hak Ulayat or communal rights. The National Land
Agency (BPN) can accept the registration of adat lands and treat them
as a communal and non-transferable right. In addition, the policy allows
adat communities to lease their lands to government and the government

See also Introduction, p15

Peraturan Menteri Agraria/Kepala BPN No. 5/1999, http://www.wg-tenure.org/file/
Peraturan_Perundangan/Permen_agraria_5_1999.pdf
280
can in turn transfer these rights to the private sector. Article 4 subclause
1b of this decree states that government institutions, legal entities and
non-adat members of communities have rights on adat land only after
the indigenous community has released its rights over the land.
The decree turns over complete responsibility for this process to

provincial and district governments. This led some critics at the time to
say the national government wants little more than to pass the problem
onto local government. Critics also question why local government
should play such a pivotal role in determining whether adat communities
exist or not.
Later, in what could be considered one of the most responsive actions an

Indonesian representative body has taken to create political momentum
for the government to take action on agrarian reform and the recognition
of adat rights, the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), the highest
policy setting body in Indonesia, passed the national framework
legislation TAP MPR IX (2001)10. It is important to note that Indonesian
civil society, particularly legal and indigenous rights activists, played a
central role in formulating and garnering political support for this law.
The law directs the government to take action on agrarian reform and
natural resource management. One of the principles is to recognise,
respect and protect the rights of adat communities. It obliges parliament
(DPR) and the President to pass further regulations to implement
agrarian reform and natural resource management and to annul, change
or revise any laws that do not conform to this law. In what can be seen
as a statement on Indonesia’s representative governance structure, six
years later, successive governments have taken little or no action on this
directive11.
Nonetheless, over the past several years, some local governments have
responded to the demands of adat communities for recognition, although

See M Safitri, 2006, Communal Land Titling in Indonesia: Possibilities and Obstacles
for Legal Protection of Adat Communities, World Agroforestry Centre, Bogor
10
See also Introduction, p13 and Chapter 5, box, last page of chapter.
11
M Safitri, 2006, op. cit.
281
without directly involving national government or the BPN. In 2001,
the West Sumatra provincial legislature enacted a law re-establishing
nagari or adat territories as self-governing entities. Several districts’
legislative bodies have used the space provided in regional autonomy
legislation to pass regulations that recognise the existence of local adat
governance units12. Examples are:
• Lebak District Regulation No. 32/2001 on the protection of

ulayat rights of the Baduy People;
• The West Sumatra Provincial Regulation No. 9/2000 concerning
nagari and district regulations on ulayat land (tanah ulayat);
• West Lampung District Regulation No. 18/2004, Community-
Based Natural Resources and Environmental Management;
• The Bupati of Kapuas Hulu Decree No. 59/1998 on the Guidelines
for Utilising Tanah Hak Ulayat or Similar Land and Adat Land
Ownership Rights for Private Commercial Purposes;
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Collected Meranti seedlings from the forest for tree nursery
12
ibid
282
• The Bupati of North Luwu Decree No. 300/2004 concerning

recognition of the existence of the Seko adat Community13.
While experience at provincial and district level recognition remains

limited and the political and social processes that drove the recognition
efforts are not yet well analysed, they represent that greatest progress
to date. Yet, in spite of some local advances in the recognition process,
evidence points to the reality that conflict - often violent - over land and
other natural resources is increasing in Indonesia14.
II. Economic Contributions of Local Natural Resource

Management Systems
Without exception, the communities in these case studies depend upon

forest resources for their well-being and the majority of those forests
were planted by them or their ancestors.
It is common that food and other crops are integral to these agroforests
since these systems are intended to produce a steady stream of products.
It is also common that one product tends to ‘drive the system’ while
others are relied upon to supplement that product when its price
declines. As a result, these systems are often more resilient than those
that do not provide for basic needs and tend to pay little attention to
managing risk.
Such agroforests are spread on all the major islands of the archipelago
and some have existed for hundreds of years15. The following is an
indicative list of agroforest types:
13
Local governments in Java, Sumatra, West Kalimantan and South Sulawesi respectively
14
See, for example, Afrizal, 2007, The Nagari community, business and the state: The
origin and the process of contemporary agrarian protests in West Sumatra, Indonesia,
Sawit Watch and Forest Peoples Programme, Bogor, Indonesia
15
C Fay & H de Foresta, 1998, Progress Towards Recognising the Rights and Manage-
ment Potentials of Local Communities in Indonesia State-Defined Forest Areas, pa-
per for the Workshop on Participatory Natural Resources Management in Developing
Countries, Mansfield College, Oxford, April 1998
283
• rubber agroforest on Sumatra and Kalimantan16;
• fruits/export crops agroforest on all islands17;
• damar agroforest in Sumatra18;
• rattan agroforest in Kalimantan19;
• illipe nut (tengkawang) agroforest in Kalimantan20.
It is not too simple to characterise the rural development dynamic in

Indonesia and many other countries as an intense competition between
two paradigms. The first, as described in this book, has developed over
generations and emphasises plant and tree diversity or a polyculture.
It is based not only on growth but also on achieving an economic and
16
CJP Colfer, DW Gill & A Fahmuddin, 1988, An indigenous agricultural model from
West Sumatra: a Source of Scientific Insight, Agricultural systems 26, p191-209; MR
Dove, 1993, Smallholder rubber and swidden agriculture in Borneo: a sustainable ad-
aptation to the ecology and economy of the tropical forest, Economic Botany 47 (2),
p136-147; A Gouyon, H de Foresta & P Levang, 1993, Does ‘jungle rubber’ deserve its
name? An analysis of rubber agroforestry systems in southeast Sumatra, Agroforestry
Systems 22, p181-206; F Momberg, 1993, Indigenous Knowledge Systems. Potentials
for social forestry development: Resource management of Land-Dayaks in West Ka-
limantan, MSc thesis, Technische Universitat Berlin; L Sundawati, 1993, The Dayak
garden systems in Sanggau district, West Kalimantan. An agroforestry model, MSc
thesis, Georg-August University, Göttingen
17
G Michon, F Mary & JM Bompard, 1986, Multistoried agroforestry garden system
in West Sumatra, Indonesia, Agroforestry Systems 4, p315-338; MA Sardjono, 1988,
Lembo: a traditional land-use system in East Kalimantan, Agroforestry untuk pengem-
bangan daerah pedesaan di Kalimantan Timur, Forestry Faculty Universitas Mulawar-
man and GTZ; N Salafsky, 1993, The Forest Garden Project: An Ecological and Eco-
nomic Study of a Locally Developed Land-Use System in West Kalimantan, Indonesia,
PhD thesis, Duke University, North Carolina, USA
18
E Torquebiau, 1984, Man-made Dipterocarp forest in Sumatra, Agroforestry Systems
2, p103-128; F Mary & G Michon, 1987, When agroforests drive back natural forests:
a socioeconomic analysis of a rice/agroforest system in South Sumatra, Agroforestry
Systems 5, p27-55; G Michon and H de Foresta 1995, The Indonesian agroforest model.
Forest resource management and biodiversity conservation, Conserving Biodiversity
Outside Protected Areas:The Role of Traditional Agro-ecosystems, P.Halliday and D.A.
Gilmour (Eds.), p90-106, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
19
JA Weinstock, 1983, Rattan: Ecological Balance in a Borneo Rainforest Swidden,
Economic
Botany 37 (1), p58-68
20
Momberg, 1993, op. cit.; Sundawati, 1993 op. cit.; W de Jong, 1994, Recreating the
forest: successful examples of ethno-conservation among land-dayaks in central West
Kalimantan, paper for International Symposium on Management of Tropical Forests in
Southeast Asia, Oslo, March 1994
284
ecological equilibrium. The second maximizes the production of a single

commercial species, or monoculture, most often integrated upwards
into a global supply chain. The first is what has been articulated well in
this book and is the preference and tradition of millions of Indonesians.
The second relies heavily on large capital investments, inexpensive
often migrant labour and government-sanctioned land grabbing. Many,
particularly industrial forest plantations, also receive direct government
subsidies. Efforts to make the first of these visible are what Suraya Afiff
refers to as the ’counter discourse’ in the previous chapter.
What needs to receive greater attention is that the first paradigm

contributes significantly to the national economy. These agroforests
provide approximately 70% of the total amount of rubber, at least
80% of the damar resin, roughly 80 to 90% of the various marketed
fruits and significant quantities of the main export tree crops such as
cinnamon, clove, nutmeg, coffee and candlenut21. In Sumatra, about 4
million ha of agroforests have been created by local people without
any outside assistance22. An estimated 7 million people in Sumatra and
Kalimantan are living from rubber-based agroforests that are spread
across approximately 2.5 million ha23.
Economists from the DFID Multi-stakeholder Forestry Programme

quantified some of the economic contribution from community-based
or smallholder-based management of tree crops on forest lands and
estimated the size of improvements possible under different enabling
policies, such as increased land availability, secure access and tenure, or
improved productivity24. The main objective of this work was to make
visible both the existing tree-based contribution of small farmers to the
21
C Fay and H De Foresta, 2001, Progress towards Recognizing the Rights and Man-
agement Potentials of Local Communities in Indonesian State-Defined Forest Areas, in
B. Vira and R. Jeffrey eds, Analytical Issues in Participatory Natural Resource Manage-
ment, Oxford University Press.
22
H de Foresta & G Michon, 1997, The agroforest alternative to Imperata grasslands:
when smallholder agriculture and forestry reach sustainability, Agroforestry Systems
36, p105-120
23
Fay and De Foresta, 2001, op cit
24
T Brown et.al, Contribution to National Economic Growth of Community-Based
Economic Activity in the Forest Zone, May 2006, DFID – MFP
285
national economy and to estimate increases should the Department of
Forestry deregulate land use over large areas of ‘Production Forest’ that
according to Department data, has no tree cover. The main finding was
that the current economic contribution of smallholder forestry activities
represents a significant and underappreciated sector in the Indonesian
economy:
• Based on 2002 data, smallholder tree-based and forest-based
production activities together – including agroforestry crops
that emulate forest functions (such as coffee, oil palm, rubber
and spice trees), non-timber forest products and private
forest production (hutan rakyat) – contribute US$6.2 billion
in economic value each year. This is over 3% of Indonesia’s
overall economic output and provides jobs for nearly 4 million
people;
• Smallholder agroforestry crops that contribute to the expansion
of tree cover are now found on 11 million ha of land and account
for the vast majority of these values. Community timber and
non-timber forest production are relatively small;
• Smallholder agroforestry systems are very diverse and the mix
of crops varies across islands. Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Traditional agroforest system in Hikong-Boru Kedang, Tana Ai, Flores
286
This analysis of potential national policy changes shows that:

• Small reallocations of land or increases in security for
investment in land productivity can yield high returns, up to
US$1.4 billion per year in added revenues and possibly 1.6
million more jobs.
• These benefits would not materialise immediately, but only
after investments in land and new crop plantings matured and
came to market.
• The largest values come from policy changes that boost
smallholder tree systems that emulate forest functions, because
this is larger in area, value and employment than other activities
examined.
• The largest values also come from policy changes that increase
the availability of land, rather than policies that affect the
productivity or benefit sharing arrangements on existing lands.
• To gain these benefits, smallholders need long-term security of
access to land to make the required investments.
• Regional and national governments would benefit from
increased economic activity, trade and potential tax base.
Additional studies carried out by the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)

show that in terms of straight profitability and in particular, returns to
labour, diverse smallholder or farmer-based agroforestry systems out
perform monoculture large scale plantations such as oil palm25.
The majority of these productive enterprises take place on land classified

as the ‘Forest Zone’. The problems emerge when many of these areas
are covered by timber plantation contracts or are under the technical
control of one of the para-statal forest companies. Conflict escalates
when these companies attempt to assert control over their contract
areas.
25
T P Tomich, M van Noordwijk, S Budidarsono, A Gillison, T Kusumanto, D Murdi-
yarso, F Stolle & AM Fagi, 2001, Agricultural intensification, deforestation, and the
environment: assessing tradeoffs in Sumatra, Indonesia in: DR Lee & CB Barrett (eds.),
Tradeoffs or Synergies? Agricultural Intensification, Economic Development and the
Environment, CAB-International, Wallingford, p221-244
287
III. Politics of Forest Species
While it is clear - from the large areas of community-based agroforests

in Indonesia - that local people contribute to increasing tree cover and
its subsequent public environmental benefits, their role in reforesting
large areas of Indonesia remains underappreciated and is as a result
underutilised.
Why is this so? The simple answer is that neither the forest regulatory
framework nor foresters’ formal training in Indonesia accepts that the
majority of trees that local people prefer are forest species. While this
has been true for decades, the most recent example of this is found
in the guidelines for the Department of Forestry’s newest Community
Forest Plantation programme: Hutan Tanaman Rakyat26. The approach
to reforestation is restricted almost entirely to timber species. Virtually
none of the tree-based commodities studied by DFID and ICRAF are
allowed. This is because they are viewed by the Department as ‘non-
forest species’. Tree species such as rubber, cacao and coffee are actively
discouraged27. The forest bureaucracy fears that the more economically
productive the species, the more people will plant it and the stronger
their claims will be over their lands.
There is also an odd bias against the tree species local people prefer,
possibly based on the belief that they do not provide the required forest
functions. For example, a timber tree such as mahogany is preferred
to jackfruit which provides both fruit and timber, even though both
provide roughly the same watershed protection service. All the case
studies presented in this book face this problem.
26
For more information, see DTE Newsletter no. 74, August 2007
27
See also M van Noordwijk, S Suyanto, S Budidarsono, N Sakuntaladewi1, JM Ro-
shetko, HL Tata, G Galudra & C Fay, 2007, Is Hutan Tanaman Rakyat a new paradigm
in community based tree planting in Indonesia?, ICRAF Working Paper Number 45,
Bogor
288
IV. Romancing the Adat
As noted in the Introduction and the previous chapter, the examples

of good practice represented by these six case studies run the risk of
romanticising adat communities and what they are capable of. Yet the
authors have been careful to point out that not all adat communities
possess or have maintained traditional systems that achieve an
ecological balance. The important point is that there is an increasing
body of information that shows many have. In addition to this volume,
an extensive list of community-based forest management systems has
been compiled by the Indonesian forest civil society network, KpSHK
Sistem Hutan Kerakyatan (SHK)28.
A good place to begin when addressing the ‘romancing issue’ is the

question: where is the evidence that the forestry industry or bureaucracy
in Indonesia have proven to be capable of managing forests sustainably?
The rise in prominence of both coincides directly with the huge spike
in deforestation levels across the archipelago over the last 20 years (see
Chapter 1).
Evidence provided in the case studies and elsewhere that points to the
economic and protective values of local traditional knowledge and
practices can no longer be ignored. This should not be surprising. Many
local communities have inter-generational relationships with their lands
and forest. They understand basic rural ecology in the same way city
people are familiar with and understand their urban landscapes. They
retain connectivity with their surroundings that results from daily and
seasonal interactions with their landscape.
In the best of circumstances, this leads to a balance between exploitation

(of soil nutrients and structure for agriculture and agroforestry) as
their ‘natural’ biomes such as various types of tropical forests. Most
important, these communities, in order to survive as a people, most
often prioritise the well-being of future generations. This does not mean
that local individuals or communities do not make poor decisions over
the management of their environment. When the best of circumstances
are not present, this can and does happen.
28
www.kpshk.org
289
The ‘romancing’ argument is also not based on sufficient data that
demonstrates local communities are not managing their natural resource
well. It is particularly insidious in that it judges local people as guilty
until proven innocent by placing the burden of proof of sustainable
management on the shoulders of the community. As implied by Afiff in
the previous chapter, this becomes even more difficult for local people
to swallow when they see government officials, as their judge and jury,
allowing forest and plantation industries to destroy and convert large
areas of natural forest, many of which local people depend upon for
their economic, environmental and often spiritual well-being.
Yet, it is important to recognise that the romanticisation of adat

communities does happen and there are adat leaders who have proven
themselves unworthy or incapable of protecting the interests of their
community. The reasons for this vary from location to location. One
common problem is the failure of traditional leadership structures to
cope with the rapid surge and high levels of external pressure on their
community’s resources.
Many adat communities can be seen as ‘states within a state’. While

few if any of these communities seek full self-determination, many
continue to relate to the Indonesian social and political system using
their own governance structures29. It is not unusual, for example, for
the village or adat ‘head’, as seen by the outside world, actually to be
playing the role of a foreign minister, negotiating with outside interests
but being subordinate and accountable to a larger adat leadership
structure. When pressures from the outside world become too great, it is
not surprising some systems of accountability break down. As many of
these communities have only entered the cash economy in the last one
or two generations, the strain can be too much for the adat leadership.
It can be the equivalent of a local leader in the United Kingdom being
offered a million pounds to facilitate the entry of large-scale industry on
village lands at only a minimal legal and political price to him/herself.
29
A study by the World Agroforestry Center showed that all the adat communities vis-
ited were interested in managing their own political and social affairs up to what the In-
donesian political system defines as district level (kabupaten). See World Agroforestry
Centre, the Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance of the Archipelago and the Forest Peoples
Programme, 2003, In Search of Recognition, ICRAF, AMAN, FPP, Bogor, Indonesia
290
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]

Indigenous women and traditional weaving, Tana Ai, Flores
V. Indigenous Forest Management? Is it time to refine our

understanding?
One of the most important and perhaps provocative lessons that emerge
from the case studies is that ‘forestry’ is but one component of the natural
resource management systems described in the chapters. What is at play
in these areas is more a matter of adat landscape management where a
variety of land use and livelihood strategies is constantly evolving. It
is not unusual for adat communities to be uncomfortable with the term
hutan or forest. Many feel using this term empowers the government,
particularly the Department of Forestry, to claim control over these
‘forest’ areas in order to protect their designated ‘functions’ as they are
mandated to do by law30.
What the case studies reveal is that in most adat landscapes, there are
remnant natural forests and the sustainable management of these areas is
30
C Fay & MT Sirait, 2003, Mereformasi para reformis di Indonesia pasca Soeharto
in: I A Resosudarmo & CJ Colfer (eds.), Ke mana harus melangkah: masyarakat, hu-
tan, perumusan kebijakan di Indonesia, Yayasan Obor Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia,
p156-175
291
taken seriously by indigenous people31. Whether proportionally large or
small, these forests make up an important component of the landscape
mosaic by providing multiple services, from pest management for
adjacent agroforestry and agricultural areas to balancing wet and dry
season stream flows.
When examining the terms local people use to describe or name their
adat landscapes, nearly without exception, the word hutan (forest) does
not appear32. In West Kalimantan, Dayak communities use the term
tembawang while in East Kalimantan it is lembang. In West Lampung,
the Krui people refer to repong. In each of the examples outlined in this
book it is likely that, if asked whether their agroforestry system was
‘a forest’, local people would answer no. They would instead have a
local expression that essentially describes forest gardens. These forest
gardens cannot be described as natural forests. Yet, while having lower
levels of biodiversity, many mimic the environmental services natural
forests provide - such as habitat and hydrological stabilisation and
carbon sequestration.
This raises the question, why do researchers, environmentalists, local

NGOs and others use the English label ‘Indigenous Forest Management’
when the actual area of natural forest in most adat landscapes is, on the
whole, quite small? In the post-1992 Rio Earth Summit world, ‘forests’
have attracted much attention and opportunities for local people to bring a
spotlight onto their indigenous natural resource management systems. But
the disjunction with how local people themselves, in their own language,
articulate these systems should no longer be ignored. A more accurate
term - and one that would cover most of local approaches - would be
‘Indigenous Integrated Natural Resource Management’.
Globally too, the debate on defining the term ‘forest’ continues. While
appearing at first to some as pedantic or semantic, the politics of definition
deserves more attention (just as Affif noted the need to give more attention
to politics concerning the definition of indigenous peoples).
31
While in most adat landscapes natural forest is proportionally a small part of the
landscape, this is not the case in Papua and parts of Indonesian Borneo.
32
See also Introduction, p9
292
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]

Indigenous children, Sembalun, Lombok
While each country has its own legal definition of forests (most often
found in forestry legislation), a global definition remains problematic.
The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) definition is most
ubiquitous but, on examination, is hardly a definition at all. As part of its
Global Forest Resources Assessment, the FAO surveyed 650 definitions
from 132 developing countries. The global definition they settled on
says a forest is “a land area of more than 0.5 ha, with a tree canopy
cover of more than 10%, which is not primarily under agricultural
or other specific non-forest land use. In the case of young forests or
regions where tree growth is climatically suppressed, the trees should
be capable of reaching a height of 5m in situ and of meeting the canopy
cover requirement”33.
Contrary to expressed local interests, the application of this generous

definition in Indonesia would classify many adat territories and land
use systems in Indonesia as forests and legally place the regulation of
these areas in the hands of the Department of Forestry. Interestingly,
33
Controversially, the FAO definition includes tree plantations, but specifically ex-
cludes agroforestry systems as a form of ‘deforestation for agriculture’. See FAO,
2000, Global Forest Resources Assessment, Rome, ftp://ftp.fao.org/unfao/bodies/cofo/
cofo15/X9835e.doc
293
the Indonesian legal definition of a forest is “a unit of ecosystem in the
form of lands comprising biological resources, dominated by trees in
their natural forms and environment, which can not be separated from
each other” (emphasis added)34. While the question of just what “trees in
their natural forms” are has not been fully debated, it can be interpreted
to mean natural biomes. This would mean only a fraction of most adat
landscapes could be legally defined as forests.
In practice, a forest area is defined exclusively by the Department of

Forestry from desk surveys. This is how more than half of Indonesia
has become ‘the forest zone’ irrespective of whether there is tree
cover or not. In a closed process similar to that which led to the FAO
definition, local voices and other experts play little or no role in the
forest area definition. As a result, civil society organisations, including
local communities are joining forces to undo what has been done.
Looking at indigenous natural resource management first through the

eyes of local people or an adat landscape lens has advantages in that
it does not throw that resource management system straight into the
‘forestry box’. It provides an entry point that allows for a combination
of natural resource management activities across sectors. Forestry, as
a component of an adat landscape may or may not be central to that
landscape dynamic. Most important, in the case of the systems described
in this book, it respects them for what they are: a combination of cross-
sectoral and mixed economy land use strategies.
34
Forest Law No. 41/1999, Article 1 op. cit.
294
Sulistiono [AMAN]
102
Jopi [AMAN]
101
11
CONCLUSIONS
Communities in transformation
Emil Kleden

Project officer of Forest Peoples Programme in Indonesia, researcher of Pusaka, and
former Executive Secretary of AMAN.
297
he accounts from indigenous communities collected in this
T book show a number of basic similarities and differences. These

are evident in their stories of origins, customary institutions,
conflicts experienced and land tenure systems. A common theme is the
transformations that have taken place.
All six case studies highlight communities undergoing a transformation

from a traditional to a modern mode of production. This process is still
at a transitional stage. It can be seen in the physical aspects of their
cultures – for example, in the architecture of village buildings and
homes. It may also be accompanied by a transformation in attitudes:
in the values people live by or in their views about living space (at
the most material level, a community’s customary domain), education,
health and, most significantly, natural resources - especially with respect
to forests and water.
The difference in meaning between ‘transition’ and ‘transformation’,

as used here, requires some explanation. Transition refers to changes in
stages in a continuing process: for example, the change from traditional
patterns of production (using simple tools and a concept of time as
cyclical) to modern forms (using modern equipment and a linear concept
of time). Such transitions are not necessarily accompanied by changes
in meaning or in the ways that the people concerned view reality.
Transformation, on the other hand, conveys the sense of fundamental

change having occurred in all aspects of life – paradigms and values -
both at individual and community level. Transformation is expressed,
above all, in ways of thinking which are sometimes visible in the
physical expressions of culture. Even so, a community which has
experienced transformation may well not show any striking changes
in their architectural style, while their way of viewing the meaning of
architecture has undergone fundamental change.

The term ‘transformation’ here refers to what is stated in ‘La Resurrección del Maíz’:
Globalisation, Resistance and the Zapatistas’, an article by Adam David Morton in
Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 2002. ISSN 0305-8298. Vol. 31, No. 1,
pp. 27-54. The term ‘transition’ refers to its meaning in Bahasa Indonesia that is a shift
from a certain position/situation or place to another.
298
Jopi [AMAN]
A shelter to watch over traditional upland rice crop, Jambi
I. Current transformations
The architecture of buildings and homes in indigenous communities

is clearly shifting from traditional towards modern styles. Generally,
modern designs predominate for people’s homes, while traditional
structures are only retained for buildings associated with customary
(adat) rituals and ceremonies or customary leaders’ homes. Villagers’
houses in Hikong and Utang Wair, or Kasephuan, do not generally
reflect any distinct architectural style. Similar modern houses can be
found in Guguk and Meratus communities.
This change in style is not directly linked to the ‘economic prosperity’

of villagers or members of the broader community. Degrees of
299
affluence can be manifest in the quality of materials and construction
of a house rather than in its architecture. A traditional house could
easily be built using a concrete and a steel framework or top-quality
timber without substantially altering the design. Rather it reflects an
attitude widespread in villages throughout Indonesia: people who own
permanent dwellings made of concrete are generally described as ‘well
off’ by their neighbours. This could be an indication that villagers see
changes in the way houses are built in their community in terms of a
process of economic development. The question remains as to why so
many traditional elements are disappearing from what could be called
the local ‘customary’ architecture. Or should we ask the question in a
different way? Why, in these villages, is ‘customary architecture’ only
valid for buildings used for customary rituals or for customary leaders’
homes?
On the more abstract level of values relating to relationships between

indigenous inhabitants, villagers report that there has been significant
change over the last two or three decades. One example is the
paraphernalia needed for ceremonies such as weddings, funeral or births.
Not so long ago, chairs, tables, plates, cutlery and glasses were lent free
of charge from the organisers. Now, these things must usually be hired.
This kind of change is apparent even with customary ceremonies, like
the Kasepuhan’s Seren Taun celebration. This is now organised by a
committee set up by the elders (the Abah and adat leadership) whose
task is to raise funds to cover all the associated costs.
It is the same for farming, house-building and other activities where the
system of voluntary co-operation known as gotong royong has almost
disappeared. In the past, this mutual assistance applied to everyone in
the village. So, when A built his house and was helped voluntarily by all
the other villagers, he felt morally obliged to return the favour when B
was working in his paddy fields. The transformation that has taken place
means that labour, time, advice and materials which people used to take
turns to contribute are now replaced by wages, rent or direct payment
in the form of goods. In short, there has been a transformation in the
means of exchange. Now, money dominates patterns of transaction in
these villages.
300
Even the concept of authority has shifted from being a supernatural

quality that is bestowed on someone to something ordinary that can be
contested. This is plain to see in the attitudes and behaviour of people
towards customary leaders, and in their responses to opportunities for
roles that are open to anyone. Amongst the six case studies here, it is only
the Kasepuhan (Chapter 3) and some Meratus Dayak (Chapter 5) who
have consistently maintained a system of leadership succession based
on spirituality, not on democracy as this is understood today (democracy
based on quantity of participation and quality of discourse).
However, for other indigenous communities, authority no longer has any

special quality. This can be seen, for example, in the process of electing
a village head or allocating jobs on a project being carried out in the
community. Competition for such positions is no longer based on family
line, mythical-magical abilities or spiritual forces. And applicants do not
even ask the people described throughout this book as ‘customary leaders’
for their approval or blessing. Where there is some communication
between candidates and customary leaders, this is aimed more at securing
political support, rather than a supernatural blessing.
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Planting rice
301
Values relating to natural resources, especially forests and water
as economic and cultural resources have also shifted. Kasepuhan
communities not only adhere to the concept of the supernatural in their
perception of the power and authority of their spiritual and political
leader - currently Abah Anom in the case of the Ciptagelar - but also
with respect to forests and water resources, where concepts relating to
mystical forces guarding the forest and water are still prevalent. This
does not mean there have been no changes in their views.
For example, an awareness of the need to reforest land is very strong in

the Ciptagelar Kasepuhan community, triggered by a number of social,
political and economic realities. Although they have a traditional forest
zoning system, expressed in concepts such as leuweung titipan (sacred
forest) and leuweung tutupan (closed forest), in practice these areas do
not legally belong to them but are owned by the State - in this case the
Forestry Department - via Law No.41/1999. This means that the forests,
as both an economic resource and the basis of their culture, cannot be
freely accessed by the community. Yet they have pressing economic
needs. Reforestation programmes have provided the community with
new opportunities to plant trees on their customary lands. The roles of
Abah and other senior figures in the community have been pivotal in the
way these programmes have been implemented. The commercial value
of timber has been the main consideration when planting tree species.
Thus, economics have taken over from culture or the supernatural as the
primary consideration.
Similar situations can be seen in Flores, Lombok and other locations.

Such indigenous communities still have strong memories of their
customary land use system and of the forests and water sources, including
their functions as economic and cultural resources. But this knowledge
is not strong enough to keep them to the old ways and values when
faced with a system that claims everything for the State and allocates all
legal rights to others. The result is that the majority of the community
becomes pragmatic in their view of natural resources.

The word ‘legally’ here refers to the products of laws and policies of the State as rep-
resented by the government in power, rather than customary (adat) law.

See Chapter 3 Section VI
302
Current efforts to re-map living space according to traditional concepts

are being promoted by two factors. Firstly, the rapid takeover of
natural resources by outsiders prompts communities to attempt to
defend their rights and access to those resources. Secondly, the fact
that some members of the indigenous community adopt a pragmatic
attitude makes the rest concerned about the negative impacts caused by
behaviour solely motivated by short-term economic interests.
There are a number of other indications of changes in cultural values.

Indigenous communities have traditionally marked out their customary
domains using natural markers and passing down information about
them through the generations as part of their oral history. However, they
have also started to use conventional maps with spatial co-ordinates to
record their territorial boundaries. In education and science, there is a
growing trend for the school curriculum to include some local content or
traditional knowledge. But indigenous people also want their children
and the younger generation to be able to attain the highest possible level
of formal education. In the sphere of health care, complaints about
the lack of access to government services, for instance the shortage
or total lack of inexpensive local clinics (Puskesmas), exemplify a
shift towards ‘establishment’ medical treatment, alongside continuing
traditional methods.
Forests are now a meeting place for two paradigms: the traditional or pre-
modern and the modern or even post-modern. Nature, whose sanctity used
to be respected and safeguarded as a part of cultural and spiritual life, is
now considered more as an economic resource to be used to fulfil the needs
of everyday life. There has been a general transformation in indigenous
communities’ awareness of nature and natural wealth away from a cosmology
of macrocosm and microcosm towards more material attitudes.

“Father is poor and has no education, so it’s best if the children go to school so they
have a better chance in life”. People in these villages have expressed such views in nu-
merous discussions. These conversations also make it clear that they see ‘father’ as the
central figure in bringing about community change - a reflection of patriarchal cultures.
And formal education in schools is still seen as the most effective method of transfer-
ring knowledge and technology.

The concepts of macrocosm and microcosm (alam besar and alam kecil) are very pop-
ular among the Javanese and Sundanese. Nature is seen as a concept which integrates
human beings and the physical world – the spiritual and the material (see Chapter 3).
303
This is manifest in indigenous practices and understanding of
‘knowledge’. According to traditional beliefs, forests are places to
seek spiritual discipline where one can cut oneself off from the world
and be close to nature and the Almighty. In so doing, one might hope
to find inspiration about new ways of tackling things that need to be
done in the community. Today, the knowledge associated with forests
is predominantly the application of skills developed in the scientific
practices of forestry and modern management.
Another example of these changes in perspective is in the methods used

to access the natural environment. In the past, a person had to consult with
local customary and spiritual leaders before entering the forest; nowadays
this is rare. Entering a forest is a matter of ‘permission linked to legality’:
the person must have obtained permission from the relevant authority
– the local Forestry Service, for example, or the Forestry Department.
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Vanilla is grown by many forest peoples
304
This transformation in indigenous and local communities’ beliefs and

attitudes is reflected in the types of production, and in the function and
role of institutions which oversee the management of natural resources.
Spiritual and magical functions are becoming less evident compared
with modern economic management practices. The role of Abah Anom
in Ciptagelar, in planting trees with commercial value in the timber
trade, is one example of this change. Abdurahman Sembahulun’s
attempt to revive traditional Sembalun law to promote sustainable
forest management in Lombok is another.
II. Change as a political response
These accounts from seven communities are obviously coloured by

their political responses to the negative impact of colonialism (including
internal colonisation), village administration and the opportunities
offered by regional autonomy. One response to colonialism is shown by
the attempts to reconstruct customary institutions which were suppressed
by the colonial regime. The indigenous Kasepuhan, Sasak and Meratus
Dayak communities are reviving these institutions, each with their own
variations. They seem convinced that these institutions will improve the
management of natural resources and the community. However, this must
be seen critically because, whenever people find themselves cornered by
a difficult situation, they will try to find an alternative concept or strategy
in order to get themselves out of it. And what they have closest to hand
are their records of their communities’ history.
Another factor prompting the revival of these institutions is an awareness

that modern management models used - or rather imposed - on their
customary domains have clearly defined management and organisational
systems. The indigenous response is that they need the same type of

Internal colonisation here means the subjugation of the people or a community by
the structure that represents them. Put simply, this means the oppression of a village by
the state government structure which represents it. The expression was popularised by
activists in the indigenous movement in the United Nations arena.

The word ‘imposed’ is used intentionally as a reminder that most developments have
been carried out on indigenous lands without applying the principle of free, prior and
informed consent (FPIC).
305
model: a community must prove its existence as an indigenous people
and this can only be done by reviving institutions for which they have
historical records. The Toro case is particularly interesting as community
efforts to revive customary management institutions have evolved into
a new, more socially inclusive adat governance system.
The shift in values of how nature and natural resources are perceived
is tied up with the development of critical attitudes among the younger
generation (or even the community as a whole) about the effectiveness
of customary law and institutions. Unemployment and poverty are the
main issues raised in protests against lack of indigenous control over
and management of forests. The word ‘adat’ has more to do with the
strategy of struggle than as a basic concept to be adhered to as a political
alternative.
There is more evidence of this viewpoint in indigenous debates about

the law, and the fact that state law is still used more frequently than adat
law to try to secure indigenous claims over their land and resources.
In discussions about alternative law, there is a preference for creating
completely new legal instruments, generated from the grassroots, which
include both adat values and modern universal values of human rights
and democracy, and where there is an established procedure for getting
drafts accepted onto the statutes at local level. The issues of leadership
and equity in relation to rights are two further aspects of modern values
which indigenous communities also often want to incorporate into their
new regulations.
Increasing levels of mobility – economic, cultural and social - also indicate

the openness of indigenous communities to the outside world. In the local
economy, mobility is linked to the influx and outflow of commodities; in
culture, it relates to education, which is still concentrated in large towns;
socially, it refers to way that members of communities are dispersing, so
they have to travel to different places to visit their kinsfolk.
There are many different ways of representing ‘indigenous peoples’,

even though all reflect the same aim: to gain access to their natural
resources in general and forests in particular. Indigenous peoples may
306
be regarded as a clan unit in discussions about customary land. Some

view them in terms of socio-political units which existed in the era of
Islamic sultanates, with the corollary that reviving traditional structures
means returning to the form of Islamic administration of that time.
Others see indigenous peoples as communities which existed in pre-
colonial times and were then rendered powerless. And there are those
who consider them to be socio-political systems which existed even
before the Islamic and Hindu eras. Strangely, there are very few records
of the existence of indigenous communities before then.
The danger here is that a romantic view of the past as a glorious age can
be a trap. Only very rarely within the communities in these case studies
does one meet someone with a critical attitude, who sees that their
community was created during a long history which is still continuing.
That they, also, are changing, because the world is becoming more open
and links with the outside world cannot be prevented.
Yuyun Indradi [DTE]
Boladangko people, Central Sulawesi
307
The question is how they should respond to all this in the context of
rights to the land, forests and other natural resources where they live.
And one answer they are coming up with is to propose a system of land
use planning and tenure which is recorded and, to some degree, still
practised to the present day.
The previous sections have dealt with transformation, so the next will
present a brief commentary on the subjects of origins, institutions, land
tenure and conflict.
III. Histories and social structures
Accounts of community origins outlined in this book fall into two general
types: coastal and mountain. Toro, Meratus, Guguk and Kasepuhan
are representatives of mountain communities. Their origins have
similarities in terms of the neighbouring communities that preceded
them or the kingdoms or sultanates that existed in these regions. Guguk
is the only case where the oral history clearly mentions the role of
women in establishing the Batin community: the three women from a
Javanese aristocratic family who married three customary leaders from
Minangkabau.
On the other hand, Hikong and Utang Wair (Tana Ai) are coastal
communities who derive their ancestry from ‘over the sea’. The place
identified as ‘Tana Malaka’ in the local oral tradition may actually
represent mainland Southeast Asia. Sembalun is something of an
exception. This community lives on the slopes of Mt Rinjani, but the
story of their origin also has the ‘over the sea’ element, in this case,
people who entered the interior via rivers and then settled in the
mountains.
It is clear from these stories that all these communities were established
by people originating from outside the area: none ‘just existed there’.
This fact generates debate in the context of land rights which centres on
who arrived first (indigenae) and who came after (advenae). Evidently a
mechanism is needed to determine precedence so both groups can accept
308
each other and establish a community with an unambiguous balance

of rights and responsibilities. Social contracts, such as marriages, and
fines paid by the losing party in tribal wars have contributed to the
establishment of a structure of rights in these places.
The customary institutions in the case study communities generally

show a separation of functions within the structure, with specific
roles relating to health, recruitment and dismissal of officials, external
relations, rituals associated with religion or beliefs, agriculture and land
use. Differentiation within these structures may be quite complex, for
example, in the Kasepuhan community, women and children’s health is
managed separately from adult men’s. It is clear that what, in modern
state administration, are called ‘sectors’ are already part of indigenous
communities’ traditional systems. Indigenous peoples have long been
aware of the importance of separating out functions as method of
working which increases effectiveness and which makes monitoring
and accountability easier.
This separation of customary institutional functions becomes even more

apparent when we investigate more closely the land tenure systems of
these villages. Only in Toro has there been a transformation of institutional
functions into a new form; and only here is the role of women a key
element. Uniquely, this role is represented by the Organisation of Ngata
Toro Indigenous Women (OPANT). Nevertheless, the investigation into
Toro oral history which formed the basis of the new governance system
showed that women had been an integral part of the community policy-
making structure in the past. What needs more investigation is how far
OPANT is consistent in representing Toro women’s interests, given that
its structure and function is more like that of an NGO than a traditional
customary institution. Similarly, its processes and legitimacy need to be
further examined in terms of the situation of all Toro women.
The arrangements for land use and management of the areas developed
by the communities featured here have some unique features, but all
share a similar division of space based on function. This is closely
related to the structure and function of customary institutions, as is
manifest in the use of forests. For example, the Kasepuhan’s distinction
309
between forest areas where restricted use is allowed and those which
are strictly protected (hutan tutupan and hutan titipan) is directly linked
to elements of their institutional structure involved in managing forests:
the forest patrols (Kemit Leuweung); community leader (Sesepuh)
and religious leader (Syara). The same can be seen in the Tana Ai’s
governance structures. The Utang Wair or Hikong communities have an
institution responsible for handling rituals for clearing forests to make
fields-agroforestry plots which makes contact with the local natural
spirits; there is another that deals with forest management, and so on.
The concept from organisational management theory that the higher the
‘culture’ of a group or organisation, the more complex its institutional
structure, is relevant in this context. The various customary institutions
presented here have developed in line with the communities’ needs
for internal as well as external management. As a result, all these
communities can be regarded as complete social, political and legal units
which fulfil the criteria for self-management. This raises the question
of whether or not indigenous communities should be autonomous – an
issue which has become necessary and important for the government to
consider and to take a policy decision on as part of Indonesia’s internal
governance.
The case study communities all present similar accounts of conflicts

they have faced. This is no coincidence. Indonesia’s political history
is one of major upheavals since colonial times. Parallels can be
found in indigenous peoples’ tales of the destruction of customary
institutions during the Dutch period, due to the imposition of its
village administration system, and especially in their experiences of
development projects implemented by various large companies with
the support of government policies.
Two aspects of ‘state forest’ management have become a particular

focus for conflicts between indigenous communities and the state, and
even other parties: both to do with conservation policy. Utang Wair and
Hikong in Flores and Meratus in South Kalimantan have clashed with
the Forestry Department over the issue of ‘Protection Forest’. At the
same time, there have been disputes with the national park authorities
310
in the cases of the Toro community with Lore Lindu national park;
Kasepuhan with Gunung Halimun-Salak; and Sembalun with Rinjani.
The root of these conflicts is the designation of conservation areas
which fails to take into account the existence of these communities
and their land tenure systems. A key question asked by activists who
support indigenous peoples, and indeed human rights in general, is
“Conservation for whom?” - highlighting the need for a fundamental
review of this issue.
Land tenure systems of indigenous peoples described in this book show

a capacity for land use and natural resources management that places a
high importance on the principle of sustainability. But here, once again
we come up against another important issue: there are many rules and
systems that are good in principle and in their structure, but not in their
implementation. The complaint that some people in these communities
are also involved in logging is an issue of law enforcement, and not
related to how good or bad the institutional structure and system is.
Jopi [AMAN]
Illegal use of co-operatives logging permits by Malaysian companies in West

Kalimantan
311
IV. Looking forward
The cases collected in this book and the process of compiling them
have raised important questions about what it means to be indigenous
and how indigenous natural resource management systems fit into
decision-making at national and global level about those same natural
resources.
There is a need to expand the scope of these studies. We need to cover

cases where large development projects have caused conflict. This book
only deals with two categories of conservation projects – protection
forests and national parks. We also need to see communities’ efforts
at natural resources management in cases where there are large-
scale developments such as oil palm mega-projects, mines and tree
plantations for the timber of pulp industries (HTI). We need to see how
communities overcome conflict and how they create alternatives to
resist or cope with the immense external pressures on their economic,
political and cultural development. We also need to see in further depth
the context and situation of other communities who identify themselves
as ‘indigenous peoples’. Issues such as communal rights to land and
other natural resources, always need to be examined. Has there been
a continuous history of communalism in the community or has it been
revived as a strategy to resist pressure?
Stories like the ones in this book need to reach the hands of different
players, but especially those of government and international
development decision-makers. Because these are the people who play a
key role in planning, implementing and creating policies which support
large-scale development projects. If, thus far, projects and policies have
denied the existence of indigenous peoples, we hope that this book
can supply new arguments to the advocates of indigenous rights, so
they can say that indigenous people really are there and, as a logical
consequence, they possess basic rights which must be upheld.
312
Jopi [AMAN]
275
Forests for the Future Indigenous Forest Management in a Changing World
I
ndonesia’s forests, the third largest in
the world, are rapidly disappearing due
to destructive logging, forest fires, the
expansion of large-scale plantations and
agriculture encroachment. At national and
Forests for the Future
local levels, indigenous people have often been Indigenous Forest Management in a Changing World
blamed as the agents of forest degradation and
destruction. However, Indonesia’s forest peoples
tell a very different story: they are experts in
forest management.
‘Forests for the Future’ is intended to increase

awareness about the sustainability of indigenous
forest management. This publication focuses
on six case studies from different parts of the
Indonesian archipelago written by indigenous
peoples themselves. These show that forest
communities have retained a wealth of skills and
knowledge. They also illustrate the importance
of adat in decision-making about the use of land
and natural resources.
This book presents lessons learned from

communities who are striving to meet the
economic and political challenges facing their
forest resources and ways of life. It offers national
and international policy makers models of
sustainable forest management. It also represents
a powerful argument for policy reform in favour
of indigenous communities and forest protection
at both national and international levels.
Editors :
Liz Chidley
Yuyun Indradi

Forest For The Future PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Forest For The Future PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Forests for the Future Indigenous Forest Management in a Changing World

‘Forests for the Future’ is intended to increase

This book presents lessons learned from

Design and Layout: Jopi Peranginangin

Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago

FORESTS FOR THE FUTURE

The Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago

Emilianus Ola Kleden

The following communities and local indigenous organisations (AMAs)

Thanks too to the organisations and individuals who helped with

We would also like to thank all the other members of indigenous

Special thanks go to:

This publication and the work preceding it were supported by a grant

‘Forests for the Future’ is part of a joint programme between the

The AMAN-DTE work has consisted of four elements: (i) publishing

The case studies tell about the real experiences of indigenous

It is here that the strategic importance of forming networks is so clearly

Finally, on behalf of AMAN, I express my heartfelt thanks to all the

Chapter 6: The Sembalun Indigenous Community, Lombok 143

Kepala desa Village leader/official

Forest communities have retained a wealth of indigenous skills and

Moreover, the Indonesian indigenous network, AMAN, felt that the

Indigenous peoples in Indonesia

Through the first national gathering of the indigenous movement, held in

The growth of Indonesia’s forestry industry

Logging concession in West Kalimantan

For nearly two decades, the Indonesian forestry department claimed

The first logging concessions were set up immediately after the

Indonesia’s forestry sector soon became hugely important to the

The crisis in Indonesia’s forests

Yuyun Indradi [DTE]

Over-capacity in the wood-

later, only 114 companies were still operating in just 8,819,287 ha of

The future for Indonesia’s forestry industry looks increasingly gloomy.

Meanwhile, national and international demand for timber will probably

Penguasaan Tanah, World Agroforestry Centre, Bogor, Indonesia

The relationship between communities and/or individuals and land and

The state’s concept of adat land predominantly focuses on communal

communal and individual tenure and, through various legal instruments,

Many communities have continued to retain some control over their

Much of the conflict between indigenous communities and the state or

The grudging acknowledgment of indigenous peoples’ rights in the

Local recognition of indigenous rights

The introduction of regional autonomy in Indonesia in 2001 has made

The general case is that framework legislation on land and natural

been issued by the relevant department and approved by parliament.

Local governments have tackled this dilemma in the following ways:

Central government (in this instance, the forestry department) has

The first step towards restructuring the relationship between indigenous

Secondly, an amendment to Indonesia’s 1945 Constitution of the

units of indigenous community along with their traditional rights”. It

Thirdly, the Decree of the Peoples’ Consultative Assembly on Agrarian

Corruption by local governments is just one manifestation of this

It is also important for Indonesia’s indigenous peoples to anticipate

However, local autonomy and globalisation can also be positive forces.

Yuyun Indradi [DtE]

The previous chapter out-

Reflecting on the experiences and the lessons learned

In writing their own stories, indigenous people have produced accounts

The book project started by reviewing a range of cases where indigenous

The second set of criteria comprised practical issues including the

Positive and negative aspects

Yuyun Indradi [DtE]