The Dynamics of the Green Policies in Papua Land: A Political Economy Study

Abstract

The provincial governments of Papua and West Papua have expressed their commitments and enacted policies to develop Papua Land in a sustainable manner through the issuance of Papua 2100 Vision, the 2019 Manokwari Declaration, and the ‘green’ spatial plan of Papua province. However, the implementation of these policies in balancing protection of forests and improvement of livelihood of indigenous Papuans has been slow. By employing a political economy approach, the study explores how interactions between the political economy structure, institutions, and actors have resulted in slow implementation of such commitments, particularly in reviewing the compliance of land-based industry licenses and acknowledging customary (adat) areas. The study was conducted between February 2020 and March 2021 and encompassed approximately 50 key informant interviews – including donors, civil society organizations, adat leaders, national and subnational governments, observers, academics, and journalists – and document review. The findings of this study suggest that the reform is mainly driven by development partners and limited numbers of bureaucrats that align with the indigenous Papuans’ interest to protect their land from outsiders. The small coalitions were successful in focusing their effort to enact green policies in the two provinces. However, the study highlights constraints faced by these actors to turn the policies into actions: (1) the existence of wide array of powerful actors – non-Papuans and Papuans – with strong economic and political interests identified at central, provincial, and regency level to hinder the enforcement of problematic land-based licenses and clarify adat areas; (2) the absence of broad-based political support. These have hampered the implementation of the green policies under the two aspects above. This study recommends reviewing policy at the national level to create enabling environment for green policies implementation in both provinces, e.g., to review the Omnibus Law, supporting the regency-level actors to accelerate issuance of the perda PPMHA and local-level regulations on adat-managed areas, supporting licenses review in Southern part of Papua Province to limit the operation of these businesses to expand in forest areas and disrespect adat rights over their lands, and exploring engagement with the opposing parties at all administrative level.

1 Introduction

The Papua and West Papua provincial governments have shown commitments to green development. In 2010, the provincial government of Papua declared the ‘Papua Province 2100 Vision’ to protect 90% of its land as forest areas and 60% as protected areas. In 2013, this green vision was clearly reflected in its Spatial Plan for 2013–2033 (Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Provinsi or RTRWP).¹ The provincial government of its neighbour, West Papua, declared the province a ‘Conservation Province’ in 2015. This green target was then further affirmed in the Manokwari Declaration three years later, consisting of various commitments including to protect 70% of the land areas of both provinces.

This green vision offers a great opportunity to develop these easternmost provinces in Indonesia² in a sustainable manner to prevent negative impacts to the environment and natural resources, as well as to the livelihood of indigenous Papuan people (orang asli Papua or OAP). This is particularly important since Papuan primary forest held 41% of Indonesia’s remaining primary forest in 2020, covering an area of 19 million hectares (KLHK, 2021). This vision is also of great significance for many OAP who, historically, have faced marginalization and exclusion (Widjojo et al., 2008) and live under poor development conditions (Resosudarmo et al., 2009) to have access and control over natural resources to improve their livelihood while ensuring forest sustainability. Based on Indonesian Statistical Yearbook (2020), 21.7% and 26.8% of West Papua and Papua Provinces population, respectively, are still living below the national poverty line, much higher compared to the national average of 10.19% (BPS, 2020). Papua is also the province with the lowest and widest inter-district³ disparity in the human development index.

By employing a political economy approach, this article aims to explore the gap between green policy formulation and the policy implementation. The main question to be addressed in this research is ‘how do interactions among actors, institutions and structures promote or hinder green development policy formulation and its implementation?’ This article begins with a description of the method of the study. This is followed by an explanation of the green policy formulation processes and milestones, an analysis of the challenges in the implementation, and ends with conclusions and recommendations.

2 Study Methods

This study employs a political economy approach that provides exploration on the dynamic interaction between actors, institutions, and structures to understand how decisions are made and how development outcome is produced (Unsworth & Williams, 2011; DFID, 2009). This approach assumes that policy success or failure is shaped by actors’ strategy, contestation, and negotiation among various interest groups, particularly from those who gain or lose benefit from the policy (Leftwich, 2007). Different groups in society, especially political elites, have different interests and incentives to promote or to hinder policy implementation. Political economy analysis also looks at the relationship between the roles and power of actors in a broader context: that actors’ incentives and strategy are closely related to the role of institutions and structures (DFID, 2009; Leftwich, 2007).

By employing the political economy approach, this study entails understanding on three inter-related concepts (Serrat, 2011; DFID, 2009). First, the role and strategy of actors – individuals, organizations, or coalitions – with both formal and informal influence in promoting or hindering environmental policy and its implementation (Harris, 2013). Second, the role of formal and informal institutions that limits or promotes actors’ role and strategy to formulate and implement environmental policy, which tend to be more susceptible to change in the medium term than structural features (see North, 1990). Third, the role of political economy structure in driving actors’ role and strategy in promoting and hindering green development. The term ‘structure’ refers to well-established economic, social, cultural, and ideological systems that influence actors’ strategy and is relatively more difficult to change than institutional factors (DFID, 2009; Leftwich, 2007). This study also assesses the policy implementation of green development policies, particularly in the areas of review of land-based industries in mining, forest and plantation concessions and acknowledgement of adat areas.

In regard to the data collection method, this study employs interviews as the main data gathering method. Fifty informants who were involved in the formulation and implementation of the green policies were interviewed, consisting of donors, civil society organizations, adat leaders, national and subnational governments, observers, academics, and journalists. The interviews were conducted in two phases: face-to-face interviews in Jakarta, Jayapura, and Manokwari in February 2020, followed by interviews between May and August 2020, conducted online due to the COVID-19 pandemic.⁴ The researchers also participated in ten webinars on the topics of green policy implementation in the Papua Land. Due to time constraints and pandemic situation, the study focused on interviewing key informants who involved in the policy formulation and implementation and did not interview communities and hence, the findings of this study must be seen in the light of these limitations. This study also reviewed government documents and statistical data, articles, media coverage and investigative reports from credible organizations to complement the primary data.

3 Green Policies Formulation Milestone

The study identifies green policies in both provinces were initiated by international development partners and a limited number of provincial-level bureaucrats that meet with the interest of OAP to protect their rich resources from outsiders. In Papua Province, the ideas were first introduced by the Department for International Development (DFID) of the Government of the United Kingdom through its Multi-stakeholder Forestry Program (MFP) in 2000–2008, followed by a capacity-building program and technical assistance supported by the UK Foreign Commonwealth Office (FCO) in 2009–2011. The UK consultants formed a solid team with experienced facilitators from Indonesia and collaborated with then Head of the Provincial Development Planning Agency (Bappeda), Alex Rumaseb, under the support from (then) Governor Barnabas Suebu. One of the milestones was capacity-building activities that were systematically developed to train civil servants, targeted at Bappeda officers, starting in 2009. The participants were limited to only 15 people, known as ‘Tim 15’, consisting of 12 Bappeda staff and three officers from other provincial offices. In addition to the FCO program, a United States Agency for International Development (USAID)-funded program also supported Bappeda in drafting the spatial plan, which reflects sustainable land use management. By employing the ‘system thinking’ method with a strong process-oriented approach, not less than 32 workshops were held intensively in isolated places which effectively shaped Tim 15’s awareness on the policy’s effects on OAP lives and on the environment. The process resulted in the production of the Papua Province 2100 vision to maintain 90% of its land as forest areas with OAPs as change agents in 100 years as well as the ‘green’ 2013–2033 Spatial Plan in December 2013 (DFID, 2019).⁵

Similarly, the green policy formulation process in West Papua Province was marked by two declarations, namely the Conservation Province Declaration on 19 October 2015 and the Manokwari Declaration at the International Conference on Biodiversity, Ecotourism and Creative Economy Papua (ICBE) on 10 October 2018. The idea of the Conservation Province was first discussed in mid-2013 in a small circle among then West Papua governor (Abraham Atururi), West Papua Provincial Secretary (Nathaniel Mandacan), and academics from Papuan University (UNIPA) – Agus Sumule and Charlie Heatubun – facilitated by Ketut Sarjana Putra from Conservation International (CI). The governor declared West Papua a Conservation Province in 2015. In 2017, the United Kingdom Climate Change Unit (UKCCU) continued to stimulate green policies in West Papua with other development partners through its Papua Initiative program. They closely worked with the Head of the Provincial Research and Development Board (Balitbangda), Charlie Heatubun, under the support of Governor Dominggus Mandacan and the Provincial Secretary, Nathaniel Mandacan. The coalition also involved a wider group of international development organizations and local civil society organizations (CSOs). On 10 October 2018, Governor Mandacan signed the Manokwari Declaration at ICBE, which was considered a sign of his commitment to green development policies. The Manokwari Declaration contained 14 points to achieve the shared vision of Tanah Papua as a ‘Land of Peace, Sustainability, and Dignity’ (Cámara-Leret et al., 2019). The provincial government of West Papua issued a special regional regulation (peraturan daerah khusus or perdasus) on Sustainable Development in West Papua Province (No. 10/2019) dated 29 November 2019. In a consultation process prior to the issuance of the perdasus, the Ministry of Home Affairs requested to change the title from ‘Conservation’ to ‘Sustainable Development’ as conservation is considered the national government’s authority.⁶

The Central Government seems to have different priorities in developing Papua Land. It has promoted investment in Papua to accelerate economic growth in Papua and West Papua provinces. This was manifested in the form of a central government request to allocate land for investment in Papua, despite the Papua 2100 vision. In mid-2013, Tim 15 rejected the central government’s request to allocate 2.5 million hectares of land for the Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate project (MIFEE). Tim 15 was safeguarding 228 hundred hectares allocated for MIFEE in the draft RTRWP that was deliberated by the provincial DPRD and eventually issued.⁷ They protected about 2.3 million hectares of forests through the issuance of the RTRWP.⁸

In the Papuan context, the sustainable development and conservation narrative provides opportunities for key players in the provincial governments to gain recognition from international actors and access to climate finance while at the same time also trying to adhere to the special autonomy narrative, ‘Protecting rich natural resources for the benefit of OAP’. The top provincial leaderships support green policies to make Papua Land nationally and globally recognized, while gaining popularity among elite Papuans, thus providing advantages to expand broad-based political support. Opportunities to access funding for the environmental agenda have also provided incentives for top leaderships and academia to strongly support this policy. Following the Paris Agreement in 2015, climate finance has been available in the form of international public and private funding to incentivize and compensate reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In 2017, total climate-related financing was $510 billion to $530 billion globally, indicating a steady increase in fund from 472 billion in 2015 and USD 455 billion in 2016 (CPI, 2018). Furthermore, as the last reserve of tropical forest with high biodiversity, many international organizations have environment protection agenda in Papua and West Papua provinces, including in accessing climate financing.

The idea of sustainable development in Papua province is particularly in line with the narrative and discourse on marginalization of OAP. Many OAPs, including those holding position in provincial governments, have perceived that the OAP has limited control over their own land and hence, the green policy idea introduced by international organization was highly supported. Members of Tim 15 have experienced discrimination themselves and have listened to marginalization stories told by the elderly and the media that their poverty and impoverishment are the result of decades of exploitation of their land, rich with natural resources, by outsiders without empowering them as indigenous people. A member of Tim 15 from Bappeda clearly said, ‘... the most important thing for Papua in this provincial planning in the long term is how to protect Papuan land so that it remains sustainable while continuing to improve the quality of life of OAP. Simply put, we don’t want Papuan land to be crowded with non-Papuan actors while the OAP are not ready (yet)…’. In several conversations, a more assertive and stronger narrative was developed, such as ‘if we don’t protect our forest, Papuans will not get anything. Non-Papuans will get the benefits. Otherwise, Papuans can still sustainably manage our forest for our livelihoods’.⁹

4 Slow Implementation of Green Policies

To understand the extent to which green policies in Papua Land have been implemented, this study identifies two areas of policy implementation that are considered to represent the main objectives of the green policies: forest conservation and empowerment of OAP. The main threat to the former is unlawful licenses for land-based industries – plantation, mining, and forestry. With regard to the latter, acknowledgement and protection of adat-managed land is considered one of the best solutions, given the development situation in Papua Land that is also expected to contribute to the first objective (de Royer et al., 2018).¹⁰ Hence, review of land-based industry licenses, followed by reducing or repealing unlawful licenses, and formal acknowledgement of adat-managed land were selected as indicators for green policy implementation in the two provinces.

4.1 Law Enforcement on Land-Based Industry Licenses

While no significant new licenses were granted under the Joko Widodo administration (2014–2024), the study identifies excessive licenses granted during the period of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) in 2004–2013. The licenses were given based on previous Law No. 32/2004 regarding Subnational Governments (‘the Autonomy Law’), whereby the regency/municipal governments still have authorities to issue plantation,¹¹ mining, and forestry licenses. Based on our assessment,¹² approximately 169 and 153 permits on mining, plantation, and forestry sectors were issued in Papua and West Papua provinces, respectively, in the period of 2004–2013. These include 34 forestry licenses granted by the Ministry of Forestry and 48 plantation licenses issued by regents (bupati). Approximately 86% of 240 mining licenses were issued by bupatis, while the remaining licenses were granted by the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources and governors. Most of these companies are not (yet) actively operating and are assumed to be either storing land for the future (known as ‘land banking’) or stranded.¹³ Qualitative data obtained through interviews reveal that only few concessionaires have started operating their primary businesses as per the licenses, indicating their strategy in targeting in targeting forests for logging activities.¹⁴

Based on the regulations, the licenses can only be granted in non-forest areas (other utilization areas or area penggunaan lain/APL). However, some of the concession areas are located in protected areas. Based on our analysis on GIS data, approximately 5.9 million hectares of the area belong to 114 licenses and 123,000 hectares from 33 licenses are located in the protected areas of Papua and West Papua provinces, respectively, between 1994 and 2016. In Papua province, the allocation for land-based industries is also not in line with the existing green spatial allocation in the 2013–2033 RTRWP.¹⁵ Our qualitative interviews also highlight that most of the ‘problematic’ licenses are located in the southern part of Papua province, particularly in Merauke and Boven Digoel regencies, known as the Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate (MIFEE).¹⁶ Investigations conducted by the Gecko Project (2019, 2020) revealed fraudulent processes in processing mega project permits in Boven Digoel, Papua, leading to clearing of a vast area of rainforest in the region.

Since 2011, through the issuance of Presidential Instruction (Instruksi Presiden or Inpres) No. 10/2011 in May 2011, the central government imposed a policy to protect forest by enacting moratorium of new licenses for primary natural forests and peatlands located in conservation forests, protected forests, production forests (limited protection forests, permanent production forests, production forests that can be converted) and other utilization areas (area penggunaan lain or APL) based on Indicated Map of Moratorium of New Licenses. The Inpres was valid for two years and have been renewed every two years.¹⁷ In September 2018, the government issued Inpres No. 8/2018 on moratorium and evaluation of licensing for oil palm plantations and increasing the productivity of oil palm plantation. These policies have constrained the issuance of land-based industry licenses after 2013. Interviews with an officer from Investment and Integrated One-Stop Services Agency¹⁸ and with a forestry expert of Papua Province¹⁹ suggest that the moratorium has constrained the oil palm plantation licenses as there are no new licenses granted after the moratorium.

Hence, conducting already granted license review of land-based industries and following up review results with law enforcement are of great significance to avoid potential environmental damages and adverse human right impacts in the future. Any attempts to actively review the problematic licenses and to follow up the review results indicate serious commitment in implementing green policies. In this case, local actors – provincial and district governments, NGOs – in collaboration with national-level NGOs and donor organizations have conducted efforts to review land-based licenses. Despite some improvements of license review in West Papua Province, the study finds that the review process has remained slow and limited improvements have been made in dealing with problematic companies. The study notes that the Energy and Mineral Resources Office of Papua province conducted license review and discontinued nine expired mining licenses.²⁰ In West Papua, only the Regent of Sorong, Johny Kamuru, has stopped location permits, environmental permits, and plantation business permits for four palm oil companies located in the territory of the Moi indigenous people.²¹ In plantation sectors, the West Papua province’s Food, Horticulture and Plantation Crops Office, supported by EcoNusa and other CSOs, has submitted the review results of palm oil plantations in West Papua Province to the National Movement for the Rescue of Natural Resources-Corruption Eradication Commission (Gerakan Nasional Penyelamatan Sumber Daya Alam Indonesia-Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi GNPSDA-KPK).²² Based on the review results published in February 2021 (West Papua province’s Food, Horticulture and Plantation Crops Office, 2021), the Regents in South Sorong, Sorong, Teluk Bintuni, Teluk Wondama, and Fakfak have revoked approximately four, four, two, one, and one palm oil plantation licenses respectively or 12 licenses in total (Elisabeth & Hariandja, 2021). But in general, the provincial and district governments, particularly in Papua Province, have not revoked problematic business licenses of companies which are granted under their authorities, i.e., plantation sectors that have caused environmental damage and disrespected indigenous rights. Existing licenses covering concessions in protected areas are still active, including problematic oil palm plantation project in the southern part of Papua Province.

However, NGO actors have been concerned with the continuation to advocate the licensing review process for problematic land-based industries, including the issuance of new permits, considering the changes to the rules after the enactment of Law No.23/3014 which reduced the authority for granting permits at the provincial and district levels.²³ The Law No. 23/2014 shifts mining and forestry authorities to grant licenses to the provincial and central level. The Law No. 3/2020 on Mineral and Coal Mining and the Law No. 11/2020 on the Omnibus Law has shifted mining authority back to the Central Government. The regency/municipal governments only hold the authority to issue plantation permits in other utilization areas (area penggunaan lain or APL)²⁴ and to provide recommendations for the issuance of mining and forestry permits to date. This means that various initiatives to review permits as an effort to implement green policy in Papua land must be strengthened by efforts to create a conducive policy environment for green policy at the central level.

Furthermore, the issuance of the new Law on Mineral and Coal Mining (No. 3/2020) and the Omnibus Law on Job Creation (No. 11/2020) may have potentially constrained this activity further. These laws recentralize the authority for issuing and monitoring mining licenses from the provincial governments. Hence, technically the provincial governments are not allowed to issue a provincial-level moratorium or revoke unlawful licenses without any delegation of authority from the central government. The Omnibus Law particularly creates opportunity for the central government to overrule the subnational spatial plans in the case that they are not aligned with national strategic projects (Sembiring et al., 2020). The Omnibus Law which provides a mechanism for legalizing illegal plantations with various administrative fines and amnesty mechanisms is also feared to have a detrimental effect on protected forests and peatlands (Astuti et al., 2022). By changing the land swap policy into applying administrative fines and tax amnesty to secure license, the illegal plantations can be granted with forest release certificate and hence, the Omnibus law is viewed by researchers and conservation organizations to have limited concern over forest restoration mechanism (Astuti et al., 2022, 7).

4.2 Recognition and Protection of Adat Communities

Based on the ‘adat forest’ scheme as a part of the social forestry program promoted by the Joko Widodo administration since 2014, the first step of granting the rights to an adat community is by acknowledging and protecting the subject community through a local regulation (peraturan daerah or perda) that must be deliberated and approved by the local legislative council (DPRD). However, despite very strong narrative of adat in Papua Land, the number of perdas to acknowledge and protect the adat communities (pengakuan dan perlindungan masyarakat hukum adat, PPMHA) is still very low – only five out of 42 regencies/municipalities in Papua Land have enacted such regulations, four regencies in West Papua and only one regency in Papua Province, by 2018. Furthermore, a regent/mayor regulation acknowledging the adat-managed land (the object) and, if the land is located in the forest area, a Minister of Environment and Forestry decree on adat forest must be issued to grant the management to the adat community. The progress of this is even poorer, as only two regency governments have issued the regent regulations and no ministerial decree on adat forest rights in Papua Land has been issued by 2019.

The study also highlights that development agencies have actively worked in reviewing licenses and promoting adat areas. In the review process, financially supported by international donor agencies, various development partners in collaboration with local CSOs such as The Asia Foundation (TAF), World Resource Institute (WRI), Indonesian Center for Environmental Law (ICEL), EcoNusa, Mnukwar, Jerat Papua, and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Indonesia have supported both provincial governments in reviewing land-based industry licenses. These agencies have made progress in building the capacity of CSOs and the provincial governments to conduct license review using a license review tool identifying unlawful mining and oil palm plantation licenses as discussed above.²⁵ In regard to acknowledgement of adat areas, the development partners and local CSOs in West Papua have succeeded in compiling approximately 3.4 million hectares of customary land maps that can be used to be integrated into the revision of the West Papua RTRWP and issuance of perda for PPMHA as discussed above²⁶. By October 2021, the revision of RTRWP has included adat areas in eight regencies in West Papua province and the provincial government is still discussing the incorporation with the Ministry of Agrarian Reform and Spatial Planning.²⁷

In addition, the slow implementation of green policies in the two provinces is also indicated by limited budgetary support for green sectors such as the environment and forestry, agriculture, and marine affairs. Based on analysis of their 2015–2020 provincial budgets, the total budget allocations related to green policies in Papua and West Papua have averaged only 3% and 5% of total expenditures, respectively, and most of them come from earmarked transfers such as the Reforestation Fund and Special Allocation Fund. According to officials in West Papua, this limited allocation has prompted them to cooperate with development partners. Qualitative interviews with key informants²⁸ also reveal limited change in terms of Papua and West Papua provincial government programs and activities after the enactment of the green policies. They emphasized the fact that the government are still running the same programs as before the policy. There are no new programs, methods, or improved budgets implemented by the relevant offices to support the implementation of the green policy.

In the context of a strong narrative of adat role as well as strong practices of customary land arrangement, it is expected that adat leaders will help protecting their lands from land-based investments and promoting the recognition of adat law. However, adat leaders do not always support the idea to reject the land-based investment and to clarify their adat territories. Qualitative interviews with adat leaders²⁹ generally show their enthusiasm for the idea of green policies, with strong emphasis that the conservation program does not prevent the community from utilizing natural resources for their welfare, and hence, adat leaders’ perspectives are divided between those who reject investment and ask for full control over natural resources, those who welcome investment to improve their welfare, and those who want both development and welfare for OAP (see also Cahyono et al., 2020). The efforts of companies to provide tangible incentives and give false and partial information to obtain the approval of traditional leaders are one of the reasons why some adat leaders eventually choose to support land-based investment in Papua (Cahyono et al., 2020; The Gecko Project & Mongabay, 2019b). The situation of unclear land tenure and ownership conflict in Papua land also provide adat leaders with opportunities to get cash or any form of compensations from those who will purchase the land. This is a common practice that settlement money for land purchase in Papua is rather uncertain as any strong figures among and between clan could ask for the compensation.

Communities also have varying perspectives on land-based investments and the extent to which they conserve forests for welfare. A study by Cahyono et al. (2020) identifies cases of protests by adat communities against oil palm plantations as well as those in adat communities who wanted to get out of poverty immediately and gave up their land for investment, causing tensions and divisions among adat communities. Sophie Cao (2020; The Gecko Project & Mongabay, 2019a), an anthropologist who researched the Marind Tribe in Merauke also points out different and varied perspectives of young generation of adat regarding the operation of oil-palm investment in their land. She finds young people who support palm oil and want a modern life as well as young people who want to protect rituals and nature and she also recognizes young people who want to adapt and change culture to be able to survive with progress while still maintaining their control over natural resources. As also a case in how adat leaders gave permits to release lands, the studies also explain the practice of companies to provide partial and false information to communities regarding their rights and consequences in giving their land to investments (The Gecko Project & Mongabay, 2019a) and give false promises to pay for school children’s education, facilitate adat own communities’ plantation, and pay money rent to each clan, alluring some groups of communities to choose selling their land for investment (Cahyono et al., 2020). Both studies (Cahyono et al., 2020; The Gecko Project & Mongabay, 2019a) highlight that the release of forest for land-based investment does not only causes loss of food sources and livelihoods of adat communities, but also affects their value and support systems, traditions, rituals, languages, religion, and local knowledge.

In addition, civil society groups continue to strive to promote recognition and protection of OAP in a rational and constitutional manner by empowering indigenous people including providing technical facilitation for mapping adat territories and advocating for regulations on the recognition of adat territories. In Papua land, this recognition of adat territories has been made possible with the special autonomy status of Papua and West Papua Provinces. Article 4 of the Special Autonomy (Otonomi Khusus or Otsus) Law (No. 21/2001, reiterated in the Law No. 2/2021) and its explanation note provide additional authorities to the provincial government of Papua, including in utilizing its natural resources and managing conservation. In accordance with the Otsus Law, the provincial government of Papua issued special autonomy regulations (peraturan daerah khusus or perdasus) No. 21/2008 on Sustainable Forest Management in Papua Province, No. 22/2008 on Natural Resource Protection and Management of Papua’s Customary Legal Communities (Masyarakat Hukum Adat, MHA), and No. 23/2008 on Traditional Rights (Hak Ulayat) of MHA and Individual Rights of Papua’s MHA. These regulations stipulate that MHA in Papua province has rights over the natural forests based on each customary (adat) area and authorize the provincial and local governments to grant utilization land and forest rights to the MHAs. Nonetheless, these regulations have not been effectively implemented as the Ministry of Forestry (and later, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry) has not issued the norms, standards, procedures and criteria (norma, standar, prosedur, dan kriteria, or NSPK) as central government’s authorization to the provincial government of Papua in managing these concurrent authorities. Hence, authority over the forestry sector in Papua and West Papua is practically the same with other provinces in Indonesia. These efforts are also hindered by CSOs’ limited working areas and funding sources that rely on the support from development partners, shortage of human resources and technical capacity in terms of facilitation and standardized mapping, so that maps of adat territories can be optimally integrated into regency/municipality city spatial planning.

5 Support for Land-Based Investment in Papua Land

Obstacles in controlling land-based industry practices are beyond development partners’ and CSOs’ supports. The study identifies those powerful actors who have promoted land-based investment and resisted license reforms that would negatively impact their operations.

Based on credible investigative reports (Cahyono et al., 2020; The Gecko Project, 2019, 2020a, b; The Gecko Project & Mongabay, 2019a, b, 2020a, b; Ginting & Pye, 2011) and interviews with key informants,³⁰ the large companies granted the land-based industry licenses are very powerful. The companies offer strong incentives for adat leaders to support them and release their lands by giving them monthly allowances and entertaining them with stays in nice hotels, women and ‘going to bars’.³¹ The Gecko Project revealed the involvement of a head of adat leaders in Boven Digoel in ensuring that one palm oil company was granted a license. These companies often conduct fraudulent procedures and are able to obtain permits from the state which appear to be ‘legal’ but in principle are illegitimate and harm OAP (Cahyono et al., 2020; Chao, 2020; The Gecko Project & Mongabay, 2019a, b, 2020b).

Some members of regency DPRD and government officials are often behind the investments, as they gain direct benefits from investments by receiving cash from granting licenses in the plantation sector, logging revenues, and land clearing for plantations (Cahyono et al., 2020; The Gecko Project, 2019; The Gecko Project & Mongabay, 2019b; Resosudarmo, 2005). They have strong interests in opening their regencies for land-based investments such as palm oil or mining. The investigative report from the Gecko Project (2019) and interviews with members of Tim 15 identify the involvement of bupati in releasing their land for palm oil corporations.³² For instance, the Regent of Merauke for the 2000–2010 period, John Gluba Gebze, supported the central government’s agenda in releasing land for the MIFEE project. The Gecko Project’s investigative report (2019) also shows the involvement of the Regent of Boven Digoel, Yusak Yaluwo, in granting licenses for palm oil corporations in this regency known as ‘Tanah Merah’. Both bupatis granted licenses in areas that were not in line with the existing spatial allocations in the Papua 2013–2033 RTRWP. The study does not indicate any significant evidence of central government measures and action in addressing this issue.

Several major structural obstacles present challenges to the implementation of the review process. One main threat is the coalition between national and local actors of land-based industries. Companies have affiliations with powerful actors at local and national levels. The Gecko Project reports (2019, 2020a, b) as well as other investigative reports from Pusaka (2020) and Down to Earth (n.d., 2012) point out that some large palm oil plantations received many concessions during the New Order era and had strong affiliations with the ruling party and military commanders at that time. Investigative reports on companies granted licenses also identify many other groups, including medium-scale companies, that are linked to various political parties and influential figures in the government. MIFEE is a very good example to identify the powerful network behind the issue of licensing for land-based investment in Papua. The project was launched by President SBY’s administration in 2008 with an ambition to make Merauke regency the source of food security for the nation. Based on analysis of data from various sources from Down To Earth and Pusaka Foundation as well as a report by Longgena Ginting and Oliver Pye (2011), the companies with MIFEE licenses – both local and international companies – are linked to various political parties and influential political actors since the New Order era.

Furthermore, The Joko Widodo administration continues to maintain a strong perspective for investment and economic growth in Papua Land, as indicated in the National Medium-Term Development Plan (Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional or RPJMN) for 2020–2024. At the macro level, until 2018 Papua and West Papua Provinces only contributed around 1.9% of the total national GDP. This condition is considered as a form of inequality among regions and for 2024 the government has planned to increase the contribution of Papua Land to 2.1%. The RPJMN for 2020–2024 has set an ambitious economic growth target in Papua and West Papua Provinces of 6.5% and 7%, respectively, higher than the national growth target of 5.7%–6%. Although they are still high, civil society advocacy has successfully lowered these targets from the ones indicated in the initial ‘technocratic draft’ of the RPJMN of 9% economic growth in Papua Land. To meet these targets, the central government needs to develop Papua Land through development of large-scale industries and major investment schemes. It plans to accelerate development in the island through seven major projects over the next five years, such as developing new city corridors and centres of national strategic activities and continuing to build connectivity infrastructure such as ‘air bridges’, main port networks, and roads (Trans-Papua) as well as a plan to continue food estate projects. As a part of post-COVID-19 economic recovery, the central government continues to build Food Estate project in southern part of Papua province at 2.6 million hectares (Elisabeth, 2021). This indicates that the central government still aims to develop Papua based on land-based industries that attract the involvement of large national and international companies.

The perspective on economic growth as development measures are also shared by relevant offices in provincial and regency governments. An interview with a member of Tim 15 from Bappeda³³ also revealed that regency governments have complained about the Papua Province 2100 Vision and RTRW 2013. During the dissemination of RTRW 2013 to regency governments, representatives of the regency governments shared their concerns of not being able to develop and invite big investments due to the enactment of the two green policies. Officers from the Investment and Energy offices in the provincial governments have also questioned the green policies’ agenda, given investment targets from the central government.³⁴ They are also concerned about how to reduce poverty without investments.

6 The Absence of Broad-Based Political Support

Another obstacle is the absence of broader-based political support to strengthen the coalitions for reform. Despite the success of coalitions between international development partners and a few numbers of bureaucrats in enacting environmental policies in both provinces, they did not bring together a wide range of different actors who have interests and influence either to promote or to disrupt the green policies, ensuring these actors support the policies. This has hampered the implementation of green policies.

Our findings show that, by and large, there was no systematic effort to build a broader coalition, to actively engage with other stakeholders, even within the provincial government itself, and to deal with potential blockers of reforms. The foremost weakness is that the green policy formulation process in both provinces did not engage with other provincial offices, especially offices with an investment scope of work and function. Thirteen out of the Tim 15 who went through the systematic capacity and coalition building in Papua Province were Bappeda officers. The involvement of two participants from the Investment and Environment offices was insufficient to build political engagement with those two agencies. In West Papua Province, the discussions on both Conservation Province and the Manokwari Declaration were limited to top leadership in the provincial government without systematic capacity and coalition building within the government, including with Bappeda and the legislature. The engagement of the regency governments in deliberating green policies in Papua and West Papua was very limited, to say the least.

There was also only a limited process to build a strong coalition with potential allies: local CSOs, church-based organizations, and adat communities, including with members of the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP). Although local CSOs have recently engaged and collaborated with development partners and provincial governments as discussed above, their involvement in the deliberation and enactment of the green policies was limited. Local CSOs initially rejected the Conservation Province idea, stating that their preferred approach for sustainable development – empowering the OAPs while sustainably managing the forests – was not considered and was systematically excluded. Despite the involvement of local CSOs in the Manokwari Declaration, the green policy formulation lacked time to build a more deliberative process by discussing the ideas and objectives of the declaration with local CSOs. In Papua Province, local CSOs were only consulted in the process of formulating the 2013–2033 RTRWP without systematic efforts to build strong alliances with the CSOs. The completion of the FCO project in the end of 2013 further discontinued the process to disseminate the Papua Province 2100 Vision to broader groups outside the government. It is also important to note that the green formulation process in both provinces also did not consider engagement with church-based organizations, which have long played a strong role in humanitarian missions in Papua.

Building a broader coalition has also become a challenge on its own, since some key actors, such as development agencies and reform-oriented bureaucrats, were not keen to engage with other important stakeholders that have strong interests in investment and opposed the Green Development agenda. These actors include the central government, provincial and regency governments, regency legislative councils (DPRDs), land-based industries, regents, and business groups. The central and regency governments showed little support for Green Development and prioritized opening investments in Papua Land. The limited engagement with these opposing actors may be because they took no visible actions to terminate the process of Green Policies formulation in the two provinces. The nature of these actors may contribute to this; they did not think that the declarations were important and might hamper their ‘business as usual’. This lack of systematic engagement with opposing actors resulted in a lack of political support from powerful actors that have interests in hindering green developments.

7 Conclusion and Recommendation

The findings of this study suggest that the reform is mainly driven by development partners, limited numbers of bureaucrats, supported by the governors, and networks of CSOs. These small coalitions were successful in focusing their effort to enact environmental policies in Papua and West Papua provinces. The green development narrative and its related terms such as sustainable development and customary forest offer strong political incentives for top leaderships in the provinces to support the idea. Furthermore, potential financial incentives for the provinces by protecting their forests also create more incentives for the leaders to adopt the policies.³⁵ However, the small coalitions failed to operationalize the policies, as indicated by slow implementation in enforcing lawfulness of land-based industry licenses and in issuing regulations to acknowledge and protect adat-managed lands, which are crucial in operationalizing the green policies in both provinces. Several main reasons were identified, suggesting significant challenges faced by the green actors: the existence of wide-array powerful actors encompassing central and local actors with vested economic and political interests and the absence of a broader political support base. This include the presence of adat and local leaders who support land-based investments and central government’s unaligned priority on economic growth and the enactment of the Omnibus Law and the change of license regulations that potentially impede green policy implementation in the provinces. This indicates the complexity and heterogeneity of actors who hinder and support green policy and hence, suggests the importance to align green policy supports from all administrative levels, including from opposing parties.

The study identifies four recommendations, with an overarching recommendation for the green actors to expand their coalition with other development actors at all levels and to increase their power as described in detail below.

First, the study suggests that central government shows high priority on economic growth in developing Papua land as well as the potential negative impact of Omnibus law and recentralization of license regulations on green policy implementation. This indicates the importance to focus the policy change on the national level to create enabling environment for green policy implementation in both provinces. It is particularly important to revisit the Omnibus Law to ensure that various mechanisms, e.g., administrative fines and amnesty in the law are not used to legalize the illegal expansion of land-based industries at the expense of forest and environmental concerns. In particular, Astuti et al. (2022:10) have called for reorienting environmental legislation and the Omnibus Law ‘to include greater scrutiny of, and punitive actions against, the illegal expansion of large plantations’.

Second, the study indicates the slow implementation to recognize adat areas despite the relevance of this regulation to increase land access for OAP welfare and control over their land while still allocating state forest for community management. Hence this study recommends the green actors to support the regency-level actors, to accelerate issuance of the perda PPMHA and local-level regulations on adat-managed areas, particularly in non-forest areas (APL) that do not require authorization of the MoEF. The national-level advocacy will also be important to resolve the issuance of NSPK for Papua and West Papua provinces.

Third, the study identifies that southern part of Papua is where most problematic land-based investments are located and hence it is important for the green actors to focus on the respective region to limit the operation of these businesses to expand in forest areas and disrespect adat rights over their lands. At the national level, development organizations and national NGOs could provide support to create enabling environment to conduct license reviews and follow up the results to advocate sanctions against the investments to central government actors such as GNPSDA-KPK. This includes supporting One Map Policy and investigative journalism and studies to disclose development policies and practices, including fraudulent licenses, that are against the spirit of the green policies in order to draw public, policymaker, and media attention, locally, nationally, and globally.

Fourth, to explore engagement with actors who promote land-based investment. The green actors need to engage with other political and business actors that have competing interests to find incentives for the latter to promote sustainable business practices to ensure that businesses operate in an accountable, transparent, and ethical manner. For example, enforcing environmental, social, and governance standards that linked to financial institutions investing in the businesses would limit environmental degradation and increase social benefits for local people.