Decentralization of Forest Administration in Indonesia, Implications ...

114
The Impacts of Decentralization on Tenure and Livelihoods
delineated under customary systems were also often less distinct than those delineated by
the state. Since the onset of decentralization, however, local boundaries in many areas
have been forced in arbitrary lines to allow the inclusion of valuable resources (Anau et
al. 2001, 2002).
Mapping of territories is, of course, a highly political process, and competition for
economic benefits associated with forests has led to some intense conflicts (Peluso 1995).
The participatory mapping exercises facilitated by CIFOR have always included negotiation
sessions to reach agreements on boundaries. In Malinau, where informal agreements
over boundaries supposedly have been reached, they have too often been short-lived or
partial, particularly when both villages did not take part fairly in the boundary marking
process. Differences of opinion have also frequently existed among members of a single
village. No criteria have been promulgated by the district government or among villages
for establishing what constitutes a fair agreement or how conflicts should be settled (Anau
et al. 2001, 2002). In the village of Batu Kerbau (Jambi), mapping has been used as
a process to reach agreement and recognition of protected areas within their territories.
Village boundaries are less a source of conflict than forest resources which the community
wants to retain as future sources of timber. Mapping of local forests was used as a tool to
gain recognition by the Bupati and therefore legal protection by the district government.
Decentralization has thus encouraged attention to local people’s aspirations, but
the process for identifying and managing those aspirations has been left unspecified in
government policies and regulations. In addition, the individuals with the authority to
make decisions on behalf of local communities are often different from the ones with the
knowledge of boundaries on the ground. In a few cases, boundaries were marked before
even nominal agreements had been reached between villages. Politically marginalized,
nomadic hunter-gatherer groups have been especially disadvantaged in negotiations
about boundaries and benefits.
For example, in Malinau, participation of Punan community members is often
limited, as a large contingent of the population of Punan villages is often in the forest. It is
rare to meet all inhabitants of one Punan community in the settlement area. Where Punan
have shared decision making with other ethnic groups, they face the additional burden of
prejudice, as they generally have smaller numbers and lack political clout. Even where
negotiations have occurred and agreements have been stable, villages have had limited
success in enforcing them. In Jambi, the Orang Rimba – an indigenous group living within
forested areas -- are even more at a disadvantage. These still largely nomadic groups do
not claim territories in the same manner as the more settled communities. As a result they
have seen their territories diminishing and their traditional migration paths obliterated.
Not constrained to fixed territories, they do not obey other people’s boundaries either.
The NGO WARSI, which has been working with several groups of Orang Rimba, liaise
with local people to allow the Orang Rimba to settle. For the most part, WARSI has
advocated their rights and succeded in getting the Taman Nasional Bukit Duabelas to be
assigned as Orang Rimba territory (Kurniawan 2005).
6.5 Communities Redefined
Differentiation among local groups in Indonesia, many of which later crystallized as
‘suku’ (clan, tribe) and are now commonly referred to as masyarakat adat, must have
predated colonialism. Many ethnic groups emerged at that time, although the colonial