Conflicting knowledge systems in the land acquisition for
the Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate (MIFEE)
Papua, Indonesia
Thesis for the bachelor Future Planet Studies
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
28– 05 - 2021
Femke Schouten
Student Number: 12307971
Supervised by: Misha Velthuis Reader: Robin Pistorius
2 Abstract
This thesis aims to investigate different views on land ownership and consequently how these views manifest themselves in the conflict over land that arises between indigenous communities and government authorities. To investigate this, a case study on the Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate (MIFEE) in Papua, Indonesia is presented. The MIFEE is a state-led mega project that transforms forested land into large scale corporate-run plantations for food and biofuels. The project results in land acquisition from an indigenous tribal people, the Marind Anim, whose livelihoods are threatened by the ensuing deforestation and loss of living habitat. In order to investigate the manner in which the traditional and governmental land ownership systems interact in the land acquisition for the MIFEE project, interviews are conducted with experts on the subject in addition to extensive (grey) literature analysis. The findings show that the knowledge systems differ mainly on their relationship to nature. Due to the power asymmetries shaped by the Indonesian colonization, the indigenous system is the one that loses out.
3 Table of contents
1. Introduction
1.1 Research Focus 1.2 Relevance
1.3 Personal Motivation and Reflection
5 5 5 6 2. Research Approach 2.1 Case Introduction 2.2 Research Question 2.3 Theoretical Perspective 2.4 Methodology 7 7 8 9 9
3. Political Context Papua 12
4. Different Knowledge Systems
4.1 The Indigenous Knowledge System 4.2 The Indonesian Knowledge System
14
14 16 5. Interaction between the different knowledge systems
5.1 Involvement Of Indigenous Peoples In The Land Acquisition Process 5.2 Manner in Which Consent Is Obtained
5.3 Military Presence 18 18 19 22 6. Theoretical Reflections 6.1 Post-Colonial Perspective 6.2 Post Development Perspective
23
23 25 7. Conclusion and Discussion 27
References 28
4 Abbreviations
IFC International Finance Corporation
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
FPIC Free, Prior and Informed Consent
MIFEE Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate
MP3EI Master Plan for Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesia Economic Development
OPM Organisasi Papua Merdeka
PSAL Papua Special Autonomy Law
RSPO Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil
UN United Nations
5 1. Introduction
1.1 Research Focus
This research aims to investigate different land ownership systems by indigenous peoples and state authorities to further understand the land annexation of indigenous land taking place globally. The United Nations definition of indigenous peoples puts an emphasis on their right to ‘preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions, and legal systems’ (Cobo 1986, para.379). However, the ability of indigenous communities to do this is threatened as they are being confronted with land grabs driven by extractive industries, such as farming, mining, and logging. Crook and Short (2014) describe how the annexation of land by these industries and the consequential environmentally destructive externalities can cause ecologically induced genocides of indigenous peoples (Crook & Short, 2014). While multinational corporations and private investor groups play a large role in land grabs, they cannot succeed without legal and material support from national and local governments (Anseeuw, Wily, Cotula & Taylor, 2014). Therefore, this research aims to explore the different ways in which land ownership is viewed by indigenous peoples as well as by the authorities and consequently how these different land ownership systems manifest themselves in the conflict over land. Hereby, the research could contribute to the understanding of the customary land rights of indigenous peoples and the role hereof in conflicts over land globally. The principal question to be answered is:
‘How do the traditional and governmental land ownership systems interact in the land acquisition for the MIFEE project in Papua, Indonesia?’
1.2 Relevance
Indigenous peoples play a crucial part in protecting nature across the world; despite comprising less than 5 percent of the world’s population they protect around 80 percent of global biodiversity (Garnett et al., 2018). Consequently, it is very important to gain insight into the conflicts around their land. As their livelihoods are highly dependent on natural resources, they are among those most at risk from climate change and the destruction of ecosystems while having contributed to these crises the least. The report on Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) recognizes that indigenous peoples have valuable knowledge on sustainable resource management, climate change adaptation and mitigation (Macchi, 2008). However, their coping and adaptive
6
strategies to environmental changes are hardly recognized in international organisations such as the United Nations (Macchi, 2008).This research hopes to help amplify indigenous voices, practices, and customs.
1.3 Personal motivation and reflection
My grandfather was an indigenous Papuan and lived in exile in the Netherlands from 1962 until his passing in 2017. I have grown up listening to his stories about the island he came from where there was beautiful nature and where he would swim and catch fish with a spear as a kid. As I grew up, I became more and more aware about the injustice and violence the indigenous people of Papua had to endure. Since I visited the island and my family in 2018, I feel even more connected to the people of Papua. Hopefully, this thesis can contribute to an increasing overall awareness of the environmental and social conflicts in West Papua and the constant violations of human, civil and political rights the indigenous population of West Papua face (May, 2021). I am thankful for the conversations I have been able to have with the inspiring people who have made the time to talk with me.
The following topics are discussed in this thesis. The second chapter introduces the research approach and the case of the Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate (MIFEE). Consequently, the research questions are identified, and their relevance is elaborated upon. Furthermore, the theoretical perspectives and the chosen methods are explained. In chapter 3 the development history of the current Indonesian provinces Papua and West Papua, located in the Western half of the island New Guinea, is set out with the aim to explain the power dynamics of the indigenous peoples and other actors. Chapter 4 aims to answer the first sub-question by exploring the land ownership system of the Marind Anim as well as the view of the Indonesian authorities. In chapter 5 the findings to the second sub question are presented by elaborating upon the interaction between the different systems in the land acquisition procedures for MIFEE. Chapter 6 dives into the broader theoretical conclusions that can be drawn from the case study, followed by discussion and conclusion in chapter 7.
7 2. Research Approach
2.1 Case Introduction
To investigate how different views on land ownership impact conflicts over land, the Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate (MIFEE) will be used as a case study. MIFEE is a state-led mega project that continues to transform forested land into large scale corporate-run plantations for food and biofuels in the Merauke district of Papua, Indonesia. The scale of MIFEE today is unknown, estimations vary between 500 thousand and 2.5 million hectares, but before its launch concession permits for over 2 million hectares were provided to corporations (Ginting & Pye, 2013; Mcdonnell, 2020). The extractive industries working in the area unleash ecologically destructive externalities such as deforestation and pollution. The land is home to an indigenous group, the Marind Anim, who are severely impacted by the deforestation caused by MIFEE. The forest has high socio-cultural value to this group as it forms an essential part of their identity, customs and religion (Acosta & Curt, 2019; Runtuboi, Permadi, Sahide, & Maryudi, 2021). The staple food of the Marind Anim is sago, which is the starchy interior of a palm species found in the forests. The rest of their diet consists of hunted wild animals (deer, kangaroo, turtles, crocodile, cassowary and boar), fish from the river Kumbe and fruit from the forest as well as from gardens (Forest Peoples Programme; PUSAKA; Sawit Watch, 2013). A wide range of medicinal plants, including cures for malaria, dengue fever, dysentery and migraine, can also be forested. The lost access to forest products in combination with the destruction of living habitat and the pollution of land and water is threatening indigenous people's livelihoods (Acosta & Curt, 2019; Andrianto et al, 2014). Research by McDonnel (2020) shows that the deforestation as a result of MIFEE is destroying the physical, cultural and ecological connections the Marind Anim have with the environment and hereby contributes to the ongoing genocide of the West Papuan people as a manifestation of Indonesian colonization (p.21, McDonnel, 2020).
MIFEE also has impacts on an international level. The forests threatened by MIFEE are located in the most biodiverse island on the planet and play a crucial part in conserving global biodiversity (Cámara-Leret et al., 2020). Furthermore, the forests contribute to climate change mitigation as the land use change from primary forest into palm oil plantations results in 623.3 tons of CO2 per ha due to the loss of the carbon storage. (Acosta & Curt, 2019; Runtuboi et al., 2021)
8 2.2 Research Question
This research aims to investigate the conflicting views on land ownership of land between indigenous peoples and authorities. The case of the MIFEE project is used as it shows a clear clash on land rights between traditional and governmental institutions (McDonnel, 2020). The Indonesian authorities cooperate with extractive industries on the MIFEE and the customary rights of the land are challenged by state ownership and permits. On the other hand, the customary land rights of the indigenous peoples have an impact on the land acquisition process and the consent of the Marind Anim is often sought by the corporations. Ginting and Pye even identify the absence of clan permission as the biggest obstacle to developing the MIFEE project (2013). This leads to the following main research question:
How do the traditional and governmental land ownership systems interact in the land acquisition for the MIFEE project in Papua, Indonesia?
In order to answer this question, the following two sub-questions must be answered:
1. In what ways do the views on land ownership of the Marind Anim differ from the view
of the Indonesian government with regards to the MIFEE project?
2. How do the different land ownership systems manifest themselves in the land acquisition
for MIFEE?
In answering the first sub-question the culture and customs of the Marind Anim with regards to land ownership and boundaries of land is explained in greater detail. Further, the claim on the land of the Indonesian authorities is examined in addition to their view on the customary land. The second sub-question focuses on how the traditional and governmental knowledge systems interact in practicality in the land acquisition for the MIFEE. Hereby, special attention is paid to the extent to which the consent of the indigenous communities is necessary as well as the manners in which consent is gained.
Several academic articles have been written about MIFEE concerning the legitimization of the project through discourse (Ito, Fauzi Rachman, & Savitri, 2014), the power structures behind the project and the emerging resistance (Ginting & Pye, 2013) and the impact of the project on the Marind Anim (Mcdonnell, 2020). This study adds to this literature as it seeks to explore the annexation of land and the clash between the indigenous and governmental knowledge systems.
9 2.3 Theoretical perspectives
A political ecology perspective, with integrated insights from post-development theory and postcolonial theory, has been adopted to analyse the findings of the case study. The field of political ecology views ecological systems and ideas about them as power laden. Therefore in this field researchers focus on relations of power when addressing changes in environmental systems such as deforestation as a result of MIFEE (Robbins, 2012). Political ecology centres around identifying broader systems rather than proximate forces, the winners and losers, and the hidden costs. Also it centres around the real causes rather than symptoms of problems (Robbins, 2012). Political ecologists would argue that an explanation of environmental change should highlight who benefits from changes in control over resources and who takes what from whom (Robbins, 2012). Furthermore, instead of claiming objectivity, and the neutrality this suggests, research from a political ecology perspective takes an explicitly normative approach thus recognizes the influence of the researcher’s position and worldview.
The political ecology perspective leads to a research which incorporates insights from the fields of postcolonial studies and post-development studies. Firstly, it is important to view the problems in the area by taking the area’s colonial history into account. Postcolonial studies focus on the consequences of the control and exploitation of colonized people and their lands. The case of West Papua is in this context quite unique as it has been colonized by the Netherlands, then entered a period of decolonization, whereafter it was recolonized by Indonesia (Pouwer, 1999). An overview of the colonial history of West Papua is set out in chapter 2 to provide a contextual background to the case of MIFEE and to explain the power dynamics between the indigenous communities and the Indonesian government. Secondly, the theory of post-development aims to dismantle the concept of ‘development’ as a discourse of those in power (Permanent Working Group on Alternatives to Development, 2013). Insights from this theory are used to explain the dominant discourse used by the Indonesian authorities to justify the mega food estates such as MIFEE (Ito et al., 2014).
2.4 Methodology
MIFEE is used as a case study to investigate the clash between indigenous knowledge systems and governmental knowledge systems, with a focus on the different views on land ownership. The land-grabbing and deforestation caused by MIFEE and the power structures that facilitate this on different levels are examined through an extensive literature review as well as an analysis of grey literature, policies, and reports by non-governmental organisations.
10
The literature analysis is combined with interviews with experts. The following experts have been interviewed:
1. Selwyn Moran, an independent translator and researcher, the United Kingdom. He has launched the digital platform ‘AwasMIFEE’ which provides collected information on MIFEE from different sources.
Interview conducted on 14-04-2021, 1hour trough Zoom.
2. Sophie Chao, postdoctoral research associate at the University of Sydney, Australia She has spent 18 months living with and studying the Marind Anim in Merauke to research the impact of the agrobusiness. She has also worked for the NGO Forest Peoples Programmes that fights human rights violations in plantation developments.
Interview conducted on 15-04-2021, 52 minutes trough Zoom.
3. Franky Samperante, founder and director of the Indonesian NGO Yayasan Pusaka, Sulawesi, Indonesia
The programmes of PUSAKA support indigenous peoples in Indonesia and they actively work in the regions Aceh and Papua to increase the participation of the local communities in the decision-making process.
Interview conducted on 16-04-2021, 36 minutes trough Zoom + e-mail.
4. Wenislaus Fatubun, human rights advisor, member of the Gebze clan of the Marind Anim, Papua, Indonesia.
He works as a human rights advisor for the Papuan People’s Assembly, a governmental body set up under the Special Autonomy Law, and has written a thesis on the ethnography of the Marind Anim.
Interview conducted on 17-05-2021, 1 hour and 45 minutes trough Zoom. 5. Fadjar Schouten-Korwa, a human rights lawyer with Papuan roots, The Netherlands
She is expert in international law, human rights and the right to self-determination. She is also a pro bono counsellor of the Papua Support Foundation and member of the Advisory Board of the Stop Ecocide Campaign.
Interview conducted by e-mail.
The interviews were semi-structured as the topics and questions were based on both a prepared question list (see Appendix A) as well as on the input of the interviewed experts
11
(Creswell, 2013). The question list is composed according to the findings of the (grey) literature review. The order in which the questions were asked depended on the flow of the conversation. To ensure privacy and consent, the interviewed experts have been informed about the purpose of the study and the planned use of the data before being asked permission to record. All interviewed experts approved the use of their name and quotes in this thesis. The interviews were held trough Zoom and audio-recorded using the dictate application on an Iphone. Afterwards the interviews have been transcribed using the intelligent verbatim transcription method.
From the political ecology perspective, I also tried to be constantly aware of the influence of my position during the conduct of the research. A position which is influenced by my upbringing and Papuan roots.
12 3. Political context West Papua
In this chapter an overview of West Papua’s colonial past is sketched to acquire a better understanding of the current power dynamics between the Papuan indigenous population and the Indonesian government because these dynamics play an important role in the land acquisition for the MIFEE project.
West Papua, the current Indonesian provinces Papua and West Papua (Papua Barat),is a former colony of the Netherlands by the name of Dutch New Guinea. After the Republic of Indonesia, which did not include West Papua, declared its independence from the Netherlands in 1945, a conflict over the resource-rich territory began between the Netherlands and Indonesia (May, 2021). The Netherlands pressed for West Papua’s independence while Indonesia tried to assert military authority in the region. In 1962 the international community intervened by establishing the United Nations Temporary Administration under the New York Agreement whereby Indonesia gained control over West Papua, with the condition that there would be a vote on self-determination within six years (May, 2021). In the signing of this agreement no Papuan representatives were involved (Drooglever, 2005 p. 465-p. 491). The referendum, called the ‘Act of Free Choice’, was held in 1969. Hereby, the Indonesian government let the military select 1026 Papuans who could vote, instead of following the agreed-upon common one-person-one-vote system (May, 2021; Viartasiwi, 2018). These representatives were intimidated and threatened, resulting in a unanimous vote in favour of Indonesia (Drooglever, 2005; May, 2021). West Papua became part of Indonesia and a new wave of colonization began (Pouwer, 1999). Ever since, the plebiscite is referred to as the ‘Act of No Choice’ and Indonesia’s control over West Papua is firmly contested by its indigenous people (Drooglever, 2005). Any call for independence or resistance has been met with military violence in the form of murder, rape, torture, beatings, arbitrary detention and other abuse (Anderson, 2015). The occasional raids of the freedom movement Organisasi Papua Merdeka (OPM) are frequently used to legitimise military violence and the criminalisation of any discussion about independence (May, 2021; Viartasiwi, 2018). To illustrate, OPM cut the fuel pipelines to the Freeport mine in the 1977 and in the following years as many as 100.000 civilians have been killed by the Indonesian State (Anderson, 2015). Indigenous Papuans are marginalized in policy and decision-making and governance and rule over the region is highly centralised (Forest Peoples Programme; PUSAKA; Sawit Watch, 2013).
13
The state has organised transmigration programmes that relocated millions of famers from the densely populated island Java to Papua. As a result half the population of West Papua consisted in 2019 of Indonesian migrants, putting the Papuans at risk of being a minority in their own land (Kulesza, 2019). This scheme is widely seen as a strategy of domination and meant to forcefully adjust Papuans to Indonesian cultural, economic and political norms (Gietzelt, 1989; Ginting & Pye, 2013). Furthermore, the region has been subject to extensive resource extraction through mining and logging since Indonesia gained control (Ginting & Pye, 2013). The most prominent example of this is the Freeport McMoRan mine at Grasberg, the world’s largest gold and copper mine, which has resulted in large environmental problems and violent conflicts (May, 2021).
In response to demands for independence by representatives of the Papuan indigenous peoples to the President of Indonesia in February 1999, the Papua Special Autonomy Law (PSAL or Otsus) was enacted in 2001 which gave the region the Special Autonomy Status (Sullivan, 2003). This law was intended to decentralise the governance and to hereby refocus the self-determination aspirations expressed by the majority of the indigenous peoples (Forest Peoples Programme; PUSAKA; Sawit Watch, 2013). However, the central government has remained in control over decisions relating to the exploitation of natural resources and the PSAL remains largely unimplemented due to the absence of required subsidiary legislation (Sullivan, 2003). From the representation in local government it can be seen that indigenous Papuans are under represented and therefore not able to participate substantially in decision making (int. Fadjar Schouten-Korwa). Furthermore, extra billions Rupiah (1 billion Rupiah equals
approximately 57 thousand euro) of funding as a result of the law have not reached the Papuan
inhabitants but have been used by the political elite, ‘who base their power on compliance with Jakarta, the military and votes from the increasing number of Javanese migrants’(Ginting & Pye, 2013, p. 165).
To conclude, the military oppression and socio-economic and political exclusion as a result of Indonesian recolonization have fuelled fear and distrust in the central Indonesian government amongst Papuan peoples (Forest Peoples Programme; PUSAKA; Sawit Watch, 2013). The indigenous population of West Papua is marginalized and oppressed, the decisions are made by the central government, the military, and corporations. In the words of Ginting and Pye; ‘the MIFEE project is set firmly within this framework of military-business-politicians network and of political intimidation and oppression’(Ginting & Pye, 2013, p. 165).
14 4. Different knowledge systems
This chapter presents the findings of the conducted interviews on the first sub question which is: In what ways do the views on land ownership of the Marind Anim differ from the view of the
Indonesian government with regards to the MIFEE project? First the indigenous knowledge
system and consequently the Indonesian governmental knowledge system on land ownership is elaborated upon.
4.1 The indigenous knowledge system
The indigenous peoples in the Merauke Regency self-identify as the Marind Anim, which translates to the Marind kind of humans. The Marind are subdivided into seven clans (marga), whose existence goes back to before Dutch colonization. Wenislaus Fatubun, member of the Gebze clan and expert on Marind ethnography, explains that in order to understand the local communities’ view on land you have to first learn about the myths of the Marind Anim. According to the most important myth, ‘Dema’ is the ancient creator of Marind peoples, the environment, the animals and everything else. According to the myth there were once three generations. The first generation consisted of Geb and Samelik, who later became the Gebze and the Mahuze clan (int. Wenislaus Fatubun). Geb and Samelik created the second generation, who were godlike immortal figures. The second generation gave birth to the third generation; the Marind Anim now. As the third generation was mortal, the second generation transformed from a human form to plants and animals to help and support the Marind Anim. These species, such as sago, coconut and kangaroo, became the totem species of the different clans. The names of the clans follow the totem species, which they are responsible for and which is of cultural significance (int. Sophie Chao). ‘Ze’ means child of, so there is for example the Mahuze clan, which translates to children of the dog and the Gebze clan which translates to children of the coconut (int. Wenislaus Fatubun / int. Sophie Chao). Clans can have multiple totem species; the Mahuze clan is in addition to the dog responsible for sago and yellow bird. If a totem species would be lost from the landscape, the clan would lose its identity. Consequently, the clans protect their totemic species. There are restrictions on the consumption of totemic animals and crops and for their use in rituals (Forest Peoples Programme; PUSAKA; Sawit Watch, 2013). So based on the Marind Anim culture nature and land is a part of them (int. Wenislaus Fatubun). Their ancestors are within the endemic plant and animal species. Consequently, the clans do not speak of ‘owning’ the land, instead they feel like they belong to the land and they are the land’s guardians (int. Sophie Chao). It is the responsibility of the clan to take care of the
15
land they belong to in relations of reciprocal care and nourishment. Instead of a discourse of property or ownership there is a discourse of kinship. The indigenous peoples talk about the land as sacred, their mother, their relative and ancestor (int. Sophie Chao / int. Wenislaus Fatubun). So, according to the cultural values the land cannot be sold. Wenislaus Fatubun told me:
‘We cannot sell our land. You know why? Because land is the mother that gives us life. In the land lives the second generation. For the Marind Anim their ancestors do not die, they are living together with them. So, they cannot sell their land, because when they sell the land, they are killing
their ancestors.’ - Wenislaus Fatubun
Consequently, the Marind Anim believe that when they sell the land, and the forests are destroyed, they will face difficulties. They call this ‘Tiek Dema’ or ‘Dema tiek’; their ancestors will punish them for not following the cultural values (int. Wenislaus Fatubun). Wenislaus Fatubun said that when the first Dutch government officials arrived in the beginning of 1900, they burned down several of the traditional houses with cultural value. Consequently, from 1910 to 1917 the Spanish flue arrived which took the lives of many Marind peoples. The Marind believe this was Dema Tiek punishing them for the lost cultural value and it has increased the fear of Dema Tiek up until today. This has increased the resistance against MIFEE (int. Wenislaus Fatubun).
‘With the pandemic covid-19 the same, they are thinking this is part of Tiek Dema punishing us because we destroyed our cultures by selling our land to the company, because we do not respect
our ancestor, our Dema and our totem.’
- Wenislaus Fatubun
In the case that someone does want to sell or give away the land, all the members of the clan need to be consulted as the land is perceived as part of a collective (int. Wenislaus Fatubun). These are decisions about a communal good, or a communal kin in some way (int. Sophie Chao). The right to use the land is held by the clan, not by the head of the clan. And even then, because according to the myth they are not able to sell land, a younger generation could come and try to reclaim the land that is sold by their parents (int. Wenislaus).
Each clan has ownership over different areas of land. The borders of these territories are determined by the ‘memory of the paths that their ancestors have taken’ (Forest Peoples Programme; PUSAKA; Sawit Watch, 2013. p. 21) . As the history of the ancestors is described in the myths that are passed from generation to generation everyone knows the boundaries
16
between the different clan territories (int. Wenislaus Fatubun). Wenislaus Fatubun pointed out that it is essential for a member of the Marind Anim to know the myths that connect them to the place because this is the proof that that place is part of his or her territory. If he or she cannot tell the story about the ancestor Dema and connect it to the totem, the land does not belong to him or her (int. Wenislaus).
Sophie Chao, a researcher from Australia who has lived with Marind Anim communities for one and a half year to investigate the impact of the agrobusiness, explained to me that the boundaries of the land of different clans are not static or fixed. They are continually moving because the plants and animals - who are in their view very much part of land - move all the time as they grow, and reproduce and migrate (Chao, 2017). There is an intimate ancestral kinship between the non-human and the human. When the animals move across the landscape, the clan sees them as extending or retracting their territorial boundaries. The landscape and the boundaries are living and therefore dynamic (int. Sophie Chao).
Furthermore, some areas, referred to as ‘sar’, have restricted access. An area can be defined as sar because they are considered sacred, or they can be graveyards or ancestral sites (Forest Peoples Programme; PUSAKA; Sawit Watch, 2013). The practice is also used as a means of allowing nature to regenerate itself and to save natural resources (int. Wenislaus Fatubun). For example, when a member of the Marind community passes away an area is designated as ‘sar’, so that after about two weeks it will be easy to collect enough food in this area for the traditional ceremony or gathering (int. Wenislaus Fatubun).
4.2 The Indonesian knowledge system
In this section the view on land and nature of the Indonesian authorities is explained and consequently their view on indigenous customary land ownership.
The MIFEE is part of the Master Plan for Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesia Economic Development, known as MP3EI, which was launched by President Yudohyono’s administration in 2011. This plan consists of six economic corridors throughout Indonesia, each with their own focus. Corridor 6 runs through Papua and Maluku and is focussed on the development of food, fishery, energy, and mining (Indonesia Ministry for Economic Affairs, 2011). With the launch of MP3EI the Indonesian government hopes to become one of the world’s main food suppliers through agriculture, fishery and the processing of natural resources (Indonesia Ministry for Economic Affairs, 2011). This plan clearly articulates the view of the Indonesian government on nature; it should be developed for economical gain.
17
Sophie Chao pointed out that there is a prevalent assumption on the part of the Indonesian government that when an area is covered in forest instead of in gardens and horticulture, people are not using the land. The Indonesian authorities go by the concept of Terra Nullius; the idea that land is uninhabited because humans have not left a visible physical imprint on it (int. Sophie Chao). There is this notion that because the area is not deforested, it is not yet ‘developed’ and available.
The Indonesian government has always promoted national unity by recognising only one ‘Indonesian people’ (satu bangsa) and hereby denying the self-identification of indigenous groups (McWilliam, 2006). They remain in control by including in the laws, which are supposed to protect the indigenous peoples’ rights, that not the indigenous peoples, but the local government decides who are recognized as indigenous peoples. In order to achieve this, the indigenous peoples need to satisfy the often arbitrary requests for evidence of their institutions and customs, which delays the State’s recognition and thus the protection of their rights (Forest Peoples Programme; PUSAKA; Sawit Watch, 2013).
Selwyn Moran, founder of the platform AwasMIFEE, explained that officially the Indonesian authorities recognize that indigenous forest is not state forest, since this was decided by the constitutional court of Indonesia in 2013 with Ruling 35. This ruling allows the local government to have land recognized as indigenous forest by the national government. As a consequence on 30 December 2016 customary forests of nine indigenous communities were recognized for the first time (Safitri, 2015). However, the procedure is very complicated and no ethnic group in Papua has managed to get their forest certified so far. Safitri (2015) has identified three main obstacles in the actual recognition of customary forest; the inconsistency in national law about the procedures, the releasing of customary forests from the classification ‘forest areas’ which excludes them from possible protection, and the prioritization of large investments by governments (Safitri, 2015). Van der Muur (2018) states that the informal linkages between local communities and the local authorities play a large role in the decision on customary land rights. Consequently, communities that conflict with state actors, such as the indigenous peoples of Papua, tend to not be recognized as indigenous and thus denied their customary land rights (van der Muur, 2018). In Papua the process is even more complicated because the local governments do not have very strong capacity to do the obligated work for the application (int. Selwyn Moran). Also, in Papua there is more pressure from vested interests in the central government and military to not recognize indigenous rights (int. Selwyn Moran).
18 5. Interaction between the knowledge systems
In this chapter the findings for the following second sub question are set out: How do the
different land ownership systems manifest themselves in the land acquisition for MIFEE? To
do this, first the extent to which the local communities are involved in the land acquisition process for MIFEE is discussed by explaining the legal framework and how this is executed in practice. Secondly, the different ways in which the communities’ consent for the project is gained are illustrated. Thirdly, the role of the military in the land acquisition is explained.
5.1 Involvement of indigenous peoples in the land acquisition process
In order to gain an understanding of the involvement of indigenous peoples in the land acquisition process for MIFEE, the legal framework on international, national and provincial level that defines this involvement is explained. Consequently, the extent to which these regulations and rules are executed in practise is illustrated.
Several international agreements bind the Indonesian government and corporations to respecting the rights of the indigenous communities in the land acquisition for MIFEE. Firstly, Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is a principle of international law that explains the right of indigenous peoples to ‘make decisions through their own freely chosen representatives
and customary or other institutions and to give or withhold their consent prior to the approval by government, industry or other outside party of any project that may affect the lands, territories and resources that they customarily own, occupy or otherwise use’ (Forest Peoples
Programme; PUSAKA; Sawit Watch, 2013, p. 10). As Indonesia is a signatory of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) from 2007, they are legally obligated to adhere to this. Secondly, a large share of the companies that are part of MIFEE receive loans from the lending branch of the World Bank the International Finance Corporation (IFC). This means they need to abide by the IFC Performance Standards. Performance Standard 7 on Indigenous peoples requires companies to avoid adverse impacts on indigenous peoples, consult with them, ensure that they participate in, and benefit from Bank- funded operations in a culturally appropriate way (International Finance Corporation, 2006).Thirdly, some of the corporations working in Merauke are part of non-legal voluntary standards and commodity certifications, such as the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). These organisations go further than what the national law requires and have very strong language about the need to respect Free, Prior and Informed consent as defined by the United Nations. But as these are voluntary standards, corporations are not obliged to take part in them.
19
Indonesia itself also has very explicit language in its legal instruments that do require that states seek the consent of local communities before initiating projects that will affect their land, resources, and livelihoods. However, as Sophie Chao pointed out to me, there is always the precondition in these laws that the state must respect consent as long as it does not go against national interests. As soon as the government invokes national interests it trumps local rights to consent. So, there is a legal problem in terms of forcing companies to receive consent from the local communities before developing their land. (int. Sophie Chao).
On a provincial level the Papua Special Autonomy law states that communities must have given their consent before the government can issue permits, and that there should be a legislation on the process that companies should use for negotiations over land with local communities (int. Selwyn Moran + Franky Samperante). However, Franky Samperante, founder and director of the Indonesian NGO Pusaka, states that these rules are not enforced, and that community approval is only a formality for the company to regulate its business plan and gain approval from the government. Selwyn Moran points out that the steps of the process of land acquisition that the companies should follow have never been defined due to the weak capacity of the local authorities and the vested interests of the politicians and military. The National Land Agency, which is the Indonesian body that issues cultivation rights to plantation companies, seems to approve any documentation that looks like some form of negotiation took place, and they do not check whether an agreement has really been made (int. Selwyn Moran).
5.2 Manner in which consent is obtained
Despite the regulations in the previous section not being fully adhered to, the customary land rights of the indigenous peoples have an impact on the land acquisition
process and the consent of the Marind Anim clans is often sought by the corporations. Ginting and Pye even identify the absence of clan permission as the biggest obstacle to developing the MIFEE project (2013). Selwyn Moran further explains that it is kind of generally accepted by companies that they negotiate with somebody before starting a plantation, but that there are no rules or enforcement about how this should be done. This results in different kinds of
interactions with the indigenous communities. Three recurring ways in which the companies gain consent have been identified, namely the use of consultation, the use of manipulation and tricks and the use of culture.
20
Consultation as consent
Research by Sophie Chao reveals that many corporations use the concept of consultation as consent. Hereby, representatives of companies organise meetings to merely consult the communities on the project. They go to the villages to tell the communities what the project entails but hereby leave no space for the communities to have a say as to whether or not they agree with the project. Consultation in this context is a one-way transfer of information from those who have the power to those who hold the land (int. Sophie Chao + int Wenislaus
Fatubun). Franky Samperante also confirms this by explaining that the communities are only
involved in the process of land acquisition when the companies have already obtained land rights from the government in the form of permits. Only then are the communities consulted on the plans of the government and corporations.
Manipulation and tricks
In cases where the companies do receive consent, local communities have often been manipulated into giving consent through the use of ‘insufficient and one-sided information, non-guaranteed promises of economic and social welfare aid, unilaterally imposed terms of compensation and with vague or non-existent contracts’ (Forest Peoples Programme; PUSAKA; Sawit Watch, 2013. p. 6). There is a large information shortage causing indigenous people to sign contracts without knowing the legal implications, such as that the land will automatically become state land when a plantation license expires (int. Sophie Chao). Fanky Samperante describes how the companies sometimes make development promises such as clean water, electricity, building houses and churches, school fees, economic programs, labour recruitment or simply compensation money in order to get the acceptance of the communities. Furthermore, in some cases community members are tricked into giving consent. Sophie Chao and Wenislaus Fatubun give the example of how local people were invited to attend a consultation by a company and had to sign a registration list in order to attend. When several months later the bulldozers arrived to clear their sago groves, and they came to tell the workers to stop, the workers simply showed the registration list from the consultation meeting as proof that they had received consent. Another way companies attempt to gain consent is by picking individuals in the village and inviting them to the city for a meeting about oil palm and developments. Sometimes they are even brought to Jakarta, Sumatra or Kalimantan where they stay in hotels to visit plantations and see the company’s success. They convince this person, often by promising monetary gain, to go and convince the rest of the community. This causes a lot of friction and social fragmentation within the communities. (int. Sophie Chao + int.
21
Franky Samperante). Finally, Sophie Chao has seen several cases where the companies
blackmailed the men of Marind Anim with footage of them with prostitutes after they got them drunk.
Use of culture
Sophie Chao explained that corporations also actively use certain aspects of the culture of the Marind to manipulate them to give consent. The Marind, like many other Papuan peoples, live by an ethos of inclusion, reciprocity, generosity and making kin, also with people from outside the community1 (int. Sophie Chao). Corporate actors understand that adoption is an important principle within Marind culture and are using this to their advantage. They try to befriend community members, often with promises of material benefits, compensations, education, scholar for their children and so forth in order to gain consent (int. Wenislaus Fatubun + Sophie Chao). The Marind’s culture is very welcoming and hospitable which makes them vulnerable to actors who under false pretences familiarize themselves into their world and then lay claim to the land. A prominent example hereof is the head of industrial tree plantation Medco, Arifin Panigoro, becoming a member of the Gebze clan in order to receive permission to use massive amounts of the clans land (Ginting & Pye, 2013; Ito et al., 2014). Other important values in the culture of the Marind Anim are reciprocity and exchange. So the norm is that if someone gives you a gift you cannot refuse and you must reciprocate (The Gecko Project and Mongabay, 2019). Corporate actors abuse these principles by organizing feasts and giving presents and money. Sophie Chao explained that companies even appropriate indigenous forms of rituals to create an obligation and indebtedness on the part of the communities to give something back. They organise an indigenous ritual and bring all the required elements, such as pigs and sago, only to come back later and demand land in return (Chao, 2019). These examples clearly show how the two different cultural systems interacting causes some devastating effects. The cultural values of the Marind Anim makes them vulnerable when confronted with powerful actors from other cultures.
To conclude, Franky Samperante and Selwyn Moran state that even though there always is some kind of interaction in the form of a negotiation, meeting or compensation money, there is actually no freedom for local communities to refuse plans.
1A personal example of these cultural principles occurred when I visited my family in West
Papua. My parents had warned me not to give compliments on anything they owned because they would then give it to me. Even though I had never met them before, I was welcomed as like a long-lost daughter into the family and I was fully taken care of for two weeks.
22 5.3 Military presence
Sophie Chao explains that the military is very present in the Merauke regency. It is often hard to tell who is formally and informally military, as the military often work in collusion with the palm oil corporations, informally as security patrols, as middlemen and so on (int. Sophie Chao + Selwyn Moran). The military is involved in companies and has large economic interests in the oil palm plantations (Ginting & Pye, 2013, int. Fadjar Schouten-Korwa). The collusion between the military and the corporations is happening across Indonesia, however the geopolitical context of Papua distinguishes it from other mega food estate projects in Indonesia such as the Mega Rice Project in Kalimantan (int. Sophie Chao). Due to the struggle for independence Papua is already a highly militarized part of Indonesia. Near the border of Papua New Guinea there are more army units, there is a military post every 10 kilometer, and here there are also more plantation (int. Selwyn Moran). Selwyn Moran also explains that due to the ongoing oppression, and the violence that comes with it, people are already very scared of the military. They are often present at negotiations between companies and indigenous peoples, which is experienced as intimidation (int. Selwyn Moran, Franky Samperante & Wenislaus Fatubun). Furthermore, Selwyn Moran explains how companies force people to hand over their land by threatening to treat them as Organisasi Papua Merdeka (Free Papua Movement) terrorists. People who are involved in grassroots movements for land rights are exposed to physical and psychological violence such as intimidation, harassment and extrajudicial incarcerations and the confiscation of ID’s (int. Sophie Chao). The high level of militarization creates a climate where handing over the land becomes the only choice (int. Selwyn).
23 6. Theoretical reflections
In this chapter the findings on the case of MIFEE are related to the theoretical perspective of political ecology. Insights from three interrelated perspectives that are part of the broader theory of political ecology are discussed, namely the post-colonial perspective and the post development perspective.
6.1 Post colonial perspective
Political ecology, as stated earlier, emphasizes relations of power when analysing environmental issues. The explanation of changes in ecosystems should clarify who benefits from these changes and who takes what from whom (Robbins, 2012). As explained in chapter 2, the power dynamics between the indigenous communities and the authorities in West Papua are shaped by colonization and the violence that has come with it. Postcolonial theory underscores the role power plays in defining the dominant discourse and how the discourse in turn legitimises and reinforces power dynamics. Edward Saïd, one of the founders of postcolonial theory, emphasizes the way the colonizer views and frames the (previously) colonized and how this is reflected in knowledge production. In his book ‘Orientalism’ he points out that the writings that explain the fundamental differences between the East and the West contribute to the justification of domination of the one over the other (Robbins, 2012; Said, 1977). Hereby, the East is characterized by primitiveness, mysterious backwardness, spirituality, and irrationality. Consequently, the notion can be justified that the ‘traditional’ values of ‘the other’ need to be replaced by ‘progressive’ ideas from the West (Said, 1977).
Through the case of MIFEE these postcolonial insights on the consequences of Western colonization can be recognized in the Indonesian colonization of West Papua. In chapter 3 we have seen that the knowledge system on land ownership of the indigenous peoples differs massively from the knowledge system of the Indonesian authorities and the corporations. The findings set out in chapter 4 show that the indigenous land ownership system is the one who loses out when confronted with the more powerful Indonesian system. Power in the form of money, military violence, impunity, and manipulation comes into play when deciding what counts as valid knowledge of place and therefore who has a right to it or not. Furthermore, indigenous ways of knowing often are dismissed in the dominant Indonesian discourse as
24
backward, primitive, and superstitious (int. Sophie Chao) 2. As explained in chapter 3, the
relationship to nature is the main difference between the Indonesian and indigenous knowledge system. Nature and humans can be characterized as symbiotic in Marind culture as according to the myths their ancestors are living in the forest and looking after them. Nature even acts as a guide, for example as it determines the boundaries of the territories. On the other hand, the Indonesian system, as the MIFEE case shows, on the other hand follows the more Western ‘modern’ idea that nature should be dominated and exploited for productive use. In this view humans and nature are strictly separate, instead of humans being a part of nature, and thus humans can ‘develop’ nature. This reasoning creates a justification for the destruction of ecosystems and for the replacement of the indigenous practices and relationship to nature. Sophie Chao explains that the local communities are struggling to overcome not only the foreign ways of understanding place, but also the foreign ways of understanding what it means to be indigenous and all the stigmatization and racialization that accompanies the colonial ways of seeing. Indigenous Papuan’s often experience extensive discrimination and racism from Indonesians. To illustrate, in August 2019 a video was shared in which Papuan students in East Java were harassed by a group Indonesians and some soldiers and called monkeys (“Papua protests: Racist taunts open deep wounds - BBC News,” n.d.). This testimony of the racism Papuans experience daily in Indonesia sparked the largest protests in years in West Papua whereby the Indonesian government shut down the internet and sent thousands of additional military troops. The racist slur ‘monkey’, that is often used, frames the indigenous Papuan’s as being less human and consequently legitimises their lives being determined by those who are deemed more human. To conclude this section, the manipulation and violence seen in the previous chapter that are used to enforce the Indonesian knowledge system are accompanied by the invalidation of the indigenous Papuan’s knowledge and relationship to nature.
‘Many Papua's that I worked with see the arrival of oil palm as just another form of colonization. First there were settlers and now there is oil palm, this plant is also colonizing the forest and the land
and the rivers. It is a continuation of pre-existing forms of dispossession and displacement and disempowerment. Although now in the name of food and fuel security and global markets and so on.
There is continuity at play at the same time as there is radical social and environmental ruptures happening.’
- Sophie Chao
2When I was in Indonesia myself, I found that when I mentioned that my grandfather was
from West Papua, often people laughed and made jokes about their way of living and them supposedly being cannibals.
25 6.2 Post-development perspective
As stated before, the theory of post-development aims to dismantle the concept of ‘development’ as a discourse of those in power (Permanent Working Group on Alternatives to Development, 2013). In the justification of MIFEE, two discourses can be identified which are explained in this section.
Firstly, according to Sophie Chao, Indonesia portrays Papua as being underdeveloped, which supports their idea that agrobusiness could alleviate poverty in the area as well as generate jobs and infrastructure. Regional economic development is a key rhetoric instrument in the devising of MIFEE and other large-scale projects that do not account for or represent the indigenous peoples understanding of what it means to live a good life (int. Sophie Chao). Villages in Papua close to the plantations are found to have better infrastructure and public facilities than other villages in the region and the local economy is stimulated (Agus Andrianto, Barnabas F Sedik, Habel Waridjo, Heru Komarudin, & Krystof Obidzinski, 2014). However, several studies show that oil palm plantations in West Papua do not alleviate poverty for the indigenous population. Firstly, it is hard for the local communities to benefit from the increase in job opportunities as they often require agricultural skills that the locals are perceived to lack by the plantation companies and as they are sometimes unwilling to leave their traditional way of life (Acosta & Curt, 2019; Runtuboi et al., 2021). Consequently, skilled immigrant workers from other parts of Indonesia take over the best jobs leaving the unskilled and temporal jobs for the Papuans, who on top of this are paid lower wages than immigrant workers (Agus Andrianto et al., 2014; Runtuboi et al., 2021). Secondly, research by Acosta and Curt shows that about 14 percent of the benefits of the plantations are for the local population in the form of health, education, infrastructure, entrepreneurship opportunities and local jobs, while 80 percent of the benefits are shared by the investors and the Indonesian government (Acosta & Curt, 2019). Meanwhile, the local population directly experiences the negative effects of the oil palm plantations and the resulting deforestation. Finally, according to research by Acosta and Curt (2019) the value of the Primary Forest Ecosystem services is higher than the value generated by palm oil, making the conversion not feasible from an economic perspective.
Secondly, the state authorities - in alliance with corporate actors and local elites - have adopted a discourse of national food security and development to justify and legitimize the large-scale land dispossession for the MIFEE (Ito et al., 2014). Following the global food crisis in 2007/2008 the Indonesian authorities announced the MIFEE project with the aim to ‘Feed Indonesia, then the world’ and to export rice, palm oil, sugar and soybeans to global markets
26
(Maulia, 2010). This discourse is accompanied by a ‘legally binding spatial planning created by the state that allows corporations to acquire vast areas of land in the name of food security’ (Ito et al., 2014). Selwyn Moran explains how MIFEE and other similar mega food estate projects in Indonesia ore not well planned. For example, the rice fields in Merauke are currently producing a surplus because the infrastructure to distribute the rice is lacking (int. Selwyn). Most of the projects do not materialize to the scale that was announced at the beginning (examples). He states that, although difficult to prove, the most logical explanation for the initial launching of projects such as MIFEE is that there is an incentive for government officials to announce these projects because they will receive government funding. Furthermore, in forested areas the main motivation for companies is the money that can be made from the timber (int. Selwyn).
Despite announcing MIFEE in the name of food security, the food security for the indigenous peoples living in the area has decreased due to the plantations. As stated earlier, the diet of the Marind Anim consists mainly of sago, hunted animals, fish, and fruit. The possibility to collect these products is severely impacted by the arrival of the plantations (Chao, 2021). Interviews with people from the Zanegi village conducted by local NGO’s show the effects of MIFEE on food security. Hunting has become difficult due to the lost access to land and due to the wild animals fleeing from the noise and pollution caused by the plantations. As sago forests have been cleared, the animals that are caught often need to be sold to be able to have money to buy rice or instant noodles (Forest Peoples Programme; PUSAKA; Sawit Watch, 2013). Fish has become scarce, and the fish that is left is often said to be ‘drunk on pollution’ due to ‘the yellow oily waters’ (Forest Peoples Programme; PUSAKA; Sawit Watch, 2013). There are many cases of infant malnutrition in the areas where plantations have been developed (int.
Selwyn). For example, in the Zanegi village five infants had died of malnutrition related illness
at the time of conducting the interviews in 2013 (Forest Peoples Programme; PUSAKA; Sawit Watch, 2013). Furthermore, despite Indonesia’s emphasis on the production of food, the Indonesian corporations in cooperation with politicians and military are mainly interested in the production of oil palm, sugar cane and industrial tree plantations (Awas MIFEE, 2012).
In post-development literature an emphasis is put on who benefits from the
mainstream discourses. The discourses of development and food security are adopted by the state and companies. The findings of the MIFEE case show that not the indigenous
communities but the politicians, companies, and military benefit from the discourses of development and food security.
27 7. Conclusion and Discussion
From the findings of chapters 4 it can be concluded that the traditional and governmental knowledge systems differ mainly on their relationship to nature. According to the culture of the Marind Anim they form a single entity with nature as their ancestors are part of the forest. Consequently, their land cannot be sold. The Indonesian authorities have adopted the modernistic view that nature should be dominated and developed for economic gains. Power come into play when deciding what counts as valid knowledge of place and therefore who has a right to the land. The findings shown in chapter 5 show that the indigenous communities are not able to stop the companies from replacing the nature with large scale plantations. Their right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent is not respected. The indigenous communities are either not given an option to withhold consent at all, or their consent is gained using tricks, manipulation or abusing certain aspects of their culture. Power in the form of money, military violence, impunity, and manipulation in combination with the invalidation of the indigenous Papuan’s knowledge and customs lead to the domination of the Indigenous knowledge system. The power asymmetries are shaped by the region’s colonization of Indonesia since 1962. Furthermore, a discourse of development and national food security is used to justify the MIFEE project.
In conducting this research, I have been met with several limitations. Firstly, a chance to interview someone from the Indonesian government or companies working in Merauke could have given me a better perspective of both parties. Secondly, it was a challenge to amplify the knowledge and position of the Marind Anim since extensive research about the clans lacks. Further research needs to be conducted on possible solutions for the conflict between knowledge and power systems in Papua and on how to protect indigenous peoples rights’ in general.
28 References
Acosta, P., & Curt, M. D. (2019). Understanding the expansion of oil palm cultivation: A case-study in Papua. Journal of Cleaner Production, 219, 199–216.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.029
Agus Andrianto, Barnabas F Sedik, Habel Waridjo, Heru Komarudin, & Krystof Obidzinski. (2014). The impacts of oil palm plantations on forests and people in Papua, A case study from Boven Digoel District - Google Play. Retrieved from
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=t_iWCgAAQBAJ&hl=nl&lr=&printsec=frontcover&p g=GBS.PA22
Anderson, K. (2015). Colonialism and Cold Genocide: The Case of West Papua. Genocide Studies and Prevention, 9(2), 9–25. https://doi.org/10.5038/1911-9933.9.2.1270
Awas MIFEE. (2012). An Agribusiness Attack in West Papua: unravelling the Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate. Retrieved from
https://awasmifee.potager.org/uploads/2012/03/mifee_en.pdf
Cámara-Leret, R., Frodin, D. G., Adema, F., Anderson, C., Appelhans, M. S., Argent, G., … van Welzen, P. C. (2020). New Guinea has the world’s richest island flora. Nature, 584(7822), 579– 583. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2549-5
Chao, S. (2017). “There Are No Straight Lines in Nature”: Making Living Maps in West Papua. Anthropology Now, 9(1), 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/19428200.2017.1291014
Chao, S. (2019). Wrathful Ancestors, Corporate Sorcerers: Rituals gone Rogue in Merauke, West Papua. Oceania, 89(3), 266–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/ocea.5229
Chao, S. (2021). Eating and Being Eaten: The Meanings of Hunger among Marind. Medical Anthropology: Cross Cultural Studies in Health and Illness.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.2021.1916013
Crook, M., & Short, D. (2014). Marx, Lemkin and the genocide-ecocide nexus. International Journal of Human Rights, 18(3), 298–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2014.914703
Drooglever, P. (2005). An Act of Free Choice: decolonisation and the right to self-determination in West Papua. Oneworld Publications. Retrieved from https://oneworld-publications.com/an-act-of-free-choice-pb.html
Forest Peoples Programme; PUSAKA; Sawit Watch. (2013). “A sweetness like unto death.” Retrieved from www.forestpeoples.org.
Garnett, S. T., Burgess, N. D., Fa, J. E., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Molnár, Z., Robinson, C. J., … Leiper, I. (2018). A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for
conservation. Nature Sustainability, 1(7), 369–374. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6 Ginting, L., & Pye, O. (2013). Resisting Agribusiness Development: The Merauke Integrated Food
and Energy Estate in West Papua, Indonesia. Indonesia. ASEAS-Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 6(1), 160–182. https://doi.org/10.4232/10.ASEAS-6.1-9
Indonesia Ministry for Economic Affairs. (2011). Acceleration and expansion of Indonesia economic development 2011-2025.
International Finance Corporation. (2006). Performance Standard 7 Indigenous Peoples.
Ito, T., Fauzi Rachman, N., & Savitri, L. A. (2014). Power to make land dispossession acceptable: a policy discourse analysis of the Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate (MIFEE), Papua, Indonesia Power to make land dispossession acceptable: a policy discourse analysis of the
29 Merauke Integrated Food and. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.873029
Kulesza, P. (2019, April 24). Indigenous World 2019: West Papua - IWGIA - International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs. Retrieved May 14, 2021, from
https://www.iwgia.org/en/indonesia/3441-iw2019-west-papua.html
Macchi, M. (2008). Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Climate Change Issues Paper. Maulia, E. (2010, January 30). Indonesia pledges to `feed the world’ . The Jakarta Post. Retrieved
from https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/01/30/indonesia-pledges-feed-world039.html May, R. J. (2021). Fifty Years after the ‘Act of Free Choice’: The West Papua Issue in a Regional
Context. Canberra, ACT: Dept. of Pacific Affairs, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University. https://doi.org/10.25911/PFMY-Z964
Mcdonnell, J. E. (2020). The Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate (MIFEE): An Ecologically Induced Genocide of the Malind Anim. Journal of Genocide Research.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2020.1799593
McWilliam, A. (2006). Historical reflections on customary land rights in Indonesia. Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology, 7(1), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/14442210600551859
Muldavin, J. S. S. (1996). Impact of reform on environmental sustainability in rural China. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 26(3), 289–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472339680000181
Papua protests: Racist taunts open deep wounds - BBC News. (n.d.). Retrieved May 25, 2021, from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49434277
Permanent Working Group on Alternatives to Development. (2013). Beyond Development. Alternative visions from Latin America. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316911962 Pouwer, J. (1999). The colonisation, decolonisation and recolonisation of West New Guinea. Journal
of Pacific History, 34(2), 157–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223349908572900 Robbins, P. (2012). Political Ecology (Second). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Runtuboi, Y. Y., Permadi, D. B., Sahide, M. A. K., & Maryudi, A. (2021). Oil Palm Plantations , Forest Conservation and Indigenous Peoples in West Papua Province : What Lies Ahead ?, 5(April), 23–31.
Safitri, M. A. (2015). Dividing the Land: Legal Gaps in the Recognition of Customary Land in Indonesian Forest Areas.
Said, E. (1977). Orientalism. Retrieved from www.penguin.com
Sullivan, L. (2003). Challenges to special autonomy in the province of Papua, Republic of Indonesia. ANU Dept. of Pacific Affairs (DPA) Formerly State, Society and Governance in Melanesia (SSGM) Program. https://doi.org/10.25911/5F1FFFEF26AE8
The Gecko Project and Mongabay. (2019). How Land Grabbers Co-opt Indigenous Ritual Traditions in Papua: Q&A with Anthropologist Sophie Chao. Retrieved May 28, 2021, from
https://news.mongabay.com/2019/03/how-land-grabbers-co-opt-indigenous-ritual-traditions-in-papua-qa-with-anthropologist-sophie-chao/
van der Muur, W. (2018). Forest conflicts and the informal nature of realizing indigenous land rights in Indonesia. Citizenship Studies, 22(2), 160–174.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2018.1445495
Viartasiwi, N. (2018). The politics of history in West Papua - Indonesia conflict. Asian Journal of Political Science, 26(1), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/02185377.2018.1445535
30 Appendix A. Interview topic and question list.
1. Introduction
• What are your connections to West Papua? / Where are you from?
• When did you first hear about MIFEE?
• What is your role in ‘the organisation’? / When did you start to work for ‘the organisation’?
• Could you tell me a bit more about the work ‘the organisatio’ is doing in the area?
2. MIFEE
• What is the current state of the MIFEE?
• What are the consequences for the local communities?
• How do the local communities cope with the deforestation? 3. Customary land rights
• Could you explain more about the system of land ownership of the Marind Anim?
• What are the obstacles in mapping their land?
• To what extent are the customary land rights of the Marind Anim recognized by the Indonesian authorities?
4. Consent
• To what extent is the consent of the local communities necessary for the land acquisition to take place?
• To what extent are the local communities able to engage in the decision-making process?
• What do the companies do in order to gain consent? Could you give me some examples?
• I have read about the head Medco, Arifin Panigoro, becoming a member of the Gebze clan in order to receive permission to use massive amounts of the clans land, could you tell me a bit more about this?
5. Colonization
• What role do you think Indonesian colonization and the struggle for independence plays in the project?
• In what way does MIFEE differ from other food estate projects in Indonesia such as The Mega Rice Project in Kalimantan? Why do you think did they start the large food estates in Papua later than in other places?
• What role does the military play? 6. Effect on social life
• To what extent do you think the plantations effect the social cohesion within the communities?
7. Regulations
• What regulations are in place to protect the rights of the indigenous peoples? 8. Future
31
• What do you think could help improve their situation and stop these kind of projects from happening?
9. Finalizing
• Are there things you think I should pay special attention to? / important points we have not yet discussed
• I currently am in touch with Pusaka, Down to Earth, the Forest Peoples
program and Greenpeace. Can you recommend other organizations or people
