Tuesday, 30 September 2014


Epistema Institute saw that there were two key issues in the verdict of the Constitutional Court [MK] 35 in regard to recognition of custom communities right over their land according to the Constitution. “The two points are not simple matter” the Executive Director of Epistema Institute Myrna Safitri told Business News [1/9].

The MK 35 verdict was seen as an act restore citizen’s right and to re arrange connection between the custom community and the Government within the context of fiores resources management. The legal prerequirements was highly dependent on matters like availability of legal instruments for recognition over people’s communal rights [Ulayat].

Besides, also the legal instrument for the mechanism of inventory and identification of custom communities and third party right. The procedure of handling of complaint was also not a simple matter. “Who has the authority to determine the right of custom communities?” Epistema was still seeing various aspects in regard to confirmation of forest zones, but one question remains. Legal instruments must be stipulated whether by involving the Government or provincial Government. “Or instruments based on legal verdict? What would the law be like? Provincial Regulations or what? This is more that just a discourse but it has become a law product”

Episteme on the other hand saw the mechanism of Recognition and proving of Third Party [PPH] in the process of forest stipulation must have legal ground, so application of law could be more active at home for the people in 32,000 villages in Indonesia. “There is regulation of the Ministry of Internal Affairs which states that custom communities could regulated by Regent’s decision. If all parties agree with Provincial Regulation [Perda] at provincial and regency level, then it’s OK. The case could be simplified by agreement of all parties”

The mechanism of PPH launched by UKPPP Presidential Unit was most important to prevent mounting conflict. Acceleration of recognition of conflict-prone areas, was when various claims emerged. “There is procedure for it. When talking about PPH the custom communities were not confused and did not exchange claims with the Government”

The stipulation of forest areas without proper management of people’s claims might end up in injustice. The PPH mechanism was run on the basis of social prerequirement, and good technical and legal aspect. A situation as such might generate claim over land turned into forest areas. The custom communities and third party could make their claim any moment. As initial step, The Regency of South Barito was chosen as some sort of laboratory for PPH application, so Barsel became a barometer of successful PPH application.

This was follow up action of the MoU signed by Head of UKO PPP Kuntoro Mangunsubroto and the Governor of Central Kalimantan A teras Narang in 2012 last in Jakarta. “This PPH mechanism is transparent. Permit must be exposed, and this is important for the country” Policy is not always related to data. Any critical point of PPH, whenever corrected must be corrected significantly”

Legal prerequirement was inseparable from legitimate individuals when making claim verification. The legal and legitimate institution played their function in PPH conflict handling,

Economy politics behind unfinished process of recognition of forest area 1967 – 2014 started with the stipulation of forest. The Guideline used was first made in 1974. The guideline constantly passed on mistakes of the past. “Such was not easy to correct”

Confirmation of forest areas was already a mandate since 1967 [Forestry Law No 5/1967] and PP No.33/1970 on Forestry Law planning; but the law was not followed up by checking afield. Even if there was any check up it was at minimum due to the aspect of people’s involvement.

Indicative map and initial map was supposedly followed up by officials of the Ministry of Forestry. The process of check up was running slow. The result was that up to 2009, the process of checking up related to space planning for new areas was around 11%. The final limit was not met and it became conflict prone. People’s claim was not handled due to low attainment of borderline with conflict solution. “In 2014 attainment was only 57%. To arrive at ideal condition, claim solution must be through long process” (SS)

Business News - September 5, 2014

No comments: