Controversial land ruling harms farmers
Controversial land ruling harms farmers
The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
These days, money beats everything.
"If the government is willing to give me a good deal on my
plot of land, then I will give it up and find a new living
elsewhere, maybe as an ojek (motorcycle taxi) driver," said
Solichin, the owner of a 300-square-meter plot of land in Krukut,
south of Jakarta.
Solichin's lot, planted with cassava trees whose fruit and
leaves he sells at the nearby market, is located in an area that
will likely be affected by the construction of a new toll road in
South Jakarta.
For Solichin, who lives just half an hours drive from the
city, finding a income source elsewhere when he has to give up
his land will perhaps not be too difficult.
But it is a different story for rural farmers, whose
livelihoods depend solely on the land they own.
"For rural farmers, land is their only means of subsistence
that guarantees that their family will have something to eat,"
Indonesian Farmers Association (HKTI) vice chairman Agusdin
Pulungan told a discussion panel on the pros and cons of planned
new land regulations on Monday.
The discussion panel agreed that Presidential Regulation No.
36/2005 on Land Provision for the Development of Public Interests
violated people's basic rights to livelihood and only favored
capital owners.
They demanded that the regulation issued earlier this month be
revised "in the interest of the public".
Land acquisition has often become an obstacle for
infrastructure development due to land owners rejecting offers
for their land, stifling investment in the sector, while at the
same time the nation needs to speed up such development in order
to support a more competitive economy that will create more jobs.
With the newly-issued regulation, the government is authorized
to unilaterally revoke an individual's right to their property.
The public facilities listed in the controversial regulation
for which compulsory acquisition can be carried out includes road
projects, public hospitals, seaports, airports, train stations
and power plants.
"Such public facilities will not benefit farmers when they
have nothing to live from," Agusdin said, insisting that the
regulation was repressive, authoritarian and beneficial only to
rich people.
"The government has issued permits for 6.5 million hectares of
land to business entities, but currently only 1.5 million is
actually used," Agusdin said.
"In the previous land regulation -- Presidential Decree No.
55/1993 -- the term public use is clearly stated as meaning non-
profit activity," land committee head S. B. Silalahi said.
He said that infrastructure projects, which would return a
profit to investors, were not eligible to be called public
facilities.
In common with previous regulations, the new regulation also
stipulates that compensation for land owners is based on the
land's taxable value of property (NJOP), and its current market
price is determined by an independent appraiser.
Silalahi added that any development projects should be based
on local people's aspirations and potential, thus responsibility
to appraise and oversee such projects should be given to local
authorities and representatives.
"First, there should be better and clearer spatial planning
that involves public participation in order to avoid future
conflicts between the authorities and local community, as well as
within communities themselves," land reform expert Gunawan Wiradi
told the same discussion.
He said that with greater public participation in the planning
and location of public facilities, it would avoid conflict in
terms of misuse of resumed land for private profit, aside from
tackling problems with acquisitions.
"There should be an independent land reform body that should
compile data on land usage, supervise rights and obligations of
land owners as well as recommend permits for land use to the
National Land Agency," Agusdin said.
He said the HKTI along with other non-governmental
organizations would push for a review of the regulations
concerning land reform. (003)