37433 Workshop Proceeding LAND PROBLEMS IN THE CONTEXT OF REGIONAL AUTONOMY November to December 2002 Presented by Gunawan Wiradi and Endang Suhendar This workshop proceeding was prepared by the consultants for the Indonesia land policy dialogue, which is sponsored by the Ministry of Home Affairs and National Planning Agency with the collaboration of the World Bank. The views expressed in this paper are those of the workshop participants and consultants and should not be attributed to the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent. Recognizing the need for an integrated land policy and anticipating the fundamental changes in the land administration system with the implementation of decentralization, the Government of Indonesia and the World Bank have engaged in a land policy dialogue during 2002- 2003. The goal of the dialogue is to help the Government to develop a National Land Policy Framework. This report is a summary of workshops and interviews on land policy issues with central and local government officials, journalists and representatives of NGOs. Participants were asked to reflect upon six topics: 1) land conflicts; 2) unequal distribution of land ownership/holding; 3) customary law; 4) distribution of authority between central and regional governments; 5) institutional aspects; and 6) agrarian reform. Table of Contents I. Problems and background...............................................2 II. Description of the collected opinions.................................3 III. Interpretation of the findings...........................................7 IV. Conclusions..............................................................11 Annex: List of discussants and participants...................................19 1 I. PROBLEMS AND BACKGROUND 1. The Regional autonomy Act (Law no. 22/1999) that came into effect in 2001 has created serious disputes, and possible revisions are currently being considered. 2. On 9 November, 2001, the People Assembly or Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat (MPR) issued a decision (TAP MPR no. IX/2001) on Agrarian Reform and Natural Resources Management (Pembaruan Agraria dan Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Alam ­ PA- PSDA). This decision contains essentially two mandates: first, for the Parliament (or Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat-DPR) to draft a bill on the subject within the shortest possible time, and second, for the President/Government to execute the content of the decision. 3. Until now, there is no clear sign of how both the President and the DPR will respond to the MPR decision no. IX/2001 mentioned above, while the Regional Autonomy Act is undergoing revision. These have contributed to a rather chaotic legal situation, especially concerning the division of authority between the central and the regional government in the handling of land problems. In the meantime, while most land dispute cases have not been resolved, new cases of conflict have sprouted. 4. In the midst of uncertainty and unclear direction in the overall policy on agrarian issues, local initiatives to handle resolution of land disputes have emerged in a number of regions. Despite the limited number of cases resolved regionally, these local initiatives deserve proper attention. 5. Assuming that the Government succeeds in responding to TAP MPR no. IX/2001 and implementing regional autonomy, the key questions are: a. How should authority on land matters be divided between central and regional governments? b. What kind of institutions should be established to carry out the intended agrarian reform and overcome agrarian conflicts, within the context of regional autonomy? 6. To get a better understanding on these matters, opinions from various parties (government functionaries from various departments; regional/local government authorities; NGOs; journalist; etc) were sought. 7. Methods of gathering opinions: In an effort to gather opinions from the various parties, a series of dialogues/discussions have been conducted in November and early December 2002: a. Informal group discussions with a number of high level officials from the Department of Home Affairs (DEPDAGRI) and from the National Land Agency (BPN); b. Group discussions with a numbers of journalists; c. Group discussions with a number of NGO activists; 2 d. Group discussions with Provincial and regional/local level government officials from Sumedang, Lampung, Wonosobo, and Kalimantan; e. Personal discussions/individual interviews with a number of officials from various institutions who are concerned with land issues and with a number of experts/academicians; f. Issues that were raised in these discussions were: 1) land conflict; 2) unequal distribution of land ownership/holding; 3) customary law; 4) distribution of authority between central and regional government; 5) institutional aspects; 6) agrarian reform. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE COLLECTED OPINIONS A. General Overview In the absence of a clear overall policy on agrarian issues, it is understandable that opinions are very diverse. Even within the same group, people have different views. In order to find out whether or not there is a pattern in the opinions collected from these five sources, the two variables (i.e. the sources and the theme) are cross tabulated (see Table 1 "Opinions Mapping"). Since the tables of opinions mapping contain only short key sentences, they are elaborated up below. B. Description of the Various Opinions (1) Land Conflict Conflicts over land during the last decades have occurred in almost all regions in Indonesia. Depending on the characteristics of regional/local conditions, the types of conflict vary from region to region. This issue was reflected during several dialogues that were conducted. The Province of Lampung, for example, is an area which, in the past became a "policy target" of the central government (transmigration; plantation estates; forest exploitation; and other kinds of investment). The indigenous people felt that those activities frequently violated their land rights. Once the New Order regime fell, they reclaimed the land they regarded as theirs. Formally, however, they lack legal proof in the form of certificate of ownership. Most cases of dispute are, therefore, very difficult to solve legally. In the eyes of Home Affairs officials, most cases of land dispute resulted from two problems. First, the data in writing concerning the granting of land rights are inconsistent with the reality in the field. For example, on paper a certain enterprise is granted HGU right (i.e. the right to use land) for 100 ha of land. It turns out that this enterprise controlled more, or even twice as much the amount granted, such that they included areas which have been cultivated by the people. The HGU holder then made a claim that these areas belong to the enterprise. The second problem is that since the establishment of BPN, the authority of 3 granting land rights lie completely in its authority. But the people think that "government" means all agencies under DEPDAGRI. Therefore, complaints and claims are frequently directed toward DEPDAGRI, rather than BPN. On the other hand, the BPN feels that the granting of land rights has been done in accordance with the valid legal procedure. In BPN's view, land conflicts are caused more by the inability of the right holders to settle the problem with the local people in the community. BPN also holds the opinion that "sectoralism" is the main sources of conflict. While the Basic Agrarian Law (BAL, 1960) is supposed to be center of reference, a number of technical departments enacted their own "Basic Law", without referring to, and in occasional conflict with, the BAL. The provincial as well as the regional/local government tend to hold similar opinions as DEPAGRI. They feel that when it comes to land issues, so far they have no authority of any kind whatsoever. However, since the conflict occurred in the area within their jurisdictions, the people complained to them and urged them to solve the problem. But they cannot do anything simply because they have no legal authority. Once they make even a slight mistake in the decision, they could be brought to trial through PTUN (Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara or State Administration Court). Formal/legal conflict resolution, therefore, is difficult or even impossible to carry out. Those from NGOs, as well as those from the media share the view that "sectoralism" is the main source of conflict. Sectoralism is the consequence of the government policy in the past, which facilitated the capital owner to acquire land and neglect the rights of the people. Despite the existing consensus that land conflicts should be resolved as quickly as possible, there is no comprehensive concept on how conflict should be resolved. Three factors are the main cause: a. Lack of serious attention b. Low capacity of human resource at local level c. Unclear division of authority (regarding land problem) between the central and the regional/local governments All sides agree that the TAP MPR No. IX/2001 decision is correct; a national basic law to which all sectoral laws should refer, is needed. Consequently: a. Before the national basic law is promulgated, judicial review should first be conducted. All the existing law that is not in accordance with the constitution (UUD 45) should be suspended (including all sectoral laws which are overlapping each other). b. All basic principles covered in the BAL 1960 which are still relevant should be maintained. c. Supposing that some authority (concerning certain aspects of land problem) is transferred to the regional/local government, this should be based on principles of accountability and transparency. 4 (2) Unequal distribution of land ownership/control All sides realize that inequality occurred not only internally among farmers, but also between farmers and large-scale agriculture estates (HGU holders; plantation estates; etc). However, most government officials (especially from the central government) seem to be less interested in this issue, probably because this is not easy to understand. They also argue that since there is no strong protest against inequality, this is not an important issue. Instead of focusing on the problem of inequality, they prefer to solve concrete cases of conflict. However, the officials from the provincial government of West Java did raise the issue of inequality, even though not directly. They expressed their concern with the decreasing size of farms and also with the issue of absentee ownership. In contrast to the opinions of most officials, the NGOs and the press saw the unequal distribution of land ownership/control as a fundamental problem, that if not overcome properly, could become a potential source of future conflict. They believe that a comprehensive agrarian reform is therefore badly needed. (3) The Problem of Adat Land All participants agree that the existence of adat land should be respected and recognized. According to a BPN official, in an effort to provide a framework for this, the Minister of Agrarian Affairs had issued a regulation (Minister Regulation no. 5/1999), stipulating that Bupati is given the authority to carry out investigations concerning the existence (hence recognition) of adat land. However, in the field, most local officials seem to know little about the existence of that regulation, so it was difficult to carry out. The debate on the issue of adat land is not over yet, and the final conclusion has not been reached. (4) Distribution of Authority This issue was raised within the context of regional autonomy. As mentioned earlier, although the President and the Government have not yet responded clearly toward the issuance of TAP MPR no. IX/2001, regional autonomy seems inevitable. The division of authority concerning land problems, therefore, has become a hotly debated issue. a. DEPDAGRI officials hold the opinion that based on the existing law (no. 22/1999), the transfer of authority to the regional/local government is a necessity. Moreover, land disputes cannot be resolved without involving regional government. They even give consideration to the option that BPN could be dissolved and transformed back to its earlier status of Directorate General under the Ministry of Home Affairs (DEPDAGRI). b. BPN, on the other hand, thinks that the handling of land problems has been adequate. But they agree that in terms of handling land use and/or "management", regional/local government could be more effective, but not for land titling and granting of land rights. Land titling and land right grants should refer to the BAL 1960, which provides a legal 5 basis for the State to arrange land allotment, land acquisition, and legal regulation between human beings and earth, water and other agrarian resources. c. Most officials from the regional/local government have more or less the same opinions of those from DEPDAGRI. They prefer to make reference to Law No. 22/1999 rather than the BAL 1960 because the most important for them is the determination of a clear division of authority which will give them more confidence in executing any task. They even offered a moderate proposition, i.e. the so-called "hierarchical step-wise division of authority" (kewenangan bertingkat) concerning executive tasks as well as control. d. The NGO and the press have more or less the same opinion. They think that since land problems are different from region to region, regional/local government should be given the authority, to some extend, to handle it. However, the use of this authority should be controlled not only by their respected super ordinate, but also the public. e. Meanwhile, based on Law 22/1999, academicians see that the determination of division of authority between central, provincial and local government should be based on the basic principles as follow: No. Authority Central Provincial Local government government government 1 Authority to regulate XXXX XXX XX 2 Authority to provide XX XXX XXXX services 3 Authority to build XXX XXXX - local capacity 4 Authority to control XXX XXXX - and supervise the implementation of land regulation Note: number of "X" means degree of decentralizing authority, the more "X" means the more authority. Even though Law 22/1999 stipulates that land is under the authority of local government, it doesn't mean that all authority should be given to local government. In the context of NKRI (State Unity of the Republic of Indonesia) there must be central and provincial government involvement in the handling of land administration, so called "hierarchical step-wise division of authority". (5) Institutional Aspect/Institutional Building Basically all participants agree that the form of institutions that should be established, should be in accordance with the grand policy design. However, it would take a long time to 6 wait for the existence of a grand policy design. Therefore, for the time being, three options were raised: a. At regional level, if the whole authority is given to the regional/local government, in accordance to Law 22/1999, there should be only one agency, namely, "Land Service" (Dinas Pertanahan). b. At regional level, if the validity of the Presidential Decree (Keppres) No. 10/2001 (which mandates that local government cannot create regulation on land during this period until the decree ends in May 2003)1 is extended, then there will be only one agency, namely, "Land Office" (Kantor Pertanahan) that should serve as the extended arm of the BPN. c. As a compromise, there is a possibility that two agencies can coexist at regional level. They are the Dinas Pertanahan, a regional apparatus to execute the task according to regional authority; and the Kantor Pertanahan, which functions as the central government apparatus but situated each region. (6) Agrarian Reform Referring to TAP MPR no. IX/2001, the division of authority regarding land problems should be in line with the spirit of agrarian reform. However, from the dialogues that have been conducted, it appeared that government officials tended to avoid the issue of agrarian reform. Both DEPDAGRI and BPN seem to look at TAP MPR no. IX/2001 simply as a product of legislation, without too much attention on the ideology of agrarian reform. What's worse, most officials from regional/local government seem to have little knowledge about agrarian reform and about the substance of TAP MPR no. IX/2001. On the other hand, the NGOs think that agrarian reform is a problem and is acknowledged through the existence of TAP MPR no. IX/2001. Since agrarian reform is a fundamental problem, it should become a national agenda to be implemented. They even said that before we waste so much effort discussing the distribution of authority and institution building, we should first talk about the need to establish a National Committee on Agrarian Reform as the transitional phase. III. INTERPRETATION OF THE FINDINGS A. The Collected Opinions First of all, it should be noted that all opinions that were expressed by the participants in the various forums are subjective, in the sense that these are spontaneous responses to the issues that were raised. It is therefore necessary to treat the collected opinions (as a body of 1Presidential Decree No. 34/2003 regarding the decentralization of land affairs was issued on May 31st, 2003. The Decree clearly defines the responsibilities of land affairs between the national and local governments. The most significant characteristic of the Decree is that land management functions (land use planning, development control, location permit, etc.) are fully decentralized to the local governments. The land titling and registration stay as central government functions. 7 data) with caution. It is difficult to judge what motives underlie their expressions. Secondly, the diverse opinions concerning certain issues may lead to an unending discussion. It is therefore difficult to make a sort of generalization. Despite all these, however, some tendencies can be identified as follow: 1. Most bureaucrats tend to be more interested in discussing technical problems, rather than conceptual problems. 2. The tendency to avoid a thorough discussion about agrarian reform, or about inequality in the structure of landownership/holding, indicate that most people still have little elementary knowledge (let alone scientific knowledge) of the topics. 3. The provincial government as well as the regional/local government (especially the latter) tend to take an attitude of "wait and see" - waiting for determination of national grand policy to be decided by top level national elites. 4. However diverse the collected opinions are, two lines of basic differences can be drawn. These are: a. Between government official on one side and NGOs and the Press on the other. The former stresses more on the regional autonomy Law no. 22/1999 as the basic reference, whereas the latter stresses on TAP MPR no. IX/2001. b. Between Home Affairs Ministry on one side and BPN on the other, the former tend to insist that Law no. 22/1999 should be the only reference, whereas BPN, without denying that law, tend to insist that the spirit of BAL 1960 should be maintained. 5. Above all that, the fact remains that so far there is still no signs of follow up on the existing Tap MPR no. IX/2001. At the same time, it is unclear to what extent Law no. 22/1999 will be revised. In this uncertain situation, the debate between DEPDAGRI and BPN may give the impression that they are just competing for power. 6. Viewing the diverse opinions described above, the answer to the two questions mentioned above in section-1 appears to be inconclusive. B. What Could Be Done 1. Theoretically, and ideally, a new agency/service should be established only when the division of tasks has been clearly defined, and these tasks should be a function of a certain mission borne. This mission should reflect a certain vision on which the overall policy design is based. But, what one witnesses at present is the reverse! This is the source of controversy and confusion. 2. At the time when Regional Autonomy Act no. 22/1999 and Government Regulation no. 25/2000 were enacted, the regional/local government exuded euphoria. They began to establish regional "Land Service", based on article 11 of this act - in which the word "pertanahan" is mentioned without any clarification or specification on the kind of land problem that regional governments have the authority to handle. So the land service was set up before a clear vision and mission concerning land is formulated. Although the TAP MPR no. IX/2001 (which is supposed to be the basis for formulating the vision and mission in designing overall national policy) was created later, there is no sign of an effort 8 to formulate a sort of "basic" law that integrates all sectoral laws, as mandated by this TAP MPR. 3. With such uncertainties, the distribution of authority should be based on certain principles stipulated in the still valid existing laws (and in this case the BAL 1960) during this transition. 4. Article-2, ad-1, of the BAL stated that: "Based on the provision in article 33, paragraph 3 of the constitution, the earth, water and air space including the natural resources contained therein, are in the highest instance controlled by the state being an authority organization of the whole people". 5. Paragraph 2 of the same article stated that "the right of control by the state provide authority": a. To regulate and implement the appropriations, the utilization, the reservation and the cultivation of that earth, water, and air space as mentioned above; b. To determine and regulate the legal relation between persons and the earth, water, and air space; c. To determine and regulate the legal relations between persons and legal acts concerning the earth, water, and air space. 6. Despites the seemingly centralized nature of that article of the BAL, there is a clause in article 2 paragraph 4, which most people have missed out. This clause stated that: "The implementation of the above mentioned right of control by the state may be delegated to the autonomous regions and Adat Law Communities, if deemed necessary and it is not in conflict with national interest, and in accordance with the provisions of a government regulation" 7. The authority based on the state's right of control, is exercised in order to achieve the maximum prosperity of the people in the sense of happiness, welfare, and freedom (see paragraph-2, article-2 of the BAL). Looking at the BAL as a whole, it can be summarized that the task of the government (on behalf on the state) covers essentially (in technical term): a. To regulate and administer land rights, granting and titling b. To carry out land registration c. To restructure land ownership/land control, or "land reform" d. To regulate and administer land use 8. In the absence of "overall policy", and in the uncertain situation, the distribution of authority during the transition phase, could be based on three principles: a. Principle of subsidiary b. Principle of uniformity c. Principle of "not neglecting National Interest" 9 Based on these three principles, the authority to carry out the tasks can be distributed. The table below is just a rough sketch, a general outline of how those principles could be applied. Land right Land Land reform Land use granting and registration titling Subsidiary CG for large CG LG LG for specific scale design and LG for small operational scale execution Uniformity CG for guiding CG CG for guiding CG for basic principles principles design National CG CG for guiding CG for basic Interest principles design Note: CG = central government, LG = local government By subsidiary, it means that for any program that is most effectively executed by a certain level of government, it is not necessary for the upper level of government to intervene or to be involved, except for control and supervision. At the most, the upper level should only facilitate. To some extent, uniformity and national interest are important. The filled-in cells in the table above, are just an example. It very much depends on how each of the four main tasks will be broken down into more specified ones. For example, the task of the Land Office (of BPN) regarding "land use" is specified as: a. To prepare and carry out data collection and data processing (data on land use) b. To prepare land use planning c. To give guidance to the society regarding land use d. To control changes in land use The question is, which level of government is most effective in implementing these specific tasks? For instance, it is possible that regional level of government is most effective in preparing the plan on land use. But to do that, it should be supported by a good quality of data. Hence, uniformity and national interest should become important factors to be considered. Another example: If an area which is a target of policy (e.g. "hutan wisata" or tourism forest) turns out to be located in an overlapping area across two regions, the provincial or 10 central government should be given authority to manage this problem instead of the regional government. IV. CONCLUSION 1. Participants in these discussions generally agree that the pattern of distribution of authority concerning land problems can only be properly or adequately designed if ­ and only if - there is a overall policy at the national level. A clear and strong political commitment from the part of the central government (i.e. the President) is required to implement Agrarian Reform as instructed by TAP MPR IX/2001. A National Commission for Agrarian Reform should be constituted to prepare the implementation of the reform. Waiting for all these processes, however, would take quite a long time. 2. On the other hand, if Presidential Decrees No. 10/2001 and no. 103/2001 are implemented consistently, authority regarding land matters should be determined no later than May 2003 (see footnote 1). In such a situation, authority should be distributed but it should be viewed as being transitional, until the overall policy in accordance with TAP MPR IX/2001 is formulated. But even in this transitional phase, distribution of authority should be in such a way that can fulfill a number of conditions, which are (1) able to provide access land for the poor; (2) able to solve conflict cases; and (3) able to carry out services effectively. Besides that, it should give ample room for local/regional initiatives, or "reform by leverage". 3. In short, during this transitional phase, the division of authority on land matters should be carried out in such a way that it would be: political tolerable, economically viable, socially acceptable, technically applicable, and legally justifiable. A number of factors, should thus be taken into account: a. Limitations or boundaries of authority between central, provincial, and regional/city government, should be clear (as expected by regional government); b. The spirit or principle of unitary state of Indonesia should be kept (as expected by central government); c. The Regional communities should be given ample room for launching "reform by leverage" (i.e., local initiatives, as expected by the NGOs); d. Authority for control and supervision should be designed in a "hierarchical step-wise" pattern (as expected by the provincial government); e. Capacity to resolve cases of land disputes (as expected by all). 4. All those considerations here are suggested simply for the sake of accommodating the various opinions. 5. Finally, two possibilities should be anticipated with regard to the political decision on the realization of TAP MPR IX/2001 that will be made by the central government. One possibility is that the agenda for agrarian reform becomes a top priority, which could 11 imply the extension of the validity of Presidential Decree 10/2001 (which is supposed to end on May, 2003)2. The second possibility is that the top policy maker tends to put aside, at least for the time being, the agenda of agrarian reform. Therefore if any distribution of authority is designed, two scenarios could be described. Firstly, the distribution of authority would be designed in line with the agrarian reform agenda, in accordance with TAP MPR IX/2001. Secondly, the distribution of authority is designed without relating it to TAP MPR IX/2001 and referring only to Regional Autonomy Act no. 22/1999 and Government Regulation no. 25/2000 (for a more detailed description of these two possibilities, see Table 2).3 2See footnote 1 for the government's decision on land affairs decentralization. 3The Presidential Decree No.34/2003 on decentralizing land functions among the central and local governments attaches a great importance to TAP MPR IX/2001. The Decree instructs the BPN to finish amending BAL following the principles set in TAP MPR IX/2001 by August 2004. 12 t no d nte em sectoral licy;op oulhs tnem tnem bed ed oul cialin es dsolh oflor al (e.g. ectot rnm d oblrp oni onitu rnevog ytiroh dna aut of ralnt rnevog ov tnemn eb ld -wipe ve cts go e.v use the lan ho ontc' nta Press nflict:oc land gnivlovni shyt cal cal pryb ralntec (st prfo reoma gover in is of alrt reg nte shou aspe nte ntral ofn ortp by onsividi ry orihtua ehtdna,nte nte ) ce effecti gnidlohp/ ralur ialc cend inglv ceehtn bydel tio st sesripre im rnm ne rnm cialin ityr rol rnm rol litya bui rshi crut easra Source an voin ve go resoltcilfnoC do l/loanoi be reg earlC eew l/loanoi necessa lledortn ve bet reg is Local co go ovrp tho ve certain au cont go cont In nagemam rest) reom equ fo is In strid ne ong no ow am is entgiB large serious as g in land,t e ti happen litatin land com pas stated usea tod velopment was of ehtde ateivrp faci be tna the in land stices, d lea NGO lictsfnoc lictsf the ine notsaw de gyte at ting ectgl eht ity,numm g,ib onaligrefo nte port of signidlohp/ inju of stra licyop growthci of con ts le/co role rnm im litya ve oulchc tially basis Land rectedid anrge econom Th nesthgri ofr rshi bec,nta ghir opep voaf enterprises The go reom equ ne port In structure ow im reflects whi entop reut fu Land becaus policy the ent to dnal ent tnem G was land of eth alru of rm policy governm thority au governm rnevog ructstfo MAPPIN Government cal urceos esut foyna evlosotthgrion that cal realizedt Lo Sectoral the spdi Regional noevah vegi tsh rig Regional have conflicteth ncea IONS appears l/loanoi It reg noevah port .melbo im pr 13 OPIN ch nt eht est have yna have su erh unit 1 ent ent of ratp itself was spuid Table Governme cre of policy land nmervog rightsd nmervog tails,ed singa farm rshi de number newo of ce ur Provincial Sectoral so alnogieR vegiotytiroh lan ructuresteth of on aut rm no fo alnogieR ehtevlosot onnoit ghtri erve sizeeg great eent nflict atten no co re The avera The abse anth Mo as: tne asd mnr hgu sr lveo t edlv res eblsi roht ne GovelartneC be eenwteb callod genru soeb pos do to an nte AffaiemoH ant to asn Need soo benaC ofnosividi ityr rnm of tho tral earcl ve au cen go nistryi :)AHo no lem is It obrp immediately M (M ncea nflict bal dnal reu Land Co The im of ten and la rest st justiceni nflict. co eristnii No.5/1999 foega tode ,tnem to Mfo man errsf rnevog fore ected ng) reflectsit leaddlu as co onintem Decreen to orityht antrebdl cal prot ou l/loanoi for lindu tan No Agraria Au sh reg except hu( bed to eth bed to la ebdl to ins thisemo oul sh in onal e place oul urceo sh yt eristnii No. ou athtyt rmo them agrarian, needed is rmo with Mfo shla orih refn .n overc refs ed regifotxe ncsi,y are cal res ns from nte ore,f ion nomo rian itio ntre rnm orihtuan rtially)apro agrarian llyo entm Decreen To problem reform Thi signed nd l/loanoi ve cont aut agra co diffe place. There reg go vegi ple rmo (wh im ref onintem 99 cal/reg autehtn couragened riaragah giore No Agraria 19/5 Lo vegi coul launc their t ou ab cal)ihc ngihton Agrarian 19995/ ierar (h No. steriali seiw rol nowK Min Decree Idem Step cont 14 n vegi eer 0 eth ityr cal the to avi - of wise" de( ose: bedluohsnoi Dec /200 essco t 20 tho l/loan n ou au werop ab PP teps" or ofn between regiod of onedebn Decree Agrarian .nte ca tial op ect pr poeth Prot to prethdiovA be alizatioin ngihton 99 stum tio an control rnm tionlu en marg They nowK Ministerial 19/5.oN tognirre tral Ref there stribuid ve cenivo and cen go Devo pr Presid eer in t no ize to no is be rsfeer Dec ng es pulated whole erni lem ereth itevl gn yroat sti nc gionalreeht eht obrpa so recost ouldhs lig as do99 the of far to an wla Agrarian /19 coyt thesemo nte 99 22 that is sot NPB.d ob: bec rnm It Bu licyop rticipap adat BPN: All that respecte Ministerial 19/5.oN orih onyitroh BPN authority Law mean aut ndal ve authority go Aut n arym ts tio sto righd bui orityht Cu lan striD aufo eht t bed en hashc eml shoul whi imp mro cyn to ref de ityr age anri lish tho An au agra estab yt gin orihtua ildubla w tion honosdn stributedideb stitu Idem In depe will 15 is la eth ton er . and Law P3D nci eithn noiat thet bus en Land be dna99 d as 19 ce ta with ofnoita provinceeht far long ovirp to sosi tionem niro9 guleR tionpo cleareth of as nte ist .ytiroh 22/ Nonoiat ffio tode Ko/ Lan have errsf paten Provinciale tration) lem guleR ent too nte ceif encn erredf rnm (n rnm )00 rale aut athw waLni nte Of ple: prob empl co No im 9991/22 ofytiroh 991/22 becom rvice. ve ve 20 sevot trans Aut go clear Law Go 25/ tanropmi ice oni cyn Se en Princi Op stom ofnosividi wollof edat rnm ndal.e.i,00 antrebdl Kabu al Just pulist ve 20 ou Go 25/ sh Serv Reg Age Land ts fo is is nd eth ria ot in righ landfo haehtni ,tnemn to alnogire ewiv ect anri eht bed Agra der to ina ereth asp oul of gover ityr bedluohs ofs ethrednueb alrt tho nd nte atd PN) nal neral ndal ld shti orni an Ge ityroth remdl (B ting anrg bedlu ndal calol ityroht au tio central ou ou atthknith rnm of sh nte inytimr ng ifo of nte sho ceneth velel AHo au,s ile wh nageam haehtni ew:vi ve Affairs'em shit go Hoe stituin agralacolgnnir ityr rnm Mr `s un eristnii lem le nd also tho ve de ha rnm Th atth onali conce matters au go nat auethrednu Directorate un NPB eepk adm obrp ndah ve the go BPN tion stitu In ofa rm tral end in PAT a s os cy"n ngzi eet n ethe fo ngi ageht mro with age below gani foeRn ref omfr theeg ceneth rline ncea inydoblan areneswana .nte lish tio cen 0012/XI ecialpsaerap rian hority mmitoClan raria is an ch ofed rnm port Und im estab stituin withe pre lin agra accorda MPR To "Aut orhguorht Agr riaragahsup rmo to ve Natio fo There to ref as attitu go ev P eht in TA nsi rehep ofgnidna with onal 0012 com rst IX/ regifotxe y or de nomo Po un MPR cont aut 16 PAT as tcud eht at okol lypmsi pron wo reht knot fur central and 0012/XI slatioi forg leg notsr nces treat as pea itinaw nte from rnm To MPR stuj st ve Ap conseque Ju action go e to TAP as outba ot oni w illed cen eht at agenda of system sk BPNd stuj issueth an ducto horo zatialr toitg mu accorda cent ori gooda retain HAo M entm in TAPeth de relatint reform tallyto ou rian ectl orat law"g for andit th lookotsarep 0012/XI pr ncea agrarian Bo ap MPR oniatslgiel concernedos Not ubstseht ple scuss "m istin im reform with Di with agra Neg of ex need recru staff n ncy vae raria ag rmo The rel of ref atedl sah g rm upd oniat tin rm ecu foeR formueb 0012/XI fore an eepsot rm in fos willyitr dy velelg rm exr fo I-I rianragA MPRP ratusap tho rarigArof bo foehtrofssi reform on foerna ory au IOR withe TAot on baeht rarian amnoi rari ag ag aplan eparat de ch IX/2001 tio snogireehtni SCENA linniymo ofniotub ngir ferer ssiimmoC prsa laun RP oftxent to M stitunie rmo ton ERS Au striideth nsoi licy onali ovirpdna po ority PAT butirstdiytiroh refeht aut of Nat coehtniht of wi TT al ontia oni of d. cen nte effectivfon rm ent MA Reg : ofngsied and cess,o gr : of pr Auth with the de oniat ard oniatul rnm atio ple iten ANDL Princi Defi terafylno passot unctfhcihw)RA deci Form (NC oniatslgiel Bofo ve rm fore empl accorda Form go Fo the Im been Stages 1. 2. .3 4. NG itg TERMINING DE IN RNIECNOC tina relt iticallop s of t t. as mro nfirm rityoirp Refn withou co calol onitandi ng,illornt :ot,00 ghtri 20 ernmen ority,h or 25/. ARIOSN TYI ed to rnmenevog nte its coni gov aut ndalgnitn 17 raria ld cal oni the rem dr cost -I Agt gnsied topaeb al ou togn al/lo ntemn nonoiat grar reg fo quier cei SCE AUTHOR TWO OF 2 IORANECS ouhtiwymo is waitingl, sh ts oni Have ent rd andast rv rights N) guleR orityth onaiti :otyt righd reg veroG oni BP reform accordis coehtrednugnni land emriu andast sednal E ONI ton aufo nsra ntemnr with (c.q. (T orihtuan lan tnemn tinganidr nte ntemnr ale coo rmo sc reform anple :otytiroh us scale reqdr ofeni Au al tionu 1. agrariant gover all land isticsr autn used lan andg ntemn da del TABL BUTI oni no ority ovegaotk vegi ralnteCehttn anst refdnal ratstniimdadnal gui STRID Reg : stribidla 002/XI smt ute cialin Governm are oveGehtni ne ne ne ne RP M orrehet bed Authfo en/atpu ndalng vegi oulc veroG Gran Exec characte Desi ovrp cialn bed ddleimtn Gra Prep preseeR facilitatin edat Defi Defi Defi Defi THE pleicnirP ision Prov PATot ) wh sioni Kab They a. b. c. Provi oulC a. .b c. Central pulist a. b. c. d. will agenda Div · · · NOITPIRCSED 10 ry eht eth /20 vea eht eht of eb withenli zed.ino rof and can ed. 10. no keatd ntem d. hrcn de ineb sydnad inatmiel 0012/ ntem upgndie rn fine IX spe Decree be RP by actnedna been tial willnoitub cansi en MP coulhcihw ovegeht rmo cen 9991/22.ontcA has striid ducereyelgral bas Presid s.nogireeht TA ocess on pra refna icy tonomy ityroht galelgn ofnois omrfs up bed oftrapeht rarigae ssuaieht..e(i Au poldn be omrf al gra rdi ten woul oni aufo yci can msi gareno exel estot ing-woll fo n, mro ref e. ntemtim executot after Reg poldn ssib oniatslgielfo ofn oral Pattern gra Sect usifnoC poe pretvinid slatioi anri tim coml ntemai )walc lishedp sioi Th coul Leg agra nglo ocess Ful parl pr basi Rev accom .1 2. 3. .1 .2 1. .2 d ich stinu ni BPN nis an 01 wh d, isit to e. ngikrow hesibla un leb NPBdna ratua istht ces,ivr bed land tim IX/20 tion appla coul ofs clarityr ymonotuA short MPR titusn NPBh est fog ben bu, Sed tion term Co5 ed in TAP waitin alnogieR 18 ug ca) accountadna rsettam 2003. ofn of rohtnoi gionsre anh cludni Lanla stituingni relativelya 194fot em is May, cernn .em society ind ture,an dmen erco :to the anart nciivo Pr ndalgnni ov thority au veah ratstgierdnaleut gnitn in Pe NPB registration inla en ed ofit ndla nte nceroc ofdne co coer ducere tationemelp ision tolt s a e..i:st holeweht entntocehtnis for N the alism oveb locaterah gradnale s du by chum imeth amroseg scal ratuap Kotn/e inasD( byt fficuid icevr ungni an only nce -exioc Affairs rnmevoG or coulds be onn is /1999 Exec whic Large Apla Se ovi BP:yc can provrolan upatb worka lishedp rsye nd felyntairt tioa chot 22. alismr alsodlu tion Ka ectj changeyplmid La ich Preht esdi boo a. b. In A wh responsible In Tw Landfoitnu Central In engaenO onisvidiytiroh rovtn Aut accom Co onigereth nfirm Unce services Transitio co Sub coul notcA Secto stitu Co In · · · 1. .2 3. .1 .2 .3 DE ST IR PECSA ASPECTS QUER NOI VE TII POS NEGATIVE ITDNOC Annex: List of Discussants and Participants Ministry of Home Affairs 1. Director General of Public Administration 2. Director of regional development 3. Director of urban development 4. Sub-Directorate Agrarian 5. Directorate General of Regional Autonomy 6. Center of Research and Development National Planning Agency 1. Directorate of Spatial Planning and Land National Land Agency 1. Project Manager LMPDP Sumedang 1. Bupati Sumedang 2. Head of Forestry and Crops Service 3. Head of BPN 4. Head of Village Own Enterprise Lampung 1. Legal Aid Foundation 2. WATALA, local NGO 3. Dinas Kehutanan 4. Tim 13 5. Bappeda Wonosobo 1. ARUPA (local NGO) 2. Dinas Kehutanan Kalimantan 1. YPSB, Sanggau (local NGO) 2. Dinas Kehutanan Forestry NGOs 1. LATIN, Bogor 2. LEM 21, Mojokerto 3. JKPP, Bogor 19