Final Report of Human Right Summer Fellowship 2006,
Human Right Center
Noer Fauzi Rachman
The State Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental
right of everyone to be free from hunger, shall take, individually and
through international cooperation, the measures, including specific
programmes, which are needed:
(a) To improve methods of production, conservation and distribution of food
by making full use of technical and scientific knowledge, by
disseminating knowledge of the principles of nutrition and by developing
or reforming agrarian systems in such a way as to achieve the most
efficient development and utilization of natural resources;
(b) …
(International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Art.
11.2.)
Introduction
I am writing this report not as a neutral and detached observer, but as an engaged actor in the process of creating, developing and enforcing the rural social movements that will be discussed in the report. The brief report will not cover all the activities of my summer work in Indonesia (see attachment of my timetable), but will only concentrate on some workshops held by KARSA, a Jogjakarta-based NGO that I co-founded in 2002 that works to support rural and agrarian reform initiatives in various areas in Indonesia, with a focus on the concerns of rural communities. KARSA has also started a formal 5-year cooperation with the Institute of International Studies at UC Berkeley through Green Governance, Green Peace: A Program of International Exchange in Environmental Governance, Community Resource Management, and Conflict Resolution. Under this program KARSA is responsible for selecting and sending visiting scholars to Berkeley, managing research and workshops/trainings, and delivering some research-based papers and other related documents. This project is in concert with KARSA’s overall mission to support learning circles at various levels (local, regional and national), and to develop information networks between scholar-activists and concerned scholars on rural and agrarian reform. Through this program, KARSA has organized workshops on forestry land reform in which participants compare cases of farmer initiatives to facilitate forestry land reform, mainly through land occupation tactics.
Land occupation began after the decline of Indonesia’s Soeharto
authoritarian regime and has become a fundamental tactic of local rural
movements in Java. The three largest groups in the agrarian movement (from
three districts of three different provinces in Java)—Serikat Petani
Pasundan (SPP) in Garut, Tasik and Ciamis districts, West Java
province; Persatuan Petani
Mandiri (PPM) in Wonosobo districts, Central Java
province; and Serikat Tani Independent (SEKTI) in Jember districts, East
Java province—all have used land occupation as their main collective
action to mobilize rural landless, as well as to push the government to
change policy concerning the occupied lands. In some areas they have been
able to make revolutionary changes in local agrarian structure, land use,
and modes of production, transforming areas from plantations to small
landholdings. More than that, there are some indications that these local
movements have able to change accumulation structures and local political
arenas at village and district levels. This is a very distinct
political-economic phenomenon, in contrast with a trend toward economic
neoliberalization at the national level, and can be read as a promotion of
human rights. When state institutions fail to address chronic agrarian
problems, rural social movements have reminded the state of its obligation
and showed the way to implement land reform. These voices have taken the
form of general critiques of contemporary Indonesia’s neoliberal economy
and state reforms, and have drawn their conclusions from the experience of
some rural social movements in Java, including those linked to these
workshops.
The KARSA workshops have tried to create space for peasants’ testimonies
and demands to access land and other related resources controlled by Perum
Perhutani, a state forest company (SFC). Through these workshops, KARSA
has tried to promote forestry land reform, by strengthening villagers’
access to land and other related resources that have been controlled by
the SFC. These workshops actually provide space for villagers to amplify
their voices, which are rooted in their collective actions, to strengthen
their access to land mainly through land occupation, to change land use
from plantation into agro-forestry areas, and to improve their livelihood
through the family farm production system. More than that, the workshops
have tried to find various policy windows that can be used as channels to
empower village collective action.
The SFC is a para-state forest company, controlling around 19% of Java’s
land, equivalent to 2.9 million hectares, consisting of 62% (1,811,814 ha)
production forest, 21% (627,937 ha) protected forest and 15% (442,198 ha)
conservation forest. According to data from the Forestry Department and
Perhutani (as quoted by Awang, et al. 2006), in 2002 the
super-critical forest land within the production forest was about 12.65%
(370.130 ha), within protected forest was 6.53% (191,200 ha) and 2.34%
(68,375 ha) was within conservation forest. The total area of Java is only
6.5% of the total area of Indonesia, but Indonesians (64%) live on this
island. At least 6,200 villages surround the forest, with total
inhabitants of around 35 millions. It was estimated that more than 80% of
the villagers depend on the forest resources for their family income
(Awang, et al. 2006).
KARSA is leading two kinds of workshops, local and national. KARSA is
working with local leaders of Serikat Petani Pasundan (SPP), Persatuan
Petani Mandiri (PPM) and Serikat Tani Independent (SEKTI) to
organize the local workshops. To each workshop, KARSA invited
village-level leaders of peasant unions that have had experience
struggling for their rights against PP domination and hegemony. KARSA
conducted the national workshop in Jakarta, capital city of Indonesia; it
was attended by staff and high-level officials of SFCs, and also
high-level officials from the Ministry of Forestry and National Land
Agency.
Local Workshops
The overarching topic of the local workshops was the historical and
sociological bases for land forestry reform agendas in lands controlled by
theSFC. In the workshop, we not only dealt with land redistribution, but
also tenancy and sharecropping. KARSA is concerned with how villagers can
strengthen their access to land and other related resources through
significant tenure reform. Using political ecology as a lens, KARSA
encouraged the workshop participants to give a testimony about their
current access to the land, the process required to access land previously
controlled by the SFC, and repression that they felt from the SFC or SFC’s
allied parties. They were also encouraged to explore and discuss
opportunities and strategies to achieve tenure security on cultivated
lands. The local workshops also gave us concrete and practical examples of
how rural movement groups have resisted a new SFC national program
called Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat or Community Collaborative Forest Management (CCFM). Perum Perhutani believes that CCFM will increase the quality of forest resources, forest
productivity and forest security, and it plans to use adjustable forest
resource management to suit the social dynamics of local communities
around the forest.[1]
KARSA worked with Serikat Petani Pasundan (SPP) on the first local
workshop. SPP is the biggest local peasant organization in Java,
established in 1999. They organized more than 60 local peasant groups that
have conflicts with big plantations and state forest institutions. The
organization is one successful example of how a local movement is able to
access the land previously controlled by the SFC. Their main tactic is
land occupation, followed by joining SPP to conduct serious advocacy work
in and outside the village.
For two days activities, on 12 and 13 March, we used permanent and
semi-open buildings at SPP’s local chapter in Margaharja Village, Ciamis
district. There are signs that clearly advertise the peasant
organization (billboard, flags, banners, posters, etc.). The buildings
were located in a land occupation area, near the main road to PP’s forest.
Around 30 participants (around 30% are women) come from 12 local chapters
of SPP in Tasikmalaya and Ciamis districts. They mostly used public
transportation to get to the meeting place, and some of them used their
motorcycles. The workshop was opened by the head of SPP’s local chapter,
and then officially opened by the Deputy of General Secretary of SPP. I
had helped them to structure and then to facilitate the session with the
Deputy.
We had 12 cases of land occupation; we requested each case to make a
brief presentation of several main points: sketch-maps of the disputed
area, current condition of land tenure, land use and production system,
historical sketch of land control, dynamic process of occupation and
counter-movement, claims made by occupants and counter-claims from the
SFC, and the process to and prospect of legal occupation. In
the full report that will be made by KARSA, they will describe and map the
details of the cases, but for this brief report I will summarize
commonalities. In most of the cases the SPP local movement tends
to have negative attitude toward the SFC. Their general opinion is that CCFM is a new form of counter-movement
against their collective initiative to access the land through land
occupation and then improve the ecosystem and their livelihood through
agro-forestry. They were frustrated, angry and resistant to the
various forms of PP’s control over access to land, control over species,
control over forest labor and ideological control. (For a historical
account of this control and villager resistance against it, see Peluso
1992.) They did not buy the arguments that CCFM will improve rural
livelihood and reforest the land.
The second local workshop was held at Pesantren (an Islamic
boarding school) in Jember city, Jember district, East Java province, on
25–26 June 2006. KARSA worked with Serikat Tani
Independent (SEKTI), which had six cases of land occupation.
NGO activists supporting SEKTI had facilitated the workshop. SEKTI was
founded in 2004 and began working with 24 peasant groups that mostly had
land-related problems with big private or state owned plantations in
Jember district. They have been assisted by a group of NGO activists
working in, among others, SD Inpers. Unlike local peasant groups that have
a long history of struggle against the big plantations, SEKTI just started
this year to recruit and organize forest-dependent peasant groups. So they
used this workshop as starting place for understanding the problems, and
then developed strategy and tactics relevant to the unique characteristics
of tensions between peasant groups and PP.
Like the workshop with SPP, the facilitator tried to pose some questions
to the participants, who had small group discussions and prepared
presentations. Also like the SPP workshop, the questions posed by
facilitator were descriptive and not analytical. They used sketch-maps to
describe where villagers are able to access SFC land, but they did not ask
about history of land controlled by the SFC and claims and counter-claims
posed by the peasant group and their opponent. In the SPP workshop, I felt
there was solidarity between the peasants victimized by the SFC and
enthusiasm to support each other, as well as critical consciousness
against structural domination (using Freireian terms; see Freire 1972).
But, in the SEKTI workshop, I felt a different climate emanating from the
participants. They seemed to be disconnected and weak, while the NGOs
serviced and supported them to strengthen their weak position vis-à-vis
the powerful SFC. Unlike the SPP groups, SEKTI’s local peasant groups
generally welcomed CCFM. The participants of this workshop did not
challenge the SFC’s powers as SPP did, apart from some NGO activists who
were critical of SFC domination and the naïveté of the peasant groups.
These activists problematized the method of recruitment of CCFM
participants, the composition of stakeholders at the village level, the
fee for replanting and also the percentage of profit sharing. There was
one peasant leader that really felt comfortable with the CCFM scheme,
because he already had benefited from it. So he encouraged the other
groups to adopt the CCFM proposal. But the NGO activists, including the
facilitator of the workshop, hardly tried to confront the man who promoted
it.
In those two workshops with SPP and SEKTI, a KARSA resource person
introduced a legal opportunity for peasant groups to challenge SFC’s right
to have territorial control. The legal basis for this opportunity is a
legal procedure to determine the status of local rights within the “Forest Zone,” through a
detailed four-step process of the Berita Acara Tata
Batas (BATB) or Forest Delineation Process Document. This
process is outlined as follow:
Step 1. Preparation of Forest Border Projections
a. Preparation of map draft
b. Discussion of forest border
c. Meeting of forest delineation committee
Step 2. Temporary Forest Border Marking
a. Preparation of border tract
b. Temporary marking of border
c. Announcement of border tract and marking
d. Reporting
e. Field rechecking and forest delineation committee meeting
Step 3. Definite Forest Border Marking
a. Preparation of maps and working guidelines
b. Widening of border tract
c. Definite border meeting
d. Border measurement
e. Mapping and reporting
f. Forest delineation committee meeting
Step 4. Legalization of the Forest Delineation Process Verbal
a. Preparation of process verbal
b. Signing of process verbal
KARSA’s resource person believes that there are opportunities to
challenge existing SFC claims to control territory/lands. Because this
delineation process should be participatory and based on consensual
agreement, if there are communities that have land claims over the forest
territory, they can refuse to include their land claims in the delineation
process. But if the process is just and fair, with a clear explanation of the legal
consequences, the area could be legally and legitimately declared
a Kawasan Hutan Negara or State Forest Zone. The KARSA
resource person quoted a study conducted by Contreras-Hermosilla and Fay
(2005), from Forest Trends and the World Agro-forestry Centre, that said,
“As of early 2005, the delineation process had covered only 12 million
hectares, or just 10% of the 120 million hectare of ‘Forest Zone’, leaving
108 million uncertain as to the nature of rights attached. This means that
Indonesia’s official ‘State Forest Zone’ is currently only 12 million
hectares, not 120 million as it is commonly perceived.” At the end of the
presentation, she recommended that the participants check the delineation
processes that targeted the land that they have claimed. She believes that
this is a good legal opportunity to challenge PP’s claims to the land and
push the Ministry of Forestry to adopt land reform agendas.
At the end of the workshops, the facilitator let the SPP and SEKTI
high-level leaders take over the concluding and plan of action sessions,
and usually they used the previous workshop session as input for their
organizational processes.
Visit to Paguyuban Petani Mandiri (PPM) in Wonosobo,
Central Java
KARSA and the leaders of Paguyuban Petani
Mandiri (PPM) Wonosobo changed the workshop format in
Wonosobo, by visiting some cases of land occupation in SFC forest land organized by local peasant groups under Paguyuban
Petani Mandiri (PPM) Wonosobo. Since its inception in 2002,
PPM has been an umbrella organization of more than 20 local peasant groups
in Wonosobo districts for whom conflict over forestry lands is their main
issue. Wonosobo district is a unique case that concerns decentralizing
forest management initiatives. Efforts of farmer groups, NGOs and district
parliaments since 1999 culminated in the District Regulation No. 22/2001
on Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Hutan Berbasis Masyarakat or
Community-based Forest Management (CBFM), passed by the Wonosobo
Legislative Assembly in September 2001 and signed by the district head
or bupati a month later. But both Ministries of Forestry and Home Affairs sought the revocation of CBFM
through extra-judicial procedures. The Forestry Minister issued a letter
to the Home Affairs Minister requesting cancellation, using the
basis that the SFC has prior rights over the state forest lands concerned
and thus the regulation contradicts 1999 Forestry Law. One month later,
the General Secretary of Home Affairs issued a letter to the Wonosobo
District Head asking for the policy revocation. The apprehension of Home
Affairs is said to be coming from an interpretation that CBFM gives
Wonosobo District the power to alter the status of forest lands. On top of
this, Perhutani submitted a petition for judicial review to the Supreme
Court. For fuller account of the “Wonosobo Case” (see Adi, et al. 2005). Some PPM leaders feel that they had been also declined by the Ministry of
Forestry and Ministry of Home Affairs because of peasant enthusiasm to
respond to this political opportunity and negative peasant responses to
cancellation of the district regulation.
We visited three areas in Wonosobo during our trip of 11–14 July 2006.
The first area is a village in Dieng Mountain, a key area that
the SFC always uses as an example of local people destroying the forest
through illegal cutting and land occupation. There was one peasant leader
that was just released from jail three months ago. He had been accused of
being a wood thief, but he believed it was because he is a leader of the
movement occupying more than 500 hectares of land previously controlled by
the SFC. He told us that after he was arrested, membership in the movement
declined from 500 members to only six. But now, after he reconsolidated
the organization, it regained 60 members. There has been some
counter-movement from the SFC and its allies (included the village head) that demobilized PPM
members through devide et impera tactics, such as
insinuation that they will be jailed and treated as their leader and
payment of the public to protest against the district regulation of CBFM.
(The SFC paid individuals Rp. 35,000, equivalent to US $7.) With 60 members
now, the organization has shown that they are able to reforest the area
using agro-forestry style land use, in contrast with PP’s tree plantation
style.
The second area is a 250 ha resettlement area. Almost 20 years ago the
villagers were forcefully moved to this area, because their former
settlement was a part of the Wadas Lintang Dam area. About a half of the
villagers were moved to this area, and others were transmigrated to
Sumatera island. The government decided to allocate about 600 ha as a
greenbelt area controlled by the SFC. After the District Government
declared District regulation No. 22/1991 on CBFM, some NGO activists came
to the area to promote the idea that villagers have a right to cultivate
the greenbelt previously controlled by the SFC. After that, villagers
started to cut pines trees, use the logs and then cultivate the land.
Working with police, the SFC conducted a repressive operation to try to
force the villagers to use CCFM schemes, but the peasant group refused.
Two villagers were jailed for six months. Villagers responded to the
repression with protests inside and outside the village. The
result was that almost all the pines were cut, except for a few trees they
found on very sloppy land. The SFC withdrew from the area in 2001, and
until now there has been no response from the SFC. Persatuan Petani Mandiri leaders perceive that the area is not profitable anymore and it has not
be targeted for reforestation projects. We visited the area that was
cultivated by the villagers and found an embryo of a agro-forestry complex
where peasants cultivate the land with cash crops along with fruit and
wood trees.
The third site that we visited is the most important site for PPM. The
PPM leader told us that the village is a very important base for PPM
because the area has become a model of how a local peasant group can
successfully occupy land previously controlled by PP and change the land
use style to agro-forestry. They already produce cash crops to
improve their livelihood and have been able to accumulate domestic capital
at the family level. When we talked with the local leaders
about factors that make them successful in the fight against the SFC, they
shared with us details of various forms of oppression that PP’s staff and
field officers used before the Soeharto authoritarian regime stepped down
in 1998. When reformation began, they took revenge with various tactics to
kill the pine trees. With guidance from PPM leaders, they have developed a
solid organization based on their militant fight against PP and they have
been able to push PP out of their area. When we visited the field, we saw
some promising agro-forestry plots, and also some villagers that freely
cut pine trees to use for cooking firewood. They said that each tree
provided six months of firewood for one family.
National Workshop on Forest Governance
This workshop, held in Jakarta on 18–19 June 2007, provided a good
understanding of competing strategies between the State Forest Company and
its allies, government institutions and rural social movements groups
supported by NGO activists. There was a presentation from a National Land
Agency (NLA) high official describing the discrepancy between
their de jure legal mandate and de facto sectoral and limited authority. Basic Agrarian Law (BAL) No. 5/1960
mandated them to handle all earth surfaces and the resources in it. But
actual NLA authority is outside of forest territory and mining
concessions, only 23% of the total area of Indonesia. The NLA
only can redistribute state forest land if the Ministry of Forestry
decides to exclude it from the state forest zone. On the other hand, if
there is no official decision from the Minister of Forestry, there is
nothing that they can do.
A presentation from the SFC director was really helpful to understand new
targets of the SFC after their near-bankruptcy in 1997-1999 as consequence
of mass illegal logging following the fall of Soeharto’s authoritarian
regime. He showed that there was big shift in management of the SFC from a
“feudal” system into a modern company, not only at lower levels, but more
importantly, at higher levels of management. Significant cases of
corruption pushed the SFC to be a more efficient, accountable and
transparent business organization. The poverty of forest-dependent
communities also stimulated the SFC to take a bigger responsibility in the
changing character of the international timber market, in its changing
relationship with local communities, and to create a new approach toward
combining timber and non-timber products of the SFC. The Community
Collaborative Forest Management (CCFM) is one of PP’s new key programs.
The presenter tried to use statistics and projections to convince the
audience that it would not only solve chronic problems mentioned, but also
to bring a bright future to the SFC.
The other important presentation was made by an officer from the Planning
Board in the Ministry of Forestry. He shared two preconditions should be
understood. First, the Ministry of Forestry has been working under Basic
Forestry Law no. 41/99, which means implicitly that they do not work under
Basic Agrarian Law no. 5/1960. Second, unlike other departments, the
Ministry of Forestry has territorial authority in the Forest Zone. The
condition of the forest is not relevant; whether there is a forest
ecosystem or not, as long as it is included in the Forest Zone, the
Ministry of Forestry has an authority to control and manage the area. So,
in this context, the main roles of the Planning Board are macro-planning
and delineation of the Forest Zone. In order to create a definite Forest
Zone, the Planning Board must clearly delineate area and after that
determine the forest function for the area. In SFC areas, the Planning
Board has authority to decide whether an area will be designated
production forest or protected forest.
Those three very important presentations at the workshop led us to
conclude that forestry land reform is not on the agenda of policy makers
of the SFC and government bodies. Given this situation, workshop
participants had a serious debate about whether the community should
accept or refuse the Community Collaborative Forest Management (CCFM).
Participants were split into two camps; some community leaders working
with NGOs opposed to CCFM allied with the majority of the participants,
while other community leaders and SFC staff worked closely with supporters
of CCFM. The two camps shared their arguments, but there was no shifting
in positions by the end of workshop. Unfortunately, for technical reasons,
participants from the pro-CCFM camp left the arena before the workshop
ended and then participants from the anti-CCFM camp continued the workshop
to make recommendations for KARSA’s future agenda.
Some Reflections on Rightful Resistance and its Place in
Indonesia
How should we read land occupation as exemplified by some local movements
in Java? The introduction of this report clearly indicates that the
workshops amplify the lesson “while policy makers dither, social movements can show the way” (Peter Rosset 2001:7). Peter Rosset has written a valuable account
of the development of new rural movements in Latin America and Asia,
particularly a transnational rural social movement, Via Campensina. Since the beginning, Rosset has been one of think-tankers of Via Campensina, working with FIAN (a Heidelberg, Germany-based human rights NGO),
FoodFirst (an Oakland, California-based research institute on food and
development policy) and LRAN (Land Action Research Network) to promote
grass-roots agrarian reform, human rights and food sovereignty, not only
as defensive and alternative agendas to neoliberalizaion of the rural
world, but also as rallying themes of rural social movements for socialist
transformation (Desmarais 2002, Edelman 2003, 2005, Borras
2004, and Pattel 2006). In another recent paper, referring to
work by Wolford (2001), Langevin and Rosset (1997), Barraclough (1999) and Wright
and Wolford (2003), Rosset clearly indicates a new trend in the rural
world: “In today's conservative, neoliberal political environment, strong
grassroots poor people's movements are critical to pushing the reform
process, stopping government foot-dragging and, when necessary, taking
matters into their own hands. Land occupations are one of the most
effective, proven methods of pressuring governments to act” (Rosset 2006,
29). We find a similar conclusion in a new edited volume that locates the centrality of land occupations, The Resurgence of Rural Movements in Africa, Asia and Latin America (Sam Moyo and Peter Yeros, eds., 2005)
We also find that collective land occupations in the field are always
defended in public discourse using language of “rights.” At this point, I
remember that a prominent critical legal studies scholar, Alan Hunt, used
Gramcian ideas of hegemony and counter-hegemony to advance a positive
evolution of the place of “rights” strategies within progressive politics
(Hunt 1990, 1991). In his view:
Rights take shape and are constituted by and through struggle. Thus, they
have the capacity to be elements of emancipation, but they are neither a
perfect nor exclusive vehicle for emancipation. Rights can only be
operative as constituents of a strategy of social transformation as they
become part of an emergent “common sense” and are articulated within
social practices. Rights-in-action involve an articulation and
mobilization of forms of collective identities. This does not imply that
they need to take the form of “collective rights”, but simply that they
play a part in constituting the social actors, whether individual or
collective, whose identity is changed by and through the mobilization of
some particular rights discourse. They articulate a vision of
entitlements, of how things might be, which in turn has the capacity to
advance political aspiration and action (Hunt 1990:325-326).
The objective of the occupation movements is to change government
policies, their implementation and their outcomes, rather than to demand
the retreat of state. Yet, they use state language to demand
constitutional and legal rights and justify their claims. So we can term
it rightful resistance (O’Brien 1995, O’Brien and Li 2006). If the rightful resistance is targeted to change government
policies, the next question is a practical one, how can it be made
possible? At this point we have to go beyond rightful resistance, and it
is relevant to say that we should to combine it with policy advocacy
work.
Berkeley, December 4, 2006
Bibliography
Adi, N. Juni, Felicianus Arganata, M. Chehafudin, Faisal H. Fuad, Sandi
C. A. Nugraheni, Rohni Sanyoto, Rowena Soriaga, and Peter Walpole.
2005. Communities Transforming Forestlands, Java, Indonesia. A
Collaborative Study by Lembaga Arupa, Yayasan Koling, and
Asia Forest Network. Bohol, Phillipines: Asia Forest Network.
Awang, S. Afri, W.T.Widayati, B. Himmah, A. Astuti, and W. Wardhana. 2006.
“Collective Action on State Forest Company in Java.” A paper delivered
at the eleventh biennial conference of the International Association for the
Study of Common Property (IASCP), Denpasar, Bali.
Barraclough, Solon L. 1999. Land Reform in Developing Countries: The Role
of State and Other Actors. Geneva: UNRISD Discussion paper No. 101.
Borras, Jr., Saturnino. 2004. “La Via Campesina: An Evolving
Transnational Social Movement.” TNI Briefing Series No.
2004/6. Amsterdam: Transnational Institute (for PDF version, see www.tni.org)
Contreras-Hermosilla, Arnoldo, and Chip Fay. 2005. Strengthening Forest Management in Indonesia through Land Tenure
Reform: Issues and Framework for Action. Forest Trends and World Agro-forestry Centre.
Desmarais, Annette-Aurelie. 2002. “The Vıa Campesina:
Consolidating an International Peasant and Farm Movement.” Journal of Peasant Studies 29(2):91–124.
Edelman, Marc. 2003. “Transnational Peasant and Farmer Movements and
Networks.” Global Civil Society 2003. Mary Kaldor, Helmut
Anheier, and Marlies Glasius, eds. pp. 185–220. London: Oxford University
Press. Also electronic document,
http://www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/global/Yearbook/outline2003.htm, accessed Sept
30, 2005.
–––––––––. 2005. “Bringing the Moral Economy back in . . . to the Study
of 21st-Century Transnational Peasant Movements.” American Anthropologist, Vol. 107, Issue 3, pp. 331–345,
Freire, Paulo. 1972. Cultural Action for Freedom.
Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Harriss, J., Stokke, K. and Törnquist, O. 2004. Politicising Democracy: The New Local Politics of
Democratisation. Houndmills: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Hunt, Alan. 1990. “Right and Social Movement: Counter-hegemonic
Strategies”, Journal of Law and Society, Vol 17. No.3. (Autumn, 1990), pp.
309-328.
–––––––––. 1991. Exploration in Law and Society. Toward a Constitutive Theory of Law. New Yorl and London: Routledge.
Langevin, Mark S., and Peter Rosset. 1997. “Land Reform from Below: The
Landless Worker's Movement in Brazil.” Institute for Food and Development
Policy, Food First Backgrounder vol. 4, no. 3, Fall
1997.
O’Briend, Kevis. J. 1996. Rightful Resistance. World Politics, 49 (1): 31-55.
O’Brien, Kevin. J. and Lianjiang Li. 2006. Rightful Resistance in Rural China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Patel, Rajeev. 2006. “International Agrarian Restructuring and
the Practical Ethics of Peasant Movement Solidarity.” Journal of Asian and African Studies. Vol 41(1/2): 71–93
Peluso, Nancy. 1992. Rich Forests, Poor People: Resource Control and Resistance in Java. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rosset, Peter. 2001. “Tides Shift on Agarian Reform: New Movements Show
the Way”. Institute for Food and Development Policy, Food First Backgrounder vol. 7, no. 1, Winter 2001.
–––––––––. 2006. “Agrarian Reform and Food Sovereignty: Alternative Model
for the Rural World.” Paper presented at 55th Annual Conference of the
Center for Latin American Studies at the University of Florida,
“Alternative Visions of Development: The Rural Social Movements in Latin
America,” Gainesville, Florida, USA, February 23-25, 2006.
Sokke, Kristian. 2002. “Habitus, Capital and Fields: Conceptualising the
Capacity Actors in Local Politics.” Unpublished paper for seminar “Local
Politics and Democratization in Developing Countries,” University of Oslo,
March 12th.
Törnquist, Olle. 2004. “The Political Deficit of Substantial
Democratisation.” In J. Harriss, K. Stokke and O. Törnquist
(2004). Politicising Democracy: The New Local Politics of
Democratisation. Houndmills: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Wolford, Wendy. 2001. “Case study: Grassroots-initiated Land Reform in
Brazil: The Rural Landless Workers' Movement.” Chapter 12 in Alain de
Janvry, Gustavo Gordillo,
Jean-Philippe Platteau and Elisabeth Sadoulet (eds), Access to Land: Rural Poverty and Public Action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wright, Angus, and Wendy Wolford. 2003. To Inherit the Earth: The Landless Movement and the Struggle for a New
Brazil. Oakland: Food First Books.
[1] During 1999-2000, the SFC conducted a series of public consultations and discussions with
several NGOs and academics to formulate a participatory model of Java
forest management, to improve the welfare of local people, and to
manage the forest sustainably. The resulting program, Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat or Community Collaborative Forest Management (CCFM), was
implemented by the SFC in 2001 with the objectives: (1) to improve the sense of
responsibility of the SFC, local people and other actors who have an interest in sustaining
the forest; (2) to enhance the role of the SFC, local people and other actors who have an interest in the forest
management system; (3) to harmonize all forest management activities
and regional development that affects the social dynamic in the nearby
village; (4) to enhance the quality of forest resources that coincide
with specific problems in the site; and (5) to simultaneously improve
the earnings of the SFC, villagers and other interested actors.
(SFC’s Regulation No. 136/Kpts/DIR/2001 as quoted by Awang, et al. 2006).
No comments:
Post a Comment