WP 156 Koma Rudin

WORKING PAPER
Oil palm estate development and its

impact on forests and local communities
in West Papua
A case study on the Prafi Plain
Fransina F Kesaulija
Bernadetta MG Sadsoeitoebeon
Hans FZ Peday
Max J Tokede
Heru Komarudin
Rubeta Andriani
Krystof Obidzinski
Working Paper 156
Oil palm estate development and its

impact on forests and local communities
in West Papua
A case study on the Prafi Plain
Fransina F Kesaulija
Forestry Faculty, Papua State University
Bernadetta MG Sadsoeitoebeon
Hans FZ Peday
Max J Tokede
Heru Komarudin
Center for International Forestry Research
Rubeta Andriani
Krystof Obidzinski
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)

Working Paper 156
© 2014 Center for International Forestry Research
Content in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0

Unported License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
ISBN 978-602-1504-46-8
Kesaulija FF, Sadsoeitoebeon BMG, Peday HFZ, Tokede MJ, Komarudin H, Andriani R and Obidzinski K. 2014. Oil
palm estate development and its impact on forests and local communities in West Papua: A case study on the Prafi
Plain. Working Paper 156. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.
Cover photo by Heru Komarudin

Mature oil palm plantation near the provincial capital city of West Papua
CIFOR
Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede
Bogor Barat 16115
Indonesia
T +62 (251) 8622-622

F +62 (251) 8622-100
E [email protected]
cifor.org
We would like to thank all donors who supported this research through their contributions to the CGIAR Fund.
For a list of Fund donors please see: https://www.cgiarfund.org/FundDonors
Any views expressed in this publication are those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of
CIFOR, the editors, the authors’ institutions, the financial sponsors or the reviewers.
Contents
Acknowledgments v
Introduction vi
1 Oil palm estate development in Indonesia and Papua 1
2 Methods 1
3 Study location, area and conditions 4
3.1 Socioeconomic characteristics 4
3.2 Customary land control patterns, transmigration and oil palm estates 5
3.3 Local wisdom about natural resource use 6
3.4 Labor 6
3.5 Work relationships 7
4 Impacts of oil palm estate development 7
4.1 Stakeholders 7
4.2 Environmental impacts 8
4.3 Socioeconomic impacts 11
4.4 Sociocultural impacts 14
5 Conclusions and recommendations 16
6 References 17
List of figures and tables
Figures
1 Production and area of Indonesia’s oil palm estates, 1980–2012 1
2 Study location 4
3 Respondents’ perceptions of the negative impacts of oil palm development on the Prafi Plain 9
4 Land cover in the oil palm plantation site at three points in time 10
Tables
1 Focus group discussions and household interviews 2
2 Distribution of respondents by location and stakeholder group 3
3 Ethnicity of respondents 3
4 Sex of respondents 3
5 Forest types on the Prafi Plain 5
6 Land types on the Prafi Plain, 2001 9
7 Fresh fruit bunch production, 2007–2009 12
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support enumerators; Agus Ambraw and Bapak Kerani of
received from the Consultative Group on Perkebunan Nusantara II and Kukuh Saptoyudo of
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) West Papua Provincial Transmigration Office, who
Systemwide Program on Collective Action and facilitated data collection; and Yos Yambeyandi,
Property Rights (CAPRi), the Catholic Organization Head of the Indonesian Association of Oil Palm
for Relief and Development Aid (CORDAID) of the Farmers. The authors would like to express their
Netherlands, and the European Commission. Special appreciation to Suseno Budidarsono of the World
thanks go to the Arfak customary communities and Agroforestry Center (ICRAF); Kresno Dwi Santosa
transmigrants living around the oil palm plantation and Petrus Gunarso of Tropenbos Indonesia; and
in Prafi, Manokwari District, who have provided Andrew Wardell, Agus Djoko Ismanto and Agus
substantial input to this paper through interviews. Andrianto of the Center for International Forestry
Thanks are also due to Anom Indra Adhyaksa, Research (CIFOR) for comments on earlier drafts of
Meliza Worabay and Devi Manuhua — the field this paper.
Introduction
Indonesia is striving to maintain its position as the eradication (Basiron 2007, 2010; World Growth
world’s largest palm oil producer, and is planning 2009; Badrun 2011). However, oil palm estate
to expand production to 40 million tonnes a year expansion has also been blamed for the loss of
by 2020, twice the volume produced in 2010 wildlife habitat and for greenhouse gas emissions
(PalmOilHQ 2009; Tempo Interactive 2010; World (Cotula et al. 2008; Oxfam 2008; RFA 2010). Oil
Bank and IFC 2011). To achieve this production palm opponents also argue that estate expansion has
target, the area of oil palm plantations is expected to marginalized local communities, depriving them of
expand from 7.9 million ha in 2010 to 20 million their rights and access to land and forest resources
ha by 2020. This will mean the establishment (Telapak and EIA 2009, 2011).
of 300,000 ha of new oil palm estates every year
(Greenpeace 2009; Telapak and EIA 2009). The There is extensive literature on the economic impact
Directorate General of Estate Crops in the Ministry of oil palm expansion on local farmer incomes
of Agriculture estimated that the area of oil palm in Kalimantan and Sumatra (Bunyamin 2008;
estates will grow by 2.55% a year. The Indonesian Feintrenie et al. 2010; Rist et al. 2010). Other studies
Government set targets of 8.6 million ha for 2012 have looked at the fate of oil palm farmers in the
and 9 million ha for 2014 (Directorate General of agrarian transition process and increasing corporate
Estate Crops 2010). and market integration (Colchester 2010; McCarthy
2010). However, little research has been carried out
Investment in oil palm plantations continues so far on the impacts of oil palm estates in Papua —
throughout Indonesia. In the provinces of Papua a new frontier for oil palm development.
and West Papua, the area of oil palm plantations
is low compared to other regions; however, This working paper contributes to a broader
it is growing at a steady rate. The Ministry of understanding of the implications of oil palm
Agriculture (2005) estimated that Papua Province production on the economy, ecology and society of
had about 5.7 million ha of land suitable for oil Indonesia by examining the plantation dynamics
palm cultivation. In 2008, the Directorate General in the frontier regions of West Papua. Based on a
of Estate Crops announced that Kalimantan and case study of the Perkebunan Nusantara (PTPN)
Sumatra were already too densely developed to II Kebun Prafi estate in Manokwari District, West
accommodate any new oil palm plantations and that Papua Province. It presents an analysis, based on
land was available in Papua. Oil palm companies stakeholder perceptions, of the environmental,
seeking to expand their estates soon turned their socioeconomic and cultural impacts of oil palm
attention to the last forests in Papua (Radio New expansion. Section 1 presents a brief overview of
Zealand International 2008; Telapak and EIA 2009). oil palm estate development in Indonesia in general
Expansion has been further stimulated in Papua by and Papua and West Papua in particular. Section 2
policies allowing oil palm estates to be twice the size discusses the methods used to collect and analyze
of those in other provinces in Indonesia.1 data, and Section 3 describes the study location
and its conditions. Section 4 presents findings
Opinion is divided on the impacts of oil palm estates. on environmental, socioeconomic and cultural
Some believe that they help mitigate climate change impacts, and Section 5 offers conclusions and
by providing an alternative energy source, and recommendations.
contribute to economic development and poverty
1 Article 12, paragraph (3) of Minister of Agriculture Decree

No. 26/Permentan/OT.140/2/2007 on Guidelines for Permits
for Estate Crop Enterprises stipulates that the largest area to
be held by one oil palm company is 100,000 ha; in Papua
200,000 ha may be held.
1. Oil palm estate (6.9%) and East Kalimantan (6.6%). In Papua,
development in Indonesia oil palm estates made up only about 0.4% of the
country’s total oil palm area of about 8 million ha in
and Papua 2010 (Ministry of Agriculture 2010).
Large-scale development of oil palm estates in Crude palm oil production rose 16%, from 16.1
Indonesia began in 1977, with the government’s million tonnes in 2006 to 18.7 million tonnes in
Nucleus Estate and Smallholder Scheme. Under 2008. About 24–27% of this crude palm oil was used
the scheme, private developers (known as inti or to meet domestic demand, and the remaining 73–
nucleus) prepared plots of land for smallholders 76% was exported to China, India and the European
located nearby. As these plots matured, usually after Union (Sheil et al. 2009).
3–4 years, the operations were transferred to the
smallholders (known as plasma), who developed the The first oil palm plantation estates in the provinces
plantations under the supervision of the nucleus of Papua and West Papua were developed in the
developers (Casson 1999). In 2010, approximately mid-1980s (Rosariyanto et al. 2008). In 2007, Papua
3.89 million ha (50%) of oil palm estates were Province had an estate crop area of 29,736 ha spread
private, 3.31 million ha (42%) were community throughout the districts of Keerom and Merauke
estates, and only 617,000 ha (8%) were state- owned (Mampioper 2007). By 2009, around 400,000 ha
(Ministry of Agriculture 2010). In terms of area of land in Papua had been allocated for plantation
and production, Indonesian oil palm estates have development (Elson 2009). The area of oil palm
experienced rapid growth since 1990 (see Figure 1). estates in West Papua Province increased, from
The total area of oil palm estates was only 1.12 31,000 ha in 2007 to 70,000 ha in the second half
million ha in 1990, but it was estimated to have of 2011, controlled by three companies (Mampioper
reached 8.99 million ha in 2011 (Ministry of 2007; Dishutbun 2011). Between 2010 and 2011,
Agriculture 2012). additional land of about 155,000 ha has been
acquired for plantation estates (Dishutbun 2011).2
Most oil palm estates are in Sumatra and
Kalimantan. In Sumatra, the largest area is in Riau Among the prime areas for oil palm development
(21.3%), followed by South Sumatra (20.0%), North in West Papua is the Prafi Plain. In 2005, the
Sumatra (12.8%) and Jambi (6.3%). In Kalimantan, Manokwari District Government initiated a
the largest area of oil palm estates is in Central community oil palm project adjacent to the PTPN
Kalimantan (19.4%), followed by West Kalimantan II Kebun Prafi estate with an area of 1,175 ha and
individual smallholder estates of 89 ha. Also, Medco
Hijau Selaras has been granted a license to establish
an oil palm plantation in this district (Amafnini
25,000,000 2010). In 2010, oil palm estates in this area were
estimated to cover 15,000 ha in 10 locations
20,000,000 (Universitas Negeri Papua 2010).
15,000,000
10,000,000
2. Methods
Stakeholder perceptions of the economic,
5,000,000 environmental and cultural impacts of oil palm
development were collected through household
surveys, focus group discussions and key informant
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
interviews conducted in January–August 2011.

Production (tonnes) Area (ha)
2 Interviews with staff of the Forestry and Estate Crops Office
of West Papua Province (on February 2011) indicate that by
Figure 1. Production and area of Indonesia’s oil palm 2010, six companies had submitted applications and secured
estates, 1980–2012. recommendations from the governor to expand estates on a
total of 208,668 ha in West Papua Province, in the districts of
Source: Ministry of Agriculture (2012). Bintuni, Maybrat, Sorong and South Sorong.
2 Kesaulija FF, Sadsoeitoebeon BMG, Peday HFZ, Tokede MJ, Komarudin H, Andriani R and Obidzinski K
Using pre-designed and field-tested questionnaires, discussions with each group. We set the number of
household surveys were carried out to interview individual and household interviewees at a minimum
members of four stakeholder groups: company of 30 for each group of stakeholders, although we
workers, former landowners and customary land were unable to meet this threshold for the affected
users, investing farmers and affected neighbors. neighbors group because of the group’s limited
•• Company workers are nucleus estate workers or availability. Details of focus group discussions and
farm workers (company employees) with full- household interviews are shown in Table 1.
time, part-time or temporary jobs.
•• Former landowners and customary users include The number of respondents in each stakeholder
family groups whose customary land has been group and hamlet is presented in Table 2. While
converted to nucleus estate land, and land-using respondents in the former landowners and land
community members who are not customary users group were distributed across many hamlets,
landowners but whose land has been converted the company workers lived in hamlets close to the
to nucleus estate land. nucleus plantations. Investing farmers lived in fewer
•• Investing farmers include participants in than half of the hamlets. Affected neighbors lived in
the Nucleus Estate Smallholder Scheme hamlets near to economic centers, like markets and
or Perkebunan Inti Rakyat (PIR), either as shops or kiosks.
smallholder out-growers (plasma) or members
of the Members’ Primary Credit Cooperative or Table 3 presents respondents’ ethnicity. The highest
Koperasi Kredit Primer Anggota (KKPA), who numbers of respondents were Arfak and non-
get direct guidance from the company, PTPN Papuans. This is understandable, as ethnic Arfak
II Kebun Prafi, in managing their estates. This people form the majority living near the estates, and
group also includes independent farmers who because Prafi is a settlement center for transmigrants
participate in district government projects and from Java and East Nusa Tenggara as well as for non-
work with the company to manage the harvesting Arfak Papuan communities.
of fresh fruit bunches (FFB).
•• Affected neighbors are community members — Table 4 presents the number of respondents by sex.
farmers of crops other than oil palm, and non- The higher number of men than women is probably
farmers — who live and work near an estate and due to the patriarchal customs adhered to by most
are directly affected by it. societies in Indonesia, including local communities
in Papua. In patriarchal societies, men play a
Focus group discussions sought to engage as diverse greater role in household decision-making, whilst
a group of people as possible in order to reflect the women carry out decisions made by men. However,
existing diversity in wealth, age, ethnicity and gender, for community social issues, which are discussed
and the nature of impacts. We held two focus group collectively, women are often more vocal than men in
making their opinions known.
Table 1. Focus group discussions and household interviews.

Stakeholder group Number of focus Number of Location
group discussions interviewees
Company workers 2 38 Lismau Ngu, Mokwam, Nimbai and Udapi
Former landowners and 2 43 Bogor, Desay, Lismau Ngu, Majemus, Manted,
customary users Meiforga, Mimbowi, Mokwam, Muara Prafi,
Nimia, Prafi Mulya, Sambab, Sembab II, Subsay,
Subsay I and Wasegipop
Investing farmers 2 30 Manted, Meiforga, Mimbowi, Mokwam, Muara
Prafi, Sembab and Udapi
Affected neighbors 2 27 Desay, Lismau Ngu, Masni Pantai, Mokwam, Prafi
Mulya and Sambab
Total 8 138
Note: Locations were hamlets in Masni, Prafi and Warmare districts.
Oil palm estate development and its impact on forests and local communities in West Papua 3
Table 2. Distribution of respondents by location and stakeholder group.

Respondents (%)
Location Company Former landowners and
Investing farmers Affected neighbors
workers customary users
Bogor 4.9
Desay 2.4 50.0
Lismau Ngu 28.9 7.3 3.6
Majemus 4.9
Mokwam 34.2 9.8 26.7 14.3
Manted 2.6 13.3
Masni Pantai 21.4
Meiforga 4.9 16.7
Mimbowi 2.4 3.3
Muara Prafi 2.4 6.7
Nimbai 31.6 2.4
Prafi Mulya 19.5 3.6
Sambab 14.6 30.0 7.1
Sembab II 2.4
Subsay 4.9
Subsay I 2.4
Udapi 5.3 3.3
Wasegipop 12.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Note: The number of respondents in each stakeholder group was as follows: company workers, 38; former landowners and
customary users, 43; investing farmers, 30; affected neighbors, 27.
Table 3. Ethnicity of respondents.

Ethnicity
Stakeholder group Total
Arfak Non-Arfak Papuan Non-Papuan
Company workers 38 3 (8%) 9 (24%) 26 (68%)
Former landowners and customary users 43 33 (77%) 0 (0%) 10 (23%)
Investing farmers 30 16 (53%) 6 (20%) 8 (27%)
Affected neighbors 27 4 (15%) 14 (52%) 9 (33%)
Total respondents 138 56 (41%) 29 (21%) 53 (38%)
Table 4. Sex of respondents.

In addition to the survey, we collected and
analyzed secondary data about oil palm Stakeholder group Total Men Women
development in the region, including Company workers 38 31 (82%) 7 (18%)
government statistics and reports, donor reports, Former landowners 43 39 (91%) 4 (9%)
non-government organization literature and and customary users
company reports. We also carried out forest-
Investing farmers 30 26 (87%) 4 (13%)
cover and land-use change analysis using a time
series of Landsat images. Affected neighbors 27 21 (78%) 6 (22%)
Total respondents 138 117 (85%) 21 (15%)
3. Study location, area and PTPN II Kebun Prafi has a crude palm oil processing
conditions plant, which has been operating since 1991 with an
installed capacity of 60 tonnes of FFB per hour. The
The study location comprises the PTPN II Kebun plant’s average current production capacity is only
Prafi plantation estates, which are located in the three around 50% of its installed capacity, at 30 tonnes of
subdistricts of Masni, Prafi and Warmare, Manokwari FFB per hour. The estate has relatively good access to
District, West Papua Province (Figure 2). PTPN II national roads, which helps the company to transport
is a state-owned plantation enterprise with the head crude palm oil to its main collection point near
office in Tanjung Murawa, Medan, North Sumatra; Manokwari harbor, and subsequently onto ships to
it was the first company to establish a large-scale oil take it out of the province.
palm estate in West Papua Province.
The oil palm estate was previously a timber
During 1982–2009, PTPN II Kebun Prafi managed concession managed by Inhutani II, covered in
12,049 ha of oil palm estate, with 99% of its palms heterogeneous primary forest. Beginning in February
producing fruit. In addition to managing the nucleus 1980, the forest was cleared using chainsaws, while
and plasma estates, the company also works with the land for transmigration settlements was cleared using
cooperative KKPA, developed to provide loans for heavy machinery (Imbiri 2010). The Prafi Plain has
oil palm development, and with community estates various types of forest, summarized in Table 5.
operating under a Manokwari District Government
project. The number of farmers supervised directly
by the company is 5657, of which 3406 are local and 3.1 Socioeconomic characteristics
2251 are transmigrants. Communities in the study area are made up of
several Arfak subethnicities: Hatam, Meyakh, Moule
PA S I F I K O C E A N
Auri Island
MASNI DISTRICT
Mansinam Island
PRAFI DISTRICT
WARMARE DISTRICT
Street
Research Location
Figure 2. Study location.

Table 5. Forest types on the Prafi Plain.

Once the communities became involved as plasma
Forest function Area (ha) Percentage farmers in the PIR scheme, they began to earn cash.
Limited production forest 5,277.9 13.8 In addition to working on their oil palms, they
also continued to practice swidden farming as well
Conservation area 884.8 2.3
as hunting and gathering from the primary forest
Conversion production 8,363.6 21.9 at the foot of the mountain and the remaining
forest secondary forest. Since the oil palm estates have been
Other land use area 23,736.9 62.0 established, land for farming has become limited.
Total 38,263.2 100.0
Note: Limited production forests are allocated for low-intensity
harvesting of forest products. They are mostly located in
3.2 Customary land control patterns,
mountainous areas with steep slopes. Conservation areas transmigration and oil palm estates
are designated to conserve fauna, flora and ecosystems. The land now occupied by transmigration sites
Conversion production forests are intended for non-forestry
development purposes such as plantations, transmigration
and oil palm estates was formerly customary land
and mining. controlled communally by Arfak clans. These lands
Source: Ministry of Forestry (1999).
once took the clan names and were separated by
natural boundaries such as rivers, mountains, valleys,
rock formations or large trees.
and Sougb. The majority groups among these During the New Order era of the 1970s and 1980s,
are the Meyakh and Sougb. These Arfak peoples the Prafi Plain was targeted for large-scale clearance
are the indigenous forest-dwelling inhabitants of of forestland for the transmigration program and
Manokwari. Arfak communities consider the forest oil palm estates. The transmigration program was
their mother, who always provides food for her intended to create development equality throughout
children. They are highly dependent on the forest, the regions by moving people from densely populated
which provides for their subsistence needs (Laksono areas. Its aim was to improve the prosperity of
et al. 2001). transmigrants and the surrounding communities
by creating job and business opportunities as well
The Arfak used to live in villages organized around as encouraging expansion and investment. The
patrilineal ties, based on the keret (family) or tribe program, which brought non-Papuan communities
(clan). They lived in large clan houses set up near into the region, began in 1977 with 40,000 ha set
their farmland. This changed with the arrival of aside by the Directorate General for Transmigration
Dutch colonists and Christian missionaries. The and the Manokwari District Government. In
Dutch colonial government united these family 1981, transmigrants began to settle the area, with
groups into villages with the aim of facilitating each family allocated 2 ha of land — 0.25 ha for
population censuses and establishing a village a house lot, 1 ha of enterprise I land (intended for
government and education and health services. producing subsistence food and income for the
These days the original Arfak communities have family, cleared and prepared by the government) and
scattered and settled in villages established by 0.75 ha of enterprise II land (intended for providing
the government. income beyond subsistence, cleared and developed
by transmigrants).
Before PTPN II arrived, ethnic Arfak farmers
had no cash income, as they farmed only to In 1980, the oil palm company PTPN II obtained
meet their household subsistence needs. They a permit to clear 23,000 ha of land close to a
practiced traditional swidden farming, hunted transmigration site to create an oil palm estate. In
and gathered forest products. The main crops accordance with the rules, in addition to setting up
were carbohydrate-producing staples such as taro nucleus estates, oil palm companies had to establish
(Colocasia esculenta), cassava (Manihot utilissima) a 2-ha plasma estate for every indigenous and
and sweet potato (Ipomea batatas), as well as fruits transmigrant family through the Nucleus Estate and
such as mango (Mangifera indica), langsat (Lansium Smallholder Scheme. In order to expand its estates, in
domesticum), rambutan (Nephelium lappaceum), 1998 the company established KKPA with funding
and jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus), and from Bank Negara Indonesia, to provide financial
vegetables like spinach (Sauropus sp.) and gnetum support for smallholders establishing oil palm
(Gnetum gnemon).
crops. The scheme used enterprise II land, which fertile and friable soils with high humus content,
transmigrants surrendered to the company. usually found in flat areas in valleys or along river
banks (Laksono et al. 2001).
The transmigrants only secured enterprise II land
in the form of estates in 1998, 17 years after they The Arfak believe that if an area is cleared for
had officially been granted it (interview with Pietsau settlement or plantation, then the wildlife will
Amafnini, coordinator of JASOIL Tanah Papua, migrate to a more remote place, thus making it
Social and Environmental Advocacy Network in harder for communities to hunt game (Nauw
Papua, June 2010). The land and oil palms were 2007). Arfak communities also know which plant
not surrendered for free. Transmigrants have to and animal species are edible, and which ones
engage in an agreement with the company and the they can and cannot hunt. They also are familiar
Bank Negara Indonesia and pay off their loans by with animals that can help and accompany them
surrendering 30% of the proceeds of their fruit when they are farming, hunting and travelling
bunches to the bank. As collateral, they have to (Nauw 2007).
surrender their land certificates.
Arfak communities divide regions between
When the transmigration program began, local community groups or villages. Boundaries between
customary communities submitted a written request one clan and another, which are strictly adhered to,
for the program to be initiated in their region in the are called hanjob in the Hatam language (Laksono
hope that it would open opportunities for them to et al. 2001). For natural resource use, customary
live more prosperously and build public facilities forests are divided into the following categories:
such as roads and schools. In the written statement, •• Bahamti — primary forest located higher
which became an annex to the official government than the settlement area. According to
document for the program, they also clearly customary rules, such land cannot be used for
stated that they did not ask for compensation.3 A farming or settlements. It may only be used
government staff member interviewed for this study for gathering wood, tree bark and lianas for
acknowledged that there was no compensation house construction.
made during the transfer of lands from customary •• Nimahamti — very wet forest dominated
communities (interview with former staff member by mosses. These areas may not be used as
of the Manokwari District Transmigration and plantation land, and forest products may not be
Manpower Office, 31 March 2011). Based on the gathered there.
regulations, compensation could be made in various •• Susti — secondary forest and regenerated
ways and was not necessarily financial.4 former farmland. This can be used for farming
and is divided into two types: susgoisi, which is
farmland left for a year with young secondary
3.3 Local wisdom about natural forest beginning to grow, and susmahan,
resource use which is former farmland left for more than
Arfak communities have traditional knowledge 5 years where older secondary forest has
of natural resources and land use — for housing, been established.
farming and traditional medicine (Nauw 2007). For
settlement, for example, they divide their customary
region into four types: wet areas (ampiabea), hot and 3.4 Labor
cold areas (nubim), tidal areas (reshim), and coastal PTPN II Kebun Prafi employees are either from
areas (mukti). For farming, communities select moist, outside the region (assigned by the central office
in Medan) or from local areas such as Manokwari
3 A statement releasing rights over customary communal District. Employees from outside the region
land is an annex to every district head decree on establishing — usually field assistants, assistant heads and
transmigration sites (Department of Transmigration 1997). administrative staff — are mostly recruited for
4 Article 30 of Government Regulation No. 2/1999 on skilled jobs, whereas lower-level employees are
Transmigration states that recognition or compensation for usually recruited locally. The total number of
land release is the responsibility of the minister or business
enterprise. Other forms of recognition or compensation include
company employees was 840 in 2009, comprising
replacement land, resettlement and financial compensation. 645 men and 195 women. Over 80% work on crop
If a plot of land is subject to communal rights, then it will be maintenance and harvesting (PTPN II 2009).
compensated with public facilities useful for the community.
3.5 Work relationships contractors and owners of communal land

PTPN II Kebun Prafi works with regional rights. The project is based on the following
government, communities and other parties in the profit sharing scheme: the district government
following ways: and farmers each get 30%, whilst the contractor,
•• Nucleus estates — The company employs villagers Sawit Thomas,6 gets 40%: 30% for operational
as full-time employees, paid monthly salaries, or costs and 10% profit. The project is aimed at
on a piecework basis. The nucleus estate is on a increasing communities’ standards of living.
land-use enterprise concession that is valid for 35 The estates are spread out, making supervision
years and may be extended for another 25 years. difficult and transport costs relatively expensive.
•• Plasma estates — The development of plasma As the regulator, the government facilitates and
estates is basically the responsibility of the funds land clearance and estate development,
nucleus company, and the extent of it would which the contractor carries out on community
depend on the number of farmers involved in the land where agreements have been reached.
scheme. The PIR farmers are national and local
transmigrants assigned specifically to work on oil
palm estate development, commonly referred to
as PIR-Trans. At PTPN II Kebun Prafi, there are
4. Impacts of oil palm estate
two types of PIR farmers: PIR-SUS farmers, who development
receive credit from special national funds, and
PIR-ADB farmers, who receive credit from the Oil palm development may have different effects
Asian Development Bank.5 Members of the two on different stakeholders. This section describes the
groups own different sized plots of land. Each stakeholder groups that were the focus of this study
PIR-SUS farmer has 2.25 ha of land, comprising and then presents findings on the environmental,
2.00 ha of oil palm and a 0.25 ha house lot. PIR- socioeconomic and sociocultural impacts of oil palm
ADB farmers have 2.50 ha, comprising 2.00 ha estates on each group.
of oil palm, a 0.25 ha house lot and a 0.25 ha
home garden.
•• KKPA (Members’ Primary Credit Cooperative) — 4.1 Stakeholders
Established in 1996, the KKPA is a collaborative 4.1.1 Company workers
venture involving PTPN II Kebun Prafi, the Of the respondents interviewed, 3 (8%) were Arfak,
district government cooperatives office, the Bank 9 (24%) were non-Arfak Papuans, and 26 (68%)
Negara Indonesia and transmigrant farmers were non-Papuan immigrants. Daily workers and
who own 0.75 ha of enterprise II land allocated pieceworkers on the company nucleus estate mostly
for food crops. Enterprise II land not used come from non-Papuan communities. The low
for food crops can be transferred to oil palm number of Arfak working for the company reflects
estates through the KKPA program. Backed their lack of interest in wage labor. Most Arfak also
by government guarantees, the Bank Negara lack the skills and experience for intensive oil palm
Indonesia provides loans to farmers to establish farming, which requires maintenance, eradicating
oil palm estates on their land, which are managed pests and using particular tools for pruning stems
by the company. Once the palms become and cutting fruit bunches. Arfak farmers are also
productive, the estates are returned to the farmers not used to working full days. Research by Nauw
so they can manage them independently to pay (2007) and Imbiri (2010) shows the difficulties Arfak
back their bank loans. communities have in accepting oil palm growing
•• Regional government project — This is a innovations, which are contrary to their traditional
collaboration for developing oil palm estates swidden practices and dependence on nature.
between the district government, estate
Industrial-scale farming systems that demand
5 The Asian Development Bank’s goal is to assist the individual work are also contrary to Arfak culture,
Government of Indonesia to increase production of palm
oil concurrently with balanced rural development and full
utilization of the land resource. Projects supported by the bank 6 Sawit Thomas is a contractor assigned by a local government
recruit transmigrants and poor farmers as smallholders, establish agency, Manokwari District Agricultural Services, to establish
new settlements for the smallholders, develop degraded forest oil palm estates for farmers. The company has carried out this
land into the smallholder and nucleus estate and process oil function since 2004 with funding from the regional budget.
palm fruits (ADB 1995).
where daily activities are always communal. Many 78%) were men. These respondents were generally
Arfak are afraid to do things alone, as they believe able take advantage of the economic opportunities
in suanggi, or enemies who might kill them by that oil palm development brings. However, Imbiri
using magic. (2010) reported that only around 10.9% of Arfak
farmers work as unskilled laborers or pieceworkers on
Of the company employee respondents, 31 (82%) housing developments and road and bridge building
were men and 7 (18%) were women. The small projects. Such jobs are short-term and dependent on
number of women working in oil palm plantations there being projects to work on.
may be related to the fact that maintaining and
harvesting oil palm fruits is physically demanding Respondents reported running the following
work. Culturally, women are also less used to taking businesses: motorcycle taxis, kiosks, sale of petrol,
part in male-dominated activities, and to some extent transport of FFB, and sale of sand and rock. Most
are influenced by the “big man” concept (Mansoeben small businesses are run by immigrants; however,
1995; Zimmer-Tamakoshi 1997), under which clan some Arfak people do have FFB transporter trucks
members including women are normally not able to and mining excavation and transport businesses.
speak and act freely. These are generally people with high social status
in local communities, such as clan heads or their
4.1.2 Former landowners and customary close relatives. Few Arfak people take advantage
users of the business opportunities resulting from the
There were 43 respondents who were former presence of the oil palm company; most are plasma
landowners and land users, 33 (77%) of whom were farmers and sell their products at nearby markets.
Arfak and the remaining 10 (23%) were non-Papuan The inability of indigenous communities in general,
transmigrants whose land had been converted for and Arfak communities in particular, to utilize these
oil palm under the KKPA scheme. Their oil palm opportunities is generally due to the traditional way
estates are currently unmanaged as their land-use of hunting and gathering food from the forests,
enterprise concession expired in 2004. Most of and the perception that natural resources are still
these respondents were men (91%); only four (9%) abundant, which reduces their motivation to run
were women. a business.
4.1.3 Investing farmers

Of respondents, 30 were investing farmers. Of these, 4.2 Environmental impacts
53% were Arfak, 27% were immigrants, and 20% According to respondents’ perceptions, the
were non-Arfak Papuans. These more balanced conversion of forest land for oil palm estates on the
proportions reflect the fact that this group is not Prafi Plain has resulted in multiple environmental
directly employed by the company but is made up impacts, including the loss of forest cover, increased
of farmers who work with the company, participants erosion, flooding, soil instability, decreased water
in the Manokwari District Government project quality and scarcity of clean water in the dry
and individual farmers who have bought land season. The operation of the oil palm plantation
independently from customary communities. The is also perceived to have caused an increase in
Arfak respondents were oil palm farmers receiving human disease, air pollution and crop pests (see
guidance from the Manokwari District Agriculture, Figure 3). These changes generally have negative
Estate Crops and Livestock Office. Most investing socioeconomic and sociocultural effects, with
farmer respondents (87%) were men. Very few traditional communities experiencing a loss of land
women invest in oil palm, and the few that do are for swidden farming and difficulty collecting forest
generally not Arfak. products and harvesting fruit. Once the land has
been transferred to the company, a community loses
4.1.4 Affected neighbors its land rights and has limited ability to carry out
Of respondents, 27 were affected neighbors: 4 (15%) subsistence activities on the customary land that they
were Arfak, 9 (33%) were immigrants, and 14 (52%) previously controlled.
were non-Arfak Papuans. Most were villagers who
were not involved in oil palm estates but sold food 4.2.1 Changes in forest cover
or farm products in kiosks, at traditional markets As shown in Figure 3, the majority of respondents
or along the roadside. Most (21 respondents or perceive that oil palm development has caused
Decreased water quality

Decreased water quantity
Decreased forest cover
Increase in crop pets
Air pollution
Soil erosion
Soil instability
Increase in human disease
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Figure 3. Respondents’ perceptions of the negative impacts of oil palm development on the Prafi Plain.
a reduction in forest cover. This perception is An analysis of changes in land cover based on three
supported by satellite imagery. Analysis of Landsat sets of satellite images — taken before the estates
imagery taken in 2001, around 20 years after the were established (1972 and 1982), after companies
establishment of the company’s estate, indicates that had begun operating (1989 and 1991) and more
oil palm covers more than a third of the Prafi Plain. recently (2006) — showed that around 83% of oil
Other parts of the plain are covered with agriculture palm expansion has occurred at the expense of forests
and scrub. Settlements under the transmigration (Obidzinski et al. 2012). Most of the forested area
program, which started in 1982, now cover almost a was converted to oil palm estates, and about 48% of
fifth of the area. Only about a third of the Prafi Plain the forests, both primary and secondary, became oil
is still forested, just meeting the legal minimum of palm plantations between 1982 and 1989/1991. As
30% (Law No.41/2009 on Forestry and Law No. a result, in 2006, only 42% of the company’s estate
26/2007 on Spatial Planning) (Table 6). area remained forested. Figure 4 shows the changes in
land cover on the oil palm plantation site. There is a
strong indication that the company’s estate is located
not only on conversion production forest or other
Table 6. Land types on the Prafi Plain, 2001. use areas that have been allocated for non-forestry
Land type Area (ha) Percentage activities such as oil palm plantations, but also on
limited production forest.
Lowland forest 5,764.5 15.07
Highland forest 5,282.5 13.81 Even though the minimum area of forest required
Swamp forest 2,049.9 5.36 by law remains, this should be a warning for central
Unproductive dry land 1,628.6 4.26 and regional decision-makers that avoiding further
forest conversion into plantations is important. In
Oil palm plantationsa
14,461.7 37.80
2011, the local government was found to have a plan
Dry land farms, brush, 2,243.1 5.86 to allocate production forests covering 313,215 ha
scrub and open land
for conversion to oil palm estates (Dishutbun 2011).
Transmigration 6,818.6 17.82 If oil palm estates continue to be developed in the
settlements and farms region, first priority should be given to increasing
Bodies of water 14.2 0.04 the productivity of existing estates. Most of the
Total 38,263.1 100.00 company’s estate is already 30 years old, and it is
Source: Based on Landsat images taken in 2001.
time to regenerate the plantation in order to improve
yields. If expansion of area is needed, efforts must be
a
The discrepancy between this estimated area and the made to direct estates toward non-forested areas and
company’s estate concession (12,049 ha) is due to the fact
that oil palm plantations covered by the Landsat imagery unproductive land. Around 3800 ha of non-forested
include small parcels managed by individuals around the areas, such as unproductive dry land and scrub, are
company’s estate. available for estate expansion (Table 6).
Figure 4. Land cover in the oil palm plantation site at three points in time.
Source: Obidzinski et al. 2012.
Note: The first timeframe is prior to plantation establishment.
4.2.2 Soil erosion riverbanks where oil palms were planted right to
Most respondents perceived that development of the river’s edge and no other plants protect the
an oil palm estate has an effect on soil erosion. river banks from floods. While further research,
Some said that certain areas around the estate lack using quantitative techniques and sedimentation
vegetation cover and, when the rain falls, the soils measurement, is needed to better understand the
are easily eroded. Direct observation by the research precise impacts on soil erosion, survey results and
team also found such areas and abrasions in some observations provide preliminary signs of the impact.
4.2.3 Changes in water quality and quantity (McCarthy and Zen 2010). In Sumatra, the high
Some respondents perceive that changes in water level of air pollution around the mills has encouraged
quality have been due to oil palm estate development some oil palm company workers to commute from
(Figure 3). They complained that, during the dry their village rather than living in the company
season when the water in rivers and wells becomes compound (Feintrenie et al. 2010).
very low, they often have trouble getting clean water.
During the rainy season, they use rainwater for Some respondents reported an increase in rat
their freshwater needs, as river water and well water infestations in farmers’ crops near the oil palm estate.
become cloudy. Rats, which used to hide in the forest, have lost
their habitat and have now moved onto the estate.
Some respondents reported that frequent flooding Some respondents also felt that community health
has changed the direction of the river flow and conditions have declined, and the incidence of
created new streams. The Prafi Plain, which is the disease has increased.
upland part of the watershed, has become highly
vulnerable to such changes. Estate buildings and
infrastructure such as roads and drainage channels 4.3 Socioeconomic impacts
block the flow of some tributaries that had served 4.3.1 Changes in livelihoods
as natural drainage. The main road to the south Following oil palm expansion on the Prafi Plain,
of the estate, which forms the boundary with livelihood patterns have changed for various
transmigrants’ farmland, has also changed the river stakeholder groups. Of investing farmers, 46.6%
flow. Estate development has affected the natural were originally seasonal farmers, whilst 16.7% had
flow of water, causing surface runoff to form new other sources of income and 36.7% did not work for
drainage channels. a cash income. Of former landowners and customary
users, about 84% were originally seasonal farmers,
The Smaryam River, which bisects the estate, is whilst the rest had other livelihood sources. Of
the main recipient of drainage from the estate and employees, 68.4% were formerly seasonal farmers,
surface runoff when it rains. In times of heavy rain, and 31.6% worked off-farm as traders and laborers.
the river is unable to contain the volume of water.
When the estate was constructed, the Smaryam River Of oil palm estate workers, 74% no longer farm, as
was dammed and the water channeled away in order most of their time is spent tending and harvesting oil
to expand the estate. The impact of the dam is felt in palm fruits. Meanwhile, 26% of farmers who invest
the rainy season when the river overflows and follows continue to work as seasonal farmers as they still
its original course, causing some oil palms to collapse have farmland and estates or clear new areas of forest.
due to abrasion. Changing the direction of the In addition, some still have free time, since they do
river has also led to new drainage channels forming not work fulltime on their oil palms but use harvest
across the estate and flowing into the main roadside workers. They reported that since the oil palm estate
drainage channel. This has led to frequent abrasion opened, land available for seasonal crop farming has
affecting the main road around the estate. become limited. Farming is usually for subsistence,
with the dominant crops being taro, cassava and
4.2.4 Air pollution and increase in human other root vegetables.
disease
Other environmental impacts experienced by Changes in livelihood sources have affected family
company workers are increased air pollution and cash earnings. About 32% of respondents of the
more frequent instances of disease. The company estate workers group said they had experienced
burns empty fruit bushes to dispose of waste and positive changes in livelihood. Respondents indicated
control oil palm pests. The smoke affects workers’ that the positive changes were attributed to an
health and increases carbon emissions. Respondents increased income (84%) and more reliable income
stated that respiratory disorders are the most flow (63%). Meanwhile, 15% of respondents
common illnesses affecting communities. However, reported negative livelihood changes, attributed to
the burning site is on the nucleus estate near the declining income as palms become less productive
plant, and its impact is only felt by those living with age. Even though estate workers have fixed
nearby. Mills produce large amounts of waste, both incomes of around IDR (Indonesian rupiah)
liquid and solid, and also noxious odors and smoke 1,250,000 a month, they have not improved their
livelihoods, as these earnings are barely enough to communities with external parties such as oil palm
meet their daily needs. The poor condition of their companies. People earn a fee for such services.
quarters, limited health services and an obligation Income also comes from operating motorcycle
to buy work equipment such as bamboo, boots, taxis, buying and selling petrol, running kiosks,
wheelbarrows and machetes have worsened their transporting FFB, buying and selling rocks and
conditions. Andrianto et al. (2013) also reported sand, and operating public transport vehicles. FFB
that very few oil palm workers are able to invest in transportation, the sale of sand and stone, and public
economic activities, despite a significant increase in transport businesses are run by people with higher
income during the initial years of estates. Workers social status such as community leaders or tribal
also complained about deductions from salary for heads and their close family members.
taxes and union fees.
The real income figure for oil palms is very low
These findings corroborate other research on income compared to an analysis by PTPN II (2009), which
in the Prafi Plain. Despite the fact that the oil claimed a net monthly income — after deducting
palm plantation has been in operation for 25 years, 30% for loan instalments and transport costs — of
Imbiri (2010) indicated that most Arfak and non- IDR 1,650,000 for farmers who had yet to pay off
Arfak Papuan farmers still have incomes averaging their loans, and IDR 2,100,000 for those who had.
IDR 1,328,984 a month. These incomes come from Although Imbiri (2010) found that most farmers had
three sources: oil palm and cocoa estates, food and paid off their loans and had rights of ownership over
fruit crops, and side enterprises. When an oil palm their land, their monthly income was low.
estate is being built, cocoa becomes an important
commodity. Local communities have long been The low income earned from oil palm enterprises
familiar with this commodity, and they often ask the is due to the poor productivity of the palms, lack
company to help them build a cocoa estate when of maintenance and farmers’ high expenditures for
they come to the first negotiation. The company uses tending, harvesting, transporting and marketing
this commodity to persuade landowners to transfer FFBs, as well as payments of fees to farmer groups
their land for the oil palm estate. and deductions for hamlet and clan heads. Total
monthly expenditure for oil palm enterprises can
From these monthly earnings, the average income reach IDR 493,545, whereas total earnings are
from food crops is higher (IDR 514,693 a month, IDR 888,927 a month. Some respondents said that
or 38.7%) than income from side enterprises the low income demotivates them from managing
(IDR 418,909 per month, or 31.5%) or oil palm their oil palm estates properly. Farmers’ reluctance
estates (IDR 395,382 per month or 29.8%). Those to participate in company–community partnerships
in positions respected within local communities because of their lack of benefits was also reported for
most often secure income from side enterprises; a Sumatran oil palm estate (Feintrenie et al. 2010).
these include clan heads, hamlet heads, hamlet
secretaries, church presbytery heads and teachers. The average annual productivity of plasma farmers
Often, customary communities assign people in during 2007–2009 was only 7.98 tonnes FFB/ ha
those positions to help mediate on behalf of the (Table 7). This figure is far below the 2000
Table 7. Fresh fruit bunch production, 2007–2009.

Annual production (tonnes) Average annual
Source area
2007 2008 2009 production (tonnes)
PTPN II Kebun Prafi 67,247.90 72,065.42 81,218.75 73,510.69
Irman Jaya 259.43 238.73 477.53 325.23
District government estates 458.63 900.45 2,522.64 1,293.91
Total production (tonnes) 67,965.96 73,204.60 84,218.92 75,129.83
Productive area (ha) 9,411 9,411 9,411 9,411
Tonnes/ha 7.22 7.78 8.95 7.98
Source: Adapted from Apkasindo (2010).
production level of 14.9 tonnes FFB/ha, or the ideal Full-time workers maintain the estate and harvest
annual figure of 18 tonnes FFB/ha if an estate is the FFB. Maintenance includes pruning, weeding,
managed properly in a production cycle of up to 25 uprooting old palms, applying fertilizer and
years (Setiobudi 2000). pesticides and clearing harvest paths. Harvesting
work, such as gathering loose fruit, is usually done
Low oil palm productivity is partly a result of by men, but their wives sometimes help. Male and
the lack of crop maintenance, including fertilizer female workers both do maintenance.
and pesticide applications, weeding and pruning.
Fertilizer and pesticide procurement on credit from Most respondents acknowledged that PTPN
the company was stopped in 1995, and they are II’s presence has made more jobs available for
otherwise difficult to get and very expensive. Field individual and family labor on the Prafi Plain.
observations showed that in general, plasma land This is supported by data showing that 22,598
is not maintained as it should be, and many weeds people — or 71.82% of the population in the three
grow unchecked around the oil palms. subdistricts of Masni, Prafi and Warmare — work
as farmers in the PIR-SUS, PIR-ADB and KKPA
Interviews with various parties showed that farmers schemes (personal communication from RM
were not fully aware of the extent of harvest yields Wondiwoy, 2010). This figure does not include the
from their transmigration land and how monthly 840 company employees and workers; some were
loan payments were deducted. (This problem is recruited from outside the region, but 80% come
discussed further in the next section.) Even though from local communities.
transmigrant farmers signed contracts and credit
agreements with the company and funding bank Workers work from 07:00 to 16:00 Monday–
in November 2004, they did not know how much Saturday, meaning they have little time for activities
their land produced, how much the company had outside work hours. As a result, few workers have
deducted, or how much they still owed on their bank side enterprises, except for raising livestock, which
loans (interview with transmigration village heads, 29 they graze on the estate whilst harvesting or tending
March 2011).7 The company’s lack of transparency oil palms.
and unclear profit sharing has contributed to
farmers’ low incomes from their oil palms. Rist 4.3.3 Local perceptions of socioeconomic
et al. (2010) and Feintrenie et al. (2010), in their change
studies of relationships between oil palm farmers and Of respondents in the former landowner and
companies in Kalimantan and Sumatra, concluded land-user group, 84% said that changes in living
that conflict was created by unclear contracts, weak standards and livelihoods are the direct result of
government management procedures, the failure handing over land to the oil palm company; 39%
of companies to meet the obligations laid out in said changes were positive, and 61% that changes
contracts, unclear tenure rights and changes in were mixed.
land value.
Perceived positive changes included increased
4.3.2 Changes in the use of family labor income (reported by 71%), access to foodstuffs
For this study we categorized labor in three groups: (76%), and access to social infrastructure (58%).
employees, full-time workers and pieceworkers. Communities also perceived negative changes,
Employees are office workers, including estate such as difficulty accessing farmland and increased
supervisors and plant workers. Full-time workers are length of time needed to reach farmland and collect
those paid monthly for their work, and pieceworkers forest products. Increased incomes were the result
are workers contracted as and when the company of compensation for land requisition, oil palm
needs them. sales and sales of other farm produce. Farmers’
average annual income from oil palm in 2010
was IDR 4,744,582. This is fixed income secured
7 One respondent also said that they were shocked to hear by communities directly involved in company
that according to bank records they owed around IDR 1.8 activities, particularly as plasma farmers. This
billion, with no explanation of how much they had already
paid back. The oil palm farmers believed their debts should
shows that community involvement in the oil palm
already have been paid off, judging by the harvest yields from company has raised farming households’ earnings.
their fields.
4.3.4 Changes in subsistence and production services, if investors, the government or other parties
patterns use their land. The buying and selling of customary
Local communities generally subsist from farming, land has had consequences for communal rights over
which is also their main source of income. Of local land in the local social system, which closely link to
villagers, 84% earned their livelihoods as seasonal how lands are controlled and owned. If the lands
crop farmers before becoming oil palm growers. are sold, they would be individually owned and the
The change to oil palm growing has not completely communal ownership would no longer prevail.
eradicated their old livelihoods, and according to this
study, 37.2% are still seasonal crop farmers. The social system of Arfak communities, and in
Papua in general, recognizes the lord of land or Tuan
In addition to productive enterprises, communities Tanah, under which a group of clans traditionally
also rely on farmland for their everyday needs. They have communal control over land within their
generally produce their own food by farming and sell customary zone. The lord of land is the head of the
any surplus at the market. Their links to farmland clan, normally the oldest boy in the family, who
have meant that villagers generally do not leave controls land that has been governed for generations
their farming habits behind even though they own by the clan. While the head of the clan has the right
oil palm land. As a result, most farmers choose not to make decisions on how the land should be used,
to maintain or harvest the oil palms on their land collective agreement should be sought from members
themselves, but hire workers or rent their land to of the clan if one member intends to sell land. The
others. They only receive what is left after costs are clan’s head and members have collective ownership of
deducted, and percentages are shared in accordance the land and authorize the transfer of tenurial rights
with prior agreements. About 90% of local farmers to it. The tribal head plays a greater role in resolving
rent their oil palm land to more capable transmigrant conflicts over land between clans.
farmers from East Nusa Tenggara, Java, Sulawesi
and West Nusa Tenggara at prices of IDR 200,000– Tenurial rights and control over land may
300,000 a month.8 be transferred not only to a company or the
government but also to nonlocal communities
such as transmigrants. As described earlier, transfer
4.4 Sociocultural impacts of land in this particular estate occurred, mainly
4.4.1 Land control, ownership rights and in 1980 and 1981, when PTPN II obtained a
conflict over land permit to clear 23,000 ha of land in conjunction
Land and forests in Papua are controlled communally with the government’s transmigration program.
by large clans from each ethnic group. Clan The company aimed to set up nucleus estates,
members have customary rights over the land and while establishing 2-ha plasma estates for every
natural resources within their territories, which are indigenous and transmigrant family through the
controlled by the clan head. Lands controlled by Nucleus Estate and Smallholder Scheme. During
certain clans take the clan names and are separated by that time, Arfak communities submitted a request
natural boundaries. that the transmigration program be developed
in their area. They did not ask for any monetary
Arfak communities have strong cultural ties to the compensation from the government, as they hoped
land. They have no terminology for transferring that the government would help them build public
land ownership rights, but the right to use Arfak facilities such as roads and schools in return for the
customary land (and that of most other ethnic groups transferred lands.
in Prafi) can be transferred to other parties who
need it. Arfak communities believe that customary However, since the beginning of 2000, the land
land cannot be bought and sold; however, they has become subject to dispute. The customary
do recognize land lease with compensation, either landowners reclaimed the land and demanded
financial or in the form of jointly agreed social compensation, either for the land or for the resources
on that land. Of survey respondents, 92% said they
had received no compensation for their customary
8 As oil palms grow higher, reaching up to 20 m, harvesting land that was converted into oil palm estate.
becomes more difficult as workers have to use long poles to
reach the fruit bunches. Local farmers are generally unused to Customary landowners have also demanded that
harvesting this way and tend to contract immigrant farmers to the company keep its promise to provide permanent
harvest for them. houses with piped water and easy access to health
services. Thus far, the company has only built FFB harvest. For the Nur Isba-Muara Prafi farmer
temporary houses without running water. group, for instance, compensation for communal
rights is IDR 25,000,000 per month, or an average
The landowners have challenged not only the of IDR 81,000 for each lot owner. This amount
company’s estate but also lands legally transferred does not include other incidental costs requested by
by the government to transmigrants. In 2004, the oil palm landowner every month. With other
landowners started to reclaim the lands controlled by farmer groups, in Makwan hamlet for instance,
the transmigrants, demanding compensation. Some compensation does not need to be paid every
landowners have claimed and taken over enterprise month, but other incidental funds are provided, the
I land (designated for food crops) belonging to amounts of which are not determined by communal
transmigrants from Satuan Pemukiman II and rights owners. Compensation for communal land
established the hamlet of Lismau Ngu. Further, is not paid on an individual basis, but through the
customary landowners have seized 613.5 ha of tribal head.
enterprise II land belonging to transmigrants from
Satuan Pemukiman I (Prafi Mulya hamlet) and As the company’s land use enterprise concession will
Satuan Pemukiman II (Desay hamlet). This land was soon expire, the unclear status of the lands has raised
planted with oil palms through the KKPA program concern among customary landowners. Interviewees
and the customary landowners now enjoy earnings said that customary communities do not want the
from the harvested FFB. company to use their land permanently, and they
are worried about the status of their land when
In reclaiming the lands, the customary landowners the company’s business use rights expire. They are
argued that not all community members consented concerned that the land might become state land
to transferring control of customary community rather than being reinstated as customary land.
land to PTPN II. They recalled that some clan heads A similar issue came to light with transmigrant
from hamlets whose land would become the PTPN communities, who are concerned about their land
II nucleus estate were invited to visit North Sumatra being reclaimed by customary landowners. The
to see the success of oil palm estates there. The aim lack of clear land status could become a source of
of the visit was to provide clan heads with an insight conflict, the symptoms of which are already visible
into the opportunity to improve their standard of in demands against the company, and transmigrants’
living by changing their swidden farming practices. demands for restoration of their enterprise II land.
In addition to the customary community’s strong
ties to the land, the land reclaiming seemed also to Customary landowners’ demands for compensation
have been driven by desire to meet their subsistence and attempts to reclaim the land are also driven
needs, feelings of injustice and unkept promises. by uncertainty over the status of land managed
Imbiri (2010) has argued that land claims are the by PTPN II. The government’s plan is to transfer
result of local community dissatisfaction with the the management of state-owned PTPN II to the
amounts of compensation paid by the company to West Papua Provincial Government (Cahaya Papua
their predecessors. Two other likely reasons are local 2010a,b; Media Papua 2012). The landowners feel
villagers’ need to fund substantial dowry payments they have rights over the estate land, the status of
for customary marriages, and envy growing out of which will become unclear when management is
economic disparities between local and transmigrant handed over. They consider the company’s use of
communities. their land for oil palm to be on a leasehold basis, with
land rights still belonging to customary communities.
The transfer of land to nonlocal communities has FOReTIKA and Tifa (2006) have recommended
been made under the agreement that some amount of that local community land not be included as part of
compensation be paid to the customary landowners. the land-use enterprise concession but be treated as
Types of compensation varies depending on the leased land.
agreements made. Our research shows that, in
general, financial compensation was paid when the 4.4.2 Changes in health and education
land was surrendered, but some have continued to The oil palm estate company plays a minor role
pay compensation for the duration of their control in efforts to improve indigenous and other local
of the land. Compensation for communal rights communities’ health. The company has a polyclinic
has varied between groups of oil palm farmers. to serve company workers and, to a limited extent,
Payments are made from the profits of the monthly local community members. As also asserted by
Imbiri (2010), who did research in the same region, The company’s workers, in particular, experienced
the company’s role in public health is minimal. positive livelihood changes, which were attributed
There have been changes in medical practices, with to increased income and more reliable income flow.
villagers relying less on traditional medicines and Affected neighbor groups are positively affected by
more on modern medicines — it is easier to buy oil palm development as they are generally able take
medicines from shops than search for them in the advantage of the economic opportunities it brings,
forest. But villagers are more likely to use government such as by operating a business. The change from
community health centers set up near their homes. swidden agriculture to fixed farming of oil palm
with intensive cultivation technologies has increased
Local communities use river water for drinking, farming households’ cash earnings.
bathing and washing. Health became an issue when
some community members found that water quality However, the expansion of the oil palm estates
had deteriorated and attributed that to the presence has also resulted in some adverse environmental
of the plantation. Local communities also collect and social impacts, which may be important for
rainwater, particularly during the rainy season when policy-makers to consider when designing and
river water can be muddy. implementing policies, and for other stakeholders
to take into account as well. In terms of the
Education is the responsibility of the district environment, development of oil palm estates has
government education office and related institutions; resulted in a significant reduction of forest cover.
however, the company also plays a part in improving As a result, forested lands on the Prafi Plain make
the quality of education in communities around up only 33.88% of the region’s watershed, which
its operations area. Interviewees said that the is close to the minimum stipulated by law. Various
company provides employees with IDR 50,000 stakeholder groups also consider the following to be
a month to help with their children’s education. negative impacts from converting forest to oil palm
This assistance is one of the social responsibilities estate: changes in water flow patterns, scarcity of
the company promised to take on during land clean water in the dry season, reduced water quality,
transfer negotiations. However, the company should increased erosion and flooding, river abrasion and
contribute more to changing family education sedimentation, air pollution, and more numerous
patterns. Currently, villagers around the estate make instances of disease.
use of government education facilities in the hamlets
and the nearest towns more than they rely on the In terms of socioeconomic effects, oil palm estate
company’s assistance. development under the PIR scheme has not been
able to satisfactorily benefit local communities,
particularly the Arfak communities who hold
5. Conclusions and customary land rights. PIR schemes that rely
on immigrant workers are prone to creating
recommendations horizontal conflicts, injustice and envy among local
communities toward immigrants.
Oil palm estates on the Prafi Plain have undoubtedly
contributed to the region’s economic development Past processes for allocating and acquiring land for
by creating employment and providing opportunities oil palm estate development were marred by lack of
for various stakeholders to improve their standard of transparency and the company’s inability to keep its
living. Oil palm estates also provide an opportunity promises. This has resulted in attempts to reclaim
for customary communities to interact with land and demands for compensation by customary
government officials, company employees and landowners, and conflict over land ownership
migrants. The operation of the estate, designed between customary landowners and migrants. Of
originally through the PIR-Trans scheme, has had villagers interviewed, 92% said they had received no
positive impacts on various stakeholder groups compensation from the government or the company
such as company workers, former landowners for their customary land converted to oil palm.
and customary users, investing farmers and Uncertainty regarding the status of the land once the
affected neighbors. company’s business-use rights expire has also raised
concern among landowners.
In order to prevent further deforestation, it is Basiron Y. 2010. Environment and economic challenges
recommended that a moratorium be put in place on faced by the palm oil industry — How is MPOC
the conversion of forest to oil palm estates on the responding? Paper presented at the seminar Reach
Prafi Plain. Efforts to develop oil palm estates should & Teach Friends of the Industry: Challenges
be directed towards regenerating old plantations, and Opportunities in 2010. Kuala Lumpur,
taking advantage of high-yielding varieties, and Malaysia, 2 February 2010.
using non-forested, degraded and unproductive Bunyamin 2008. Dampak pengembangan PIR kelapa
land such as scrub or grassland for any new estates. sawit terhadap perekonomian regional Kalimantan
When allocating land for agricultural development, Barat. Pontianak, Indonesia: Untan Press.
special areas should be set aside for indigenous Cahaya Papua. 2010a. PTPN II: Belum ada
Arfak communities. penyerahan resmi. Cahaya Papua, 16 July.
Cahaya Papua. 2010b. PTPN diminta hengkang dari
The government also needs to increase the credibility Papua Barat: Proses pengalihan sedang berjalan.
of the environmental impact assessment procedure, Cahaya Papua, 16 July.
take proactive action to monitor and supervise Casson A. 1999. The Hesitant Boom: Indonesia’s Oil
the company’s operation, and strictly regulate Palm Sub-sector in an Era of Economic Crisis and
the operation of oil palm estates. The company’s Political Change. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for
environmental management and monitoring International Forestry Research.
document should be reviewed and tested to ensure Colchester M. 2010. Land Acquisition, Human Rights
that it is in accordance with the law (Minister for Violations and Indigenous Peoples on the Palm
Environment 2007). The government should also Oil Frontier. Moreton-in-Marsh, UK: Forest
make serious attempts to seek resolution of conflicts Peoples Programme.
over land ownership and tenure between customary Cotula L, Dyer N and Vermeulen S. 2008. Fuelling
landowners, the company and migrants. Exclusion? The Biofuels Boom and Poor People’s
Access to Land. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization and International Institute for
6. References Environment and Development.
Department of Transmigration. 1997. Pencadangan
Asian Development Bank (ADB). 1995. Project areal transmigration Manokwari District sampai
completion report on the second nucleus estate and dengan 1 April 1997. Manokwari, Indonesia:
smallholder oil palm project (Loan No. 789- Department of Transmigration and PPHRI
INO) in Indonesia. Manila, Philippines: Asian Manokwari District.
Development Bank. Directorate General of Estate Crops. 2010. Rencana
Amafnini P. 2010. Ekspansi perkebunan sawit di strategis pembangunan perkebunan 2010–2014.
Tanah Papua. Accessed 20 August 2014. http:// Jakarta, Indonesia: Directorate General of Estate
jasoilpapua.blogspot.com/2010/06/ekspansi- Crops, Ministry of Agriculture.
perkebunan-sawit-di-tanah.html Dishutbun. 2011. Kebijakan Pemerintah Provinsi
Andrianto A, Sedik BF, Waridjo H, Komarudin Papua Barat di bidang investasi sektor kehutanan
H and Obidzinski K. 2013. The impacts of oil dan perkebunan. Paper presented at the
palm plantations on forests and people in Papua: Workshop on Forestry and Estate Crops Sector
A case study from Boven Digoel District. Working Investments in Papua and their Implications for
Paper. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Low Carbon Development, Jayapura, 11–12
Forestry Research. October 2011.
Apkasindo. 2010. Report on oil palm production. Elson D. 2009. Oil palm business models for land
Manokwari, Indonesia: Indonesian oil palm use and development planning in Indonesia.
farmer association (Apkasindo), PTPN II Prafi. Jakarta, Indonesia: National Development
Badrun M. 2011. The milestone of change: Developing Planning Agency.
a nation through oil palm “PIR”. Jakarta, Feintrenie L, Chong WK and Levang P. 2010.
Indonesia: Directorate General of Estate Crops, Why do farmers prefer oil palm? Lessons learnt
Ministry of Agriculture. from Bungo district, Indonesia. Small-Scale
Basiron Y. 2007. Palm oil production through Forestry 9(3):379–96.
sustainable plantations. European Journal of Lipid Forum Pimpinan Lembaga Pendidikan Tinggi
Science and Technology 109:289–95. Kehutanan (FOReTIKA) and Tifa. 2006.
Kajian penerimaan kebun kelapa sawit: Implikasi Documents. Jakarta, Indonesia: State Ministry of
bagi kebijakan fiskal dan konversi hutan sebagai Environment.
strategi untuk Revenue Watch. Bogor, Indonesia: Ministry of Agriculture. 2005. Prospek pengembangan
FOReTIKA with Yayasan TIFA. dan perkiraan kebutuhan investasi pertanian
Greenpeace. 2009. Forest Destruction, Climate di Indonesia. Jakarta, Indonesia: Socio-
Change and Palm Oil Expansion in Indonesia. economic Research Study Centre, Research and
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Greenpeace Development Agency, Ministry of Agriculture.
International. Ministry of Agriculture. 2010. Statistik kebun kelapa
Imbiri S. 2010. Dampak proyek perkebunan inti sawit 2008–2010. Jakarta, Indonesia: Directorate
rakyat kelapa sawit terhadap tingkat kesejahteraan General of Estate Crops, Ministry of Agriculture.
masyarakat suku asli Papua di Manokwari Ministry of Agriculture. 2012. Statistik perkebunan
District: Studi kasus pada petani peserta plasma Indonesia: Kelapa Sawit 2011–2013. Jakarta,
asal ethnic Arfak di Distrik Prafi [Master’ thesis]. Indonesia: Directorate General of Estate Crops,
Malang, Indonesia: Universitas Brawijaya Ministry of Agriculture.
(unpublished). Ministry of Forestry. 1999. Peta kawasan hutan dan
Laksono PM, Rianti A, Hendrijani A, Gunawan B, perairan wilayah Papua. Jakarta, Indonesia:
Mandacan A and Mansoara M. 2001. Igya ser Ministry of Forestry.
hanjop masyarakat arfak dan konsep konservasi. Nauw MM. 2007. Petani Papua dan inovasi
Yogyakarta, Indonesia: KEHATI, PSAP– pertanian: Pengaruh nilai budaya terhadap pola
UGM, YBLBC. adopsi teknologi PIR kelapa sawit petani Arfak di
Mampioper DA. 2007. Pembukaan perkebunan Kabupaten Manokwari, Papua [Ph.D. Thesis].
sawit tak mampu sejahterakan masyarakat Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Papua. Berita Bumi. Accessed 20 August 2014. (Unpublished).
http://mediatani.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/ Obidzinski K, Andriani R, Komarudin H and
pembukaan-perkebunan-sawit-tak-mampu- Andrianto A. 2012. Environmental and social
sejahterakan-masyarakat-papua/ impacts of oil palm plantations and their
Mansoeben JR. 1995. Sistem politik tradisional implications for biofuel production in Indonesia.
di Irian Jaya, Indonesia. Jakarta, Indonesia: Ecology and Society 17(1):25. doi:10.5751/ES-
Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia dan 04775-170125.
RIJKS Universiteit te Leiden. Oxfam. 2008. Another inconvenient truth: How
McCarthy JF. 2010. Processes of inclusion and biofuel policies are deepening poverty and
adverse incorporation: Oil palm and agrarian accelerating climate change. Oxfam Briefing
change in Sumatra, Indonesia. Journal of Peasant Paper. Oxford, UK: Oxfam.
Studies 37(4):821–50. PalmOilHQ. 2009. Indonesia to double palm oil
McCarthy J and Zen Z. 2010. Regulating the oil production by 2020. Accessed 20 August 2014.
palm boom: Assessing the effectiveness of http://www.palmoilhq.com/PalmOilNews/
environmental governance approaches to agro- indonesia-to-double-palm-oil-production-
industrial pollution in Indonesia. Law and Policy by-2020/
3(1):153–79. Perseroan Terbatas Perkebunan Nusantara (PTPN
Media Papua. 2012. Pengambilalihan aset PTPN II). 2009. Sekilas tentang PTP Nusantara II
II Prafi tidak transparan masyarakat bisa gugat (PERSERO) Kebun Prafi, Manokwari, Papua
pemprov. 17 July. Accessed 20 August 2014. Barat. Manokwari, Indonesia: PTPN II
http://ptpn2.com/main/index.php/component/ Kebun Prafi.
content/article/36-profil/147-pengambilalihan- Radio New Zealand International. 2008.
aset-ptpn-ii-prafi-tidak-transparan-masyarakat- Indonesia looking to Papua province to expand
bisa-gugat-pemprov palm oil production. Accessed 20 August
Minister for Environment. 2007. Minister 2014. http://www.rnzi.com/pages/news.
for Environment Decree No. 12/2007 on php?op=read&id=39909
Environmental Management and Monitoring Renewable Fuels Agency (RFA). 2010. Palm oil
Documents for Businesses and/or Activities that cultivation in Malaysia. Sussex, UK: Renewable
Do Not Have Environmental Management Fuels Agency.
Rist L, Feintrenie L and Levang P. 2010. The Telapak and EIA. 2011. Clear-cut exploitation:
livelihood impacts of oil palm: Smallholders How international investors and REDD+ donors
in Indonesia. Biodiversity and Conservation profit from deforestation in West Papua. London,
19(4):1009–24. Accessed 20 August 2014. UK: Telapak and Environmental Investigation
http://www.springerlink.com/content/ Agency.
m32w5031j8340743/ Tempo Interactive. 2010. Indonesia to have CPO
Rosariyanto E, Rusmanta Y and Jonga PJ. 2008. surplus by 2020. Tempo Interactive, 10 February.
Perkebunan sawit dan kesejahteraan masyarakat Accessed 22 August 2014. http:// http://www.
Arso. Laporan Penelitian. Sekretariat Keadilan pn8.co.id/pn8_eng/index.php?option=com_cont
dan Perdamaian (SKP). Sentani, Papua, ent&task=view&id=56&Itemid=2
Indonesia (unpublished). Universitas Negeri Papua. 2010. Peta rencana
Setiobudi H. 2000 Pengaruh alokasi pendapatan pengembangan lahan kelapa sawit di Kabupaten
untuk pengeluaran konsumtif terhadap Manokwari, Papua Barat tahun 2010.
peningkatan usaha pada keluarga petani PIR Manokwari, Indonesia: Fakultas Kehutanan,
kelapa sawit di Desa Umbuy, Kecamatan Prafi Universitas Negeri Papua (unpublished).
[Thesis]. Faculty of Agriculture, University World Bank and International Finance Corporation
of Cenderawasih, Manokwari, Indonesia (IFC). 2011. The World Bank Group framework
(unpublished). and IFC strategy for engagement in the palm oil
Sheil D, Casson A, Meijaard E, Noordwijk M, sector. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Gaskell J, Groves-Sunderland J, Wertz- World Growth. 2009. Palm Oil: The Sustainable Oil.
Kanounnikoff S and Kanninen M. 2009. The Arlington, VA, USA: World Growth.
impact and opportunities of oil palm in southeast Zimmer-Tamakoshi L. 1997. The last big man:
Asia: What do we know and what do we need to Development and men’s discontents in the Papua
know. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International New Guinea highlands. Oceania 68(2):107–22.
Forestry Research. Accessed 20 August 2014. http://www.jstor.org/
Telapak and EIA. 2009. Up for grabs: Deforestation stable/40331612
and exploitation in Papua’s plantations boom.
London, UK: Telapak and Environmental
Investigation Agency.
CIFOR Working Papers contain preliminary or advance research results on tropical forest issues that need to be
published in a timely manner to inform and promote discussion. This content has been internally reviewed but has
not undergone external peer review.
This paper analyses the environmental, socioeconomic and cultural impacts of oil palm development in the Prafi
Plain of Manokwari District in West Papua Province. This analysis is based on interviews and focus group discussions
conducted in January–August 2011, a literature survey, and analysis of Landsat images of the region. The research
findings indicate that oil palm cultivation brings significant benefits — such as infrastructure development, higher
incomes for local stakeholders and broader opportunities for customary communities. However, the large number of
immigrant workers brought in to work on the plantation estate are a source of conflict with the local population. Oil
palm development has had adverse environmental impacts as it has resulted in the deforestation of about 60% of the
Prafi watershed. It has also caused soil erosion, poor water quality and air pollution.
To avoid additional adverse impacts, the development and expansion of oil palm estates should focus on replanting
old plantation areas with high-yield varieties and planting on non-forested and degraded land. Special land zones
should be set aside for the indigenous Arfak people to use for subsistence farming. Additional efforts should be made
to ensure that local communities receive proper compensation for the loss of use of their traditional lands. Increasing
transparency in land allocation, stricter supervision of plantation operations and sanctions for non-compliance with
sustainability standards are of utmost importance.
This research was carried out by CIFOR as part of the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and
Agroforestry (CRP-FTA). This collaborative program aims to enhance the management and use of forests,
agroforestry and tree genetic resources across the landscape from forests to farms. CIFOR leads CRP-FTA in
partnership with Bioversity International, CATIE, CIRAD, the International Center for Tropical Agriculture and
the World Agroforestry Centre.
cifor.org blog.cifor.org
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)

CIFOR advances human well-being, environmental conservation and equity by conducting research to help shape
policies and practices that affect forests in developing countries. CIFOR is a member of the CGIAR Consortium. Our
headquarters are in Bogor, Indonesia, with offices in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

WP 156 Koma Rudin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WP 156 Koma Rudin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WP 156 Koma Rudin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WORKING PAPER

Oil palm estate development and its

Oil palm estate development and its

Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)

© 2014 Center for International Forestry Research

Content in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0

Cover photo by Heru Komarudin

T +62 (251) 8622-622

1 Article 12, paragraph (3) of Minister of Agriculture Decree

interviews conducted in January–August 2011.

Table 1. Focus group discussions and household interviews.

Table 2. Distribution of respondents by location and stakeholder group.

Table 3. Ethnicity of respondents.

Table 4. Sex of respondents.

Figure 2. Study location.

Table 5. Forest types on the Prafi Plain.

3.5 Work relationships contractors and owners of communal land

4.1.3 Investing farmers

Decreased water quality

Increase in crop pets

Increase in human disease

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Table 7. Fresh fruit bunch production, 2007–2009.

Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)

You might also like