 This is parallel session 2A, which is focusing on the social aspects. And the social economic and governance are basically three topics that we touched upon. We already listened and heard about our governance speakers. Now, two parallel sessions on social and economic. Basically, social is such a wide area. It can cover a huge variety of topics and we were kind of struggling how to narrow down and what are the most pertinent things that we can talk here and have discussion in context of tropical peace and restoration. And I'm very happy to share that we have three incredible speakers in this session. And we will go through one by one listen to them each of the speakers will share their presentation for 10 minutes and then we have a small discussion session at the end. Our first speaker will be UT Ariani. She is a postdoctoral researcher at Nanyang Technological University Singapore. She pursued her PhD from Endovan University of Technology, where she combined development studies and innovative science to understand social technical change in biofuel case. Currently her research focuses on role of community participation in people and restoration in Indonesia. She will be sharing her insights on the importance of strengthening local institutions to improve social cohesiveness. Social cohesiveness is a town we heard in our first session, so it's quite important when we talk about people and restoration and UT is going to share more on that. Floor is yours, UT. Thank you, Rupesh, for the introductions. And this is specially focused on Sungai Toho, so it's like a very small area in Riau, but then like my research also focusing in Jambi in particular as well. So what I'm going to present here is mostly like questioning what is like social cohesiveness. And then basically my argument is always like social cohesion is always like in struggle, it's always being contested. And the way I'm going to make this argument is by doing like a long internal study. So I'm focusing in like 20 years, no, 40 years time period. So, yeah, so a bit of the background why studying Pitlandness is important. And because like many other speaker already focused on this part, I will just like skip most of the part, but then I want to really focus on the role of participation. So according to BRG and also like the governments, but also like other actors such as like NGOs and also like companies who's involved in pitland nurseries, they really see participation as like one key element. Either like ethically, but also like functionally, because like if you're including a participation, then people are more willing to participate. So it's more like functional as well. So, and also, as you see that like the participation approach already been adopted in the 1990s. So it's also become like very important. But despite all of these participations, there are still many like challenges. It's either because of the rewetting itself is not really going in line with the economy. So, because it's reduced like growth and productivity and also there's like a mismatch between design and actual locations and like from the, from my case study as well and it's not so hard. There's also cases where the design of the canal block is kind of like limiting the trunk to transport. So there's like a question between like standardized design to prevent corruption. So one of the problems that is happening is to prevent corruption to have like a very rigid design. So what happened in the field, for instance, they create the design based on what is being request by the BRG, but then after it's being hand over to the community, then they basically reconstructed so from social point of view that is not very effective, because if they have the right or the voices to be included in the process that then can just like avoid this process. And also there's like a problem about the absence of market as Boomer and I mentioned for instance, like there's a program and also there's a program to create like an alternative economy for the people. And especially this is happening in the oil palm villages, where they have to compete with specific crops and also like in in area where they're still kind of like burning activities. So what BRG did was they create like an alternative economy, but what happened was they already like usually like the woman being involved, but there's no market for that so there's like a problem for that as well. So this is like the area of my study so it's very special because like the Indonesian presidents after he's being elected in 2014. This is the first place that he visit. And like life from Singapore it's very close because he's only took like three hours from Batam. So this one is especially selected. But what make this case that is interested because it has like a long history of like fight fight between companies and the community. So it's not only like the Sungey Toho in this part, but also like Pulao Padang is also still in conflicts. And then there's like, like other area close to this particular area that is still conflict with the company. So what I want to kind of like focus on this idea of like social cohesiveness is really about there's many actors that involve in creating the social cohesiveness. So, but then there's always a process of grouping and regrouping between the actors. So what I want to show is like in the 1980s and 2002 there are people really focusing on the economy and especially because it's quite like low income village. So even like before the 80s, they go outside the village to another island to get a party, but then like during this period, there's a, like a supervisor coming at the national level, went to the village and then they promote like party motivations. But once they tried to cultivate paddy, then it didn't work and then they start to shift to Sagu. So this one happening. So this one is really like focusing on on economy and strengthening the Sagu network. So the national governments also help to promote the Sagu by giving like meals to the community. But then it's start to change in 2002 when there's like a company entering the area. So in 2002 there's a company. So they got like concession from the national government. So what happened in 2002 they did burn the village head house because the village had issued like a letter stating that the company can get a log in from the area. And then it's happened again in 2007 when the national governments issue like a concession for Petellum. So what happened was like they did create the social cohesions by by collaborating with NGOs, and also create like a lot of campaign, including a national NGO as well. And, and they, they, their resistance is really creating like a campaign and festivals and also including national artists to make the voices being heard at the national level. So this social cohesions by by creating like collaborations with different type of actors. Manage, give them like the access to the land. So in 2016, the national governments through the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, they issue like a letter and then basically giving the concessions back to the social forestry scheme. And then, currently, like the main issue is really about like Sagu cultivation so how the people over there can can get their their income from from Sagu but the problem is really because at that moment. In this moment, there's only like one one buyer and so they have like this the dependency on this particular buyer. During the COVID situations, they have like one month when there's no buyer at all. So, even when there's no really problem in this particular case between the ecology and the economy because they already been cultivating Sagu in the 1980. But then there's like an economic problem because there's only like depend on one one buyer. So what happened was like they they have like collaborations with the Ministry of the of the corporations, and then they already managed to build this like huge factory in But during the COVID, at least like this year, and the national governments promised them to give like the operational costs to buy because like for instance this particular buyer, they need like 1.2 billion rupiah per month to buy all the Sagu in the community. And then, so if this factory wants to run then at least they need like 2 billion to run the factory to buy and also to operate the factory. So, if you're talking about like social cohesion, then it's really like questions like every period they create like a new actors and then I reorganize the actors. And what what happened is what make them together what bind them together is really the interest. So in this period, like in the second period, it's really about like conversations and struggles against the national governments but then once it's already being owned by the by the community and then the issue is really about like how they managed to maintain the Sagu procession. So this is more like an illustrations on the local and non-local like actors that's involved. So as you already heard like from the stories, like the regulation is very important. And also like a relationship within the humans and ecology is also important. So, like the people in Sunay Tohar they are very aware about how the ecology of the pitland and it's especially very clear during the Donis Raya presence in the area because they really built like a huge canals which dry out their pitland area and then because it's drying up then most of the Sagu dying as well. So as part of their next struggle or resistance, they start to entering the concessions and then plan their own Sagu. And here basically like the national governments give the concession back to the community through the social forestry scheme. So, yeah, so regulation is important and also like different type of actors also enter. So in this period is quite interesting because there's so many actors involved. Okay, yeah, so in conclusion, I want to say that social cohesiveness always contested. And also the type of like NGOs that's entered areas also shifting. So in the second period is like while he but then in the latest period is more like a different NGO that's focusing really on on planting so free tree adoptions and also like festivals and also stabilization of social cohesion was done through constant resource mobilizations. So there's always need work to be done and transition in the social question from one period to another center around the relationship between the local community and Sagu so there's no contestations between ecology and society and the economy and there's no contestation. Yeah, economy ecology, but full ability due to single market. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, UT. It's very interesting presentation and I myself is giving with a lot of questions about like the scale cohesiveness between institutions across temporal scale even at a small level. Which it's a very complex, I would say arena to try to to understand it, but very interesting. We'll have more on the discussion. So, without taking more time, let's move on to our next speaker. Our next speaker is the end to patriotic. He's a researcher at a great agrarian resource center at Pazajaran University in Bandung, Indonesia. He's an anthropologist by training and has public published extensively on human rights issues. He holds a PSD from School of Politics and International Studies finders university Australia, and he has also served as Deputy of the Indian National Commission on Human Rights for External Affairs between 2013 and 14. So today he's going to speak on land tenure and conflict resolution by presenting a case study from West Kalimantan. Okay. Thank you, Rupesh, for the time and thank you also to the organizer, especially C4 and BLD to invite me to speak here to share my finding on current research and also small fields based on this research. I would like to share the screen to you all. Yes, perfect. Go ahead. Thank you. So, this presentation is based on ongoing research in West Kalimantan. It's in the Sambas district, but now it's interrupted under me. So, maybe I hope I can continue the field work in this area. So the research is supported by Japan Institute for Humanity and Nature based in Kyoto. So, as we heard March from the previous presentations, we know some paddling areas in West Kalimantan is targeted for the restorations. You can see the map on the right side. Ibu Mirna already mentioned, so also there is a SAMA, there are some programs conducted by BRG in the Sambas area, especially in the six fields in the Sekurak district to the Desa Peduli Gambut program. And several activities conducted there, such as rewriting, community organizing, including the participatory mapping for the village border and the currents or the actual land use by the local people and etc. As well as the initiative to resolve some disputes among the local people when they set up the village borders mapping. And we know also in this area, there is a Kuba, Kawasan Kuba Gambut, Sambas, or the Peddom areas. And it's very interesting before the BRG work and the governments of Indonesia have a concern on the paddling areas. The all the areas in my research sites actually is designated by the Ministry of Forestry as a production forest area. And then the concessions was provided by the Ministry to PTBMH to build the work plantation or the HTE in this area. And also, can you imagine in the Peddom areas, there is a planning to build work plantations owned by the private corporations. Because of several political activities in the district, in 2010, the local governments built a medium canal on the west side of the Sambas Peddom areas to dry the area in order to develop local infrastructures, roads especially, and also to build more agriculture land for the local people. And part of this canal project is a long canal in Sarang Burung, Kuala Lump Village, here to the middle of the Peddom areas. And then it's crossed the the neighborhoods of Leila here. And in fact, the canal had drained the Sambas Peddom area, including the deep swim or the Peddom. So now the paid land actually is almost dry in that area, or in this area. And the long canal from Sarang Burung, Kuala Lump Village to the Leila, to some part of the Leila Village, also generates attentions among the local people who live in these two villages. They are dispute about the border, the village border, the determination of the village borders because of the BRG program on the participatory mapping. So in 2014, a big fire occurred in this area, especially in the middle west part of the Sambas. The key HG or Kawasan hydrology gambut mostly occurred in the ex-working area of the BMR or the wood plant concessions, the wood plantation concessions. So this is the background of the research. And here I provide four maps that I made by, and then my colleagues made through the overlay mapping from based on several formal maps provided by the authorities and also the participatory mapping conducted by the BRG. The first map is so the area of the, the plan area for the PT, the BMR for the wood plant plantations. And this is the, the indicative map for social forestry provided by the Ministry of Forestry. And also the indicative area for the TORA program. So this is the competition among the authorities itself to implement the program, which is the social forestry or the TORA program. TORA is the land object for the agrarianity program, which is mean one land designated as the TORA, then it should be released from the forestry area. And this is the actual land use in this area. In the middle, the green, the deep green is the Kubah Gambut area. And then some local people already use, actually already use the land because it's quite dry now. So this is the story of long contestations on the Petland and the forest land use and functions in that area. And then the story continues and the story continues in 2009. There is a militant protest and also resistance from the local people that led to the head of some of the district or the Bupati reforged the wood plants, wood plantations, concessions that provide to PT, BMR. So the project, the HAT-A project stopped, actually stopped. And then local people now enter the areas, enter the areas and then open the areas they use to grow the rubber plants and others plants. And interesting, in 2018, under the assistance of the BRG local facilitators, a group of people in these six villages submitted application for social forestry program to the Ministry of Forestry, either for village forest management or Wutan desa or community forest or Wutan kemasakatan. And the last information I get from a college in West Kalimantan said that in the meeting this year, the Ministry agreed to provide social forestry permits. I'm not really sure because I don't see the document yet. So the question is, is social forestry become resolutions or the panacea or only a temporary solution for the contestation, for the land contestations and conflict in that area, in the forestry and in the petland area. However, before the Ministry released the permit for social forestry, the group of local farmers already created land management plots. So the land within the petland area, either located inside or outside the submitted social forestry areas, they already make a plan, a plot, a design to give to the member. And then for them, the schemes of social forestry look like as a win-win solution to resolve the land contestation and conflict over the forestry area in sambas, meaning now they will have a certainty to use and then to manage the area, which is the forestry area plus the petland area. In 2019, unfortunately, the BRG has ended its program in Secura Subdistrict or in the six filets of the DPG program. So now the community with the new permit of social forestry has no partners to implement these new schemes to manage the forest, including the petland areas. And then the questions rise in my mind in the research is, call the PSB assistance program to support pet restoration or just open a new way of transformation of the petland areas with certain ecological functions into the non-petland function and purposes. This is the questions that I cannot answer yet, but there are two or the crossroads of the future and the possibility in the futures in this area. And then the question, the second question is, how will we assist local people to implement the PSB because the BRG is not working there anymore. And PS or Rutan and Social or Social Forestry have some kind of restriction, some kind of requirement, and then in order to kind of sustainable forest management by the local people. The last question is, in case of some petland area due to the implementation of PS, why is only six villages in each side of the petland area? I mean, only six villages in this east side of petland area provide social forestry, while in the other area, especially in the west side of petland area, we don't know the situation. I mean, what kind of scheme that governments provide or the NGOs or the local people want to manage the forest, the petland, and some of their petdom areas. And this is the question, how to bring local people to implement the restoration. The time is actually up, so can you quickly wrap up in less than a minute. Concluding slides, Rupes. So one is a conclusion is the petland restoration is the winding process with uncertain results, in my view, and especially in the dry petland. Now, almost dry petland in that area, in which some areas have already used by local people and other for various purposes. The second is a careful decision on the targeted restoration program is necessary. And then the third is a creation of a created an indicator for sustainable restoration program should cover a remaping of the targeted areas geographically and socially. And the fourth is economic and social indicators so to recognize the current use of petland areas and towards any policy program implemented within the areas. And this created an indicator of petland restoration so encourage local people to involve in maintaining the petland restoration but not to restrict much of their current social economic activities for life. Otherwise, it will generate new local resistance or rejections. I think it's all that I want that I can share here Rupes and thank you very much for the time. Thank you, Diento. So you actually pose a lot of questions and kind of share a snapshot of how, how these, these landscapes and these areas are contested how different programs from government can be, you know, may not be consistent with each other so just a tiny bit of to have any questions or any discussion. I know that the chat box was going on with a lot of questions and I know some of the questions are already answered. Just quickly, if I can start by myself, because what is interesting when I saw that that we all talked about a lot of complexity and this as I'm from bio physical sciences where it's easy to go take a collective sample and measure how much carbon and how much certain thing is there. But when you talk about social aspects, the complexity of whether you talk it about the institutions between institutions whether you talk at the village level when you talk about provincial level. And when you in our last presentation more represented about the whole network of amongst people themselves within even a small village. So, how do you to not only understand but how the information flows who makes the decision how that decision is then accepted except that these are very pertinent very important aspects when we talk about people in restoration, because these are living landscape, a lot of people, their livelihoods are dependent on it. And I think each is a stakeholders whether it's a government non government with the private sector non state actors they need to play their own part, how to have these goals, which are identified how those are achieved in the most efficient manner most effective manner and what role governance governance set up an institution can play. We are just trying to understand I don't know what to say I think these are all very important very pertinent pieces and more information is important. And we need more data we need more researchers we need more people going out and collecting this data. Is there any concluding thought by let me give time, the couple of minutes left to our speakers if they have anything else they wanted to add that they couldn't cover in their presentation. Anything just like a sentence or so. We have a minute and 15 seconds left before we'll be moved back. So anything that you want to say or any other panelists like Amy is here and any other member who wants to say something quickly. Is there anything anything to let me formally thank you to our panelists for sharing their thoughts they once definitely broadened our horizon my horizon to think about these topics. And just for the last presentation when I was talking about these network analysis. I was also thinking about the social network that we use today quite a lot with internet, you know, Facebook and Instagram and Twitter, and we are connected at at a different level where a lot of information is exchanged. I think that is already happening at a small level, small village level when people are connected into the information exchange is happening through different channels. Maybe they didn't have a smartphone or internet before, but with your diagram you're showing these you know with inward and outward and in between how information exchange was taking place and the important decisions are being made and, and of course, we can talk about whether they are there, whether they are equitable who benefits and whatnot that needs to be decided. But this is nice to see that the flow of information does take place and it's important to identify who are the movers and shakers, if you will.