 What one notices is the effort and the initiatives that communities, local people, traditional or indigenous ethnic minorities and their relationship with land and resources and the types of local governance systems that they have come out about with it. The customary norms and practices in Indonesia, the whole, the customary practices and norms. But then you also have a situation where you have the conflict and dominance of a certain type of legal system, more in the statutory, positive sense. On the other hand, you've got this struggle, you've got communities and indigenous people that have struggled and fought back and pushed both the state as well as industries and companies further back. But what do all of these things mean? What type of resolution can we come about? To what extent are the status and our engagement with rights really point out to? How is it related to poverty alleviation, to environmental integrity and sustainability, to let's say sustainable livelihoods? What are some of those fundamental struggles that we engage in? How do we conceptualize and operationalize and see this situation of historicity, this relational between humans and nature as well as between communities, state, market, community relationship? I'd like to turn to our colleagues at the panel to sort of introduce us to this array of this complexity and dynamics. We have in the panel a member coming in from the government research site. Another from a more coalition and network site. Another more as a scholar activist, but really looking at the whole range of issues. And in presenting some of the struggles, some of the incidents, we get a better sense of what is going on. We also have our regent, Bhupati, really showing what it means to be ahead of a district and to govern and to work together with others. Some of the political space that one can look at and then explore. So without much ado, I would like to request Dr. Gangadal to start his presentation on the overview of forest tenure in Asia. Then we'll follow that with Bhupati. Please. Some of the relative position of the countries in Asia are key lessons and ways forward. Next, please. The sources and methodology. Rights and Resources Initiative started a series of publications, analysis on various issues related to tenure and rights. So the latest one that those are used here are basically three publications. One is what future for reform. That is very recent publication by Rights and Resources Initiative 2014. The landowners or laborers, the publication was in 2013 and what rights. A comparative analysis was done on forest tenure rights, looking on 54 countries across Asia, Africa and Latin America. That was in 2012. Those three are the major sources that those are used in this presentation. While doing analysis, actually it was based on statutory data collected from 52 countries, as I mentioned earlier, across Asia, Africa and Latin America. All data were triangulated from various sources. It's not only the government sources, but other sources were also taken into consideration to make sure that the validity of the data. Next, please. In terms of framework, what we have been using is here basically the two major categories of total forest land ownership, if you divide it, those are basically either public or private. If you look on the public, again, those are subdivided into two sub-categories. One is legally administered by the government, all controlled by the government itself. The state is the one making all decision on that. The second category under public domain is basically the legally designated for use by communities and indigenous groups. That is what a public part of the category in that public domain. The second domain is basically private. When you talk about the private, it includes legally owned by individual and forms or legally owned by communities and indigenous groups. Those are all falls under the private categories or private domain of the land tenure categories. Next, please. Very quickly, if you look on this global overview, actually communities own and control over forest land has been increasing. But still, if you look on this global data, only 12.6% of the total forest land is owned by communities or controlled by communities. Over the past decades, there has been an increase in the coverage of millions of hectares. Some figures I have put here actually, 128 million hectares in the last decades has been increased under these categories. It means the communities own forest land. It is also because the indigenous people and local communities has been very much vocal in terms of advocating their rights through different international forum and mechanism like UN DRIP, AFPIC and volunteer guidelines, the recent one that AFO developed. There has been progress, but in spite of the progress, the slowdown in recognition has been noticed since 2008. If you compare the 2002 to 2008, the progress was a bit positive in terms of the scale, but the progress is slowing down since 2008. I'll be discussing why it is and what is the status. Next, please. These are this range of regime under various forest management system in various countries across Asia, Africa and Latin America. I don't want to go on each and every, but what it is, is basically when you talk about the tenure, it is a bundle of rights. However, the limited rights are recognized in almost all regime. Either they are management rights or use rights given, but there is hardly any alienation rights given under those regimes that we have studied in 54 countries. Next, please. Look at the forest tenure transition 2002 to 2013 that we have the latest data. You can see there is a decrease in the total forest area administered by government from 77.9, almost 78 to back to 73 percent in 2013. However, the area under designated for indigenous people and communities increased slightly 1.5 to 2.9, which is not a significant increase. And the same is with the owned by indigenous people and communities also increased slightly from 9.8 to 12.6. Owned by forms and individuals also very insignificant in number 10.9 to 11.0. It means that almost more than 70 percent of the total forest land is under state ownership and control. Next, please. I have another slide here just to look on what is the situation with the low and middle income countries, which is a little bit different than the global scenario. If you look on this again, low and middle income countries, the progress is bit significant. For example, the designated for indigenous people and communities coming from 3 to 6.1, almost 50 percent increase in the total areas under that categories. And similar is the case with owned by indigenous people and communities and with the owned by forms and individuals, which is a bit different than global scenario. I just want to show the comparison. Next, please. Now, we can see that there is an uneven progress between the region. It's not that all regions having the same level of progress. They have different context and, you know, the different scenario. When you look at the Latin America, so we can see that the blue part, 43 percent is under government or state control forest land ten years system, whereas 33 percent is owned by indigenous people and communities. It looks like kind of balance in Latin American countries, whereas Africa almost all owned by state, that is hardly any percentage that is given to the local communities as an ownership. In Asia, in between Africa and Latin America, in fact, we can see that 60 percent is still government ownership and 30 percent, and if you combine with the 6 percent owned by indigenous people, sorry, communities, then it will be 36 percent. So, which is moving forward in a positive direction in Asia. So, it is a comparison. We can just see that Africa, Asia and Latin America, the first line includes the status in 2002 and then bottom one includes the status in 2013. We can compare. We can see that there is no significant changes in Africa and Asia, but a bit good level of progress made in Latin America. Next, please, as well. So, in many countries in Asia, there is still a political will and the government always prefer to the protection oriented area, expansion, which limit the scope of forest tenure reform in many countries in Asia. It is also important and realize that tenured policy enable environment for a private sector investment because once the security of tenure is clear, then private investor would be happy enough and compatible to do any sort of investment in forest sectors. If there is no tenure security, then definitely private sector will be, you know, unwilling to invest. Next, please. It is also realized that from the cases across globe and also in some of the countries in Asia that recognition of the ancestral territory, the domain of indigenous people could reduce the conflict. Some of the example, we can see the example of India in, you know, northern part of India. The very recent tribal and ethnic minorities were given their tribal domain as a own by those tribal people under the very recent Forestry Act. So that create an environment to reduce the conflict on going there in northern part of India. There are many other cases in other countries as well. In Asia, Africa and Latin America, it has been from the, you know, analysis. It shows that actually community-based forest management regime has proved as one of the viable options to ensure rights and also get benefit from forest resource management. So there is still a huge scope of forest land tenure reform in many countries in Asia. Although progress, as I mentioned earlier, is slow, but strong hope is still there. We need to be positive. That's what way forward, I think. So, and also it is important some of the picture I have taken from Africa and Asia that how forest could contribute for the livelihood and economic development, which is the next immediate challenge for us to make sure that the forest resources benefit to all of us. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dengel Singh. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. The forest management regime has been a forest area with a population of more than 168,000. In 2012, the number of people who were in the new village was more than 9.28 percent. The number of people who were in the new village was more than 15,000. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to remind you that the new village has vision in the management of government and development. We hope that the new village will have a better future, a better future, a better foundation, a better future, and a better future. Because in the management of government and development, there are four approaches that we do. The first is how to create economic growth. Then, to stop poverty, to open jobs, and also to develop with the environment. Those are the approaches that we do. Or we keep up with five missions. Five missions, which is to increase human quality, to optimize the growth of the population to create a conducive environment, to develop synergistic interconnection between the national, regional, and international and the fifth is to establish the best government or good governance. There are several strategies that we do. There are five. Ladies and gentlemen, you can see on the screen. And more importantly, it is possible that Panitia has invited us to bring this event because there is only a policy from the government of Kabupaten, especially in the development of poverty. Especially in the development of forest resources that are in Kabupaten. Ladies and gentlemen, I respect the times that have passed for the people to look at the government's policy on the development of forest resources. It is not related to the people. Why? The government's policy on forest resources is very related to how this forest can be preserved in conservation without paying attention without paying attention to the needs of the people around the forest. In Kabupaten Baru, we can tell your parents that almost 90% of the new Kabupaten Baru has been preserved in the forest area. And almost 90% of the poor people in Kabupaten Baru are the people around the forest area. Because there were times when we, Pupati, have been under the rule of Pupati against 17 members of the government so that every year they can allocate the budget for the development of forest resources in the new Kabupaten Baru as a whole. It is just a coincidence that the forest resources are located around the forest area. Consistently, the Kabupaten Baru has put in the planning documents long-term, long-term, and also in the budget every year. Ladies and Gentlemen, we honor in the last few years through the rule of Pupati, Alhamdulillah, the people who are around the forest area have been able to provide this forest resources with good and working with the government. Is it through the development of the people's forest, the people's forest, the village forest, and also various models that are local heritage from our people in Kabupaten Baru. For that, I am curious from our development in Kabupaten Baru in the year 2015 that will come, we hope that the number of people in Kabupaten Baru, God willing, will be below 9 percent. It will be below 9 percent, which we have calculated in the planning of the development of Kabupaten Baru. This is what we got from your father and mother because we hope that maybe you can go to Kabupaten Baru so that what we have done there can be improved again. Or the new Kabupaten Baru as a research or development of forest that is related to the people or related to the economic development of the people around the forest. We waited and invited your father and mother to visit the new Kabupaten Baru in order to that Kabupaten Baru is also the same as your father and mother there is forest or forester so the profession is forester only hobby hobby welcome to Baru to your father and mother thank you peace be upon you I wanted to draw your attention to the fact that post 98 after the fall of we had quite a bit of economic and political reforms that led to decentralization devolution of authority here is a case where we can see what it means in terms of governing a particular area within this larger context of decentralization and also looking at state, locality relationship and some of the imperatives in terms of governing a particular situation and how the different affairs and the vulnerabilities both at the government level and at the locality level in Indonesia next please so in security management as forest users may feel do not have a stake to the forest and in the case of state forests especially in the development countries like Indonesia I mean, they lack the capacity to protect the fast forest resources. Just like Ganga said, 97% of forest in Indonesia administered by the government is about 1,000 or 130 something million hectares. You can imagine the fast forest resources. So, encroachment usually happen in Indonesia and illegal activities because of the lack of the capacity to monitor them. While the enforcement of local communities in managing forest resources is still low, we'll see how it's happening in Indonesia. Next. So, the objective of the presentation actually is analyzing the current situation arrangement of forest management in Indonesia in determining the access of local communities to state forest and to examine the existing option to strengthen the enforcement of local communities in state forest management. Next. Let's see the situation in Indonesia. This is in line with what the first presentation said about... Most of the forest in Indonesia are administered by the state and it is classified into three different functions of forest, which is the production forest, the protection forest and conservation forest. So, about 128 million hectares are administered by the government, which is under the responsibility of the Ministry of Forestry. I put the terrestrial here because in Indonesia, forests can also include the marine or wetland. This is related to the conservation area. So, I put only the terrestrial one because it may be more related to how the community can access the forest. Next. Let us see what happened on the ground. About the 22.25 million hectares, which is a conservation forest, is managed by the government agencies, the Ministry of Forestry or local forestry services. It was 70%. And 30.9 million hectares, which is in the production forest or some of them in the production forest, managed by forest conservation companies is 26%. So, the left is about 72 million hectares have not been managed under any institution arrangement, meaning that it is still under the administration of the state or the government, but has not been licensed to anyone. So, the question is, is there the opportunities for local communities to access the forest or not? And I put this figure without considering the constitutional court decree, the latest constitutional court decree that has been excluded customary forests as a state forest, because it has not been fully operated on the ground. Next, please. Let's see the communist right of a forestry sources. The current area of community forest management can be classified into community forests, which is in Indonesia, it's called the HKM, Hutan Kemasa Rakatan, which Pak Bupati said about how the community forest in Baru has been operated. And the customary forest, which is Hutan Adat, that in reality there is no formal customary forest in Indonesia has not been, there is no customary forest has been, you know, just like decreed or acknowledged by the central government. The initiative has been there. The Bupati or the governor has already acknowledged the customary forest on the ground, but in the formal term, there is no customary forest until the constitutional court say that the customary forest is not the state forest. The third option to have a rights or access for the community to forest, to state forest is through the community plantation forest, or HATR, Hutan Darman Raya, and the forest is with the village forest, or Hutan Lisa. The latest data, so that the community's rights or the community access to the state forest is only about 270,000 hectares, more or less like that. This is only less than 1% of the total area of the state forest that we already mentioned before. Next, let us try to imagine the household living inside and surrounding state forest. The study in 15 provinces in 2007 has revealed that about 20% of households in Indonesia living in a state forest, or near state forest. If we calculate the number of households in Indonesia, it's about 91 million households. So, of course, we're assuming that with the normal distribution or something like that, but just keep in mind that it's only the assumption that the household inside and surrounding state forest should be about 12 million households. And if those households are given used rights, or whatever the right is, to manage state forest, about two hectares at least, and we will have 24.4 million hectares of forest that can be managed by the local communities. So, it will be relevant to our political changes through the decentralization of managing resources, and also it will also increase the equity of resource utilization for Indonesia, not only dominated by a certain amount or a small amount, a few of parties that can access and utilize and get benefit from the field of resources. Next, please. And let me talk about the rise of formal customary forest. I put the formal customary forest because the customary forest has been there even before the constitutional court has decreed to exclude the customary forest from the state forest classification. So, with the constitutional court that has issued the decree to exclude customary forest from the state forest classification, it means that there is an opportunity for the local communities, especially the customary communities, to have their rights acknowledged, and also to have a more secure tenure of the forest resources. However, the implementation of the decree has not been able to clarify the existence of customary rights of a land and forest resources until now, because we still need a legal framework that can make the implementation of the decree work. The implementation of the decree can work. So, it needs to coordinate action among parties, especially the Ministry of Forestry who has managed the state forest for a long time ago, and the customary communities who, in some part, they are still formally the juror and the facto. I think this will be a wonderful segue into the next presentation by Paoji, basically looking at the status of indigenous ownership of our customary territories in Indonesia, and he will also talk about the constitutional court decree and the ramifications and implications, and what all we need to look at. Paoji? Paoji is owned by indigenous communities, slash local communities, and the number is zero. Zero. Yeah? Time by time, the number is consistent. Zero. So, as a person who moves around to the rural area, especially the indigenous communities, I asked some indigenous leaders about who owns this forest, and they, of course, they said, we are here, we are the owner of the customary territory, and the state comes later to us. So, the question is how the Indonesian government has no data on it, and then later Dr. Gangadahal exposed the number is zero, because the Indonesian government has no data, and the customary territory and the owner of the customary territory has been infeasible. The infeasibility is the key here. Why? They are infeasible, because in the low, low number 49, 1999, and the previous lows, number 5, 1967, and in the previous lows in the forest loan 1865, in the colonial times, the customary territory has been categorized as state-owned land, state-owned forest. So, based on that categorization, the central government, the authorities, has legal authority to allocate the state land, state forest to somebody else, to the forest agencies, to the plantation, to the mining companies, and so on and so forth. So, the problem is when you are as the constitutional court judge and got a request from indigenous communities, from the organization named Aman, that request the constitutional court to test the constitutionality of these ownership status of the customary territory, what decisions you will make. So, my presentation is about that, about a post-colonial decisions made by constitutional court. Go ahead. Hello. So, this is the structure of my presentation, and go on. And, you know, don't confuse with number. The number, the constitutional court ruling number is number 35, PUU slash, you know, 2012. 2012 is number when they registered the request to the constitutional court, but the decision was released 16 May last year, 2013. So, the court made the decisions because of the request by Aman, right? And the decision was there are some articles within the forestry law are in constitutional. We only have few experience as a nation that the practice of the Indonesian government based on a particular article of law were defined as inconstitutional. After the long period of the land grabbing, this is the term from the victim side or from the activist, they call it land grabbing. From the long grabbing, now we realize, wow, constitutionally wrong, it was. So, when I got, you know, read the rulings, I thought, wow, what the state is this? The largest, you know, the largest state land holder in Indonesia, which is the Ministry of Forestry, did something wrong constitutionally since the beginning. So, as a citizens, I was taken when I read that. I had, you know, the state that did something wrong in constitutionally. What should we do with that? Go on, please. And, of course, we can learn academically about the articles. I cannot go in detail because of the time and go on, please. And when I asked the judge, this one of the judge, he was retired now, and I asked, why you decide so? Why you made the Indonesian state so badly in my view? And they said, this is the time to do correction. In my term, this is what they call it as undoing discriminatory category embedded in Indonesian national law. I repeat it again. This is undoing against the discriminatory category embedded in Indonesian national law. Unfortunately, we don't have in Bahasa Indonesia the term for undoing. Tell me. Tell me. We don't have it. I am a person who worked with a publishing company, and I have the term for that. We call it ralat, but not in the legal literature. We don't have it. So, he said that, look at that. When such defective laws, including the forestry law, are enforced, it will create social injustices. Enforcing such defective natural resource laws will endanger the existence of indigenous communities who are vulnerable to be excluded by those who have power in the name of the state or by permission of the state institutions. Well, I go deeply, Pazena introduced that, but I am dramatizing it. I am dramatizing it. In order to make this sense, it's not right. No, no, this is not right. This is heavy. Okay, go on. So, why is this heavy? Because there are so many what I call systemic land conflict everywhere. Yeah? Probably, if you sit on the table in the office, you cannot find the conflicts. I have five minutes. Yeah. But over there, there are so many land conflict. That's important that to realize that the conflict is structural. The conflict is widespread. Go on. And we understand the core ruling if we have an understanding about the systemic land conflict. Go on. So this is my argument. Yeah? You know, the ruling has provided an opportunity to fix the status of Indonesian indigenous communities as right-bearing subject. And the owner of their customary territory, which would be a popular move. That's my first argument. In the ruling, if you read it, there is a new term that was introduced. Never been, has an official term. If you go to Glosarium of the Indonesian law, you can have it, this one. The term is penyandang hak. We have the term penyandang cacat. Yeah? If somebody has an accident and then he cannot work except by some instrument, probably see or he was called penyandang cacat. Or if I buy it, I have some money to give money and then make the people to demonstrate in front of your office that I was called as penyandang dana of the demonstration, right? But for the right-bearing subject, for the penyandang hak, we don't have it. And the indigenous community was not categorized as right-bearing subject. They are not penyandang hak. And the constitutional court ruling made a bold statement that the Masyarakat hukum adat is penyandang hak. They are the owner of the customary territory. So the ruling at the same time has opened up the possibility for changing the trajectory of systemic agrarian conflicts, which are chronic and widespread in Indonesian archipelago. So the conflict will change. Go on. I will move fast and please click fastly. Yeah? This is the conflict. We know that, you know, from the plantations, concessions, from the forest concession, mining concession, conservation concessions, transmigration, they will change the property relation, land use, and local livelihood. Go on. And of course, the productions is different because there are chains of the commodity supply for the world export, for the commodity consumption, and so on, including for keeping environmental services intact. Go on. So Aman, I don't want to tell about Aman more, but we know that Aman played a big role in submitting the judicial review to the court. And why Aman did that? Because Aman has no understanding about the politics that, you know, adjustment politics. No, no. Aman did something radical here to put the Indonesian constitution work to review the Indonesian national law, which is the Forestry Law Number 41, 1999. Go on. Go on. Go on. Go on. This is the post-colonial, what I call, as a post-colonial territorial issue of state control over forests. And it started since 1865 when the, you know, Undang-Undang Kohutanan Jawa Dan Madura made a statement that the whole forest territory are owned by the state. And because of that, there is establishment of the boundaries. And because of the establishment of boundaries, they create some kind of functional territorialization. This is for the conservation, this is for production, this is for blah, blah, blah. And then state institutions create the license. And then when somebody like the Prusa Anhatei has a license, they have to create, from the license, become concession. From the paper, become territorial control. And then when they found, there is a community within it, they have to kick them out. Of course, and it's violently. And there is a government regulation that say that in 1980s, like similar like that. If the concession holder finds a community within or surrounded the area, they have an authority to make it become disciplined and make it become under the control to make it this concession work. Go on. So the conflict is everywhere. Go. And this is the thing. When I learn about this and deeply thinking theoretically, I come into this conclusion that every kind of struggle for social justice has to deal with the discriminatory category. We have to change that category. And this is the purpose of the social movement. And, you know, because the categorical distinctions, that's something that make the inequality durable. And this is final word, final word. How to make the inequality not continue anymore. And later, next year after the president, the new president was elected, probably the number, Dr. Gangadal, the number will change from zero to two. You can feel it. Thank you very much. Oh, gee. You know, some basically say this is righting the wrong. Okay. But anyway, let's hear from our colleagues and friends here. We'll take five questions, comments, observations. Please state your name and all that. Let's go from the side. Anyone from here? One, two. A very interesting presentations from all of the speakers. But my question specifically for the first speakers, you mentioned toward the end of your presentation that there is a positive correlation between securing the rights with the, let's say, a better environmental management or something similar to that. Because most of the presentation showing, you know, the percentage of land ownership by the IPs and communities in general, I would like to know whether your research specifically showing, for example, China, whether their management for the environment is actually better and whether that is the contribution of the, you know, higher percentage of land that is owned by communities or IPs. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. They want to go to National because they have a kamar pengusaha. And interestingly, they will come the coastal court ruling. They will come. And they said this may be a good ground to solve the land conflict that they are facing. They realized there is no any adequate measure to resolve the land conflict because the policy was fake. I mean, they will be happy to recognize that. But on the other hand, they have no basis for, you know, people to have their territory and deal with the corporations with the same level as a negotiation. No. But that's the representative. And the way they represent their answer for the court ruling is not representative at all. It's there are. But that's the only way I can answer your question, my friend. Second, about the role of the Red Plus in order to respond that. For me, the way it was framed as a customary territory, as indigenous struggle, as the, you know, haq masyarakat adat, it's a language that the social movement used and then the state institutions has developed the arguments to, you know, change the articles within the forestry law because they are, has no repertoire for forest and new reform. So the only way to do forest and new reform that is in terms of ownership is by bringing in the concept of haq masyarakat adat. That's the indigenous ownership come into the play. When we started to think about how Red Plus respond for that, it's very interesting when I asked the drafter of the strategy National Red Plus. In the strategy National Red Plus, there is a statement that the recognition of the indigenous territories or land will be based on the existing regulation. The problem is the existing regulation, you cannot work with that. It's like the denial, how you can rely on the denial regulations for doing the truly recognition. No, that's a trick. You have to change the regulation first, but we don't have it. So how the good intention of the people from the Red Plus could work, on the other hand, follow the rules, on the other hand, they have to, you know, change the rules. No, they cannot do that. They have no firm answer for this dilemma. And that's why in the Stranas, the statement is so ambiguous about this. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for good questions, actually. Let me respond to the first questions from Ibu Jashia, I think. China's case is very interesting in many sense. It's not only because of the scale, but because of the way the reform is unfolding in China. It's interesting to learn and understand. But do they really matter or not? So what type of data? Who collects the data? And what is the politics of that particular data is very, very important. At one level, we talk about the more reformist, progressive side of governmentality and governance. Yet when you look at the numbers, even if we have like four or, you know, three to four different types of state-sponsored, tenural instruments, like village forest, community forest, community plantation forest and all of that, when you really look at the number, it really doesn't make a big, big difference and the targets are not really fulfilled. So what does that really say about the relationship between state and governance and locality? The other thing is that we touched a little bit on private sector. At one point, we say that the private sector has an upper hand when there is, in fact, insecure tenure. On the other hand, we're also saying that they will be more than willing to invest if you had secure tenure. I think what is important is this impetus that comes in from private capital, private investment, private sector at trade and consumptions related to it has to be seen from a perspective of fairness and accountable investment with transparency. So to what extent investments can, in fact, have those safeguards, those accountability measures and all. That's important. I think these are things that even if the Constitutional Court decides on this and at the local level, it is implemented and operationalized. I'd like to thank each one of you, panel members and you all, and also to my co-sponsors and co-organizers in Kamitraan C4 Rights and Resources Initiative. Sorry, we went a little bit overboard. Thank you very much. Thanks.