Campaigning for agrarian reform

Rahmat Ajiguna in his office in Jakarta- Eve Warburton

Rahmat Ajiguna is secretary general of Alliance for Agrarian Reform (AGRA). This
organisation represents farmers from across Indonesia and is funded almost entirely from the
dues of around 250,000 members. AGRA was established in 2004 with the aim of bringing
together a number of other peasant organisations in order to speak with a more coherent voice
about agrarian reform. AGRAs leadership has been outspoken on issues of food security and
food sovereignty in Indonesia.

What does it mean to be food insecure in

Indonesia?
Actually there is a problem with the conception of food security. The common conception
of food security doesnt take into account where food is from. There is no thought to the
quality of the food, how it is produced or where it came from. As long as there is food there is
security. In order to achieve this goal of food security the Indonesian government chooses to
take the short cut of importing food from overseas.
We think its more important to talk about food sovereignty, which is about producing food
here within Indonesia in order to achieve security. Our country is an agrarian country. We
actually dont need to import beef from Australia or garlic from Malaysia or China, for
example. But the government chooses to import, rather than invest in local production. This
is where my organisation, AGRA, has a different opinion to the government our conception
of food security cant be separated from the idea of food sovereignty.

What does AGRA see as the most fundamental

drivers of food insecurity?
The first is how the increasing cost of living in Indonesia means more and more poor people
lack the capacity to buy food. For example, when the price of petrol goes up the cost of living
goes up too. But the price of food products sold by Indonesian farmers doesnt increase at the
same rate; so neither does their profits. This leaves many poor farmers insecure.
A second factor is the governments belief that importing is the best way to achieve food
security. An agrarian country like Indonesia can achieve security internally. But the
governments focus is on developing large estates like the Merauke Integrated Food and
Energy Estate. The goal of this estate is not to ensure food security within Indonesia; its goal
is to produce food products for export. Another example is how during the global soybean
crisis in 2013 the government said it would ensure that Indonesia became self sufficient in
soybeans to avoid these sorts of shocks. But no action has really been taken. We keep
importing rather than developing our local industry. And domestic products cant compete
with the quality of imported soybeans.

Finally, there is no real program of much-needed agrarian reform. There are too many large
commercial plantations and not enough plantations that can ensure food security. Today, in
reality it is the small-scale producers, or peasants, who ensure the food security of the
country. But these small-scale producers are facing land grabbing by large commercial
projects - palm oil plantations, property, infrastructure and mining. All of these large
commercial projects convert small-scale producers land through land grabbing. While there
are laws that protect small-scale farmland, these laws are not followed. For example the
Karawang, Indramayu area has long been a source of food in West Java. When the farmland
in this area was converted into factory and private property land, the government did not
replace or compensate farmers for their loss.
Actually, the government has not had a strong or long-term vision since the time of Sukarno.
At that time, Sukarno said that Indonesia would become self sufficient and sovereign, and not
depend on foreign countries to provide food for its people.

Are there government policies that have

contributed to the alleviation of food insecurity
in Indonesia?
There are some good policies and laws, but implementation is the problem. President Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono even publically said he was going to prioritise agrarian reform. But
until today this has not happened. At the very least, the government should be helping to
protect farmers lands from being converted. But the reality is that land conversion is
happening on a massive scale.

But why do you think the government is not

interested in protecting farmers lands from
conversion and supporting their productivity?
This actually cant be separated from international markets. Its related to the kinds of
materials that developed countries want to consume from developing countries like
Indonesia. In the international system, a few companies hold a monopoly on agricultural
products. For example, Monsanto, Daewoo and BASF have a monopoly on seeds all around
the world. But the monopoly of large multinational companies begins with the seeds and
continues all the way throughout the market. In this system, countries like Indonesia are seen
only as producers of raw materials. Take palm oil, for example. We are the biggest producer
in the world, yet we export it in crude form; we dont process it here in our own country.
Investing in processing palm oil could help employ and feed people. Instead, large areas of
land are converted in order to export raw materials for overseas consumption, rather than
producing and processing materials to be consumed by our own people.

Are the issues that Indonesia faces shared with

its neighbours? How do they do things
differently?
These problems are the same in other agrarian countries around the world. Latin American
countries, African countries and countries here in Asia all face problems of land conversion,
land grabbing, trade restrictions and other international forces that contribute to a lack of food
security and sovereignty.
There are Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and World Trade Organisation (WTO)
meetings in Bali in October and December 2013. Together with other organisations we will
also arrange meeting and activities to respond to the dialogue that comes out of these
meetings. We are especially concerned with the WTO Ministerial Conference in Bali in
December. Representatives of countries from around the world will attend our event in Bali
and will develop alternatives to the WTO model that are based on better trade ideas that
benefit more people.

What does AGRA do to try and ensure food

security in Indonesia?
We want to show that Indonesia can achieve food sovereignty. We campaign and promote the
idea that we can be sovereign in our food production and achieve food security. We try to
demonstrate that this is more important than the governments narrow focus on food security.
AGRA also doesnt agree with the market approach of international bodies like the WTO
because it does not benefit the farmers and communities in underdeveloped countries like
Indonesia. This system favours developed countries and their famers. So we oppose this
approach.
We also push within Indonesia and lobby the government for agrarian reform, and for the
government to pursue the best ways of giving farmers access to markets and cheap credit. We
want farmers to have a voice in this process. At the moment they are left out of policy
planning.
And we want food security for the long term, which means we have to fight against land
grabbing by large companies for commercial crops or mining. Our focus is on how to make
Indonesian farmers the answer to problems of food security. We want to make sure that we
process the foods that are consumed here soybean, meat, rice, rather than importing these
products and forcing local farmers to compete with cheap imports. We want to strengthen
farmers organisations and to help them have a voice, a unified voice, to push for real
agrarian reform.
Rahmat Ajiguna (agraindonesia12@gmail.com) is secretary general of AGRA.

Inside Indonesia 114: Oct-Dec 2013

Land titles do not equal agrarian

reform
Written by Noer Fauzi

Noer Fauzi

Land is a justice issue

Danu Primanto

In a speech on 31 January 2007 President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said that agrarian
reform would be a priority for his government. Since that time, Indonesias National Land
Agency (BPN, Badan Pertanahan Nasional) has dramatically increased the rate at which it
registers land title. But land rights activists are sharply critical of the governments policy.
Despite, the increase in registrations, we think the BPN has set aside its original agrarian
reform goal of redistributing land to the poor. This is a goal that is mandated by Indonesias
1960 Basic Agrarian Law, as well as the 2001 legislative Decree No 9, on Agrarian Reform
and Natural Resource Management. Providing individual land titles does not necessarily help
the poor; in fact it can make the livelihoods of struggling rural people and communities even
more precarious.

Accelerated land title registration

Under the leadership of Dr. Joyo Winoto, BPN has pursued a process of legalising land
assets through accelerating the certification of land titles at an astonishing rate. The volume
of government sponsored land legalisation has risen sharply. In 2004, before Joyo was

appointed,, the BPN issued full legal title for only 269,902 land holdings. By 2008 the total
had reached 2,172,507 an increase of over 800 per cent. Adding cases for which
individuals, groups, and businesses paid their own processing fees brings the total to
4,627,039 property titles certified.
Since 2004, BPN has used a 500 per cent budget increase to update its institutional
procedures. It runs several schemes that aim to certify land titles, including two supported by
World Bank loans: LMPDP (Land Management and Program Development Project) and
RALAS (Reconstruction of Aceh Land Administration System). BPN has established a
mobile Land Certification Service to extend its reach to some 60 per cent of Indonesias land
area, sending officers to remote areas, and improving data processing and
telecommunications.

With tight land and macro-economic conditions that do not favor

small farmers, land title certification without agrarian reform,
is a systematic tool that forces farmers to sell their land more
quickly
With such accelerated service, Joyo Winoto estimates it will take only 18 years more to title
all land holdings in Indonesia. President Yudhoyonos campaign team celebrated this
spectacular success in a full-page advertisement: Land for the People. Not Just Empty
Words (Pertanahan untuk Rakyat. Bukan Omong Kosong) in the newspaper Media
Indonesia of 24 June 2009.

The advertisement appeared as the 188 member organisations of the Consortium for Agrarian
Reform (KPA, Konsorsium Pembaruan Agraria) held their fifth national conference in
Puncak, West Java. At the meeting KPA leaders introduced a strategic program and targets,
results of three years work. KPA was founded in 1995 as a nationwide network of NGOs
involved in campaigning in favour of a policy of land redistribution for the rural poor.
KPA tackled the Land Agencys claims of success skeptically. Were BPNs remarkable
figures on land title certification believable? More importantly, will universal land titles
fulfill the primary goal of agrarian reform - to help lift poor people out of poverty? Will they
protect the rights and livelihoods of poor farmers and marginalised indigenous communities?
As a national advocacy network of civil society organisations, KPA has long criticised the
Land Administration Project, which is funded with a World Bank loan backed by AusAID
(The Australian governments overseas aid program). [See related Inside

Indonesiaarticles We Promote Community-based Land Mapping, and Australians Help

Codify Indonesian Land Titles].
In a press release on 3 July 2009, KPAs new General Secretary Idham Arshad asserted that
BPNs land titling program will cause farmers with small land holdings to lose more land,
because individual titles make land easier to sell or to mortgage. With tight land and macroeconomic conditions that do not favor small farmers, land title certification without
agrarian reform, is a systematic tool that forces farmers to sell their land more quickly. Land
will be transferred toward big capital, so that the existing unequal land distribution will
become even worse. Thats why farmland is now increasingly owned by urban non-farming
groups, while poor farmers become farm labourers.

Differing positions, arguments, and visions

Joyo Winoto, the BPN head, is aware that legalising assets by certifying land titles often
leads poor owners to lose their land, if they cannot use land optimally because they lack
capital or other resources. To reduce farmers vulnerability, his reforms combine land titling
with a range of support and extension services for poor farmers.
KPA activists criticise BPNs primary focus on land titles, believing that land titles have
become an end in themselves, not just a means to achieve broader social justice. Unlike KPA,
officials at BPN treat land title certification as equivalent to agrarian reform. BPN agents in
the field and district offices do not differentiate between the two major programs they
administer to legalise land assets: land registration through adjudication (land titling
through the World Bank-funded Land Management and Program Development Project) and
land redistribution (through the National Agrarian Reform Project, paid through the routine
national budget). From 2005 to 2008, BPN registered some 651,000 land certificates through
adjudication, while nearly 333,000 titles were registered through land redistribution
schemes. Both programs result in similar land title certificates with the same full legal force,
despite the two programs differing goals, funding sources, budget mechanisms, and
administrative procedures.
Yet these two program approaches recognise very different legal bases for land ownership.
Legal titles granted through the adjudication process certify property based on evidence of
customary ownership, inheritance, purchase, donation/bequest, or other land transactions
recognised by local practices. By contrast, BPNs redistribution process deals with state
land (tanah negara), that has been designated for redistribution by BPN, targeting
approximately 1.1 million hectares of such land for eventual redistribution.
KPA contends that it is necessary to differentiate between land legalisation and
redistribution because of the very different origins, agendas, and visions of these two
approaches. KPA asserts that BPNs underlying purpose in certifying, or legalising, land titles
is to foster a global agenda to expand the land market. In line with the World Banks

economic liberalisation agenda, clarifying land rights by issuing land certificates in huge
numbers furthers economic development.
In fact, BPNs land title certification program is one tool in President Yudhoyonos and Joyo
Winotos embrace of an ideological vision promoted by Peruvian economist Hernando de
Soto, the most recent in a long line of neo-liberal modernisation proponents to gain disciples
in Indonesia. De Soto presented his thoughts to President Yudhoyono and ten cabinet-level
ministers in November 2006.
De Sotos reputation as a global guru of neo-liberal populism, as Mike Davis dubbed him in
his 2006 book Planet of Slums, is based on de Sotos promotion of a simple and highly
seductive prescription: the solution to poverty lies in providing secure property rights to the
poor, and integrating their land assets into the market system. The policy tool to achieve this
is a massive government land registration and titling effort.

KPAs alternative agrarian reform agenda starts from the

evidence we see all around us of the suffering experienced by
victims of land expropriation and land-grabbing, and the
concentration of wealth by people who control extensive lands
De Soto believes that most rules that govern landed property and transactions in non-western
nations like Indonesia operate outside the formal legal system, in customary and informal
practices. Modernisation must transform all of these extra-legal rules into a single, integrated
system of property rights and contracts accepted by all parties. Only in this way can the
peoples land, now wasted as dead capital beyond the formal legal system, be brought to life
through land titling, and enter the economic system. Poor landowners will then be able to use
their title as collateral in securing loans to assist their entrepreneurship. In this way, de Soto
promotes a capitalist market system as theinstrument to lift the people out of poverty.
In contrast to Joyo Winotos eager embrace of de Sotos approach, KPA rejects the notion that
integrating all land into the market system will overcome poverty in Indonesia. De Sotos
thinking merely softens, even hides, the greedy and predatory character of a capitalist
economy based on universal private property and on commodification of everything through
market mechanisms. KPAs alternative agrarian reform agenda starts from the evidence we
see all around us of the suffering experienced by victims of land expropriation and landgrabbing, and the concentration of wealth by people who control extensive lands.
In Indonesia, the underlying legal mechanism for pervasive land expropriation is what I call
state-isation of peoples land (negaraisasi tanah-tanah rakyat). In this process, the state
legalises and legitimates its expropriation of peoples land, then turns it over to private
companies for exploitation or investment. KPA rejects not only the transfer of control over
land to private corporations, but also the state-isation process that enables it.

KPA insists that the central intentions of the 1960 Basic Agrarian Law were to redistribute
extensive land areas controlled by the state and by private companies, to give land to landless
and impoverished farmers, and to raise their productivity by providing them with credit,
education and appropriate technology. Managing land with regard to its ecological functions,
rather than just profits, was also key in the Basic Agrarian Law. KPA supporters believe that
only by reviving this agenda can we surmount the major causes of chronic rural poverty
today.
Over the past five years, KPAs leaders have worked closely with BPNs policy reform
process from conception to implementation. KPA took this course because the president had
charged BPN to carry out an agrarian reform agenda, as spelled out in Presidential Decree
No. 10/2006 and in other places. KPA hoped to see a genuine government agrarian reform
program, dedicated to overcoming poverty and protecting human rights as its fundamental
values. But, after four years of implementation, land rights activists including KPA have
concluded that President Yudhoyonos Program for Agrarian Reform has moved too far from
the experiences of the victims of land expropriation and the day-to-day struggles of poor rural
people.

Where are we going?

Government agencies are still a long way away from formulating a convincing approach to
agrarian reform. Agrarian reformers in civil society must carefully consider our own future
direction.

State land reform policies legitimate a new model of land grabbing for
food production, energy and biofuels, and the production of industrial
raw materials
In the agrarian dialogue at KPAs recent national conference, participants were troubled by
more than just the problems of land titling. State land reform policies also legitimate a new
model of land grabbing for food production, energy and biofuels, and the production of
industrial raw materials. If this model prevails, it will turn Indonesia into merely a source of
land, natural resources, and cheap labour for the global market. Constant vigilance is required
to accurately understand this, even more to resist it.
After almost ten years of democratic politics in Indonesia, now is a time for introspection and
renewed resolve for those of us, like KPA, who struggle for agrarian justice. Where are we
going? It will be a long, steep climb without clear direction unless we understand what has
occurred, what is taking place now, and what is likely happen if current directions continue.
ii

Noer Fauzi (noer@berkeley.edu) is a member of the KPA Expert Council, and is a PhD
candidate in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management (ESPM) at
the University of California, Berkeley. He served two terms as Chairperson of KPA (19951998 and 1999-2002). He thanks his KPA colleagues, Usep Setiawan, Idham Arsyad, Dede
Shineba, and Dewi Kartika for their efforts, as well as Laksmi Savitri, Mohamad Shohib,
Adriana, and Ann Hawkins, for their feedback. Judith Mayer translated and adapted this
article for Inside Indonesia.

Inside Indonesia 98: Oct-Dec 2009

Soil Health Has Its Benefits

Posted on December 9, 2015

Better understanding of soil organic matter can help improve soybean

production
Farmers know the value of their soil. And organic matter is a key piece of a soil
profile that farmers are working to protect. But when various industries,
researchers, organizations and agencies differ in their opinions about what
elements should be included in soil organic matter (SOM), it can be a daunting
task.
But all parties can agree that SOM is very complex, deserves attention and is one
of the least understood components of soils. Researchers point out that it has been
directly and positively related to soil fertility and agricultural productivity
potential.
The Soil Science Society of America defines SOM as the organic fraction of soil
after removing undecomposed plant and animal residues. In most agricultural soils,
organic matter is increased by leaving residue on the soil surface, rotating crops
with pasture or perennials, incorporating cover crops into the cropping rotation, or
by adding organic residues such as animal manure.
Pieces of the puzzle
Jodi DeJong-Hughes, University of Minnesota Extension educator, has dedicated a
lot of time and effort to researching and educating about soils. As she points out
when speaking with farmers, SOM is a complicated puzzle.
Soil organic matter improves the structure of the soil, which ultimately aids in
water infiltration, water retention, bulk density of soil, defense against compaction
damage and reduces the potential for erosion by wind or water, she says.
DeJong-Hughes says there are a lot of things going on in the soil that cannot be
seen or measured, but, out of sight is not out of mind.
Organic matter is also known to hold nutrients in the soil better so they dont leach.

Building soil health is so important, and probably every farmer could improve the
health of their soil, DeJong-Hughes said. Lots of farmers are really up on
equipment technology or corn and soybean hybrids, but soil is still fairly unknown
to us. Were just hitting the tip of the iceberg in what the soil does and can do for
us.
Cover crops and soil organic matter
DeJong-Hughes has also worked closely with Abbey Wick, Ph.D., North Dakota
State University Extension assistant professor of soil health, a big proponent
of cover cropping. She points out that using a cover crop mix can increase organic
matter through root turnover in the soil. This can ultimately lead to taking
inorganic forms of nutrients that can leach and turning them back into an organic
form that can be retained for the following year.
The Conservation Technology Information Center, with funding from Sustainable
Agriculture Research and Education, has done several cover crop surveys the past
couple years, says Wick. They are finding that soybean yields can be increased
by an average of 2.19 bushels per acre, or 4.2 percent, following a cover crop.
But reasons for utilizing cover crops on ones farm are different for every farmer.
Wick says that even with this data, most farmers are using cover crops for other
reasons besides boosting yields, like erosion control, for example. And while cover
crops do have their benefits, it would be nave to say there are not any
disadvantages. Some of the downsides she points out include time for
establishment, herbicide residual and the learning curve to figure out cover crops
and how to incorporate them.
Other than those, I have not seen a whole lot of disadvantages to using cover
crops, Wick said.
Farmers know that how they farm has an effect on their soil and how much SOM is
present in their fields. Thats why the Minnesota Soybean Research & Promotion
Council, the soy checkoff board in Minnesota, has funded research and efforts to
learn more about soil health and management. The council knows a focus on
healthy soil means cleaner water, a better use of nutrients and ultimately a healthier
and more profitable soybean crop.
Courtesy Minnesota Soybean Research & Promotion Council
Tips to Improve Your Soil Organic Matter
1. Use reduced-tillage techniques, including no-till, strip-till or ridge-till. Leave
as much residue as possible on the soil surface.

2. Apply livestock manure or incorporate cover crops. Adding organic residue

to the soil surface can restock needed carbon to the soil.
3. Include perennial or companion crops into rotation. These will increase
organic matter content over time, reduce pest and disease pressure, reduce fertilizer
inputs and help control erosion. Crop rotations can include perennial grasses and
legumes.
4. Carefully manage fertilization and soil nutrients. This will affect the soil
microbial community, ultimately increasing production of plant biomass to serve as
a microbial food source. There is still no clear answer to how fertilization affects
SOM levels since vegetation, soil type, climate and the type of SOM present are
also factors that must be considered.
Benefits of Improving Soil Organic Matter
1. Get into the field sooner after rainfall
2. Less plant stress during the dry months
3. Break up pest cycles
4. Potential for higher nitrogen mineralization
5. Less compaction
6. Less erosion
7. Less fuel, labor and parts costs
8. Soil and nutrients stay in field with less leaching or erosion
Remember: Soil health is specific to soil type and geography.