Development in Law and Practice: Two Autonomous Domains?
| Author | Irene I. Hadiprayitno |
| Position | Leiden University |
| Pages | 561-593 |
e Indonesian Journal of International & Comparative Law
ISSN: 2338-7602; E-ISSN: 2338-770X
http://www.ijil.org
© 2017 e Institute for Migrant Rights Press
DEVELOPMENT IN LAW AND PRACTICE
tWo aUtonoMoUS doMainS?
Irene I. Hadiprayitno
Leiden University
E-mail: irehadi@gmail.com
is article aims to bring into discussion the potential, and yet overlooked the
normative contribution of the internationally declared right to development to
address “development hazards” in domestic realities. Of particular interest is
the examination of the distinctive principles of resource control, participation
and distribution of benets and their use as tools to combat negative impacts of
a development project. For this purpose, the concept of “development hazards”
is dened and explored in order to establish an analytical framework for the
implementation of the right to development in national development process.
Using insights from the case of agricultural modernization in Merauke, Pap-
ua, realizing the right to development in practice would mean to understand
the dilemmas concerning development process, as much as issues of power and
agency that enable as essential in eorts to protect human dignity in develop-
ment processes.
Keywords: Law and development, Indonesia, agricultural law, law and anthropology,
human dignity, human rights law.
IV Indonesian Journal of International & Comparative Law 561-93 (July 2017)
562
Hadiprayitno
I. INTRODUCTION
In August 2010, Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate (MIFEE)
was launched in Jakarta, Indonesia, to develop a plantation of 1.2 mil-
lion hectares1 of cash crops and biofuel plantations in Merauke, Pap-
ua.2 With a powerful slogan “Feed Indonesia and Feed the World,” the
project aims for food security by increasing food production and safe-
guarding food availability.3 It will be done in stages starting from 2010-
14, 2015-19 and 2020-30.4
e project will focus on commercial and industrial plantations,
including palm oil, maize, rice, and timber estates. From 2005 to 2008,
the Ministry of Forestry approved the release of 360,000 ha of forests for
conversion to other land uses, mostly palm oil, for 32 company units.5
As of August 2011 the entire forest of the Zanegi village—one of many
traditional villages in Merauke—had been cut down. In the process,
the Marind people, the indigenous group inhabiting the village, no
longer have physical access to the animals they used to hunt and the
food they used to collect in their traditional forest, as these resources
no longer exist.6 Many also estimate that between 2-4 million workers
will be moved into Merauke, from Java and other islands in Indonesia,
to provide skilled labor for the MIFEE plantations, threatening the
rights and well-being of the Marind who number approximately
1. M A, G D P P
E S L (F E E) M, P, 3
(2010).
2. Papua is in this paper understood as the Land of Papua (Tanah Papua), which
now consists, in administrative terms, of Indonesian provinces of Papua and
West Papua.
3. E. Maulia, Indonesia Pledges to “Feed the World,” T J P (Jan. 30,
2010), available at http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/01/30/indone-
sia-pledges-feed-world039.html.
4. G I (GI). G P P
E S L. 3-4 (2010).
5. M F, S K [2008 forestry statistics]
(2008).
6. Author, R R Z V (July 15, 2011).
563
Current Social Obligations of Land Rights on Chinese State-Owned Land: Appendices
Hadiprayitno
52,000 persons.7 is massive inux of migrant workers would leave
“the aected indigenous peoples of Merauke with a profoundly
compromised future, severely diminished livelihood options and, given
that plant ations that are mono-crop require clearance of the forests and
other ecosystems on which indigenous peoples depend, the destruction
of their traditional economy, systems of livelihoods and consequently
their food security”.8
e expansion of commercial agricultural production to Papua can
partly be explained by how nance is organized in this region as compared
to other regions. In Indonesia, the decentralized governmental system
introduced in 2004 places local governments under nancial pressure
to fund the daily organizations of their regions, such as nancing public
infrastructure, social welfare or civil servant salaries. e status of the
special autonomy of Papua granted for 25 years and ending in 20269,
does ease some of the pressure as it comes with nancial supports from
Jakarta. However, changes are observably meager in Papua, and with
the way progress is observed, there are serious questions that may
follow the removal of nancial supports from Jakarta. In this context,
the idea of promoting the massive expansion of agricultural enterprises
into Papua has been argued as a logical process to replace the special
autonomy grant.10 Prots coming from the agricultural investment
could secure the nances for continuing the development process. If the
prots of such agricultural modernization will be organized according
to the provision regarding the distribution of benets from exploiting
natural resources, such as forest or peatland, according to the Special
Autonomy Law No. 21 of 2001, Papua will receive 80% of the funds.11
e tension between the negative impacts of agricultural
modernization on the indigenous peoples of Papua and the future
7. F P P, S W A M
A N, R C S I-
P M P I, 5-6 (2011).
8. Id. at 6-7.
9. Papua Special Law 2001 (Act No. 21 of 2001) Article 34.
10. M A, supra note 1, at 3.
11. More specic calculation is provided by: Kristof Obidzinski, et al. Can large
scale land acquisition for agro-development in Indonesia be managed sustain-
ably?, 30 L U P’ 956-57.
To continue reading
Request your trial