Rendering land tenure and conflict resolutions:
A case study in West Kalimantan
(Session 2a)
Dianto Bachriadi, Ph.D

Background
🔘 Around 120 thousand ha of peatland areas, which cover 16
Peatland Hydrology Units (KHG), in West Kalimantan are
targeted as peatland restoration areas (see upper map).
🔘 In 2018-2019, in the east-side of Sambas Peat Dome Area
(‘Kawasan Kubah Gambut Sambas’), BRG worked in 6 villages
in Sekurak Sub-district through the Desa Peduli Gambut (Peat
Care Village) Program: several activities such as rewetting and
community organizing were implemented.
🔘 Formally, based on the Forestry Ministerial Decree (‘SK
Penunjukan Kawasan Hutan Provinsi Kalbar’), almost all areas
of ‘Kawasan Kubah Gambut Sambas’ are designated as part of
the production forest, and in 2007 the Ministry of Forestry
provided an industrial forest concession to PT BMH to build a
wood plantation (‘HTI’).
🔘 In 2010, local government built medium canals on the west
side of the Sambas peatland area to dry the area in order to
develop local infrastructures (: roads) and agricultural lands.
Part of this canals project is a long canal in Sarang Burung
Kolam Villages, which was deeply cut through inside the area
of deep peat swamp in the neighbor village namely Lela
Village. In fact, the canals project in 2010 had drained the
Sambas peatland area including the deep pet swamp (: the
Peat Dome Area).
🔘 In 2014, a big fire occurred within the middle-west part of
Sambas KHG area, mostly occurred in the working area of PT
BMH (see below map).

The contestation on peatland & forest land use and function

Social Forestry scheme (‘Perhutanan Sosial’): A panacea or temporary
solution?
🔘 In 2018, under the assistance of BRG’s local facilitator, groups of people in the 6 villages of DPG program
submitted applications for social forestry program (’Perhutanan Sosial’) to the MoF either for Village Forest
Management (Hutan Desa) or Community Forest (Hutan Kemasyarakatan).
🔘 In the mid of 2020, the MoF agreed to provide Social Forestry Permits (?)
🔘 However, following the social forestry submission, since the 2018, groups of local farmers have already
created land management plots to their members including within the peatland area either located inside
or outside the submitted PS areas.
🔘 By the end of 2019, the BRG had ended its program in Sekurak Sub-district.
🔘 For local people and local forestry authority, PS is a win-win solution to resolve land contestation and
conflict over the forestry area in Sambas.
🔘 Question 1: Could the PS be a sustainable program to support peat restoration or just open a new way of
transformation of the peatland areas with certain ecological functions into non-peat land function and
purposes?
🔘 Question 2: How will we assist local people to implement the PS as a kind of sustainable forest
management?
🔘 Question 3: In case of the Sambas peatland area, due to the implementation of PS is only in the 6 villages at
the east side of the Peat Dome Area, how about the other areas, which is the west-side area? How to bring
local people to involve in the restoration program?

Concluding Remarks
🔘 The peatland restoration is a winding process with uncertain results, especially in the dried peatland, in
which some areas have already used by local people and others for various purposes.
🔘 A careful designation of targeted restoration program is necessary.
🔘 Creation of the Criteria and Indicators (C-I) for sustainable restoration program should cover a re-mapping
of the targeted areas geographically and socially.
🔘 Economic and social indicators should recognize the current use of peatland areas and touch any forestry
programs implemented within the areas.
🔘 These criteria and indicators of peatland restoration should encourage local people to involve in
maintaining the peatland restoration, but not to restrict much of their current social-economic activities for
livelihood. Otherwise, it will generate a new local unrest and resistance.

Thank you