Muhammad Reza Halomoan; Arya Hadi Dharmawan; Satyawan Sunito

Land Use Conflict in The Oil Palm Economy:

Case Study from Jambi, Indonesia
Outline
1. Background
2. Problem statement & Research objective
3. Methodology
4. Oil Palm Expansion in The Production Forest
Area
5. Land Conflicts in The Production Forest Area
6. Conclusion
Background
• Expansion of palm oil continues to occur due to high & rising global and local
market demand (McCarthy 2010; Sayer et al. 2012; Yu et al. 2021; Khatiwada et
al. 2021)

• Pressure on agricultural land and forests in many regions (Sheil et al. 2009;
Ramdani 2018; Dharmawan et al. 2020)

• Actors expand their oil palm plantations to meet demand, not only on industrial
plantations but also smallholders managed plantations (Gatto et al. 2015; Byerlee et
al. 2017; Ruml et al. 2022)
Problem Statement
• Oil palm silent expansion in the forest Area in Jambi (Yulian et al. 2020)
by replacing their rubber plants
• Illegal Activity (Law No.11 of 2020 about Cipta Kerja)
• Increasing the complexity of occurring conflicts

Research Objective
• Why do smallholders switch from rubber to oil palm?
• How has the oil palm expansion influenced agrarian dynamics in
Plantation Forest Area of Jambi?
Methods
Qualitative Method

Primary Data : In-depth interview, Focus group discussion,

Participant observations

Secondary Data : Archives, Documents, Maps etc.

Research Area
RT 7 and RT 8 (forest area)
Napal Putih Village
Tebo Regency
Jambi Province
History of Land Tenure in Forest Area in Napal Putih Village
 The reality of oil palm expansion in
forest areas by smallholders

Oil palm income is higher Oil palm production is

than rubber easier

Socio-culturally and Conflict potential is

ecologically integrated oil relatively small
palm production
Oil palm income is higher than rubber
• The community's forest rubber system has a high
probability of conversion (Ekadinata & Vincent 2011)

• Economic needs of the community remain unfulfilled

• Farmers are only able to generate a monthly income of 1.5

to 2 million rupiah per hectare from their rubber cultivation

• Compared to 2 to 3 million rupiah per month from oil palm

cultivation
Oil palm production is easier
• The biophysical conditions of the land make it easier to cultivate oil palm (Sayer
et al. 2012; Pramudya et al. 2018)

• Requires low production labor (no daily activities required)

• Resistant to disease
Socio-culturally and ecologically integrated oil
palm production
• Napal Putih is a transmigration village
• Oil palm is the main commodity
• Surrounded by oil palm plantations
• Middleman buy the FFB from the smallholders
• Easy access to seeds and fertilizer
Conflict potential is relatively small
• Horticultural crops cause conflict with wildlife
• Smallholders are worried that there will be claims of ownership
from “Orang Rimba” if they cultivate fruit trees
Social Forestry as solution for conflict and oil palm in the forest area
• Community based forest management (Zakaria et al. 2018; Erbaugh 2019)
• Empowering local communities, improving their well-being and environmental
outcomes, while reducing conflicts with concessions holder companies in the forest
area (Rakatama dan Pandit 2020; Moeliono et al. 2023)
• 12.7 million ha forest area allocated for social forestry program
• Adopted as a conflict solution in Napal Putih since 2019 through forestry partnership
scheme
• 2 forest farmer groups join the program
Social forestry’s meaning among communities

Socially Politically Economically socio-culturally

Provide a sense of Minimize conflicts Doesn't provide Rubber cultivation is

security in managing with the company enough economic no longer in line with
land incentives the surrounding area
Weaken the position Trigger conflict Banning oil palm Farmers are reluctant
of farmers towards among communities cultivation makes to re-adapt to rubber
the company social forestry less plants
attractive
Social Forestry : Access and Exclusion
• Provides access to farmer groups who want to join
• Exclude others who do not want to join
• Rejection of social forestry due to the prohibition of oil palm
• The majority of communities do not want to join and try to gain ownership
of land
• Creates dilemma among the community
Conclusion
• Local communities expand oil palm in forest areas due to higher
income opportunities, easiness plus socio-culturally and conflict
potential is relatively small
• Oil palm expansion adds complexity to the land claim conflicts
between community and concession holder company
• Social forestry as solution has difference meaning among community
• Still exclude the majority of the community

• The need arises to develop a better forest management which provides

economic benefits to the community and fosters sustainability