Indigenous People of Kalimantan: Who are they?
It is widely argued that the Dayak should be considered the indigenous people of Kalimantan. The term ‘Dayak’ refers collectively to non Muslim or non Malay natives of Borneo in general (King, 1993). The term ‘Dayak’ appeared at the end of the nineteenth century, in the context of the imposition of Dutch colonial rule over the tribes residing in the interior regions of Borneo (Rousseau, 1990). The meaning of ‘Dayak’ itself is debatable. Commans (1987) for instance, notes that according to some authors Dayak means human being, while others argue that ‘Dayak’ means interior. Commans suggests that the most appropriate meaning is people who reside in the upper course of a river (Commans, ibid:6). In a similar vein, Lahajir et al. report that the Iban people use the term Dayak to mean human being, while the Tunjung and Benuaq use it to refer it to the upper course of a river (1993:4).
The island of Borneo is home to more than 400 tribes including the Iban, Kayan, Molah, Kendayan, Kenyah, Punan, Benuaq, Tunjung, Ngaju and Dusun, each with its own language and customs (King, 1993:29). There are similarities among the Dayak, except that the Punan have been wanderers, in terms of residing in longhouses, the use of knives and blowpipes, the production of rattan basketry, the use of ceramics in rituals, shifting cultivation, and the performance of dance in rituals (Ukur, 1991; Widjono, 1998). In East Kalimantan, the Dayak consist of twelve major sub tribes: Tunjung, Kenyah, Punan, Bahau Sa, Bahau Busang, Benuaq, Bentian, Kayan, Lundayeh, Modang, Krayan and Penihing. According to several informants, the Tunjung Dayak have occupied certain areas, which are mostly in the West Kutai district.
Classical anthropological literature tends to portray the Dayak as an exotic and unique group of people, characterized by head hunting, longhouse dwelling, animism, and a nomadic life style. This presentation of the Dayak as an isolated, untouched and change resistant ‘other’ in contrast to European man, the supposed active agent of history, can be clearly seen in but is by no means limited to, the writings of the colonial era (Millun, 1994).
The most popular image of Borneo has been that of headhunting. Bock’s publication, The Headhunters of Borneo published in English in 1881, contributed significantly to the production of the ‘headhunter’ image (Saunders, 1993:23). Another key feature of Dayak society, according to many anthropological accounts, is to be found in their distinctive residential patterns. Most ethnographic studies of the Dayak focus in particular on the longhouse, not only as a distinctive architectural form but as manifesting a structure of social relations that is, it is often implied, unique to the Dayak (Geddes, 1968:30; and Furness, 1902:1). The longhouse facilitates the system of labour cooperation (Geddes, 1968:30-32).
The longhouse came to be viewed as a key to understanding important aspects of Dayak society through the study of its architecture, and kinship relations, and social relations. The longhouse is also important in understanding social relations. Lebar, for instance, looks at the positioning of the chief of the longhouse and other longhouse members in order to understand a wider system of social relations. Many emphasize the existence of a chief of the longhouse (Miller, 1946; Lebar, 1972:171; Conley, 1973; King, 1985; and Whittier, 1978).
Unlike other Dayaks, the Punan do not live in longhouses but are nomadic forest dwellers (Hoffman, 1952; Lebar, 1972; King, 1985; Rousseau, 1990; Sellato, 1994; etc) The nomadic groups, who live in the forest, do not stay in one place for long periods, but move from one place to another, sheltering in camps in the primary forest, that is, forest which has not been opened up for cultivation (Hoffman, 1952).
The distinctive social and political organizations are often related to the Dayak uniqueness. Conley, for instance, identifies the system of villages, chiefs, councils, minor officials, and longhouse headmen as the key features of Kenyah political organisation (1973). He notes that the village is the basic unit of social and political organisation of the Kenyah, but there is also a strong sense of identity with Kenyah in one or two other villages of the same ‘lepo’ or ‘uma’ tribal division (1973:165). Conley argues that the political control of the paramount chief in Long Nawang over all villages is unstructured and symbolic, the village itself functioning as ‘a complete and autonomous unit’ (1973:165). The chief is responsible for the people’s welfare and prosperity and has authority over the headmen of the longhouses. He represents the people in every issue dealing with the government, or in inter village affairs (Conley, 1973:166). However, there is a lot of variation in socio-political organisation among the Dayak.
In terms of economic activities, a common point of departure in studies of the Dayak economy is their practice of shifting cultivation (Lebar, 1972; King, 1985; Conley, 1973; etc.). Lebar notes that Kenyah-Kayan-Kayang subsistence is predominantly reliant upon the shifting cultivation of the staple rice crop. Likewise, Freeman notes that indigenous hill people, like the Land Dayak, the Iban, the Kayan, the Kenyah, the Kajang all have a subsistence economy, based on the shifting cultivation of dry rice (1960:65). Freeman further reports that the bilek family, residing in a single longhouse apartment, is economically independent, fulfilling their own subsistence through the shifting cultivation of hill rice and other crops (Freeman, 1960:66). According to Freeman the longhouse has no collective ownership rights over the swidden, and thus the longhouse community is not a corporate economic group (1960:69). Similarly, Conley notes that each family of Kenyah cultivates rice in the ladang through swidden agriculture, ideally on heavily forested hillsides (1973:217). Each family has its own land, and the right to use the land. The rule is that when forest is cleared and as long as the family keeps working it, it has rights over this land (Conley, 1973:218). Related families make their ladang alongside each other. The borders of neighbouring fields are marked by large trees felled to mark their edges. He further notes that the preparation of ladang is hard and dangerous work but planting rice seeds is ‘a gala occasion’ when men and women dress up in their best clothing and colourful traditional sunhats (ibid:219). Following a gender division of labour, men make a hole about one and a half inches deep, whilst women with small baskets of seed rice, follow the men, dropping about three or four grains into each hole (ibid: 220-221).
However, the Dayak cannot be identified solely by reference to their economic activities. Among the Punan Dayak, as we have seen, hunting and gathering are the main economic activities, except for the settled Punan who grow rice (Lebar, 1972:178). Hoffman points out that the settled Punan are economically comparable in their use of swidden to other Dayak (1988:96). However, Punan forest dwellers did not engage in agriculture, but were hunters and gatherers (Dove, 1988:10). Lebar reports that for forest dwelling Punan the staple food is not rice, but sago palm (1972:178). Presently, there is an increasing number of Dayak who engage in different types of economic activities, such as waged work for small scale enterprises and large logging companies. They cannot depend solely upon a traditional way of living, like shifting cultivation or hunting and gathering. Rubber estates and palm oil plantations, for instance, have also developed into alternatives in certain regions like in the West Kutai district.
The Vulnerable Position of Forest Villagers
Forests are central to the economic livelihoods of the societies surrounding them. In Indonesia, the government often treats the indigenous people or forest villagers living in and close to the forests in the outer islands (like the Dayak of Kalimantan) as if they do not exist. One should not ignore the role of national influence in such processes. Often, this is related to the idea of ‘primitiveness’ or ‘backwardness’ and its association in the case of the Dayak with cultural practices such as headhunting, hunting and gathering and living communally in longhouses. Similar treatment has been meted out to many other indigenous people or the ’sons of the soil’ like the West Papuans etc. In many ways the framework for the identification of the Dayak as primitive, is linked to the conceptualisation of the Dayak (and in fact all Indonesians during the colonial period) as the ‘other’. The New Order government in many ways continued the colonial evaluation of the ‘primitive’ Dayak, only this time as the ‘other’ to its Javanese centric self. This sort of view has affected the way in which the government pursued ‘economic development’ through exploitation of forests and forest by products whilst ignoring the long term inhabitants of those areas.
We can see that the New Order government has operated with many parallel assumptions to those evident in the supposed European superiority (Millun, 1994) and its civilising project to ‘modernise’ a ‘primitive’ group of people going as far as their resettlement. The nation state’s ability to represent its people and determine their lives can result in a situation whereby the ways of living engaged in by relatively powerless local people can be designed by the state. Resettlement is clearly a case in point. Ave and King (1986) highlight this point in their study of the resettlement of the Dayak which is much the same as of other groups targeted for resettlement. They note how government settlement programs aimed at permanently settling the Dayak in particular places, by giving them houses and land, draw on images of the ‘uncivilized’ semi nomadic lifestyle of the Dayak. For example, ‘primitive’ behaviour such as ‘uncivilized’ dress, attachment to animist beliefs, and a lack of education were seen as barriers to the state’s construction of Indonesia as a ‘modern’ nation. Such programs conducted through the Department of Social Affairs are in many respects similar to the Dutch colonial policy of forced resettlement in other parts of Indonesia. Schrauwers outlines the colonial policy which forced the highlanders of Sulawesi to resettle to ‘the few alluvial plains suitable for wet-rice agriculture’ from 1906 to 1908 (1998: 219). Like the Indonesian government, in Sarawak, East Malaysia, in order to implement a policy on modernization and integration of tribal people, the Malaysian government has attempted to ‘civilize’ the Penan who have been residing in the surrounding forests. Around 9,000 out of the 9,500 Penan who reside in Sarawak, have been resettled by the government although the government considers them only as semi settlers in those camps. (http://forests.org/archive/indomalay/malbasic.htm*, The Global Fight to Save Sarawak Tropical Rainforests).
Critics observe that behind the civilizing and modernizing rationale given to support resettlement, there is often a direct link between the removal of indigenous people and the exploitation of the natural resources. In postcolonial settings, the process of resettlement is often expressed in terms of national development. Here the ‘development’ of ‘backward’ groups is bound to the logic of national development and the impulse to exploit natural resources for this cause. For this reason, indigenous people are often relocated to areas deemed suitable for settled farming. In such a way, they can then ‘develop’ their own economic activities (as settled farming is seen as being more developed and having greater potential to link up to national and international markets than subsistence or swidden agriculture), while other parties ‘develop’ the natural resources of the interior. King argues that the main aim of resettlement in Kalimantan has been to eradicate shifting cultivation and also to remove people from areas ‘valuable in timber and mineral resources’ (1993:287). Kahn notes that in relation to indigenous people the new global economy needs their land and resources, not their labour (1995:145). In a similar vein, citing Robert Rice, Samego reports that the New Order government’s economic ideology to control land and natural resources was the ideology of both the Sukarno and the Netherlands East Indies governments (1992:131).
In the Indonesian case, the Indonesian government faces a critical problem due to its long term implementation of a forest policy which is based on an outmoded perspective. Citing Poffenberger, Messerschmidt states that this ‘traditional’ perspective views the forest villagers ‘either as a threat to the resource, a cheap source of labour, or irrelevant’ (1993:36).
There are several criteria which are used to define an isolated society. Firstly, the group must share certain physical, social and cultural similarities and reside in a particular area. Such similarities typically include residing in small, scattered or nomadic groups surviving through hunting, gathering, and/or shifting cultivation (Direktorat Bina Masyarakat Terasing, 1996/1997). Reflecting the modernising ambitions of the postcolonial government, these isolated groups are seen to suffer from an unhealthy life style and improper housing, to have a simple traditional social structure, values system and technology and to lack access to development services (Direktorat Bina Masyarakat Terasing, 1996/1997:2-3).
It is typically argued that their backward way of life is evidenced by their wearing of ‘traditional clothes’, living in and off the forest, and residing in caves or trees. Appell (1985b) reports the extraordinary response of Indonesians to indigenous people of Kalimantan who wear loincloths:
In the early days of the resettlement area, we were told that all the males were made to line up by the Javanese resettlement workers, and their loincloths were stripped off, thrown in a barrel, and they were handed shorts. One man who persisted in wearing his native dress was made to stand outside in the sun all day to “dry out” (Appell, 1985b:26).
For these non indigenous people, the loincloth was a symbol of savagery and backwardness. This view echoes earlier colonial views of the Dayak of Borneo as savage, fearsome people with tails. Djuweng (1996) sees this as evidence that non Dayak Indonesians as well as some Dayaks imitate colonial European assessments of the Dayak. In a similar vein, Appell notes that new postcolonial elites have largely accepted the colonialists’ view that ‘the rural traditional populations of their countries are backward, unsophisticated, dirty, savage’ (1991:29).
The issue of forced settlement is also linked to accusations that the Dayak destroy the forest through their practice of slash and burn agriculture. However, it should be noted that the government’s assessment of the facts here is somewhat questionable given that the New Order government encouraged timber companies to destroy the forest while at the same time resettling the Dayak into compounds.
The indigenous people may not always maintain silence in the face of state action against them. In East Kalimantan, Inoeu (1994) notes that there have been three forestry revolutions — 1970s Logging, 1980s Plywood, and 1990s Tree Plantation. The implementation of these kinds of policies does not question the economic contribution to the national economy, but does lead to conflict, including land disputes due to bureaucratic ignorance concerning the indigenous people living nearby or in the forests. Conflicts arose around governmental exploitation of the forest for economic gain in pursuit of the above development strategies. During the New Order government, the Dayak had clearly been marginalized by ‘development’ projects, involving the forest policies taken up by the government. As mentioned previously, the first and foremost problem being forest exploitation including the concessions given to the logging industry.
By the 1980s the golden age of logging was over. Since then we have seen the expansion of large scale plantations for export crops. These have had drastic implications for the Dayak. It is known that the Dayak rely on forest products, such as honey, eaglewood (gaharu), and rattan. They now face problems in maintaining their traditional livelihoods. Logging concessions and timber estates have led to the expulsion of the Dayak from their lands and their environment has been destroyed.
Indigenous people of Sarawak share similar experiences. Roos (1999) reports that since 1987, protests against large scale logging and implementation of oil palm plantations by the local people has been widespread in Sarawak. Large scale logging and oil palm plantations have been accused of threatening the very basis of the existence of forest peoples. Native customary rights of forest people in Sarawak continue to be ignored. Roos argues that the rights of the people in and around the forests should be respected otherwise sustainable forest management will be far from reality.
In Sarawak, between October 1996 and December 1997 there were many arrests of indigenous people in 8 different areas. A sad event occurred in December 1997 when one Iban was killed by police who opened fire on unarmed indigenous people protesting the takeover of their lands by oil palm plantations (Roos, 1999).
Governments and large organizations often are reluctant to use the term ‘indigenous people’, which may be due to the connotations of original rights, to land, mutual respect, etc. (Kampe, 1997:3-4). Eriksen reports:
Indigenous peoples stand in a potentially conflictual relationship to the nation-state as an institution. Their main political project is often presented as an attempt to survive as a culture-bearing group, but they rarely or never envision the formation of their own nationstate. They are non-state people (1993:126).
Eriksen stresses that:
Potential conflicts between indigenous groups and the nation state are activated when the majority wishes to control resources – ecological, economic or human – in the territory of the indigenous population (1993:129).
These conflicts often encourage the rise of middlemen or brokers who mediate between indigenous people and the institutions of the nation state. Such brokers are not necessarily newcomers; they often already exist in the system through their roles as patrons in local patron client relationships. To an extent, these elite locals are attempting to displace other authorised non local voices, such as local government officials, who in the past spoke on the indigenous people’s behalf. The local indigenous people prefer to rely on people already known to them in order to negotiate with the unfamiliar and unknown agents of the state.
The rise of indigenous leaders as brokers in dealing with conflicts between the indigenous people and the state over the rights to resources, specifically land, is well known (Eriksen, 1993:126). Citing Feit’s study of the Cree Indian confrontation with the Canadian government over land earmarked for a hydroelectric scheme highlights the very difficult political situation facing ’stateless people’ (ibid). Cultural brokers often act as negotiators between indigenous groups, the state and international society (ibid:127), a role which also helps them to achieve political power (Roosens, 1989).
Apart from the marginalisation of indigenous people, environmental degradation has become a grave consequence of forest exploitation. International concerns about environmental degradation are being voiced more and more strongly. Additionally, there are many other factors at work like legal and illegal logging that may cause the destruction of forests. Indonesian newspapers have reported on the reluctance of big businesses to replant trees after being granted concession rights. Illegal loggers were even worse offenders than legal loggers since such people do not have a sense of responsibility to engage in reforestation. Wijaksana (2001) reports that every year the destruction of forests through illegal logging reaches around 60 million cubic metres. Annually, the government has lost approximately Rp 30 trillion (US$3 billion) at the average price of Rp 500 thousand (US$ 50) per cubic metre (ibid:17). Tanjung notes that Indonesia has only 55 million hectares of forest left from 120 million hectares previously and it is predicted that in the next twenty 20 years this forest may disappear due to high illegal logging.
The government and the local people have quite different perspectives on the meaning and the purpose of the forest. According to Kadok, conflicts occur when the government hands over the management of the forest to private companies (1995:18-19). The tension between the local residents and the companies has been widely reported by local non government organizations. Kadok states that these companies often do not respect local traditions and proceed to cut down local community fruit gardens, disrupt ancient cemeteries, and cultivate communal land. Widjono (1998) argues that the Dayak are familiar with land tenure. Lamis (1992) also provides an example of the existence of the customary law of the ‘tana ulen’ belonging to the Kenyah Dayak which classifies things as either private or common property. The result of such conflicts, especially between companies and local people, is that locals are often accused of destroying the forest or of rejecting development projects (Kadok, 1995:19).
This problem is compounded by the tendency to place the blame for many of the problems on swidden cultivators. Swidden cultivators were not only widely blamed for their use of slash and burn methods but also for the loss of crops and land borders. For instance, people often lay the blame for regular forest fires on the Dayak practice of shifting cultivation.
However, there is some evidence that the government is changing in terms of accusing specific actors of damage to the forests. In this case, the local users, swidden cultivators or the people who live in and around the forests are not always being blamed for the forests’ destruction. Messerschmidt (1993) argues that the local forest users are knowledgeable and have a comprehensive understanding of the resources and their management. Based on studies in Nepal, India and Indonesia, he insists that local forest users should be involved in the forest management policy. Based upon research in Indonesia, Messerschmidt says:
…Villagers were highly knowledgeable and that the systems of forest use and management which had been developed by local initiative demonstrated highly sophisticated understandings about the complex functions of the forest, including its hydrological roles, its microclimates, its soils, and its productive capacities… (1993:41- 42).
Likewise, many studies have found that the Dayak (being local users) method of shifting cultivation is sensible with a sound ecological base (Widjono 1998). In the case of forest fires, in early 1998, there was support for the Dayak, including from the former Minister of Environment, Sarwono, who stated that the Dayak were not to be blamed. Instead, he said, large companies who run plantations and use fire to clear land should be blamed for the forest fires of 1997 and early 1998. The process of suing the big companies has been very slow. This indicates that the companies have elite backing or are owned by the elite so are often legally untouchable. In turn, this inequity irritates the locals who are often held responsible for the fires.
Towards the Rising Power of the Indigenous People
In Indonesia, during the New Order government period, the exploitation of forests was dominated by the cronies (friends and families of people in businesses and in power). Ross (2001) argues that they had basically taken over the power of the regional and local officials in issuing the concessions with the latter now only issuing the smaller concessions. This Law undermined the adat rights as well. The marginalization of the local community in relation to forestry not only occurs in Indonesia, but also in other countries like Cambodia (Bottomley, 2002).
The opening window of opportunity for local participation came into existence especially following the instalment of the Ministry of Forestry decrees No.677/KPTS-II/1998 on the community forests (hutan kemasyarakatan) and No 310, 1999 on the direction of providing the right for collecting forest products (HPHH – Hak Pemungutan Hasil Hutan) (Suramenggala, et al. 2001) and the regional autonomy. The forestry related enterprises have been carried out by different parties. The HPH, which mostly exploited larger areas, has been dominated by the business groups previously associated with the New Order power. Meanwhile, the new regulations mentioned above have expanded the parties involved in forestry, including local people and the small scale businessmen. Suramenggala et al. (2001) report the complexity of the forestry related enterprises in relation to the instalment of the new regulations. They pinpoint that the new regulations were partly to bolster the local people’s economic improvement by being able to participate in the forestry related businesses. In reality, the local community (masyarakat adat) who own the customary land (tanah adat) mostly have not performed the job, but they have given the opportunity to the businessmen. In return, they receive fees, ranging from 20-45,000/m3 depending on their ability to negotiate with the businessmen (ibid.). They also report that there are often differences between one village and another in terms of receiving fees for particular reasons, especially the ability to bargain and the transparency of the head of a village and traditional leaders. It often happens that the companies only give the fees to the heads of villages and traditional leaders in order to reduce the costs of production.
According to a Dutch observer, in the 1920s, the forests of Kalimantan were controlled by an array of groups, including the local people, chiefs of native jurisdictions, local Europeans, native civil servants, heads of the regional administrations and self governments (Ross, 2001). It seems that the recent situation is not a new phenomenon where local people own the forests and the local government controls them. Even before the instalment of the Forestry Basic Law, the local government had been more free to control the forest (ibid.).
The instalment of the regulation to allow the heads of districts – kabupaten to put in place their own decrees on forestry was withdrawn by the Ministry of Forestry for certain reasons. Syamsir (2002) notes that the General Secretary of The Department of Forestry, argues that the withdrawing of such a decree is due to the forestry restructuring because the realization of the Ministry of Forestry decree No. 05.1/Kpts-II/2000 brought about the overlapping of logging concessions. According to the official, this is also to fulfil the demand for protecting the forests. In addition, this decree has created problems for companies which hold logging concessions. There have been many such cases: the local government does not recognise the logging concessions issued by the central government; the launching of logging concessions issued at the provincial level has not been discussed with the central government; and the regulations on levies and responsibilities issued by the local government without discussion with the central government (ibid.). Apart from the above issues, the issue of the ineffectiveness of local government in forest protection and the downturn of the market demand for logs have also become parts of the above considerations. Syamsir notes that many districts have ignored the withdrawal of such regulations partly because they have issued several licences.
Suramenggala et al. (2001) find in their studies in the Bulungan district of East Kalimantan, that the newly installed IPPK has given more profit to the local people instead of to the larger logging concessions (known as HPH) launched during the New Order government period. They also report that there are many different conflicts that involve different parties, including the local people, the heads of villages and traditional leaders, the IPPK companies and HPH companies. To mention one, in several villages in the Bulungan district, the IPPK’s company has asked the local community to get rid of the military who have protected the area of the HPH that utilizes the customary land (tanah adat masyarakat). (ibid.).
In addition, the demand for customary land to be returned to local people has become greater day by day in many districts after the debut of regional autonomy. Power relations are obviously important in the process of gaining access to natural resources. In the past, indigenous people or forest villagers did not have power to control natural resources surrounding them, but today in Indonesia with the debut of regional autonomy, the government needs to consider them, otherwise its policy may not be effective. Haba (2002), for instance, notes that the issue of putera daerah (including indigenous people) is significant within the context of regional autonomy. In this context, it seems that the participation of indigenous people could determine the success of the development in their region. However, I am aware that the issues surrounding the regional autonomy need to be investigated further.
Today, the image of the Dayak as culturally distinctive is a powerful one. This image is strengthened in the era of regional autonomy, which in turn is illustrated by the revitalisation of ‘Dayak traditions’, especially in dealing with land ownership and forestry. Regional autonomy has presented the Dayak with a new opportunity to regain their ‘missing’ lands and forests. The local government at the district level has often discussed modes by which to empower the local people to get access to ‘their lands and forests’. It has attempted to write a regulation on forest management, which also emphasises the ‘hutan adat’ (customary forests) and intends to facilitate the possibility for the local people (the Dayak) to access the forests surrounding them. The ability of the local government to provide licences to local businessmen does not always go smoothly because forests are still important sources of money. A negative perspective can often be observed. For instance, Soekanto clearly notes, ‘In Irian Jaya and East Kalimantan, district administrations have issued bylaws which have allowed them to over exploit forests to boost revenues’ (2001:11). Tanjung reports that during a workshop on illegal logging in Pekanbaru, the Minister of Forestry argued that regional autonomy has partly resulted in the process of forest reduction. His argument was based on the prediction that the governors and the heads of districts (regents) could issue licences for forest exploitation to timber traders (cukong kayu) which in turn would impact on the destruction of forests. He further argued that there is a possibility of involvement amongst the apparatuses of the Forestry Office, the Police and the Military which in turn would cause difficulties in handling such issues.
Haba et al. (2003), based on their research on illegal logging in Central Kalimantan, also find conflicts amongst the stakeholders, including the government, local people, and businessmen. Furthermore, they report that there are many factors behind the illegal logging, especially the overlapping of regulations in the forestry, space and its use, land ownership and entitlement to doing business, and the marginalization of local people (ibid:134). They also report that the mushrooming of illegal logging partly relates to the opening of a window of opportunity for the local people to get access to forests. For a long time, their rights were undermined, while logging companies which are owned by non locals, have been given the authority to exploit the forests (ibid:138).
The process of regaining the forest land may already be realised since the local governments in certain districts, which are generally ruled by the Dayak, understand Dayak traditions. They, therefore, have called many competent people (including scholars and traditional leaders) to research and make evident Dayak customary laws. The Dayak are relearning their traditional cultures, which were degraded by development, especially during the New Order era.
The Dayak have experienced some changes in relation to land ownership and land use. They were dispossessed of their lands and forests for a long time, especially under the New Order government, which has profoundly affected the lifestyle of the Dayak. There has been a series of land disputes between big business and the local people. There are still some unresolved problems today.
However, for the Dayak, recent legislative changes have constituted an opportunity for them to regain their rights and as a result, the Dayak as a group, have become stronger. This is primarily due to the fact that the Dayak have been able to utilise their ‘traditional’ customary law in terms of land ownership, an institution that was severely weakened under the previous government. This revitalization of their customary law and land ownership is well under way.
From the explanation, it is therefore very important to understand to what extent the indigenous people in East Kalimantan have become involved and gained economic benefits from the forestry sector both in the past and at the present time.
Taken from : http://www.adbi.org
