WORLD RAINFOREST MOVEMENT
________________________________________________________________
INDONESIA: WORLD BANK ADMITS TO TRANSMIGRATION PROBLEMS
*Recent World Bank reviews of its first Transmigration projects,
by which people were resettled from Indonesia's inner islands,
to the less densely populated parts of the archipelago, reveal
that they have had a shattering impact on indigenous peoples. But
because the projects are 'closed', Bank management is refusing
to do anything to remedy the problems.*
The reviews, carried out on the first five of the Bank's
Transmigration projects between 1976 and 1988, show that many of
the criticisms of the World Bank's support of Transmigration,
voiced by NGOs in the mid-1980s, were entirely justified.
Transmigration projects, especially those promoting dry land
farming, were of little economic benefit to Transmigrants, they
contributed significantly to deforestation, were damaging to
soils and hydrology, generated conflicts over land and other
resources and rode roughshod over the needs and rights of
indigenous peoples. They did so, notes the Bank, because these
issues were not considered important development criteria at the
time the projects were first formulated.
The most shocking finding for the Bank's staff, but long
signalled by NGOs like Survival International, was that the
Bank's projects in Sumatra had 'had [a] major negative and
probably irreversible impact' on the Kubu people, nomadic forest
dwellers relying on shifting cultivation, hunting and gathering
in the forests of southern Sumatra. The Bank audit notes that
'although the existence of the Kubu in the area has been
known since project planning, little effort has been made
to deal with their problems. While Bank regulations
requiring attention to indigenous people during appraisal
were only introduced in 1982, the issue should have been
raised in supervision missions.'
In fact, consultants to the Bank warned of the potential damage
its project would cause as early as 1985, but the Bank chose not
to act. During the mid-1980s a high profile international
campaign spearheaded by Survival International, Tapol and The
Ecologist had charged that Transmigration was violating
indigenous peoples' rights. The campaigners accused the Bank of
ignoring the fact that Indonesian land laws and policy were quite
contrary to the Bank's policy on indigenous peoples and that by
supporting Transmigration they were assisting in these peoples'
destruction. It was an accusation that Bank staff persistently
denied, but the new audit tells the lie. Indigenous peoples
wanting to maintain their chosen lifestyle, the studies now
admit, are 'completely in opposition to the policy of the
government'. Since they practise shifting cultivation and have
mobile residence patterns 'they fail to qualify for land
ownership because, under the Basic Agrarian Law of 1960, land
title can be granted only to those who cultivate dry land or
irrigated crops.'
The reviews note that 'urgent effort is now needed to assist the
Kubu to retain their traditional way of life' and recommend that
a substantial tract of the remaining forested land in the area
is set aside for their use, as had indeed been proposed in 1984.
Despite this advice from consultants and field staff, however,
the Bank's senior management and Board of Executive Directors
have chosen not to carry out remedial action. Overruling the
concerns of the Swiss and US delegates who backed the staff's
appeal to carry out a small project to help secure the Kubu's
future, the majority of Bank executive directors chose to accept
Indonesian government assurances that the Kubu would be
rehabilitated (IPS news feature 24 June 1994). This was despite
the reports' finding that the Government programme to assist the
Kubu has consisted of providing fixed settlements 'but few Kubu
have adapted to a settled way of life. Some have resorted to
begging at bus stations, wearing little more than a loin cloth,
and carrying a long hunting spear,but capitalising on the
considerable fear that Indonesians have of them.' Replying to a
letter from the World Rainforest Movement, sent to the Bank on
5 May querying what action the Bank now planned to secure the
Kubu a decent future, the Bank said it understood the Government
planned to 'create a National Park where they may continue to
live and practice their livelihood' and were 'considering
designating this Park as a 'Man and Biosphere Reserve''.
Although attention has focused on the impact on the Kubu, the
reviews found a number of other serious problems. Land tenure
issues have not been well dealt with in the project areas. Dayak
peoples in East Kalimantan have not been compensated for the
takeover of their lands, while only one third of the incoming
transmigrants who should all have acquired land deeds have in
fact received title.
The agricultural productivity in the transmigration sites has
also been disappointing, the Bank studies concluded, being
insufficient to maintain the settlements in economic terms.
However, the transmigrants themselves are on the whole happy with
their new settlements, because of improved schooling and clinics.
Because they have been able to find alternative sources of income
'off farm', most of the settlers were also materially better off
than before.
The reports highlight the continuing risks posed by planned
Transmigration plantation schemes. Land clearance during the Bank
projects had been carelessly executed contrary to the project
design, resulting in much soil damage and disruption of drainage,
but supervision missions had done little to correct these
implementation faults. Now the same project areas are being
further developed into large oil palm plantations by private
companies, with additional labour supplied through further
Transmigration. The reports warn that 'the uncontrolled land
clearing practices applied for plantation development as is
presently executed has the potential to cause long term
environmental damage'. These 'PIR-Trans' schemes will also
deprive the Kubu people of their last refuge, the report notes,
and as they are 'clearing the remaining forest which has provided
a livelihood for the Kubu'.
Most worrying for indigenous peoples in future Bank project areas
is the report's recognition that the main problem is not that the
Bank lacks standards to ensure socially and environmentally sound
development but that it does not observe them. Commenting on the
Bank's new guidelines on 'indigenous peoples', 'wildlands' and
the environment, the reports stress that they will be of 'no more
use than the old ones *unless the Bank makes all efforts to
ensure that they are strictly adhered to during project design
and implementation*' (original emphasis). The 'reports showed
clearly that there was only weak, or no follow-up of these
environmental considerations during project implementation. To
a great extent, therefore, the environmental damage which has
occurred was not as a result of ignorance but rather from
inattention, poor follow up and lack of accountability during
project implementation.'
Sources: World Bank, 'Indonesia Transmigration Program: a review
of five Bank-supported projects' April 26, 1994, 'Impact
Evaluation Report:Transmigration I, Transmigration II,
Transmigration III' March 22, 1994.
For more information: Marcus Colchester, Forest Peoples
Programme, 8 Chapel Row, Chadlington, OX7 3NA, England
Tel: 0608 676691 Fax: 0608 676743 email: wrm@gn.apc.org
1 July 1994
________________________________________________________________