Marginalisation of Adat Communities: Intersectionality of Land Grabbing, Human Rights, Climate Adaptation, and Human Mobility in Indonesia

In recent years, the knowledge and experience of indigenous peoples and local communities have been recognised as necessary in understanding climate change issues; for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report 2022 talks of indigenous knowledge and science.¹ In fact, the IPCC report mentions tenure rights for indigenous and local communities, close to 58 times, hammering home the relevance and importance of indigenous communities.² For Indonesia, the normative framework for recognition and commitment to involving indigenous peoples is contained in Law No. 16 of 2016 concerning the Ratification of the Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Nationally Determined Contribution of 2022. Indonesia’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) 2022 mentions the role of indigenous peoples in addressing climate change, such as their use of non-timber products, social forestry, and conservation.³

So far though, the targets and achievements of various NDCs in mitigating the climate change problem are yet to show real progress. The United Nations Environment Programme notes that countries need to catch up on the realisation of NDCs. The gap in the NDCs is approximately three gigatons of CO₂ for unconditional NDCs and six gigatons of CO₂ for conditional NDCs for 2030, so further annual GHG emissions must be reduced by 45%.⁴ The World Economic Forum stated that the problem of climate change mitigation and adaptation will still be a severe risk in the next ten years.⁵ This risk comes from irreversible carbon dioxide concentrations on the planet and various other impacts such as ecosystem damage, a decline in ecosystem function, species extinction, and changes in hydrology.⁶

The complications and difficulties associated with solving climate problems require alternative solution windows/mitigation and adaptation alternatives, including from indigenous knowledge. Various conventions relating to the environment, climate, and indigenous peoples recognise and affirm the existence of indigenous knowledge. The Rio Declaration⁷ and the Biological Diversity Convention⁸ guarantee the implementation of the rights of indigenous peoples, affirming the Indigenous Peoples Conventions of 1989 and 2007.⁹ The Paris Agreement emphasises adapting indigenous knowledge in climate policy and socio-economic action..¹⁰ For the last few decades, studies and findings related to indigenous knowledge of the environment, known as Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), have developed as a typical ‘hot’ topic among social and natural scientists.¹¹ Even though TEK is intertwined with science in a system of ideas and practices, it is distinguished from belief, use in a specific context, locality, traditional methods, cultural context, and sustainability for certain indigenous groups.¹² In the Indonesian context, research on TEK is adopted according to the contextuality and system of each indigenous group, for example, TEK as TEK in Indonesia (communities in Tasik Chini and communities in Lawu),¹³ TEK as being associated with local wisdom (Tunjung and Bajau Dayak communities),¹⁴ and TEK as a knowledge system (Dayak in Danau Sentarum).¹⁵

Human mobility for indigenous communities can result in forced displacement and land eviction if done without considering social and economic situations. In human mobility studies, for example, adaptation and survival sometimes are far more rational preferences than migration, because people feel at home and are tied to the community and want to live close to friends and relatives¹⁶; also socio-economic factors can determine who stays and who goes.¹⁷ The issue of mobility then must be assessed, determined, and considered based on an appropriate approach to guarantee human rights. A study on rural migration for 218 households in Cambodia shows maladaptive events after moving locations, leading to poverty traps.¹⁸ Practically, migration limits must also be assessed and oriented based on four important questions starting from livelihood issues, adaptation objectives along with priority scale, mechanisms for determining how and under what conditions migration is carried out, and the consequences of implementing migration and distributed spending.¹⁹ In the case of hydro-dam constructions, for example, complex challenges associated with developing water/hydro-modern infrastructure need to reflect or quantify hydro-social rupture with its social and ecological consequences, including migration as a potential response.²⁰

This chapter reflects on insights from qualitative research focusing on indigenous peoples, known as the Adat community, in Indonesia through the intersection of indigenous knowledge, the environment, and climate change adaptation. Research is carried out through desk research, which analyses content from books, journal articles, proceedings, research reports, theses, dissertations, policy papers, law, policies, news, websites, Indonesian government reports, and reports.²¹ The Sedulur Sikep Community and the Rendu Community were chosen for the case study because these two communities are unique in describing the inter-relation and phenomena of climate change, indigenous people, and human mobility. They also represent marginalised groups pushed back by economic development, extreme weather and the violation of human rights. They can also use indigenous knowledge to survive climate change and pressure from external forces such as cement factories and dam construction. Case studies of the Sedulur Sikep community in Central Java and the Rendu community in East Nusa Tenggara (NTT) are employed to support two arguments. First, the case study explores the practicality of indigenous knowledge through the daily lives and way of life of indigenous people. The complexity of science and indigenous knowledge elements in TEK will not be presented, considering that the research only uses literature studies.²² For clarity of terms and scope, this chapter uses indigenous knowledge as a way of life in environmental preservation and sustainability, while maintaining identity in the process of adapting and developing.²³ Second, this case study reveals the extent to which the State guarantees the implementation of indigenous rights in the face of political and land recognition. Finally, human mobility is also in question, resulting from violations of the rights of indigenous people, problems of land tenure policies and land confiscation, and the impact of environmental change.

The chapter is divided into introduction, discussion, and conclusion. First, the introduction explains the reasons, arguments, and existence of indigenous knowledge as part of climate mitigation, adaptation solutions, and the dynamic of human mobility for indigenous people. Second, the problem of marginalisation of indigenous peoples is examined through the intersectionality of land grabbing, fulfilment of human rights, climate adaptation, and human mobility. The discussion then moves on to the importance of indigenous knowledge practices in the Sikep and Rendu communities, human rights violations, land grabbing, and national policies that create vulnerability for indigenous peoples. The conclusion reflects the discussion results and essential notes for indigenous knowledge and climate change research.

A case study is presented of the Sedulur Sikep people and the Rendu community with respect to their indigenous knowledge of sustainable environmental management. These two indigenous communities may not directly mention the climate narrative and its mitigation but could relate to protecting the ecosystem. Shiva mentions this condition as ‘original participation’, which emphasises the integral relationship of indigenous peoples with the world to represent the interests of living things.²⁴ This chapter focuses on the Sedulur Sikep Community in Baturejo Village, Sukolilo District, Pati Regency. For the Rendu Community, those in Nagekeo Regency and areas which rejected the Lambo Dam are selected.

The Sedulur Sikep community usually lives in parallel residential areas that tend to be close to each other and for those who live in Pati Regency, Bombong and Kudus villages are far away. The distance is only 8 kms or around 40 min by motor vehicle from the district capital of Pati Regency.²⁵ The natural environment around the area is mountainous, with rich karst geology and rice fields. In the Sedulur Sikep community, the teachings of the Adamic religion are behavioural and provide guidelines for life, while dealing with the environment and humans. Shiraishi calls Adam’s religion a journey (life), wherein wong sikep is also called sukma/life and symbolises the essence of all forms of life. Life can take various forms (tangibles), but all forms are divided into two: wong (humans) and clothing (food and clothing).²⁶ This belief reflects the Sedulur Sikep community in their daily actualisation as farmers.²⁷

The Rendu community lives in Rendu village, Aesesa Selatan District, Nagekeo Regency, and NTT. The distribution of the Rendu community is across several villages, namely Rendu Butowe, Ulupulu, Labolewa, and Rendu Ola, the oldest.²⁸ Based on the area, the Rendu community can also be called part of the Nagekeo people.²⁹ They are given abundant accessible natural wealth, such as fertile soil and rich natural resources, including various food crops, such as tubers, rice, and corn.³⁰ From the perspective of geographical conditions and natural potential, the Rendu community has many natural resources that must be appropriately utilised.³¹

The land has a real and deep connection embodying the knowledge, beliefs, and traditions of the Sedulur Sikep and Rendu communities. For the Sikep people, the land is a manifestation of Mother Earth, which must be cared for and maintained so that human life can be in harmony with nature.³² The Rendu community appreciates and respects the land symbolically and ritually through ceremonies such as the life cycle, clearing forests, planting, harvesting, and other activities.³³ A mark of ensuring respect for the land is the Rendu community’s belief that the inheritance from their ancestors must be maintained because the land is life.³⁴

Following the Sedulur Sikep thought process, as a consequence of this reverence for the land, farmers too are considered deeply important in protecting nature because it is farmers who can transform the wind, water, land, and wood while the State does not ‘create’ natural resources.³⁵ This condition proves that indigenous communities carry out improvisation, learning, and hybridisation of technology and knowledge systems without losing their deep links with the land by caring for the environment and creating resilience through indigenous knowledge.³⁶ Indigenous communities thus become the most sensitive and dynamic actors in dealing with environmental change, including the contextualisation of indigenous knowledge in climate resilience.

The Rendu community employs several traditional farming practices that maintain sustainability. Firstly, due to the relatively dry land, the people in Nageko adapt to planting drought-tolerant cassava on their farms. Cassava does not require too much water and is in fact tolerant to dry land and resistant to pests, mild diseases, and requires minimal maintenance.³⁷ Secondly, the people of NTT found and replanted traditional sorghum crops as a source of food security and sovereignty.³⁸ Thirdly, palm fruit, or Lo Koli, is a local tradition for the Rendu community and has various benefits. The sap water can be processed into brown sugar, the leaves are made into mats, and the fruit flesh is used in preparing sweets.³⁹

All the benefits from the palm tree are optimised, using traditions that have been passed on through generations. The Rendu community often utilises palm leaf fronds as a material for various woven crafts, such as mats (tee koli), covers for huts in the garden (ghubu keka), containers for storing crops (bola koli), and containers for local seeds, such as corn, beans, and rice (kaka koli).⁴⁰ Palm leaves are also used to support the construction of houses for the Rendu community. The roof of the house is made of palm leaves, and the walls are made of other natural materials such as woven bamboo, coconut leaves, and pandanus, while the floors are made of bamboo or planks.⁴¹ All these materials were taken from around the Rendu community’s area.

In comparison, in Wajo Village, the community built a traditional residential complex based on considerations of spiritual, social and environmental values. The dominant aspect of the spatial layout of the Wajo customary village is the orientation and hierarchy of the top-down space: the top is the sacred zone, and the bottom is the public or profane zone.⁴² The principle of top-down hierarchy is formed from tribal order and natural factors (topography). The dominant aspect of the identification principle is the datum, which is formed due to adherence to traditions, cultural symbols, and community kinship.⁴³

The knowledge of the Sedulur Sikep community and the Rendu community shows that their daily lives as farmers are pivotal to the efforts to protect the environment and maintain ecological functions, whether they realise it directly or not. Throughout the world, indigenous and local knowledge systems have succeeded in the long term in managing ecosystem functions, providing inputs for scientific efforts and preventing further degradation.⁴⁴ For example, during springtime, the Sedulur Sikep community ensures that the trees remain sustainable by guarding them against the exploitation of rocks (which are believed to damage hydrology).⁴⁵ For the Sedulur Sikep community, the Kendeng mountains also have a deep connect with preserving animal and vegetation habitats and have evidence of human history, such as ancient caves and historic places.⁴⁶ In NTT, the Rendu community farmers encourage land preparation, crop/vegetation diversification through mixed cropping patterns, and raising livestock in a crop-livestock system.⁴⁷ The Rendu community also benefits in the context of food security with the cultivation of a local crop known as sorghum. The cultivation of sorghum is essential for diversifying tough crops that resist various climates and soils while having good nutritional content and being gluten-free.⁴⁸ The above reflection on indigenous knowledge and local farming is an introduction to the next section which dwells on external problems and situations that disrupt the actualisation of agricultural life for indigenous communities to the point that their other human rights are neglected.

This section discusses the external factors and situations that create pressure over the Sedulur Sikep and Rendu communities rendering them unable to apply their indigenous knowledge. The discussion is based on the Sedulur Sikep community’s resistance against mining and the Rendu community’s resistance to the national dam development project. Tracing the current situation of the cases and their impact on indigenous communities is a start for discussing the threats to human rights and land rights. The discussion in this section also includes the inter-relation of indigenous communities with climate change issues, especially implementing mitigation and adaptation amidst marginalisation efforts and human mobility.

The cement industry was started around 2006 in the Kendeng mountains and has potentially uprooted the culture and identity of the Sikep Sedulur community, including their mobility choices, as a consequence of maintaining life. The forest area in the Kendeng mountains borders directly with the site of the PT Semen Indonesia industry. There are 1142 ha of limited production forest and 1310 ha of permanent production forest in the Gunem District administrative area based on the Mantingan Forest Management Unit (KPH), Rembang Regency.⁴⁹ This statistic shows that the Sikep community’s concerns about environmental damage are well-founded and deeply connected with residential areas and forests, which act as buffer zones and catchment areas in the Kendeng mountains. Below is a map of the project location and a photo of the cement factory taken from personal documentation (Figs. 1 and 2).

The destruction that arises from cement mining activities is apparent as one sees the condition of the land belonging to the residents. The story of Prin from the Sikep community and Dulah, residents of Tegaldowo Village, Gunem, whose fields were damaged because they were close to a rock mining area, reveals the extent of the issue at hand.⁵² Prin’s chilli garden was affected by the pollution caused by limestone mining activities carried out by PT Semen Indonesia, resulting in crop failure.⁵³ Meanwhile, on Dulah’s land, the mine not only polluted the corn plantation but also, there was a time when chunks of rock from the explosion almost hit the owner.⁵⁴ The ill-effects of this pollution on the Sikep community get exacerbated when it aligns with the fact that the cement industry is one of the largest contributors to the greenhouse effect, accounting for 8 per cent of all global emissions.⁵⁵ The Strategic Environmental Study Team ‘Policy for Sustainable Utilization and Management of the Kendeng Mountains’ revealed that the loss of cement industry activities would also cause economic losses in the health sector, with a count of those affected: 64,544 people × $ 318,54 = 20.559.845,76 per year.⁵⁶ What is also very important with respect to the issue of the cement industry in Kendeng is that the cumulative damage to the Watu Putih Groundwater Basin per year up to 2020 is 38.753.447,040 (litres) × $ 0,00,011 = $ 2.466.903,26.⁵⁷

It is clear from the above that rampant environmental damage and the increasing frequency of disasters is threatening the lives of the Sedulur Sikep community.⁵⁸ At the beginning of 2023, the Sedulur Sikep community visited the presidential palace to convey that the flooding phenomenon in Kudus, Pati, and Demak Regencies at the end of 2022 was a consequence of environmental damage due to the deforestation of trees and the unchecked growth of the cement industry, which had been permitted to operate in the Kendeng Mountains.⁵⁹ Through research related to morphological changes in Rembang, the Strategic Environmental Study from the Independent Team of the Ministry of Environment showed the changes in the karst of the Kendeng Mountains will have an impact, increasing the percentage of channel flow in the rainy season and decreasing the rate of mixed flow in the dry season so that the springs become dry.⁶⁰

The environmental damage has affected water conditions directly and has even increased the frequency of disasters. Mining area expansion in the Kendeng Mountains is likely to continue through the expansion of existing companies such as PT Semen Indonesia and investments by other companies. In the Pati Regency area (on the other side of the Kendeng Mountains), a small-scale cement mine is also operating and is being followed by plans from P. T. Sahabat Mulia Sakti (a subsidiary of PT Indocement), which is part of the Heidelberg Cement Group (a company based in Germany), that wants to build a mine and factory with an area of around 2800 ha.⁶¹

What is apparent is that the Sedulur Sikep community was not directly evicted from their land but has experienced a systemic impact on their traditions due to environmental damage and cement mining activities which has affected crop fertility and livestock health and destroyed livelihoods in agriculture, effectively rendering the place almost impossible to inhabit.⁶² For Sedulur Sikep, their belief is that only by farming in Kendeng can the history and values of their ancestors be preserved.⁶³ Furthermore, Sedulur Sikep interprets all the elements in Kendeng: water, plants, animals, and non-material elements such as the symbol of the giver of life, Mother Earth.⁶⁴ Rituals in the Kendeng mountains are carried out through sacred sites, including Watu Payung, by the Sedulur Sikep community by praying for specific purposes, as well as water sources and caves that irrigate Sikep houses and rice fields which receive special blessings and offerings.⁶⁵

In the context of disaster and climate change, the Sedulur Sikep community is aware that the environmental problems affecting them are intertwined with food issues and that the floods that destroyed their paddy fields in November 2022–March 2023 correlate with a cement factory.⁶⁶ In the Sedulur Sikep community context, adaptation means replanting hardwood trees/perennials to withstand flooding.⁶⁷ This adaptation technique is also followed in all Sedulur Sikep’s traditions and knowledge; for example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the community encouraged the availability of village rice barns for food security.⁶⁸ This logic is also strengthened by the traditional farming methods of the Sikep people, starting from respecting rice fields and farming, to not using chemicals because farming must not damage the environment.⁶⁹

In the case of the Lambo Dam, the Rendu community has experienced conflict since 2000. The Nagekeo Local Government consultant team surveyed three villages in 2001 in Ngada District (before the division of the area) with planned locations in three villages, namely Rendu Butowe, Labolewa, and Ulupulu, located in three districts.⁷⁰ The Ministry of Public Works and Public Housing also stated that every dam project is oriented towards mitigating climate change through water reserves and hydropower availability.⁷¹ Water reserves are intended for optimisation when the dry and rainy seasons change.⁷² However, this mitigation does not consider the community’s existence and participation in dam construction, and it has even ended in land confiscation.⁷³ The community feels that they are not being involved. What is even more critical is the usage regarding customary land, which is the target of the Lambo Dam project. In fact, security forces crushed the community’s protest, which ultimately resulted in violence.⁷⁴ And even though it was delayed for several years, the Lambo Dam finally commenced its construction from 2023, through the National Strategic Programme initiated by the Government of President Joko Widodo and is expected to be completed in 2025.⁷⁵

The impacts and threats to the Rendu community’s rights post the completion of the Lambo Dam project are accompanied by various crucial problems, such as environmental damage and cultural shifts due to tourism and agricultural problems. First, the construction of the Lambo Dam disrupts the Rendu community’s relationship with nature, such as traditional weaving. One of the women of the community, Rosina Wonga (Mama Ros) revealed that the protest against the Dam by the Rendu community is primarily because of the loss of water sources, cotton, and natural dyes, the loss of traditions, and the issue of there being ancestral graves in places that were part of the project area.⁷⁶ The Rendu community emphasised that they had accepted the dam construction and had suggested that the dam be built on empty land in other locations which did not take up land adjacent to their settlements and ancestral land.⁷⁷ The people of Rendu felt that being dispossessed of this land meant not only their eviction from their ancestral land and residence but also the loss of their productive land which was the mainstay of their lives.⁷⁸ The condition becomes increasingly worrying when there is no clarity regarding relocation after completing the Lambo Dam construction project.⁷⁹ The impact of the construction of the Lambo Dam is yet to be quantified in specific data, and how much of the dam project claims the Rendu community’s land is yet to be calculated. However, according to statements made by persons like Mama Siti and Mama Mince’s, the impact of building the dam will take away their customary land along with their villages, gardens, schools, traditional ritual sites, and ancestral graves.⁸⁰ The Indonesian Government stated that the project area of the Lambo Dam had reached 499.5 ha.⁸¹ The project took away some of their land, the Rendu community continued to move against the dam operation.⁸²

With regard to the NTT, the impact of the construction of the Lambo Dam as a National Strategic Project was considered alongside other projects such as tourism infrastructure and the Food Estate programme. The attachment to Presidential Regulation Number 109 of 2020 concerning the Third Amendment to Presidential Regulation Number 3 of 2016 concerning the Acceleration of Implementation of National Strategic Projects mentions12 types of projects starting from bridges and toll roads, ports, airports, economic zone sectors, housing, trains, dams and irrigation, clean water and sanitation, coastal embankments, energy, technology, and education. The Forum for the Environment (WALHI) states that the linkages between National Strategic Projects are often intertwined and extend to various developing fields; for example, National Strategic Projects (PSN) also extend to energy, food and electricity projects, Special Economic Zones (KEK), and National Tourism Strategic Area (KSPN).⁸³ The Ministry of Public Works and Public Housing stated that the reason for building the Lambo-Mbay Dam was a strategy to support the provision of raw materials and irrigation which would in turn support the Food Estate project and reduce flooding that occurred in NTT.⁸⁴ One of the most crucial needs of the Food Estate project is the land issue and agricultural modifications, which simultaneously give rise to an agrarian crisis and ultimately threaten farmers.⁸⁵

In the tourism context, NTT, especially Labuan Bajo, is a super-priority destination set up by the Indonesian Government and the Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy. This super-priority destination, known as the ‘10 New Balis’ project, also focuses on the creative economy, regional planning, and infrastructure to support Labuan Bajo as an international tourist destination.⁸⁶ This priority scale is undoubtedly a signal and an illustration of the fact that the community will be swamped with tourism infrastructure. Hotel accommodation in NTT in the year 2022 totalled 498 units.⁸⁷ Even now, the Rendu community is projected as part of an eco-tourism scheme; for example, in Rendu Tutubadha Village, tourist activities begin from the natural hot springs are petu meze, Mount Lambo, followed by the traditional village of Rendu Tutubadha, and the Etu ritual (harvest and farming rituals), trekking and birdwatching on Mount Lambo.⁸⁸ Lessons learnt from other places reveal that eco-tourism is not always profitable and often has the potential for displacement and alienation of local communities. For example, the case of eco-tourism on Komodo Island, NTT, shows that eco-tourism tends to cause dispossession and displacement wherever the government-private sector partnership introduces capitalist accumulation at the expense of society.⁸⁹ In Rote Ndao, NTT, the local community’s land, currently controlled by business privatisation, has closed the people’s access by prohibiting entry to the hotel area.⁹⁰ For women in the local Rote Ndao community, tourism has no economic impact and disrupts the livelihoods of those who depend on seaweed.⁹¹

The traditions of the Rendu community were also affected because natural resources and the environment began to decrease and change. The illustrations related to traditional woven cloth show that access and depletion of natural resources due to conflict are slowly breaking the Rendu community’s relationship with the Creator, their ancestors and their traditional territory.⁹² As a comparison, this condition is also apparent from the condition of weavers in Sumba, NTT, where out of 476, only 19 remain.⁹³ The need of the hour for the Rendu community is to survive, at least so that they can slow down the damage and simultaneously protect tradition and nature.

Though it is difficult to find stories of the Rendu community being directly affected by climate change, information gathered from surrounding areas, particularly from farmers and dry cultivators on small islands from East Flores NTT shows that the impact is being felt. Farmers and dry cultivators experience disasters: dry seasons are getting longer and longer causing droughts; rainy seasons are getting shorter but the amount of rainfall received is much higher and is always accompanied by loud lightning, strong winds, tidal waves and storms, destroying possessions, property, and the sources of livelihood of residents.⁹⁴ The adaptation efforts carried out range from the use and consumption of local Sorghum plants to adapting dry farming based on the principles of reducing human intervention, reduction in carbon and the use of organic materials and environmentally friendly technology; use of more labour intensive than capital intensive methods; and orienting one’s self to meet one’s own needs rather than market demands.⁹⁵

In closing this section, neglecting the rights of indigenous people does reflect that the Government is more inclined to support economic politics with greater emphasis on development of state and private elites. Eve Warburton called this developmentalism, in short, a pragmatic and growth-oriented approach in its policies, statist-nationalist in its ideological position, and conservative in its approach to issues of transparency and governance as well as human rights and justice.⁹⁶ The government has the backing and the strength of an oligarchic network that extends to the state bureaucracy and manifests through the interests of capital owners who utilise democracy.⁹⁷ Political power will thus be pervading every layer, so resistance never reaches the top. This condition is fairly apparent from the fragmentation of laws and policies, achieving nothing but a dead end in the fulfilment of human rights.

Human rights violations, land grabbing, and environmental degradation, which result from the lack of state support and effective laws, impact the survival and continuity of indigenous people. Regulations impacting indigenous people are currently spread across sectoral laws, such as the Forestry Law, the Plantation Law, and the Coastal Area and Small Island Management Law. This sectoral approach becomes an obstacle in protecting the rights of indigenous peoples.⁹⁸ For instance, of the 30 laws governing indigenous people in Indonesia, 12 were changed by Law No. 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation.⁹⁹ These changes in laws make the existence and rights of indigenous peoples depend solely on whether they get is recognition from the state without any opportunity for self-identification. This position needs to be revised since self-identification constitutes a core element in preserving and protecting the rights of indigenous peoples.¹⁰⁰

First, the absence of special laws poses a dilemma regarding the State’s position and the existence of indigenous people as socio-political entities. Indigenous people or Masyarakat Hukum Adat are recognised under Article 18 B paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, ‘as long as they are alive, following the development of society; following the principles of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia; and regulated in law’.¹⁰¹ From the above, it is clear that even under the Constitution, self-identification is lacking. Lack of recognition of the principle of self-identification is hazardous for indigenous peoples because it hinders the possibility of indigenous peoples to register collective rights to land, and the lack of monitoring mechanisms has made it easier for state and private parties to take over land, territory, and natural resources without free, prior and informed consent, by indigenous people.¹⁰² In the absence of self-identification to state-centric approaches, it is necessary to interpret the indigenous people’s rights through human rights, which are regulated relatively more fully in Chapter X of the 1945 Constitution.¹⁰³ It should be noted that demands related to human rights to obtain rights to land and other resources can be seen from the national movement of indigenous peoples.¹⁰⁴ The movement aims to recognise indigenous peoples and customary forests. Simultaneously, the national movement of the Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago (national movement of indigenous peoples)/AMAN is transforming from being a non-governmental organisation.¹⁰⁵

Before Article 18 of the 1945 Constitution was amended to become Articles 18, 18 A, and 18 B, the restrictions on indigenous communities were more relaxed because they provided direct protection for their rights by considering the rights of origin and particular territories.¹⁰⁶ In the explanation of this article, even the autonomy of indigenous communities is guaranteed inasmuch as to say that they are given rights to have their own government, autonomous communities, and customary rights as long as they are not a state within a State.¹⁰⁷ Currently, however, the process of recognition as an indigenous people or based on the Indonesian Constitution as Adat Law community can be carried out in the following manner: (a) legal recognition by the communities and/or the government; (b) data and information related to indigenous peoples is verified by the Indigenous Peoples Committee (district/city or provincial or national); (c) The committee announces the results of the verification to the public before further submitting it to the Regent/Mayor or the Governor or the President according to their authority to be designated through a decree.¹⁰⁸

Formalism coupled with a state-centric approach to recognising indigenous communities is also manifested in other regulations, which negate self-identification and give rise to administrative and bureaucratic problems. The registration of the rights of indigenous peoples is currently regulated through:

This recognition through various regulations reflects that the administration and the bureaucracy also burden the indigenous community. To gain recognition, the indigenous community needs to study the typology’s suitability, which requires the gathering of experts, assistants, and networks. This bureaucratic and administrative complexity is also accompanied by the emergence of informal/political close relationships that trap indigenous communities in obtaining land rights.¹⁰⁹ At the same time, there needs to be more consistency in the administration of indigenous communities, which is lacking because of the absence of institutions and registration of indigenous territories. The indigenous community could then use the network to advocate and facilitate the registration of customary territories through non-governmental organisations. So far, the Indigenous Area Registration Agency (BRWA) has recorded that the total land area of the Indigenous community is around 26,970,220.82 ha.¹¹⁰ Registration of customary territories is intended to reorganise the relationship between the indigenous community and the state, especially regarding ownership and preservation of natural resources in customary territories, as well as resolve thousands of agrarian conflicts.¹¹¹

However, the existing laws and policies threaten the existence of indigenous communities. Firstly, through the Stipulation of Government Regulations, the replacement for Law Number 2 of 2022 concerning job creation, also known as the job creation law, threatens the indigenous community because of its private and capitalistic characteristics and orientation. As environmental rights defenders, indigenous peoples are vulnerable to physical violence and criminalisation due to the strong-arm tactics of corporations who enjoy impunity. However, the job creation law dilutes the role of the public and indigenous people in the conduct of environmental impact analysis (AMDAL), and thus, there is greater need for more adequate protection for activists.¹¹²

In addition, the Presidential Regulation Number 98 of 2021 concerning structuring the economic value of carbon in the context of achieving national contribution targets and controlling greenhouse gas emissions in national development is an instrument that leads to the usurpation of the rights of indigenous peoples. Implementing carbon trading is detrimental because it does not open up space for participation by indigenous communities and or respect generations for utilising natural resources.¹¹³ For this reason, the Association of Defenders of Indigenous Peoples of the Archipelago (PPAMAN) submitted a judicial review to the Supreme Court with the argument that the participation of indigenous peoples was not reflected and there was a threat to confiscate land in the area without measures for sustainability; no carbon diversity was taken into account; and that the community would be faced with the burden to pay for the carbon footprint caused for no fault of itself.¹¹⁴ This request for judicial review was granted by the Supreme Court, granting the participation of the indigenous community in the carbon context through the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia—Decision No.61/P/HUM /2022¹¹⁵ The Supreme Court stated that Indigenous Peoples are providers of Economic Carbon Value as per Article 46 paragraph (2) letter d of the Presidential Decree Number 98 of 2021 because of their contribution to increasing carbon reserves through forest utilisation in business activities that utilise environmental services.¹¹⁶

Laws and policies related to climate migration also add to the problem of vulnerability of indigenous peoples. In the context of the climate crisis, Indonesia has a National Action Plan–Climate Change Adaptation (RAN-API) and a National Target Roadmap for Climate Change Adaptation (NDC Roadmap). In the RAN-API document, relocation is only mentioned in the infrastructure context, for example, in settlement relocation planning, relocation of strategic roads, and urban infrastructure.¹¹⁷ The NDC Roadmap only focused on infrastructure resilience, such as risk standards, increasing disaster preparedness through infrastructure, climate-resistant housing, and revitalising climate-resilient cities.¹¹⁸ The absence of a relocation policy leads to dependence on local policies, lack of proper focus, and lack of empowerment of communities.¹¹⁹ The limitations of the local government also resulted in difficulties for the indigenous peoples; for example, in the case of Simonet Hamlet, Pekalongan, there was no availability of relocation land, and ultimately the residents lost their jobs as jasmine farmers and fishermen.¹²⁰ To resist eviction, the Sikep community urged a policy to preserve the Kendeng mountains by rejecting the licenced and illegal cement industry and pushing for a policy plan for protecting and managing the karst ecosystem.¹²¹ Meanwhile, in the Rendu community, there has been no plan or response to relocation because of climate change. In other cases, such as the displacement of Dayak communities whose voices have been neglected by the new capital mega-infrastructure there are consequences that threaten the sustainability of their environment and culture.¹²² In cases with a socio-economic dimension, people in West Kalimantan are even threatened with inter-generational displacement because palm plantation results in land being taken, giving rise to new structural poverty in the community.¹²³

Lastly, the fragmentation of laws and policies that are detrimental to indigenous people needs to be addressed with clarity and firm protection of basic rights through the ratification of the Indigenous Peoples Bill. Proposals for a draft law on indigenous peoples have been made since 2012, but they have yet to succeed. This draft has provided legal education to indigenous peoples to show that the problems they face at the local level are related to national regulations.¹²⁴ In future, the ratification of the Indigenous Peoples Law must also be reviewed in conjunction with the legal politics of recognition and implementation of the decentralised rights of indigenous peoples.

The adaptation and mitigation of environment and climate change based on the knowledge of indigenous people sounds like an exciting premise but lacks the force to bring about the emergence of practical solutions. Indigenous peoples’ experiences and way of life are essential to why these communities have survived hundreds of years. This chapter uses the case of the Sikep and Rendu communities to also reflect on marginalisation due to the intersection of land grabbing, human rights violations, and dilemmatic migration choices. The increasing expansion of the cement industry and dam construction means that the Sedulur Sikep community and the Rendu community are caught at a crossroads between the uncertainty of protecting a degrading environment and the wisdom of their ancestors and their traditional knowledge. Migration and relocation of the Sedulur Sikep community and the Rendu community will raise the question of how to move communities whose culture and identity are one with nature. Additionally, the fragmentation of law and policy creates multiple vulnerabilities due to the absence of indigenous laws, limited legal recognition, the bureaucratic-administrative nature of land registration, and the loss of meaningful participation in environmental and climate policy.