Whose development? The Need for Conflict-Sensitive Development in Papua, Indonesia

Introduction

Significant legal and policy reforms brought a degree of autonomy to the Indonesian province of Papua in 2001 in response to decades of low-level conflict in pursuit of its independence.1 Yet despite large-scale and regular disbursements of special autonomy funds and the implementation of development programmes at all levels of society, human development indicators in the province remain the lowest in Indonesia. It is likely that current data for these indicators overstate the level of development among indigenous communities as the human development index provides an average that combines data from the interior and highlands districts, which are predominantly populated by indigenous communities, and from the more developed coastal areas.

Several assessments have been undertaken to better understand why the province continues to stagnate rather than capitalise on its increased resources and autonomy. A United Nations Development Programme assessment undertaken in 2005 found that most programmes (government and non-government) focused almost exclusively on technical capacities for the delivery of services through policy making and planning, aiming for Papua's ‘accelerated’ development (UNDP 2005). Initial impressions were that while these programmes were well meaning, they have had limited impact because they failed to take into account the issues of culture, tradition and – critically – how limited the community's exposure to ‘modernisation’ has been. This has created a situation where new concepts, policies, practices and programmes have been imposed on Papua's indigenous communities, which have been unable, rather than unwilling, to absorb the resources, information and services.

This briefing attempts to analyse critical factors for development through a conflict-sensitive lens, with the aim of recommending a new approach for development programming that is locally responsive (i.e., grounded in local traditions, culture and understanding of what ‘development’ is and should be) and results in sustainable development impacts. The findings and conclusions of this briefing are based on research and interviews with local NGOs and community members in Papua in August 2009.

The Conflict in Papua

The conflict in Papua has many drivers: grievances over the forced transfer of Papua from Dutch rule to the state of Indonesia in 1963 by a UN vote; demands for justice regarding the treatment of local populations under the repressive regime of former president Suharto of Indonesia; demands for a greater share of revenue from the sale of natural resources (oil and gas); and disenfranchisement due to the internal migration policy that saw the forced transfer of large numbers of ethnic Javanese to less inhabited regions. The Javanese came to make up nearly one-third of the population of Papua and held all major political positions, including the heads of districts in indigenous areas. The resentment and grievances contributed to low-level conflict, which continues more or less today, despite the implementation of special autonomy (ICG 2007, 2008).

The Special Autonomy Law for Papua (No. 21/2001) provided substantive concessions, including the display of cultural symbols, the creation of a special advisory body made up of indigenous representatives to review and comment on all policies and laws, the formation of local political parties, and the allocation of 80% of the revenue from natural resource extraction to the province. The law did not, however, address the role of the Indonesian military in the province or restrict migration of non-Papuans to the province, and it maintained the right of the central government to supervise and overrule any decisions made at provincial level. The special autonomy funds allocated to the province have had no visible impact: there has been no sustainable improvement in service delivery, and where there have been improvements they have been localised, resulting from the work of individual community-based organisations.

Examining Development Challenges in Papua through a Conflict Lens

The failure to take account of Papua's unique culture is one of the biggest challenges to ongoing development programmes. The modern development paradigm, with its focus on growth and modern lifestyles, has been introduced as a standard against which the level of a local community is measured in development stages. Such a rigid paradigm perceives indigenous people as the target rather than the drivers of development. It is therefore imperative to deconstruct the development approach and to respect and accommodate local wisdom when progress is defined.

Culturally incompatible policies

Development programmes in Papua do not always take account of the cultural mapping of its communities. For instance, Kurima District, which was formerly part of the Jayawijaya Regency, is now part of the Yahukimo Regency following decentralisation. This division is incompatible with the local cultural map that includes Kurima as part of the Grand Valley people (Hubula) living in Jayawijaya. Furthermore, the government does not recognise customary land rights or distinguish between individual and collective ownership; indigenous people see themselves as custodians of an ancestral domain, rather than as owners in the modern sense. Policies in relation to decentralisation, service delivery, resource use and land rights have the potential to create conflict between tribes, between local governments and between the government and the community. Moreover, development programmes that promote a ‘rights-based approach’2 and that ignore the mismatch between districts and tribal lands stand to lose their credibility and, by extension, their possible impact, because communities whose land is in another district have no say as to how that land is used.

Special autonomy mandated the creation of the Mejelis Rakyat Papua, or Papuan People's Council (MRP), among others.3 While representatives of Papua's 253 indigenous communities were elected to the council, it has never been effective since its existence does not reflect governance in Papua. Issues pertaining to social services, dispute resolution and problem solving are customarily undertaken through the village leader, the church or adat (local customary law) system; failing that, through local civil society organisations and, as a last resort, through local government (although the government does not have a mechanism to undertake the resolution of land disputes). Furthermore, Papua's indigenous communities are so numerous and so fragmented that provincial-level policies will affect each group differently, or are not likely to be implemented at all. Moreover, development programmes that aim to bring the MRP on board as a key stakeholder also undermine their likely impact because it is too far removed from the day-to-day decision making undertaken at the village level, which should be the primary target of the programmes.

Proliferation of districts

The decentralisation process initiated in 2004 has not brought services and decision making closer to the people, as it has not accounted for the local decision-making structures operating at the village or tribal levels. Moreover, district boundaries do not align with tribal boundaries, and the resulting complications have been compounded by the proliferation of new districts by sub-dividing existing ones. Precise boundaries were not set and the process has produced grey areas in which tribal lands are subject to divergent political interests, policies and exploitation depending on the number of districts the land spans. However, defining the boundaries of the new districts will not resolve the mismatch of district and tribal boundaries, which hinders the ability of tribal leaders to make decisions within their communities.4 There is huge potential for conflict beyond the existing disputes between villages or tribes and district governments over the use of land, resources and ownership rights.

The proliferation of districts also complicates service delivery: rather than improve services, it has in fact undermined the capacity to deliver services such as healthcare and education, and reduced their quality. For example, Jayawijaya, previously a single district, is now divided into five. However, the new districts have not yet begun administering services. Residents of the ‘greater’ Jayawijaya still come to the ‘mother’ district for healthcare and education and to deal with administrative issues. However, the mother district now receives only some 20% of what it was granted in budgetary resources before the sub-division. The mother district now has tremendous strain on its services, particularly healthcare, and the tension between it and the new districts is growing.

Furthermore, the decentralisation process has not provided a dispute resolution mechanism between government institutions and between local communities or tribes and local government. The issue of undefined boundaries and the prospect of growing tension between districts over responsibility for service delivery are likely increase the need for dispute resolution.

The friction at the intersection between decentralisation, dispute resolution and traditional approaches to governance has the potential to create an environment that brings service delivery to a halt and stymies development. Future programmes and policy making need to incorporate dispute resolution mechanisms between tribes and districts (ideally grounded in tradition and custom) and between districts (formalised in the existing legal system). They also need to ensure that support for local government decision-making processes are grounded in traditional or cultural practices that mesh with local understandings of community development, justice and dispute resolution so as to minimise the potential for conflict between tribes (primarily over land ownership and resource use), between tribes and local governments, and between local government entities.5

Conclusions and Recommendations

The conflict dynamics in Papua, particularly inter-tribal dynamics, are driven mainly by ill-defined district boundaries and land rights, deteriorating relations between communities and local government as a result of poor service delivery and corruption, and inter-district tensions over disputed boundaries and the shared costs of services. These dynamics have the potential to derail initiatives aimed at accelerating development if these issues are not addressed in the design and implementation of government and non-government programming.

Furthermore, the approach to governance among Papua's indigenous communities, and quite possibly their understanding of ‘development’, would appear to be at odds with the generic governance and service delivery programmes implemented by foreign donors, international organisations and NGOs. The impact of the work undertaken in the province over the past decade has not been sustainable, which suggests that ‘successful’ approaches to project implementation elsewhere in Indonesia and internationally need to be reconsidered in Papua. Development programmes would be better guided by principles that are culturally and conflict-sensitive, on the lines of the recommendations below. These principles should assist in defining an approach to development in Papua that responds to local understandings of development and ‘modernisation’ and does not limit itself to the traditional, time-bound project approach that has to date proven to be ineffective and at times irrelevant.

Development grounded in traditional governance approaches:

This is the stand-out issue related to the conflict between Western-style development programmes based on formal governance structures and the traditional decision-making and justice system employed within the primary governing units in Papua – the village or tribe. Future programming should focus on the existing decision-making structures, which have credibility with indigenous Papuans. Rather than prioritise the capacity development of formal local government institutions and processes, priority should be given to identifying and developing traditional practices that can create an enabling environment in which formal government structures can be capacitated to support traditional structures and processes. Traditional decision-making and justice systems should be the primary target of future programming rather than considered supplementary to formal government structures. Communities are more likely to work with and for such a development approach as the processes are familiar to them and compatible with traditional or cultural practices.

Development which is conflict sensitive:

The capacity building of formal institutions needs to be based on the principle of conflict-sensitive planning grounded in the formal musrenbang (demand-driven development planning) process in Indonesia. The process brings together all sectors of society – traditional and religious leaders, youth and women's groups, government institutions and the private and security sectors. Excellent examples of conflict-sensitive planning exist in Indonesia6 and while they should not necessarily be replicated, the good practices and lessons from those processes should inform planning based on indigenous governance approaches and link to the development of formal and customary justice systems.

Development which is not time- or target-bound:

A key failing of development projects to date has been the necessity of setting time-bound targets that do not mesh with village level processes and practices. Given the extremely low capacities at the village level in particular (some estimates put the literacy rate of village leaders and administrators at a dismal 47%) the typical two- or three-year project cycle can achieve very little. It is necessary to better understand the life-cycle of village governance and its decision-making processes in order to better determine how an open-ended approach could or should work. Practices such as immunisation and pre-natal nutrition would be amended to fit the community rather than trying to make the community fit them. The target might be the gradual but sustained improvement in maternal and child health or survival rates rather than ‘X number of children immunised’ or ‘X% of pregnant women receiving pre-natal care’; such targets demonstrate only that a certain number of people benefitted from a project during its life cycle, and do not show a change in habits or practice over time.

Decelerated development:

Slow it down. Accelerated development is a concept of the elite and is not ‘owned’ by the community. Papua's indigenous communities have only in the past two or three decades been exposed to ‘modernisation’, including cash economies, formal education and Western-style government7 and justice systems. The capacity to absorb these changes in such a short time is limited, and to expect ‘accelerated’ development to occur is unrealistic. As above, goal setting for community development should be based on the principles of conflict sensitivity grounded in traditional practice and evolve over time as the understanding, capacity to absorb and the priorities of the community change.

The application of the above principles would have significant implications for the development policies of the Indonesian government and its development partners (particularly international organisations and foreign donors). The preference for directing increasing financial resources and setting targets for development that meet the needs of the government but not the beneficiaries has proven to be ineffective. The central government may have to relinquish some control over how the planning, budgeting and implementation of development programmes in Papua take place. Further, development partners need to reconsider their project-oriented approaches to development and focus more intently on capacity of the beneficiaries to absorb new skills and ideas. This will inevitably mean slower progress towards the development goals of the government and partners, but will hopefully be more sensitive to the needs and ideas of the indigenous communities, and thus more sustainable.

Most conflict analyses to date have focused on the more visible, headline-grabbing issues of violence between communities and the state, as well as issues related to independence. This briefing has aimed to focus attention on the less visible yet complex conflict dynamics in the province, and it is hoped that the recommendations and the emphasis on the need for a development approach based on principles rather than projects will assist in framing the dialogue on development in Papua.

Notes

¹ Papua is the easternmost province in Indonesia, bordering Papua New Guinea to the west. For simplicity, the Province of Papua will be referred to as ‘Papua’, since there is also the province of West Papua.

² A ‘rights-based approach’ aims to ensure that development initiatives are operationally directed to promoting and protecting human rights based on international human rights standards, although these standards are often at odds with the understanding of human rights held by indigenous communities.

³ The MRP is a council of Papuan tribal chiefs tasked with arbitration and speaking on behalf of Papuan tribal customs within the policy and legislative processes of the provincial government.

⁴ Decentralisation began in 2004 under the revised Law on Local Government with the aim of giving districts and sub-districts greater control over planning, budgeting and service delivery, but the possibility of services being delivered at the community level, which is the traditional approach among indigenous Papuans, was overlooked. The new districts resulting from sub-division were effectively small fiefdoms ruled by indigenous Papuan politicians based in the regions and allocated budgetary resources by the provincial government and through the special autonomy funds.

⁵ Given that different tribes may have different understandings and practices of development, justice and dispute resolution, the local government decision-making processes would need to be sufficiently flexible to incorporate different practices, while ensuring that certain standards in transparency and accountability are met. They would also need to ensure that decisions do not violate individual rights (such as those of women and children), in line with international conventions signed by Indonesia and in the light of donor requirements on ensuring human rights in their development programmes.

⁶ An example of conflict-sensitive planning is in the post-conflict areas of Maluku, North Maluku and Central Sulawesi. With the support of the UNDP and the National Development Planning Agency, district and sub-district governments have passed legislation and initiated ‘pre-meetings’ in the development planning process to ensure that all sectors of the community, not just the government representatives, are involved in identifying community needs and priorities for the government's development plans and budgets. The pre-meeting ensures that priority activities for groups who could jeopardise the peace process (e.g. religious minorities) or those who not normally consulted on development planning but who play a key role in maintaining peace in the community (e.g. women and the elderly) are included for funding in the government's budget. It is both a peace dividend and a conflict-prevention and early warning tool (UNDP 2006).

⁷ One interviewee noted that village leaders are selected on the basis of familial ties, and the concept of term limits (generally four to five years) is foreign to them, undermining leadership authority and allowing disgruntled village members to play the traditional governance system off against the formal governance (election) system to the detriment of overall village governance.