In our capacity as an organization dedicated to addressing land and natural resource conflicts in Indonesia, with a focus on promoting dialogue and collaboration through mediation, we have received inquiries from multiple stakeholders regarding the feasibility of our approach. Specifically, concerns have been raised regarding the effectiveness of mediation in cases where there exists significant disparities between the parties involved, as well as its ability to effectively resolve land and natural resource conflicts between communities and companies in Indonesia. Additionally, questions have been posed regarding the timeline for resolving the multitude of land and natural resource conflict cases, given the resource-intensive nature of our case-by-case approach.

Despite initial skepticism, it is evident that the underlying question holds merit. The issue of conflicts surrounding land and natural resources in Indonesia is deeply complex, encompassing a multitude of stakeholders and intersecting with economic, social, and environmental concerns. These conflicts have persisted for a considerable duration, with media reports only providing a superficial glimpse into the magnitude of underlying issues. Despite numerous efforts to resolve these conflicts, new ones continue to arise while many longstanding cases remain unresolved. The substantial backlog of unresolved conflicts leads to inquiries into the efficacy of existing conflict management approaches in light of the multitude of underlying issues, including regulatory complexities and market dynamics.

Based on our collective experience, it has been determined that mediation is a viable method for addressing conflicts related to land and natural resources. However, in order for this approach to be successful, certain enabling conditions must be met. These include the commitment of all parties involved to resolve the conflict, clear regulations in support of peacebuilding efforts, the active involvement of the government as an authoritative figure, the parties’ understanding of the principles and processes of mediation, and their knowledge of relevant regulations and policies pertaining to the subject matter of the conflict. Additionally, transparency and access to pertinent information, a balance of power between the conflicted parties, and the use of mediators who are trusted and possess the necessary skills to navigate the process with neutrality, confidentiality, impartiality, and independence are crucial factors for the success of mediation in resolving land and natural resource conflicts between communities and companies in Indonesia.

In practical situations, regrettably, there is a scarcity of land and natural resource disputes that fulfill all of the necessary requirements. In instances of conflicts between corporate entities and local communities, it is often observed that there exists a significant disparity between the conflicting parties. This inequality manifests itself in several ways, particularly in terms of disparate levels of knowledge and access to regulatory frameworks, policies, and other critical information, as well as differences in the internal organization of the opposing parties. Furthermore, inadequate government support for the mediation procedure and the provision of legal guarantees for parties’ agreements serve as an additional concern. This depiction is a prevalent trend in land and natural resource management practices in Indonesia, and it can be argued that this inequality is a persistent structural issue.

Hence, a significant portion of our endeavor in instigating the mediation process is dedicated to fulfilling the prerequisites necessary for effective collaborative conflict resolution. These prerequisites encompass cultivating the readiness and dedication of the involved parties to engage in conflict resolution efforts, fostering internal unity and preparing representative teams to effectively advocate for their interests in the mediation forum, establishing a foundation of information and equal opportunity to comprehend the subject matter of the conflict in order to make informed decisions regarding its resolution, and securing backing from a broader set of stakeholders. To put it succinctly, the majority of our time is allocated to addressing these structural disparities to facilitate constructive negotiations.

However, these efforts are exceedingly limited and do not fully eradicate structural inequalities, but rather only aim to manage them to the extent of enabling constructive negotiations. Therefore, the agreements that are pursued are not idealistic, long-term agreements, but rather pragmatic agreements that address the realities of the current context. Thus, the effectiveness of the mediation approach in resolving the extensive backlog of conflicts in this country remains unanswered. However, documenting the insights gained from this process is crucial in order to continually improve the quality of dialogue facilitation and to serve as a source of inspiration for others involved in conflicts or those with concerns regarding land and natural resource conflict resolution.

In light of our analysis, we maintain that pursuing case-by-case mediation on a manageable scale remains a viable option. This assertion is supported by the tangible benefits that mediation efforts offer to conflicting parties. For companies in particular, such efforts can mitigate potential losses and alleviate the impact on profit opportunities (i.e. opportunity costs), while for local communities, they can continue to sustain their livelihoods. It is worth noting that apart from the aforementioned advantages, conflict resolution through mediation can also foster a positive transformation in the relationship between companies and communities. Furthermore, every successful case resolved through mediation serves as a model for other parties to seek resolution for their conflicts.

The management of conflicts at the managed scale, as previously stated, does not address the issues surrounding regulation and policy. However, it is often these very regulations and policies that are the root cause of conflicts. Additionally, efforts at the managed scale may not completely resolve issues of structural inequality. As such, it is necessary to adopt a wider perspective in the realm of policy.

In short, despite its limitations, a managed-scale mediation approach within a local context remains a valuable and worthwhile approach, including endeavors to establish conducive conditions. Yet, concurrently, a more comprehensive approach at a fundamental policy level must also be pursued.

Photo credit by Rahmad Himawan.