The proposed Agrarian Reform Bill for Papua is putting customary land rights at the centre of a wider discussion over how land should be governed, developed and protected in Indonesia’s easternmost region. The Regional Representative Council, or DPD RI, has recommended eight provisions intended to ensure that agrarian reform does not weaken protections already recognised for Indigenous Papuan communities.
The recommendations were presented by Filep Wamafma, chairman of Commission III of DPD RI and a senator from West Papua, in Manokwari, West Papua, on Saturday, September 12, 2026. The proposal came as the Agrarian Reform Bill was being discussed and could have direct implications for land governance and control within Papua’s special autonomy framework.
For Filep, the central issue is not simply how land is redistributed. It is whether Indonesia’s future agrarian policy can recognise the history, customary law, identity and social structures attached to land in Papua while allowing development to continue.
His proposal therefore seeks to place Indigenous communities inside the legal architecture of agrarian reform rather than treating customary land merely as land available for redistribution.
Why Papua Needs a Specific Agrarian Approach
Papua’s position under Indonesia’s special autonomy framework gives the agrarian debate a particular legal and political character.
Filep argued that the proposed legislation should contain a dedicated chapter governing agrarian reform in special autonomy regions, particularly Papua. The objective would be to ensure that national agrarian policy takes account of the specific rights and characteristics of Indigenous Papuan communities.
The proposal is closely linked to existing protections under Indonesia’s Special Autonomy Law.
“Protection of Papuan customary law communities has already been guaranteed through Law Number 2 of 2021 on Papua Special Autonomy,” Filep said, according to the reports.
That point is central to the DPD’s position. The proposed Agrarian Reform Bill, in Filep’s view, should not create a lower level of protection than existing legislation.
Instead, it should reinforce the special autonomy framework and provide clearer mechanisms for resolving land issues that have developed over time.
This is why the first two recommendations deal directly with the legal structure of the bill.
The First Two Proposals: A Special Chapter and Nonregression
The first recommendation calls for a special chapter on agrarian reform in Papua’s special autonomy territory.
Such a chapter would recognise that land governance in Papua cannot necessarily be approached in exactly the same way as land administration elsewhere in Indonesia. The proposal seeks to place the specific rights of Indigenous communities within the legislation from the beginning rather than addressing them only through secondary regulations.
The second recommendation introduces what Filep described as a nonregression clause.
In practical terms, the provision would mean that no article in the future Agrarian Reform Bill should reduce the existing protection of Indigenous customary rights.
The idea is particularly important because agrarian legislation can have long-term consequences. Once the allocation, licensing, or development of land occurs, reversing the process can become considerably more complicated.
The DPD’s recommendation therefore seeks to establish a legal safeguard before the bill is finalised.
For Papua, the principle is straightforward: new national legislation should strengthen existing guarantees rather than unintentionally narrowing them.
Recognising Hak Ulayat as More Than Land
The third proposal focuses on hak ulayat, the customary communal rights associated with Indigenous communities.
Filep argued that hak ulayat should be explicitly recognised in the Agrarian Reform Bill as an ancestral right of Indigenous customary communities in Papua.
The distinction is important.
Under the proposal, customary land should not simply be viewed as an object for land redistribution. It has a relationship with the history, culture and customary institutions of the communities that have inherited and managed it.
“Papuan customary land is not empty land. It has owners, history, law, identity and generations that must be protected by the state,” Filep said.
The statement captures the broader philosophy behind the eight recommendations.
For the DPD senator, agrarian reform should recognise land as part of a social and cultural system. Legal ownership and land administration therefore need to take account of customary history and community identity.
This approach could also influence how future development projects are planned in areas where customary land overlaps with government programmes, investment interests or strategic projects.
Mapping Customary Territory Before Development
The fourth recommendation addresses one of the most practical challenges in land governance: identifying customary territory before permits and projects are approved.
Filep proposed that recognition and mapping of customary territories become a prerequisite before the government issues business permits, grants concessions or carries out strategic projects in customary areas.
The proposal places mapping before licensing.
That sequence matters because disputes can become more difficult to resolve once a project has already received approval or construction has begun.
A clear map of customary territory could provide a common reference for government institutions, investors and local communities.
It could also help clarify where customary rights intersect with planned development.
The DPD’s recommendation supports development. Instead, it seeks to establish a clearer legal process so development can take place with greater certainty about land status and community rights.
For the Indonesian government, that could potentially provide a stronger institutional basis for balancing development objectives with the protection of customary communities.
Free, Prior and Informed Consent
The fifth recommendation is perhaps the most direct requirement concerning community participation.
Filep called for the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent, or FPIC, to become mandatory when customary territories are used.
In Indonesian terminology, the principle is referred to as Persetujuan Atas Dasar Informasi Awal Tanpa Paksaan, or Padiatapa.
“The Agrarian Reform Bill must regulate the FPIC principle,” Filep said.
The proposed principle would make community consent an important part of decisions involving customary land.
The wording is significant because the recommendation does not merely call for information to be provided after a decision has been made. It seeks to place informed and voluntary consent within the process of deciding whether customary territory can be used.
For Papua, where land is closely connected to community identity and customary institutions, the proposal could become an important part of the relationship between development projects and local communities.
It also reflects the DPD’s broader argument that agrarian reform should strengthen special autonomy rather than operate separately from it.
Restitution for Land Lost in the Past
The sixth recommendation addresses the most challenging aspect of many land disputes: the loss of customary land rights.
Filep proposed a special mechanism for restitution and restoration of Indigenous rights over land lost as a result of previous government policies, permits, concessions or development.
This provision would move the Agrarian Reform Bill beyond the prevention of future disputes.
It would also create a framework for addressing historical cases.
The DPD recommendation calls for mechanisms that can examine how land was previously controlled, how decisions were made and whether customary rights were affected.
According to the proposed framework, the process should extend from identifying the roots of a conflict and verifying the history of land control to mapping the territory, examining community consent and ultimately deciding whether restoration, restitution or compensation is appropriate.
That would make historical verification an important element of future agrarian policy.
Rather than resolving every dispute through a single administrative decision, the proposed mechanism would seek to understand the history behind each case.
Protecting Indigenous Women and Vulnerable Groups
The seventh recommendation focuses on groups that could face greater vulnerability during agrarian reform processes.
Filep called for Indigenous women and vulnerable groups to receive affirmative protection throughout the implementation of agrarian reform.
The recommendation recognises that land decisions can affect different members of a community in various ways.
By explicitly mentioning Indigenous women and vulnerable groups, the DPD proposal seeks to ensure that the benefits and protections associated with agrarian reform do not reach only the most influential community representatives.
The provision would also place social protection within the broader legal framework of land governance.
This is consistent with the overall direction of the proposal, which seeks to make agrarian reform not merely an administrative process but an instrument for protecting communities while supporting development.
Reviewing Overlapping Permits and Concessions
The eighth and final recommendation calls for a comprehensive evaluation of permits and concessions that overlap with customary territories.
The proposal recognises that land governance can involve multiple layers of administrative decision-making.
When permits or concessions overlap with customary territory, uncertainty can emerge for communities, government agencies and businesses alike.
Filep therefore argued that all such permits and concessions should be evaluated.
The objective, according to the proposal, is not simply to cancel every existing permit. Rather, the recommendation places emphasis on reviewing overlaps within a broader process of recognising customary rights and resolving past conflicts.
Such a review could become an important component of legal certainty if it is eventually incorporated into the bill.
Agrarian Reform as Part of Special Autonomy
The eight proposals are connected by one central argument: agrarian reform in Papua should reinforce the special autonomy framework.
Filep said agrarian reform should become an instrument to strengthen special autonomy, recognise the ancestral rights of Indigenous customary communities, resolve past conflicts and ensure that development does not eliminate the living space of customary communities.
That framing is important because the proposal does not position land protection and development as mutually exclusive.
Instead, it presents stronger land governance as a possible foundation for more sustainable development.
Clear customary maps, transparent verification, community participation and a review of overlapping permits could provide greater certainty for both communities and development actors.
In this sense, the DPD proposal is also about institutional clarity.
What Happens Before the Bill Is Passed?
The recommendations remain proposals within the discussion of the Agrarian Reform Bill.
Filep urged the Indonesian House of Representatives and the central government to ensure, before the bill is passed, that provisions concerning Indigenous Papuan communities do not contradict the spirit of the Papua Special Autonomy Law.
This stage will be important.
The final text of legislation will determine how broad principles such as customary rights, FPIC, restitution and affirmative protection are translated into practical procedures.
The DPD senator also argued that the bill needs comprehensive mechanisms covering the identification of the roots of conflicts, verification of the history of land control, mapping, examination of community consent and decisions concerning restoration, restitution, compensation and livelihood recovery.
That means the debate is moving beyond the question of who owns land on paper.
It is also about how Indonesia can create a reliable process for determining rights, preventing future disputes and repairing unresolved problems where appropriate.
Land Rights and Papua’s Development Future
The debate has wider implications for Papua’s economic future.
Land is central to agriculture, infrastructure, investment and community livelihoods. At the same time, customary land has a social and cultural significance that cannot be reduced to its economic value.
Therefore, a stronger legal framework could influence the negotiation and implementation of future projects.
For investors and government agencies, clearer rules could potentially reduce uncertainty. For Indigenous communities, stronger recognition and participation could provide greater confidence that development decisions will take customary rights into account.
This is particularly relevant to Papua’s continuing development under special autonomy.
The challenge is to ensure that economic activity, infrastructure and public programmes can proceed while communities retain meaningful protection over their customary territories.
The DPD proposal attempts to place that balance within a single legal framework.
A Broader Test for Indonesia’s Agrarian Policy
The proposed Papua provisions also present a broader test for Indonesia’s approach to agrarian reform.
If customary rights are recognised before permits are issued, if customary territories are mapped transparently, and if communities are given meaningful opportunities to provide informed consent, land governance could become more predictable.
Likewise, if historical disputes have a defined restitution or restoration mechanism, conflicts that have remained unresolved for years could potentially be addressed through institutional processes rather than left to deepen.
But the effectiveness of any legislation will ultimately depend on implementation.
A strong legal text alone cannot resolve every land dispute. Mapping must be accurate. Verification must be credible. Government institutions must coordinate. Community participation must be meaningful. And decisions must be implemented consistently.
These practical questions will likely be as important as the wording of the eight recommendations themselves.
Conclusion
The DPD RI’s eight recommendations place Papuan customary land rights at the heart of the proposed Agrarian Reform Bill.
The proposal calls for a special chapter for Papua, a nonregression clause, explicit recognition of hak ulayat, customary territory mapping before permits and strategic projects, mandatory FPIC, restitution and restoration mechanisms, affirmative protection for Indigenous women and vulnerable groups, and a review of permits and concessions that overlap with customary territories.
At its core, the proposal is an attempt to reconcile two priorities that are often discussed separately: protecting customary communities and sustaining national development.
Filep Wamafma’s message is that these objectives should not be treated as opposites. A development framework that recognises land history, customary law and community participation can potentially provide a stronger foundation for investment, public projects and local economic activity.
The next stage will be the legislative process itself.
Read Also
Three Papua Tengah Regencies Form Border Task Force to Prevent Tribal Conflict After Kapiraya Unrest
Guardians of Ancestral Ground: How Indonesia Strengthens Protection of Customary Land Rights in Papua