| Summary | Adat refers to systems of customary law for different ethnic groups in Indonesia, which is often considered to be one of the three major elements of legal plurality in Indonesia,
together with national law and Islamic law (Bowen 2003, Burns 2004). It is both (1) “a complex of rights and obligations” tying together history, land, and law in a specifically Indonesian way; and (2) a formulation of an ideal society (Davidson and Henley 2007). There are different adats depending on these different ethnic groups that use it: adat Sunda, adat Jawa, adat Aceh, adat Minagkabau, adat Sulawesi, etc. (Mutaquin 2012). This customary system has achieved formal recognition in the country, for instance, in agrarian and municipal law (ibid). The Adat communities are the communities of people (primarily indigenous and on outlying islands) who follow customary law. In the Reformasi (post-Suharto) period, adat law has gained a renewed interest and recognition among scholars and politicians, wleading some to speak of an "adat revivalism" (Davidson and Henley 2007) |
|---|
| Project | SESMAD |
|---|
| Subtype | Local Resource User Group |
|---|
| Sector | Forests |
|---|
| Interest Heterogeneity | |
|---|
| Explanation | There are some highly publicized conflicts within and between villages, often labelled as inter-ethnic conflicts between some of the more than 1000 ethnic groups in Indonesia, such as those in East Timor, Central and West Kalimantan, Central Sulawesi, Papua and the Malukus. This may be considered evidence of interest heterogeneity between the broad spectrum of groups considered as adat communities. Government data indicate that the number of village-level conflicts throughout Indonesia, as of 2002, was quite low - only 7% of villages- though some regions had much higher prevalence of conflict, such as Aceh (23% of villages), Maluku (15%), and NTB (14%), and there is significant underreporting in this data (Barron, Kaiser and Pradhan 2004). Aside from their presence, the factors driving these conflicts is also evidence of interest heterogeneity: endowment inequality and lack of dominance of a single ethnic group (though not ethnic diversity per se) are associated to conflict (Barron et al. 2004). On the other hand, there is ongoing collaboration between ethnic groups through e.g. AMAN, and thus heterogeneity cannot be that large to prevent cooperation. Note that the heterogeneity of interests becomes larger if we compare the interest of adat communities with those of the state, as evidenced by AMAN's constituting statement in 1999 -“If the state will not acknowledge us, then we will not acknowledge the state"- and the multiple struggles between adat communities sand state-approved forest projects, such as timber concessions, mining and palm oil plantations. |
|---|
| Costs Of Exit | |
|---|
| Explanation | Missing in case |
|---|
| Proportionality (Of Costs And Benefits) | |
|---|
| Explanation | Missing in case |
|---|
| Actor Group Coordination | Both formal and informal |
|---|
| Explanation | This question it refers to two types of collaboration: (1) within each adat community, ; and (2) between adat communities. Adat refers to systems of unwritten, traditional or customary law and as such is considered informal under Ostrom's typology. These informal rules regulate intra-community collaboration. Between adat communities, there has been informal collaboration. For instance, the Dayak in Borneo even had a political party before Suharto's regime, and in recent years a strong social movement has united many Dayak communities in a struggle for socio-ecological resilience; it creates a collective identity for the Dayak people by helping communities build solidarity to face loggers, map their territories, and renew traditional adat laws (Alcorn et al. 2003). Furthermore, adat communities have formally collaborated since 1999 through an organization - AMAN (Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara), the Alliance of Indigenous People of the Archipelago- constituted with support from Jakarta-based NGOs and international donors (USAID, CUSO, and OXFAM among others), building upon a process of mobilization that began with the International Year of Indigenous People in 1993 (Li 2001). AMAN has been at the forefront of struggles against large-scale timber concessions, mining operations and palm oil plantations on indigenous territories. |
|---|
| Leadership | Informal leader |
|---|
| Explanation | As with coordination, this question can be taken to refer to leadership at both the intra-group level (within each adat community) and the inter-group (between adat communities) level. Individual adat communities and inter-community adat movements have informal leadership, but there is also formal leadership of the adat through AMAN (Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara, the Alliance of Indigenous People of the Archipelago). |
|---|
| Leadership Accountability | |
|---|
| Explanation | missing in case |
|---|
| Leadership Authority | |
|---|
| Explanation | Missing in case? |
|---|
| Actor Group Trust | High (3) |
|---|
| Explanation | Presumably levels of trust within groups are high. Between groups, trust may not be that high, as evidenced by conflicts between adat communities within an ethnic group and, more notably, between some ethnic groups. |
|---|
| Past Collaboration | High (3) |
|---|
| Explanation | Under Suharto, levels of collaboration within and between adat communities were restricted by the state's non-recognition and violent suppression of cultural difference and ethnic identity. Still, levels of collaboration within "adat communities" appear to have been high, and specially after Suharto, when there was a re-invigoration of indigenous self-organization throughout the country (see Davidson and Henley 2007). Levels of collaboration between communities has been increasing since the 1990s, and currently appear to be high as evidenced by the effective mobilization of the Dayak socio-ecological movement and the AMAN natioanl organization. See e.g. Alcorn et al. (2003), Li (2002) |
|---|
| Personal Communication | More than once a year (5) |
|---|
| Explanation | Within groups, communication is frequent, between groups it is less frequent though also regular through social movements and organizations like AMAN. |
|---|
| Remote Communication | More than once a year (5) |
|---|
| Explanation | Within groups, communication is frequent; between groups it is less frequent though also regular through social movements and organizations like AMAN. |
|---|
