Gaining Recognition Through Participatory Mapping? The Role of Adat Land in the Implementation of the Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate in Papua, Indonesia Rosita Dewi ► Dewi, R. (2016). Gaining recognition through participatory mapping? The role of adat land in the imple- mentation of the Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate in Papua, Indonesia. ASEAS – Austrian Jour- nal of South-East Asian Studies, 9(1), 87-106. Participatory mapping has recently become an instrument used by NGOs to advocate for adat (customary) land in Indonesia. Maps produced from participatory mapping are expected to support legal recognition through land formalization or titling. In order to stop land grabbing through the Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate (MIFEE) proj- ect, this strategy has also been applied in Merauke district, Papua. However, the pitfalls of communal participatory mapping have brought negative impacts to adat communi- ties. This paper analyzes the land grabbing and mapping processes in three villages in the MIFEE area to show the unexpected consequences of participatory mapping. These mapping processes have caused fragmentation and conflict among adat communities. Furthermore, the legal recognition of communal adat land ownership is facilitating the buy-out of adat land by companies and/or the state. Keywords: Adat; Land Grabbing; MIFEE; Papua; Participatory Mapping  INTRODUCTION1 Gaining legal recognition for customary (adat) land is still a major challenge for indigenous people in Indonesia. Adat can be described as a way of life that links history, land, and law (Davidson & Henley, 2007). With regard to the recogni- tion of adat communities, land constitutes a central issue because many adat lands are currently threatened by land grabbing. Compared to other provinces in Indonesia, Papua is leading in gaining legal recognition for adat land rights. Pap- uan adat communities gained legal recognition through the Special Autonomy Law for Papua No. 21/2001. It seems, however, that legal recognition through this law has failed to protect the customary rights of adat communities, par- ticularly with regard to their adat land. Although legal recognition is believed to be the best method to guarantee these rights, it has clearly proved insufficient in the case of Papua. This is most clearly shown in Merauke district, where the Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate (MIFEE) project is developed. The MIFEE project comprises over a million ha of land and is the first na- 1 A draft version of this paper was presented at the Graduate School of Global Studies Workshop Series 2014 “Environmental Governance and Development Policy in Southeast Asia”, 10 January 2015, Sophia University, Tokyo. Aktuelle Südostasienforschung  Current Research on Southeast Asia w w w .s ea s. at d o i 10 .1 47 64 /1 0. A SE A S- 20 16 .1 -6 88 Rosita Dewi  ASEAS 9(1) tional project in Papua developed by the Indonesian government after Papua was granted autonomy. The central government considers MIFEE an ideal space for agri- cultural expansion since its vast arable areas contain much potential. In 2010, MIFEE replaced the Merauke Integrated Rice Estate (MIRE) which was established by the local government in 2008 to boost investment. After failing to attract investors, MIRE was relaunched as MIFEE for broader investment targets in August 2010 (Ito, Rachman, & Savitri, 2014). The central government allocated 1.283 million ha for this new project (Government of Indonesia, 2010). However, the project has faced a number of implementation problems, especially land conflicts with local communities. Through MIFEE, investors have taken over local adat lands of the Marind Anim tribe, one of the major tribes that lives in the Merauke district. The Papuan local government granted location permits for conces- sions to companies without any prior consent from the Marind Anim as the adat landowners and thus, land grabbing has been a major issue in the area (Aliansi Ger- akan Reformasi Agraria, 2012; Ito et al., 2014; Lamonge, 2012; Zakaria, Kleden, & Franky, 2011). Land grabbing refers to the purchase or lease of vast tracts of land to create ag- ricultural operations producing food, feed, or fuel, the aim being to secure the long term supplies by foreign investors, private investors, or government (Arellano-López, 2012; Daniel, 2011; Daniel & Mittal, 2009). According to the FAO, there are three in- dicators to define land grabbing: first, the size of land with a minimum of 1,000 ha for a single deal; second, the direct involvement of foreign investors or governments; and third, negative impacts on food security in the recipient countries (Borras, Kay, Go- mez, & Wilkinson, 2012). However, several researchers have criticized this definition as being too narrow. They argue that many land grabs are currently not carried out by foreign investors but also by domestic and transnational companies, often with encouragement and support from the central governments. Furthermore, land grab- bing is not only limited to large-scale land deals (Borras & Franco, 2011, p. 5; Borras et al., 2012, p. 404). In land grabbing, the state engages in re-ordering or restructuring the country’s land tenure system through policies that justify the use of idle, under- utilized, or sparsely populated territories thus facilitating the entrance of large-scale land-based investment (Arellano-López, 2012; Daniel, 2011; Daniel & Mittal, 2009). For the purpose to analyzing MIFEE, land grabbing is defined as controlling or taking possession of large-scale lands in order to transform them into agricultural estates by domestic and/or transnational companies with the engagement of local and central governments. In order to protect adat land in Merauke, NGOs have adopted participatory map- ping as a way to advocate for adat rights. The purpose of participatory mapping is to gain land titling and formalization for adat land. Land titling is the specific type of formalization in which the state demarcates the boundaries of the land, records own- ership, and recognizes the landholders’ ownership and the right to sell, mortgage, or transfer it (Hall, Hirsch, & Li, 2011). Many researchers have examined the posi- tive impacts of participatory mapping in helping traditional communities to protect their ancestral lands (Deddy, 2006; Gessa, 2008; Herlihy & Knapp, 2003). Some argue that local people can use maps created from participatory mapping to legitimize their claims over customary lands. Or in some cases, traditional communities were revi- 89Gaining Recognition Through Participatory Mapping? talized by the process of participatory mapping (Peluso, 1995; Pramono, Natalia, & Janting, 2006). Furthermore, participatory mapping may promote indigenous natu- ral resource management and reduce conflict (Deddy, 2006). Such research provides positive encouragement for NGOs to promote participatory mapping. The pitfalls of communal participatory mapping may, however, also create several negative impacts. Research has shown that participatory mapping can cause fragmentation or conflict among communities due to the fixation of land control and the map’s rigidity. It can weaken indigenous ideas and conceptions of space and promote land privatization. Moreover, participatory mapping expected to counter government mapping can be regulated and co-opted by the state (Fox, 2011; Fox, Krisnawati, & Hershock, 2005; Hodgson & Schroeder, 2002). The concerns about participatory mapping mentioned above were also found in the participatory mapping process in Merauke. To date, there has been no research on how participatory mapping was intro- duced in the MIFEE area, what the impacts are, and how the process differs from that in other parts of Indonesia. For that reason, this article aims to fill this knowledge gap and show the unexpected consequences of participatory mapping in Papua. LEGAL RECOGNITION OF ADAT LAND RIGHTS During the Suharto government, the state did not pay due attention to adat com- munities and treated their land as state land (Hall et al., 2011). The 1999 Human Rights Act states that communal land, being part of the cultural identity, deserves recognition and protection (Fitzpatrick, 2007, p. 77). After the regime change, this recognition corresponded with the main agenda of the Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nu- santara (AMAN), the national indigenous peoples’ organization that struggles for the recognition of adat communities (Arizona & Cahyadi, 2013). In 2011, AMAN and other NGOs advocating for the rights of adat communities proposed the draft bill of Recognition and Protection of Adat Communities and called on the Constitutional Court to review the Forestry Law No. 41/1999 regarding the existence of adat forest. However, until today, these efforts have still not materialized in substantial changes to the land regime. The decision of the Constitutional Court to recognize the exis- tence of adat forest land has not changed the government policy regarding adat land in general. Adat land is still treated as idle land that is put under the jurisdiction of the state (state land). Hence, land conflicts between adat communities and the state continue. In fact, however, adat communities do not have to wait for the enactment of a na- tional law to gain recognition, but local governments at the district or province level have the authority to recognize adat communities under local regulations. After the fall of Suharto’s authoritarian regime, the new government under president Habibie started implementing decentralization policies in 1999.2 These policies transferred power from central to local government and gave wider authority to local govern- ments to enact their own local regulations as long as they do not contradict nation- al law. This also includes regional authority for the recognition of adat (Bakker & 2 See regional autonomy laws No. 22/1999 and No. 32/2004, and laws on the fiscal balance between central and regional governments No. 25/1999 and No. 33/2004. 90 Rosita Dewi  ASEAS 9(1) Moniaga, 2010). However, local governments are usually reluctant to recognize adat communities in their regions as they are competing to attract investment for regional development. Land designated for concession areas or other investment has often been cultivated by adat communities, especially outside of Java. Therefore, local gov- ernments perceive the legal recognition of adat communities as a burden. As a result, local governments often facilitate land grabbing by working closely with corporate actors (Alhamid, Ballard, & Kanowski, 2009). THE CASE STUDY SITE The district of Merauke comprises a vast area of 4.6 million ha in the autonomous province of Papua. The total population of Merauke district is 263,664 people (Popu- lation and Civil Registration Board of Merauke District, 2015). The indigenous popu- lation of Papua comprises 56.3%; the rest are transmigrants (43.7%) who mainly came from Java and Makassar (Statistics Indonesia, 2011). The biggest tribe in Merauke is the Marind tribe, often called Marind Anim. This tribe is divided into seven big clans: Gebze, Mahuze, Ndiken, Kaize, Samkakai, Balagaize, and Basik-basik. Each clan has its own clan leader. Each local village, where Marind Anim live, usually consists of these seven clans and is headed by an adat leader. Whereas this leader represents cus- tomary law, each local village also has a village leader that is legally recognized by the state. In addition, there is also a customary community council (Lembaga Masyarakat Adat, LMA) leader – a position created by the central government after the establish- ment of the Papua Special Autonomy Law. This function sometimes overlaps with the function of the adat leader. These three levels of leadership make up the political complexity of local villages. In the Marind Anim tribe, adat land ownership is based on clan membership with borders that have been agreed upon among the clans that own the adat land. Usually, land ownership is based on ancestral heritage and passed down through oral stories from generation to generation. Trees, stones, rivers, or sago palm huts are used to signify the land borders of adat land. Adat communities also have their own mecha- nisms for leasing adat land. To lease a piece of adat land from one clan, the transfer has to be agreed upon by the clan members and the seven clans leaders who live in the village through an adat meeting that is led by the village adat leader. In this article, I examine three cases in three villages – Selu, Duku, and Alu village3 – which serve as examples of the land grab process. Selu (435 people, 108 households) represents a village that accepted company cultivation of their adat land in the early stages of the MIFEE implementation, when John Gluba Gebze still served as the head of Merauke district (2001-2010). Duku (691 people, 153 households) represents a vil- lage that accepted company cultivation of their adat land after Romanus Mbaraka be- came the new head of Merauke district in 2011. And Alu (430 people, 73 households) is a village that rejected company cultivation of their adat land. All three villages initi- ated and conducted participatory mapping (Statistic Indonesia, 2011; Yasanto, 2013). The research scope is limited to the period between the implementation of the MIFEE project (2010) and the end of Susilo Bambang Yudhono’s (SBY) presidential 3 Due to the sensitivity of the issue, the names of the villages have been changed. 91Gaining Recognition Through Participatory Mapping? term (2015). Data collection was carried out in the Merauke district in January, Au- gust, and September of 2014. Data were collected through interviews with leaders in each of the three villages, adat community members in each village, the former gov- ernor who initiated the MIFEE project, local government representatives, the com- pany that holds concessions in that area, and NGOs which act as advocates on behalf of the adat communities in these villages. MIFEE AS A LAND GRABBING PROJECT IN THE NAME OF DEVELOPMENT MIFEE was launched by the central government in August 2010. The project is meant to strengthen the national food and energy stock and at the same time accelerate economic development in Merauke (Government of Indonesia, 2010). MIFEE is a continuation of the Merauke District Program. The local government launched this investment program on the 105th anniversary of the Merauke district in 2007. The program was marked for the symbolic handover of adat land from adat communities to the government to be hereafter given to the investors. Later, in 2008, the local gov- ernment and investors agreed to create a specific project called MIRE (Awas MIFEE, 2012). The establishment of MIRE was in line with president SBY’s speech on the great rice harvest in 2006: “First, let’s develop Merauke as a rice granary; second, de- velop plantations in Merauke such as sugarcane and palm oil to deal with food secu- rity problems” (Yudhoyono, 2006). In order to realize MIRE, a consortium of 15 Saudi Arabian investors and Indonesian corporations was ready to take part in the project (Rulistia, 2008). The Bin Laden Group, an investor from Saudi Arabia, prepared USD 4 billion to develop 500,000 ha of land in Merauke. However, this investment was cancelled due to the global financial crises (Awas MIFEE, 2012). To make the project suited for the new conditions, the government re-packaged the MIRE project into MIFEE. MIFEE was expected to attract investment in Merauke that was not only limited to rice cultivation but also in the plantation and forestry sector. It was in line with president SBY’s ambition to “feed Indonesia, feed the world” after the global food and energy crises in 2008 (Awas MIFEE, 2012). Under Government Regulation No. 18/2010, MIFEE was officially launched in 2010. However, these investments threaten adat land. From 2007 to 2010, the district head granted location permits for over 2.4 million ha of land (more than 50% of the to- tal area of Merauke) to 36 companies.4 When granting location permits, the district head based his decision solely on the spatial planning of the district, without notify- ing or receiving the consent of the adat communities, which were in effect the adat landowners. The location permits neglected the rights of the Marind Anim people. This became the major factor that prevented permit holders from establishing plan- tations. In order to make the process of land transfer smoother, several companies used illegal ways to get permission from adat communities.5 Local government and village leaders were frequently involved in this process. 4 This area was greater than allocated in the initial plans for the MIFEE (1.283 million ha) (Investment Board of Merauke District, 2011). 5 Companies used many methods to ensure the transfer of land rights from adat communities, including intimidation, co-opting village leaders, and cheating during the negotiation process (Zakaria et al., 2011). 92 Rosita Dewi  ASEAS 9(1) No Company Commodity Area (ha) Location (subdistrict)Location Permission Operation Permission korindo group 1 PT. Dongin Prabhawa palm oil 39,800 34,000 Ngguti 2 PT. Berkat Cipta Abadi palm oil 40,000 14,525 Ulilin 3 PT. Inocin Abadi industrial timber plantation (IUPHHK-HTI) 100,000 99,665 Ulilin 4 PT. Papua Agro Lestari palm oil 39,800 32,347 Ulilin medco group 5 PT. Selaras Inti Semesta IUPHHK-HTI 301,600 169,400 Kaptel 6 PT. Medco Papua Industri Lestari wood and chip 2,800 na Kaptel 7 PT. Medco Papua Alam Lestari IUPHHK-HTI 74,219 na Kaptel modern land group 8 PT. Wanamulia Sukses Sejati IUPHHK-HTI 61,000 na Animha 9 PT. Agri Surya Agung sugarcane 40,000 36,774 Ilwayab, Tubang, Ngguti 10 PT. Nusantara Agri Resources sugarcane 40,000 39,005 Ilwayab, Ngguti 11 PT. Mega Surya Agung soybean, corn 24,697 (changed from coordinate into 9,882) na Kaptel, Ngguti 12 PT. Wanamulia Sukses Sejati IUPHHK-HTI 96,553 na Kaptel, Muting 13 PT. Wanamulia Sukses Sejati IUPHHK-HTI 116,000 na Kaptel, Okaba, Ngguti, Muting hardaya group 14 PT. Hardaya Sugar Papua Plantation sugarcane 44,812 37,898 Jagebob 15 PT. Hardaya Sawit Papua Plantation palm oil 62,150 44,740 Jagebob Table 1. Companies and Concession Area in MIFEE, 2014. (Investment Board of Merauke District, 19 August 2014). 93Gaining Recognition Through Participatory Mapping? No Company Commodity Area (ha) Location (subdistrict)Location Permission Operation Permission rajawali group 16 PT. Cenderawa- sih Jaya Mandiri sugarcane 40,000 22,117 Malind, Kurik 17 PT. Karya Bumi Papua sugarcane 30,000 15,628 Malind, Kurik 18 PT. Rizki Kemi- lau Berjaya sugarcane 10,000 na Kurik astra group 19 PT. Dharma Agro Lestari sugarcane 50,000 na Tubang, Okaba 20 PT. Bhakti Agro Lestary sugarcane 26,098 na Animha mayora group 21 PT. Swarna Hijau Indah sugarcane 36,363 33,668 Tubang, Kimaam 22 PT. Randu kun- ing Utama sugarcane 40,000 na Ilwayab, Tubang, Kimaam 23 PT. Kurnia Alam Nusantara sugarcane 50,00 na Tubang, Ilwayab bia group 24 PT. Bio Inti Agrindo palm oil 39,900 36,400 Ulilin 25 PT. Ulilin Agro Lestari palm oil 12,538 na Ulilin wilmar group 26 PT. Wahana Samudra Sentosa IUPHHK-HTI 79,033 na Kaptel, Ngguti 27 PT. Anugrah Re- jeki Nusantara sugarcane 27,457 na Tanah Miring, Animha 28 PT. Lestari Subur Indonesia sugarcane 25,102 na Jagebob, Sota ams group 29 PT. Agrinusa Persada Mulia palm oil 40,000 39,692 Muting 30 PT. Agriprima Cipta Pesada palm oil 33,540 na Muting, Ulilin Table 1 (continued). 94 Rosita Dewi  ASEAS 9(1) The local government usually gave support to the companies rather than the adat communities. When first approaching these communities, local government repre- sentatives did not always explain the company’s project in detail. They used money and vague development promises to persuade adat communities to support the proj- ects. On the whole, adat landowner communities agreed, especially if the head of the Merauke district was the one to approach the communities directly. Because the negotiation process excluded any detailed explanation of the proposed projects and because much information was deliberately withheld by the company, the land trans- fer process became a land grab. No Company Commodity Area (ha) Location (subdistrict)Location Permission Operation Permission without group 31 PT. China Ghate Agriculture Development rice, cassava, ground nut, corn 20,000 na Okaba 32 PT. Internusa Jaya Sejahtera palm oil 18,567 na Muting, Ulilin, Elikobel 33 PT. Purna Karsa Wibawa sugarcane 20,223 na Ngguti, Tubang, Okaba 34 PT. Plasma Nutfah Marind Papua IUPHHK-HTI 67,736 64,050 Ngguti, Okaba, Kaptel 35 PT. Merauke Rayon Jaya HTI 206,800 na na 36 PT. Sino Indo- nesia Shunlida Fishing fish processing industry 33 na Merauke 37 PT. Dwikarya Reksa Abadi fishery na na Ilwayab 38 PT. Cipta Papua Agri Lestari HTI na na 39 PT. Indonesia Jaya Makmur Investasi sugarcane 20,223 na Ngguti, Tubang 40 PT. Global Papua Abadi sugarcane 31,026 na Tanah Miring, Jagebob 41 PT. Karisma Agri Pratama rice, corn, ground nut 40,000 37,786 Tubang Table 1 (continued). 95Gaining Recognition Through Participatory Mapping? The Village of Selu In Selu, for example, the Selaras Inti Semesta (SIS) company wanted to gain the right to cultivate adat land. SIS is a subsidiary of the Medco Group, which was founded by Arifin Panigoro, an active member of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P). He was particularly active in encouraging Merauke’s local government to open up the district to investment for large-scale plantations and agriculture (Awas MIFEE, 2012). SIS held a concession from the local government for over 169,000 ha of land (Investment Board of Merauke District, 2014) that they and the local govern- ment made use of without the consent of the communities (Zakaria et al., 2011). In response, the communities blocked the company from entering their lands. In order to open the blockade and get the permission of the communities, SIS asked John Gluba Gebze to help SIS to approach the communities in his role as the district head of Merauke. Due to his close relationship with Arifin Panigoro,6 John Gluba Gebze agreed to help the Medco Group approach the communities about leasing their adat land to SIS. After the involvement of the district head, who was also a member of the Marind Anim tribe, the adat communities in Selu agreed to negotiate with the company representatives. We made a rejection letter that was sent to the district head. [It] forced John [Gluba Gebze] to visit Selu together with the company. . . . He promised to de- velop Selu if they gave permission for the company to operate in Selu. (head of Selu, 22 August 2014) The district head promised, if the adat communities in Selu permitted Medco to cultivate their lands, Selu would become a small city. . . . They [the company] came to the adat communities and brought a document that was signed by the district head, so that the adat leader had to accept it. (adat leader of Selu, 22 August 2014) In the end, the adat community agreed to give permission to SIS in exchange for IDR 300 million (USD 22,750) – tali asih (ex gratia) – to compensate for the use of adat land. Although the agreement was in writing, the company did not fully explain the details of the project during negotiations with the adat communities. Moreover, it did not mention the exact area of the adat land to be used by the project. As a result, once the project started, the communities felt that the company had cheated them. For example, one interviewed adat member, explained that he did not know that his land would be used for 60 years after 2009. This type of problem emerged because the process of obtaining free, prior, and informed consent was not carried out ap- propriately. Community members did not know the exact content of the agreement between the leaders in Selu and SIS. Once the company started to clear forests and establish forest plantations, the ability to gather food from the forest was limited, affecting the livelihoods of communities in Selu. Under a Corporate Social Responsi- 6 The close relationship between Arifin Panigoro and John Gluba Gebze (JGG) was manifested by his granting Panigoro the title Arifin Dipanigoro Warku Gebze as a member of the Gebze clan. This nomina- tion enabled Panigoro to become the owner of the adat land (Tabloid Jubi, 2009). 96 Rosita Dewi  ASEAS 9(1) bility (CSR) project, the company created a vegetable garden (kebun sayur) and a rice field for the communities to cultivate. This project did not work, however, because the adat communities were not familiar with rice cultivation as they traditionally gathered food from the forests. Few people joined the CSR project. In addition, few people in Selu were employed to work for the company. The communities became dissatisfied with these conditions and were disappointed as the promises from the district head had not materialized. As a result, they now want to reclaim land from the company. The Village of Duku Land transfer in Duku offers another example for land grabbing. The PT. Karya Bumi Papua and PT Cenderawasih Jaya Mandiri companies (subsidiaries of the Rajawali Group) were granted location permits by the district head in 2010 for over 70,000 ha7 of sugarcane plantations (Investment Board of Merauke District, 2014). The negotia- tion process involved the head of the Merauke district parliament approaching the adat communities in Duku and asking permission for the Rajawali Group to open sugarcane plantations on their lands. The company, through the head of the district parliament, promised to improve the economic conditions of the adat community in Duku through CSR projects. The interesting thing in this case is the position of the head of the district parliament. Not only did he serve as head of parliament, he was also the consular head of a local NGO (Yasanto) in Merauke. This NGO signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Rajawali Group to implement an empowerment program as a CSR project. This explains why the presence of an NGO advocating for the adat community has not been effective in this case. The Rajawali Group also co-opted the LMA leader in Duku to help persuade the adat community to give their lands to the company. The LMA leader in this village is more active in dealing with matters outside the village, whereas the adat leader only deals with matters inside the village, particularly rituals on behalf of the community. With regard to the communication with the company, the LMA, supported by the village secretary (village administration), is more active compared to the adat leader. Dur- ing the negotiation process, the company promised the leaders in Duku money for their efforts to convince the communities. The LMA leader in Duku began to actively persuade community members to lease their land for plantations by promising them that they would earn money from the lease. In return, the adat leader, the LMA, and the village leader in Duku as well as the village administrators received a monthly payment of between IDR 500,000 (USD 38) and 1,000,000 (USD 76) from the Ra- jawali Group. By involving the head of the district parliament and the LMA leader at the village level, the companies were successful in getting the adat community to agree to lease their land for sugarcane cultivation. On 21 November 2010, seven clans signed an agreement document, which stipulated that 158 households would receive IDR 6 bil- lion (USD 455,060) in compensation for their adat land. The money was to be given out by the head of each clan, according to the area that the clan occupied. 7 PT. Cenderawasih Jaya Mandiri holds a location permit for 40,000 ha in the Malind and Kurik sub- districts; PT. Karya Bumi Papua holds a location permit for 30,000 ha in the Kurik sub-district. 97Gaining Recognition Through Participatory Mapping? The Village of Alu In contrast to the cases described above, the community in Alu, although also threat- ened by the MIFEE land grab (by the Rajawali group), still retains their land. There are two major reasons for this: First, since their land was used for transmigration pro- grams during the Suharto period, the contested area of community land was small (around 15,000 ha), and second, NGOs actively advocated for the protection of adat land in Alu. Due to the involvement of NGO advocates, the community maintained a strong position vis-à-vis the company and local government representatives. Pusaka, an NGO from Jakarta, was very active in mobilizing the adat communities. The vil- lage sent an official letter to the Rajawali Group and local government to reject the re- quest to cultivate their adat land. Later, in 2011, as advised by Pusaka, the village also created an adat land map, using participatory mapping exercises in order to counter the government map that was used for MIFEE investment guidance. As seen above, agricultural expansion of MIFEE has threatened the existence of adat land of the Marind Anim community through land grabbing. The government issued the concession over the adat land without the consent of the adat communi- ties as the legitimate owners of the land. The local government was involved in a land leasing process that was perceived as unfair and harmful by the adat communities. Supported by the local NGOs, therefore, adat communities started to conduct par- ticipatory mapping to protect their adat land. CONDUCTING PARTICIPATORY MAPPING TO GAIN RECOGNITION OF ADAT LAND In Indonesia, participatory mapping began in 1992, following the international trend in the 1990s to actively advocate for customary rights through participatory mapping. The first participatory mapping project was conducted by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in Kayan Mentarang, East Kalimantan (Peluso, 1995). Participatory mapping of Dayak communities was also conducted in West Kalimantan by the Pancur Kasih organization in 1995 in order to receive due recognition for the adat communities and their lands (Pramono et al., 2006). Participatory mapping became more prevalent af- ter the establishment of the government’s Regulation No. 69/1996 concerning public participation in spatial planning. Indonesian activists responded to the regulation by forming the Network for Participatory Mapping (Jaringan Kerja Pemetaan Partisipasi, JKPP) in 1996 (Pramono, Samperante, & Achmaliadi, 2009). Between 1996 and 1997, participatory mapping was conducted in several adat villages in Kalimantan (Deddy, 2006). It was difficult, however, for these maps to be adopted into government poli- cies on spatial planning, especially during the Suharto government (Pramono et al., 2006). After Suharto’s fall in 1998, advocacy for the rights of adat communities inten- sified. The establishment of AMAN in 1999 encouraged the struggle for the rights of adat communities in Indonesia. In line with the AMAN agenda, participatory map- ping initiated by JKPP became an important strategy to strengthen adat claims to lands and forests in order to guarantee the continuity of their livelihood (Pramono et al., 2009). 98 Rosita Dewi  ASEAS 9(1) In the province of Papua, participatory mapping has gained importance since the enactment of the Special Autonomy Law No. 21/2001. This law has opened up wider opportunities for participation, which has been used by NGOs to carry out participa- tory mapping in several villages in Papua in order to ensure land formalization and titling. The implementation of MIFEE has become an obvious example for the way in which the Indonesian government neglects the existence and rights of adat com- munities in Papua in exchange for support for development projects. It shows the contradiction of implementing a Special Autonomy Law that stipulates recognition for customary rights, while at the same time implementing a spatial planning process that prioritizes economic development at the expense of adat land in Merauke. This contradiction encourages NGOs to advocate for adat communities to fight against land grabbing in the course of MIFEE’s implementation. After the launch of the project, many NGOs united to form the Papuan People’s Solidarity to Reject MIFEE (SORPATOM). The NGO group was extremely effective in highlighting the negative impacts of MIFEE for adat communities in Merauke. The group wrote letters to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (UNCERD), requesting the committee to urge the Indonesian government to abandon the imple- mentation of MIFEE (Ginting & Pye, 2013). Many of the NGOs that were incorporat- ed in SORPATOM promoted the termination of the MIFEE project because it led to land grabs of adat land. These NGOs did not succeed in stopping the MIFEE project but they believed that participatory mapping could be used as an instrument to stop land grabbing. They therefore persuaded communities to create adat land maps to protect their land and to gain legal recognition and titles for their lands. Several of the villages that are affected by the MIFEE project have created or plan to create adat land maps at the behest of NGOs. The involved NGOs believe that an adat land map created by a participatory mapping process can be a powerful instru- ment to counter government maps that are used to make claims over land or forest areas. Participatory mapping, therefore, has become a way to resist the implementa- tion of MIFEE. Every village has its own specific reason to create an adat land map through participatory mapping. For example, in Selu, Yayasan Pusaka, an Indonesian NGO supported by international NGOs, raised awareness among adat communities about the importance of participatory mapping. After SIS was deemed in violation of its promises to Selu communities, the village leader asked Yasanto to help create an adat land map of Selu. Participatory mapping in Selu was conducted in 2013. The process took three months (from October to December). Local government funded the project8 in an effort to counter the negative backlash to the land grabs that had spread during the implementation of the MIFEE. The adat map also made it easier for the government to map the owners of adat land in the respective villages (Yasanto, 2013). In addition, the close relationship maintained by Mbaraka, the new head of Merauke district, with Yasanto may have influenced his decision to trust the fund for participatory mapping of the village. Yayasan Pusaka was also very active in introducing participatory mapping in Alu. The communities in Alu trusted Yayasan Pusaka because the NGO had supported 8 Participatory mapping for this village was funded from a grant made in 2013, provided from the Me- rauke district budget. The local government granted IDR 560,300,000 (USD 42,410) to conduct participa- tory mapping in five villages in Animha sub-district (Yasanto, 2013). 99Gaining Recognition Through Participatory Mapping? them in protecting their lands from the Rajawali Group. Adat communities, through the head of village, asked the NGO to help with the participatory mapping of their adat land. In 2011, participatory mapping of the village was conducted with the fi- nancial support of two international NGOs – the Forest Peoples Program (FPP) and the Climate Land Use Alliance (CLUA). In the process, a participatory adat map was established for the border area between Alu and neighboring villages. The map was anticipated to provide a last defense for Alu communities against the Rajawali Group as the major instrument to claim their lands. In Duku, the secretary of the village requested students from Musamus University (Universitas Musamus Merauke) to facilitate participatory mapping. The adat com- munities in Duku felt that creating the adat land map was important and planned to self-fund the project. Duku was initially driven to make an adat land map after communities from Alu claimed parts of Duku adat land as their own. Adat commu- nities in Duku aim to use the map to reclaim the adat land that is now claimed by Alu communities. However, the participatory mapping has yet to begin and remains under negotiation between Musamus University and village administrators in Duku. From these three examples, it is clear that participatory mapping has become an important instrument to create a sense of legal ownership for the adat communities. In Selu, the adat map created through participatory mapping will be used to reclaim adat land that has been taken by the company by means of unfair negotiation. In Alu, adat members feel that the adat map is an important tool to protect their lands from a company that tried to grab them. It is also important for claiming adat land ownership for Alu members who feel that the community was left with too little land after the transmigration project. Unlike the other two villages, the Duku community feels that participatory mapping is important to claim lands that are threatened by adat communities in their neighboring village. In all three villages, adat maps created by participatory mapping are seen by adat people as powerful instruments to claim ownership of adat land. THE LIMITS OF PARTICIPATORY MAPPING Experiences from several countries over the last decades have shown that participa- tory mapping has helped communities to receive recognition of customary rights (Chapin, Lamb, & Threlkeld, 2005; Deddy, 2006; Gessa, 2008; Herlihy & Knapp, 2003; Roth, 2009). Participatory mapping has led to successful land claims, compensation for customary lands taken by states or companies, and the recognition of customary lands and territories (Fox et al., 2005; Peluso, 1995). The maps enhanced commu- nity capacity to negotiate access to local resources, and increased their involvement in policy processes. However, the practice of participatory mapping may also bring unexpected consequences for the communities. First, mapping can cause fragmen- tation and conflict among communities. Second, because the map fails to provide customary land use information, it can erode the status of indigeneity of customary lands. Third, the map can increase state co-optation over customary lands by giving the government authority to control customary lands under legal regulations (Fox, 2011, p. 66). The participatory mapping that has been carried out in order to counter MIFEE has also faced the problems described by Fox (2011), including fragmentation 100 Rosita Dewi  ASEAS 9(1) and conflict among members of the Marind Anim tribe. After participatory mapping was conducted, a dispute about the border between neighboring villages emerged. Previously the two villages did not have a rigid concept of their border but used a natural barrier such as a stand of trees, a river, or stones to signify the border between adat land held by a certain clan and to recognize existing adat land ownership. The border was acknowledged based on a mutual understanding among the community members. For example, when they hunted kangaroo (saham) and the animal died on another clan’s land, the hunters would divide and share the meat with the owners of the land. However, after the participatory mapping was conducted, the rigidity of the map caused problems. The communities felt that claims to certain areas were very impor- tant. A clear example concerns the neighboring villages of Alu and Duku. Alu wanted to protect their land from the company and the local government, but when they conducted participatory mapping, they failed to consult with the neighboring village of Duku. This led to their claiming an area near the border of the two villages. The Alu community used the map to claim adat land that overlapped with the adat land of Duku. This led to fragmentation between the communities in Alu and Duku. The two communities are both from the Marind Anim tribe and members often inter- marry. Therefore, the adat land of these two villages does not require a rigid border. In addition, because of intermarriage, adat landowners cannot be divided firmly on the side of one village or the other, because the next generation could inherit the rights over adat land from either village. This is why Alu’s claim over Duku’s adat land ignited the anger of Duku members. On the other hand, Duku’s rejection of Alu’s map also sparked the anger of Alu members. They [Duku] violated the adat land border that has been existing. Rajawali Group created the border beyond the original border. This caused the conflict. .  .  . There was a meeting between Alu and Duku to discuss this border. They persisted [on the newly created borders] and I evicted the Duku village head. (village head consultative body in Alu, 20 August 2014) That is Duku land, but after the company operated, they [Alu] did not accept that border. They defended that [border] . . . even the conducted adat meeting cannot solve this [adat land border] dispute. Besides that, they even threatened us. (village head of Duku, 21 August 2014) These issues not only fragmented adat communities, but also led to social con- flict. In the case of Alu and Duku, tensions have erupted between adat members from both villages. Worse still, the traditional adat meeting that is customarily used to solve problems among adat communities has not been able to settle the problem of overlapping land claims. In order to settle the conflict, administrators from both villages agreed to bring the problem to the district head of Merauke for resolution. However, as of September 2014, the conflict had yet to be resolved. This conflict shows the irony of participatory mapping of adat land. While adat communities struggle to gain recognition, the community itself no longer recognizes their own adat rules. Despite the aim to revitalize indigenous values through the 101Gaining Recognition Through Participatory Mapping? implementation of participatory mapping, the recognition of adat land instead keeps them away from their indigenous values. The conflict between Alu and Duku villag- ers has contributed to the loss of indigenous values for the Marind Anim tribe. The map made things worse through a lack of information and a failure to address adat values during the participatory mapping process, which created misunderstandings about land ownership. In fact, it is considered taboo among adat communities to discuss the history of adat land with anyone from outside the village clan. The case of Selu is different from the two cases above. The map created with par- ticipatory mapping in Selu will be used to reclaim the adat land that is cultivated by SIS. The adat communities in Selu do not know how many hectares of land have already been cultivated by the company. Nonetheless, the map is also expected to be useful for reclaiming adat land after the contract with Medco is finished. Unlike the map in Alu that only delineated the border with its neighbors, the participatory adat map in Selu also maps adat land among the clans inside Selu. The map does not only show the border with the neighboring village, but also states the name of the clan that owns adat land within the village (Yasanto, 2013). Indeed, the goal of this map is not the delineation between villages but the mapping of adat landowners among the clans in Selu. The rigid and detailed map produced by the communities of Selu may loosen kinship ties within single clans of Marind Anim, causing members to become individualistic. This, in turn, could make clan members become more pragmatic in seeking economic profit as individual landowners. Because the map does not recog- nize the concept of adat land, it may transform communal land into private land. As a result, a race to claim adat land may take place in this village. In the long term, the map may ignite fragmentation or even conflict as the participatory mapping process has failed to gather complete information about the history of adat land. Another problem is that the head of Merauke district has not yet signed the docu- ment that would make adat maps a legal proof of adat land ownership. Accordingly, the map still lacks the force of law. Based on my observations, local government sup- port for participatory mapping is only voiced to counter the negative backlash from implementing MIFEE. Although local government is trying to promote the protec- tion of adat land in Merauke, its unwillingness to legalize the participatory adat map indicates its half-hearted support. Furthermore, the local government even intends to use the maps to conduct negotiations with landowners. According to them, the main obstacle to implement MIFEE is the complexity to lease adat land. The adat map makes it easier for the government and companies to target whom to negotiate with. A concrete example for this argument is a land deal in Baley village, where the company SIS leased land to set up a saw mill. As there was no adat map that showed the owners of the land, the company mistakenly gave financial compensation to the adat community in Baley. However, the adat community in the neighboring village (Sesa), was the actual owner of the land used to set up the factory. The situation led to a conflict that was disadvantageous for the company and could have been avoided through a detailed map. Therefore, the government and the company both benefit from adat maps that guide their investments. In turn, the same maps often leave adat communities without the legal protection they hoped to gain from the participatory mapping process. 102 Rosita Dewi  ASEAS 9(1) The cases show that the communities perceive the maps as the final accomplish- ment of all forms of struggle for their adat land: “We have our original map [participa- tory map] that shows the border of our land” (village head consultative body in Alu, 20 August 2014). Hence, holding an adat map means having authority over the area that is claimed. The communities do not realize, however, that participatory map- ping produces flexible maps that can change at any time with social change in the community. Even in the NGO participatory mapping report, “it stated that the map is not the final map. This map is an early stage of adat land owner map which has to improve and update with the existed information to obtain the definitive map” (Yasanto, 2013, p. 41). Inter-marriage among villages also can change the piece of adat land status in the village. Besides that, the adat land that is owned by an adat com- munity in one village is not always only inside the village, but also situated in other villages (Yasanto, 2013, p. 102). However, how this affects the map was not communi- cated well to the adat community in the process of mapping. This lack of understanding the map, its legality, and how it can be used causes conflict among the members of clans and villages. Over-simplification of the im- portance of participatory mapping by the NGOs has contributed to the problem. Participatory mapping has become a generic prescription for all adat communities struggling for their lands, whether or not the resulting maps are recognized by the government. The promotion of participatory mapping by Indonesian NGOs follows an international NGO movement, which also actively supports and funds the local NGOs working with adat communities in the MIFEE project. Although the NGOs believe that the maps produced from participatory mapping can be used to gain land formalization, and even land titling from the government, they have not considered the possible problems that these maps may cause. CONCLUSION Participatory mapping has been considered as an important mechanism for adat communities in their struggle to claim rights to customary land. This perception is boosted by NGOs in Indonesia who also advocate on behalf of the Marind Anim in- digenous people in Merauke. They believe that participatory mapping can stop the land grabbing taking place under the MIFEE project in Merauke district, Papua, and protect the adat land of the Marind Anim. Through an analysis of the land grabbing as well as the subsequent participatory mapping processes in three villages in the MIFEE area, this article has shown that, contrary to the intended purpose, participa- tory mapping has initiated problems. First, it has caused fragmentation and conflict among adat communities. Second, the legal recognition of adat land through land formalization has led to the co-optation of adat land by companies and/or the state. Usually, the key problem for a company is the vagueness that surrounds adat land ownership. Participatory mapping renders visible the clear ownership of adat land, making it easier for a company to identify the target of negotiation for land. In addi- tion, once a parcel of adat land is fixed as land owned by one person, adat land can be easily transferred into private land and can then be more easily leased by legal means. It is often forgotten that not only the adat communities themselves and NGOs, but also investors want legal recognition for adat communities. Traditional communities 103Gaining Recognition Through Participatory Mapping? are always seen as obstacles to development and are difficult to target for investors. Legal recognition makes it easier for them to find the target person with whom the company representative has to speak and negotiate. Thus, it can be said that partici- patory mapping is creating a new space for legal land grabbing. For adat land ownership, land formalization and titling could become a trap for adat communities and endanger their livelihoods. After land titling, adat land can be transferred, mortgaged, and sold in a legally-binding fashion, a process already ob- served in Cambodia (Milne, 2013) and in the Philippines (Crisologo-Mendoza & Prill- Brett, 2009). It is therefore not impossible that adat land will cease to exist and that private land ownership will become the dominant land ownership regime in Papua. In this sense, participatory mapping may become a new instrument to accelerate le- gal land grabbing and create new conflicts between members of adat communities. The new government under president Jokowi intends to continue the agricultural expansion in Merauke. The central government is planning to open another 1.2 mil- lion ha for rice cultivation. To clarify the status of the land, Jokowi released the one map policy. The policy aims to create one map as a basis for spatial planning and for the release of all further investment permits. Considering that adat land has always been an obstacle for the implementation of the expansion project, can this policy be an opportunity for indigenous peoples to incorporate their traditional territories based on adat maps resulting from participation or does the mapping facilitate the investment in adat land? This question has to be considered by NGOs in their sup- port of participatory mapping.  REFERENCES Alhamid, H., Ballard, C., & Kanowski, P. (2009). Forest for the people? Special autonomy, community for- estry cooperatives and the apparent return of customary rights in Papua. In C. Warre & J. F. McCarthy (Eds.), Community, environment and local governance in Indonesia: Locating the commonweal (pp. 145- 163). New York: Routledge. Aliansi Gerakan Reformasi Agraria. (2012). Land grabbing for food and biofuel. Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate (MIFEE) case study. Penang: Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific. Arellano-López, F. S. (2012). Conflicting land use agendas: Environment, indigenous land rights and de- velopment in Central Bolivia. The case of the Isiboro-Sécure indigenous territory and national park (TIPNIS). Paper presented at the International Conference on Global Land Grabbing II, Ithaca, NY. Arizona, Y., & Cahyadi, E. (2013). The revival of indigenous people: Contestation over special legislation on masyarakat adat. In B. Hauser-Schaublin (Ed.), Adat and indigeinity in Indonesia: Culture and entitlements between heteronomy and self-ascription (pp. 43-62). Gottingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen. Awas MIFEE. (2012). An agribusiness attack in West Papua: Unravelling the Merauke Integrated Food and En- ergy Estate. Retrieved from https://awasmifee.potager.org/uploads/2012/03/mifee_en.pdf Bakker, L., & Moniaga, S. (2010). The space between: Land claims and the law in Indonesia. Asian Journal of Social Science, 38, 187-203. Borras, S. M., & Franco, J. C. (2011). Political dynamics of land grabbing in Southeast Asia: Understanding Europe’s role. Amsterdam: Transnational Institute. Borras, S. M., Kay, C., Gomez, S., & Wilkinson, J. (2012). Land grabbing and global capitalist accumulation: Key features in Latin America. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 33(4), 402-416. Chapin, M., Lamb, Z., & Threlkeld, B. (2005). Mapping indigenous land. Annual Review in Anthropology, 34, 619-638. 104 Rosita Dewi  ASEAS 9(1) Crisologo-Mendoza, L., & Prill-Brett, J. (2009). Communal land management in the Cordillera region of the Philippines. In J. Perera (Ed.), Land and the cultural survival: The communal lands rights of indigenous people in Asia (pp. 35-61). Mandaluyong City: Asian Bank Development. Daniel, S. (2011). Land grabbing and potential implications for world food security. In M. Behnassi, S. A. Shahid, & J. D’Silva (Eds.), Sustainable agricultural development (pp. 25-42). New York: Springer. Daniel, S., & Mittal, A. (2009). The great land grab. Rush for world’s farmland threatens food security for the poor. Oakland: The Oakland Institute. Davidson, J. S., & Henley, D. (Eds.). (2007). The revival of tradition in Indonesian politics: The deployment of adat from colonialism to indigenism. New York: Routledge. Deddy, K. (2006). Community mapping, tenurial rights and conflict resolution in Kalimantan. In F. Majid Cooke (Ed.), State, communities and forests in contemporary Borneo (pp. 89-110). Canberra: ANU E Press. Fitzpatrick, D. (2007). Land, custom, and the state in post-Suharto Indonesia: A foreign lawyer’s Perspec- tive. In J. S. Davidson & D. Henley (Eds.), The revival of tradition in Indonesian politics: The deployment of adat from colonialism to indigenism (pp. 130-148). New York: Routledge. Fox, J. (2011). Siam mapped and mapping in Cambodia: Boundaries, sovereignty, and indigenous concep- tions of space. Society and Natural Resources: An International Journal, 15(1), 65-78. Fox, J., Krisnawati, S., & Hershock, P. (Eds.). (2005). Mapping communities: Ethics, values, practices. Hawaii: East West Centre. Gessa, S. D. (2008). Participatory mapping as a tool of empowerment. Rome: International Land Coalition. Ginting, L., & Pye, O. (2013). Resisting agribusiness development: The Merauke Integrated Food and En- ergy in West Papua, Indonesia. Austrian Journal of South East Asian Studies, 6(1), 160-182. Government of Indonesia. (2010). Grand Design Pengembangan Pangan dan Energy Skala Luas (Food and Energy Estate) di Merauke [Grand design of Food and Energy Estate in Merauke]. Jakarta: Ministry of Agriculture. Government of Indonesia. (2011). Masterplan percepatan pembangunan dan perluasan ekonomi Indonesia 2011–2025. Jakarta: Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs. Hall, D., Hirsch, P., & Li., T. M. (2011). The power of exclusion: Land dilemmas in Southeast Asia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Herlihy, P. H., & Knapp, G. (2003). Maps of, by, and for the peoples of Latin America. Human Organization, 62(4), 303-314. Hodgson, D. L., & Schroeder. R. A. (2002). Dilemma of counter-mapping resources in Tanzania. Develop- ment and Change, 33(1), 79-100. Investment Board of Merauke District. (2011). Daftar perusahaan di kabupaten Merauke. (unpublished). Investment Board of Merauke District. (2014). Daftar perusahaan di kabupaten Merauke. (unpublished). Ito, T., Rachman, N. F., & Savitri, L. A. (2014). Power to make land dispossession acceptable: A policy dis- course analysis of the Merauke Integrated Food And Energy Estate (MIFEE), Papua, Indonesia. Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(1), 29-50. Lamonge, M. (2012). Neo-liberalism, social conflict and identity of Papuan indigenous people. Case study of Me- rauke Integrated Food & Energy Estate (MIFEE) in Papua. Master thesis, International Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Hague. Milne, S. (2013). Under the leopard’s skin: Land commodification and the dilemma of indigenous com- munal title in upland Cambodia. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 54(3), 323-339. Peluso, N. (1995). Whose woods are these? Counter mapping forest territories in Kalimantan. Antipode, 27(4), 383-406. Population and Civil Registration Board of Merauke District. (2015). Penduduk Merauke [kursiv]. Retrieved from http://www.merauke.go.id/portal/news/view/6/penduduk.html Pramono, A. H., Natalia, I., & Janting, Y. (2006). Ten years after: Counter-mapping and the Dayak lands in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Retrieved from https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/1997/ Pramono_Albertus_Hadi.pdf?sequence=1 Pramono, A. H., Samperante, F., Safitri, H., & Achmaliadi, R. (Eds.). (2009). Menuju demokratisasi pemetaan: Refleksi gerakan pemetaan partisipatif di Indonesia. Bogor: JKPP. 105Gaining Recognition Through Participatory Mapping? Roth, R. (2009). The challenges of mapping complex indigenous spatiality: From abstract space to dwelling space. Cultural Geographies, 16(2), 207-227. Rulistia, N. D. (2008, July 3). Saudis plan Rp 600b rice estate investment. The Jakarta Post. Retrieved from http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/07/03/saudis-plan-rp-600b-rice-estate-investment.html Statistics Indonesia. (2011). Pendataan potensi desa/keluarahan 2011. Jakarta: BPS. Tabloid Jubi. (2009, August 27). Ada apa di balik pemberian gelar adat? Retrieved from http://arsip.tabloi- djubi.com/?p=588 Yasanto. (2013). Program pemetaan tanah adat secara partisipatif lima kampung di distrik animha, kabupaten Merauke. Merauke: Yasanto. Yudhoyono, S. B. (2006, April 5). Sambutan Presiden Republik Indonesia pada acara panen raya padi di Merauke, 5 April 2006. Retrieved from http://sby.kepustakaan-presiden.pnri.go.id/index.php/pida- to/2006/04/05/222.html Zakaria, Y., Kleden, E. O., & Franky, Y. L. (2011). MIFEE tak terjangkau angan malind: Catatan atas upaya percepatan pembangunan MIFEE di kabupaten Merauke, Papua. Jakarta: Yayasan Pusaka. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Rosita Dewi has been a researcher at the Centre for Political Studies, Indonesia Institute of Sciences (P2P-LIPI) since 2004. She joined the research team for Papua in 2005 and co-edited the book Papua Road Map: Negotiating the past, improving the present and securing the future in 2008. Currently, she is a PhD candidate at the Graduate School of Asian and African Area Studies, Kyoto University. ► Contact: ro_sita2000@yahoo.com ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to Okamoto Masaaki and Takeshi Ito as well as two anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of this paper. The research was supported by the Graduate School of Asian and African Areas Studies, Kyoto University, Japan.