‘The transmigration plan threatens Papua’s autonomy and Indigenous ways of life’
CIVICUS speaks to Budi Hernawan, human rights defender and senior lecturer at Driyarkara School of Philosophy in Jakarta.
Indonesia’s new president, Prabowo Subianto, plans to revive an old relocation programme that originated under Dutch colonial government and continued after independence. The programme aims to move people from densely populated areas to less populated ones, including Papua, the easternmost province that has been home to an active independence movement for decades. While the government claims the plan will enhance welfare and address food insecurity, critics argue it will displace Indigenous Papuans, erode their cultural identity, deepen the inequality gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Papuans and accelerate environmental degradation.
What’s the proposed transmigration plan?
This is in fact a proposal by the new administration to revive a policy of President Suharto’s New Order that was dismantled during the 1998 Reformasi movement that ended his authoritarian regime. The very idea of bringing it back has shocked many people.
The programme targets five provinces – Central Kalimantan, Papua, South Sulawesi, Sumatra and West Sulawesi – and the government justifies it by arguing it will bring three key benefits: prosperity, accelerated development and equality in development.
However, the programme’s underlying logic is facing increased scrutiny when compared to its implementation in the past. It no longer enjoys broad public acceptance and has encountered significant opposition in the national parliament.
How does this programme relate to broader development and autonomy issues in Papua?
Papua has already been divided into six provinces, and the government plans to revitalise existing transmigration sites in areas including Fakfak, Jayapura, Manokwari, Merauke and Sorong.
The government claims the programme will accelerate development and improve Indigenous communities’ wellbeing, and insists it will only facilitate internal migration within Papua rather than bringing in outside populations. But this approach conflicts with existing legal frameworks: according to the Special Autonomy Law, any transmigration programme must receive approval from local governments. It cannot be imposed by the central government, and in this case it would require approval from all six Papuan governors.
Despite this legal requirement, the central government has proceeded unilaterally. Surprisingly, the Papuan governors haven’t publicly expressed any opposition, suggesting political and ideological considerations are taking precedence and highlighting the asymmetries of power between national and Papuan authorities.
How has the transmigration programme historically affected Indigenous Papuans?
The programme has had devastating consequences for Indigenous Papuans, land grabbing being one of the most significant impacts. Much of the land allocated to transmigrants was taken without consent, either through state directives or sheer force. This led to widespread dispossession of Indigenous landowners, with little regard for their traditional rights.
The central government has consistently failed to acknowledge the deep cultural and spiritual connection that Indigenous Papuans have to their land. For these communities, land is not merely property. It is integral to their existence and cosmology. Separating them from their land disrupts their entire way of life.
On top of this, many Papuans who lost their land were forced into wage labour on palm oil plantations or industries established on the land that used to be theirs. This turned self-sufficient landowners into poor workers in an unfamiliar economic system.
Environmental destruction has also been severe. Large-scale deforestation and the establishment of monoculture plantations, particularly for palm oil, have devastated Papua’s diverse ecosystems. The conversion of biodiverse forests into single-crop plantations has caused irreversible environmental damage, negatively affecting the health and nutrition of local communities who once relied on these lands for natural, highly nutritious food.
How have civil society and Papuan communities reacted to the policy’s revival?
Most human rights groups and Indigenous Papuan communities have strongly opposed the policy through media campaigns and public protests. While some student activists in Jayapura clashed with local police during protests, strong national and international attention has helped prevent severe repression or criminalisation of protesters.
Although the protests haven’t led to significant legal changes, they have effectively communicated public opposition. Some people still support the programme, but they don’t represent the majority opinion. Under pressure, the government has suspended the programme, but it hasn’t officially revoked it, so its future is uncertain.
How can the international community help address human rights and environmental concerns in Papua?
The international community should focus on building alliances and strengthening collaborations with Papuan activists to amplify human rights concerns and ensure Papuan voices are heard globally. Instead of imposing top-down solutions, it should treat Indigenous communities as equal partners. And instead of reinventing the wheel, it should support existing Papuan civil society organisations advocating for human rights and monitoring the situation.
While Papua is often discussed in international forums such as the United Nations Human Rights Council, it remains largely ignored in Asia-Pacific political discussions. Many governments overlook human rights and environmental violations in their own regions due to economic and political interests. This needs to change. Papua’s situation should be back in regional discussions, particularly within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the Melanesian Spearhead Group and the Pacific Islands Forum.
Greater south-south cooperation among Asia-Pacific nations should also be encouraged. States in the region currently engage more with global north counterparts than their own neighbours. Strengthening regional alliances could create a united front to address pressing issues.