4.4.3 APRIL's reaction to land claims

APRIL's reaction to land claims in its concession has been harsh. There are negotiations about the right to use land. From the point of view of the company it would untenable to hand back lands to locals if it wishes to continue exploiting its present concessions. Large-scale transfer of land back to locals is not an option, the company sees. For example only few hundred hectares of disputed land, about one percent of land claims listed in the SGS report, had been solved by handing land back. (SGS 1998)

APRIL's willingness to pay compensations from the land it has taken from the locals is nearly as minor. Compensations APRIL is offering are generally considered insufficient. APRIL has agreed to enter somewhat fair negotiations heading for mutually agreed compensation only after severe pressure from the locals. Normally negotiation position for the local communities is poor and the end result dictated by APRIL. Thus "solved" land disputes are often not really solved. Villagers may have entered a bad agreement with low compensations under the pressure of army and government officials. The above mentioned oil palm or acacia contract cultivation scheme can also be problematic as has turn out to be in the case of APRIL's North Sumatran mill Indorayon. There the contract farmers have been dissatisfied with their position and part of the demonstrations that closed down Indorayon (Tjahjono 1998).

Companies try to take over land although they would be aware of its disputed status. On one hand these companies, APRIL leading the way, do not care about the problems they are causing before they start to have some effect on operations of companies (such as disturbing enough demonstrations or political pressuring to solve disputes). The pressure often comes only after the actual take over of the land.