InfoSAWIT, JAKARTA - “Agrarian reform is a promise of justice from the state to its people. But how long will this promise remain just a slogan?”

The promise of agrarian justice is not a new concept in this republic. Since the enactment of the Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA) in 1960, the hope for a fairer distribution of land to those who cultivate it has lived in the minds of many small farmers and indigenous communities. However, seven decades after Indonesia's independence, the disparity in land ownership remains glaring. Recent data from the Central Statistics Agency (2023) shows that 16.89 million farming households still manage land under 0.5 hectares—an increase of nearly 19 percent compared to a decade ago. Ironically, amidst Indonesia's status as an agrarian country, millions of farming families do not have access to adequate land for cultivation.

President Joko Widodo's administration once made agrarian reform a part of Nawacita, a grand agenda to build Indonesia from the periphery. Even two presidential regulations—Presidential Regulation No. 86 of 2018 and its update, Presidential Regulation No. 62 of 2023—have been issued to accelerate the implementation of agrarian reform. However, the realization on the ground has not fully addressed the essence of this agenda.

The ATR/BPN Ministry recorded an achievement of 14.1 million hectares of land as part of the agrarian reform program. However, when broken down, most of this comes from asset legalization (land certification) amounting to 6.54 million hectares or 145 percent of the target. Meanwhile, the achievement of land redistribution—which is the true core of agrarian reform—has only reached 1.18 million hectares or 26 percent. This figure illustrates that the government is more focused on administrative aspects rather than addressing the root of the inequality: the uneven control of land.

Beyond mere numbers, another fundamental issue that cannot be ignored is the surge in agrarian conflicts. Data from the Agrarian Reform Consortium (KPA) shows that throughout 2024, there were 295 cases of agrarian conflict across Indonesia. This number represents a 21 percent increase compared to the previous year and affects more than 67,000 families in 349 villages. This fact highlights the dissonance between the goals of agrarian reform and its practice on the ground.

Moreover, the massive conversion of land for industrial, infrastructure, and residential purposes often encroaches on the living space of communities. On the other hand, overlapping regulations and weak data synchronization between agencies—such as ATR/BPN, KLHK, and the Ministry of Agriculture—hinder policy implementation. The absence of a comprehensive roadmap makes agrarian reform vulnerable to politicization and directionless.

In reality, many agrarian reform programs stop at the land certification stage. Without accompanying access to capital, training, technology, or marketing guarantees, the lands that have been distributed often become a new burden for the beneficiaries. In some cases, certified land falls back into the hands of large companies through unmonitored buying and selling schemes.

In fact, legitimate and adequate land ownership should serve as a bridge for small farmers to enhance productivity. Smallholder farmers managing narrow plots often struggle to access credit, apply modern agricultural technology, or simply withstand commodity price shocks. Half-hearted agrarian reform will only prolong the cycle of structural poverty in rural areas.

Agrarian reform should be a state intervention to rectify market failures in resource distribution. In a normal economic order, the accumulation of land by a few parties creates negative externalities: economic disparity, regional inequality, and neglect of indigenous rights. By distributing land fairly, the state creates a more inclusive economic ecosystem, where farmers have the basic capital to grow and thrive.

A New Government, A New Hope?

With the formation of a new government following the 2024 elections, a significant question arises: will the promise of agrarian reform be championed again, or will it be drowned in the whirlpool of investment projects and infrastructure development?

The upcoming government has a moral and political responsibility to ensure that agrarian reform is not merely an administrative project but a socio-economic movement that addresses the root agrarian issues. The government needs to demonstrate genuine support for small farmers and indigenous communities, rather than just statistical image-making.

To this end, the authors propose several concrete suggestions, such as strengthening cross-sector coordination, which involves synchronizing data and policies between ATR/BPN, KLHK, the Ministry of Agriculture, and local agencies. Without spatial and administrative data integration, agrarian reform will continue to be held hostage by overlapping claims and policies.

Participatory resolution of agrarian conflicts is another point where the government needs to prioritize inclusive mediation with legal protection for farmers and indigenous communities. Conflicts should be viewed as symptoms of inequality, not merely security threats.

Post-redistribution assistance is crucial, where land recipients must receive training, access to capital, and technical support so that the land they manage can become a sustainable source of livelihood.

Transparency and public accountability are essential, meaning that all land redistribution processes must be open and publicly monitored to prevent deviations and ensure the accuracy of beneficiaries.

Agrarian reform is not just about land distribution. It is a pathway to restructuring the uneven control of resources. Without political courage, policy consistency, and broad community participation, the aspiration for agrarian justice will remain a hanging slogan in the sky of Nawacita.

Farmers do not need new promises. They only need land, legal clarity, and a fair opportunity to live decently on their own land. (*)

Authors: Muhammad Alfin Hisam, S.P. (agribusiness practitioner) and Rama Kurnisawan, S.E., M.M. (public policy and agrarian observer).