The Center for Law and Conflict Resolution (PURAKA) has warned that smallholders could face a range of risks after plantations taken over through the government’s forest-area enforcement process are handed over for management by state-owned Agrinas Palma Nusantara. According to PURAKA Head Ahmad Zazali, as presented on Thursday (September 24, 2026), the issues following repossession extend beyond asset control. They include legal certainty, governance, community rights, environmental protection and the sustainability of farmers’ livelihoods. PURAKA describes the process as involving several stages, beginning with plantations or forest areas identified as problematic, followed by repossession by the Forest Area Task Force (Satgas PKH), transfer to Agrinas, management either independently or through cooperation arrangements, resolution of the area’s legal status and, ultimately, land-rights restructuring. Repossession Does Not Automatically Resolve Land Status PURAKA stressed that government repossession alone does not settle the legal status of a forest area or establish the rights attached to the land. Each stage, the organization noted, has its own legal basis, authority, procedures and consequences. As a result, further clarification is still required regarding both the status of the area and land rights after repossession. The situation can become particularly complex when repossessed plantations have previously been managed by local communities. Potential consequences include loss of livelihoods, legal uncertainty, agrarian disputes and uncertainty over the future management of the plantations. PURAKA also emphasized the need to verify the status of each plantation individually rather than treating all areas in the same manner. The history of occupation, permits, location, forest-area designation and the legal basis for land control can differ significantly from one plantation to another. Among the community plantation categories identified by PURAKA are farmers who lived in villages before forest areas were formally designated, communities with customary land claims, farmers who entered forest areas after designation, migrants who acquired land through purchase and plantations used primarily to support household livelihoods. Possible resolution mechanisms therefore vary, ranging from PPTKH/TORA facilitation and recognition of customary communities to social forestry, partnership schemes, forest-area release and sustainable livelihood development. Transparency Needed in Agrinas Cooperation Schemes PURAKA also highlighted potential concerns surrounding plantations managed through cooperation arrangements, including the KSO scheme. Transparency in partner selection, eligibility assessments and conflict-of-interest mitigation would be important elements in such arrangements. The process may include submission of a letter of interest, selection of potential partners, feasibility assessments and approval from relevant parties. At the field level, PURAKA identified several issues that may require attention, including unclear plantation legality, overlapping control involving Satgas PKH, Agrinas and farmers, disputes with cooperatives, uncertainty surrounding KSO or partnership mechanisms, unclear distribution of economic benefits and potential escalation of social conflicts. For smallholders, therefore, legal certainty and protection of community rights remain central to determining what happens after plantation areas are repossessed. PURAKA has called for further management decisions to be preceded by verification of plantation status, classification of plantation typologies, examination of land-use history and appropriate legal resolution. The issue ultimately extends beyond the repossession of plantation assets, involving how subsequent management can avoid creating new uncertainty for communities while maintaining environmental objectives.