Every bulldozer has a soldier
Food estate protesters targeted
KKP Deputy Minister Didit Herdiawan Ashaf said the initiative is part of the expansion of the KNMP program in coastal areas, small islands, and remote areas.
"In Papua, we plan to develop around 200 KNMP locations together with the Indonesian Defense Forces (TNI)," he said during a briefing for the 2026 Patriot Expedition Team in Jakarta on Wednesday.
According to Ashaf, the program is designed to establish integrated fisheries-based economic activities, covering production, processing, storage, and marketing of the fishery products.
The ministry has conducted assessments in several areas, including Samber-Binyeri in Biak Numfor District, Papua, which has been designated as a pilot project for coastal community economic development.
He said the Fishermen's Exchange Rate (NTN) in the area had increased from 109 to 113 following mentoring programs and the development of fisheries-based economic activities.
Ashaf said the improved NTN score reflects stronger purchasing power and improved welfare among fishing households compared to their expenses.
Besides Papua, the ministry also plans to develop KNMP in other regions, with the government preparing 100 pilot locations that can later be replicated and adapted to local conditions.
Therefore, he requested the Patriot Expedition Team deployed by the Ministry of Transmigration to help map the potential, infrastructure needs, superior commodities, and community readiness in the prospective program locations.
Related news: Indonesia readies social aid scheme through village cooperatives
Besides developing fishermen's villages, the ministry is advancing several blue economy initiatives, including expanding marine conservation areas, implementing a quota-based fishing policy, promoting aquaculture, and reducing marine plastic waste.
Ashaf said the initiatives are intended to balance fisheries development with the sustainability of marine resources.
He added that capture fisheries are managed through fishing quotas, vessel modernization, catch traceability, improved cold chain infrastructure, and stricter monitoring of fish landings.
"Capture fisheries should not exploit all the resources in our seas. That is why we are modernizing fishing vessels so we can identify the commodities being caught and regulate the volume of the catch," he said.
The ministry is also preparing to develop thematic aquaculture in approximately 40,000 locations by 2029 to complement production from capture fisheries with aquaculture.
Increased aquaculture is considered to reduce pressure on marine fish stocks while creating new sources of income for coastal communities.
Ashaf emphasized that blue economy development must be sustainable, feasible, acceptable to the community, and capable of generating economic benefits for fishermen and coastal communities.
By 2026, the KKP ministry targets developing KNMP in 1,000 locations, with the initial phase prioritizing five provinces in Papua.
Assessments of land readiness, socioeconomic conditions, fisheries activities, supporting infrastructure, and local government commitment precede site selection.
Related news: Indonesia aims to pass new Cooperatives Law this year
Editor: Bayu Prasetyo
Jayapura, Jubi – The intervening defendant (third party) in a lawsuit challenging a Merauke regent’s decree authorising the construction of a 135-kilometre road in Ilwayab District, South Papua Province, presented two witnesses during a continued hearing at the Jayapura Administrative Court (PTUN) on Tuesday, 28 July 2026.
The hearing focused on the submission of additional documentary evidence by the parties and the examination of witnesses presented by Defendant II, the intervening party.
The panel of judges was chaired by Merna Cinthia, with Irfan Amos Sampe and Adjadam Riyange Zulfachmi serving as panel members.
The lawsuit was filed by five representatives of the Malind Indigenous community, who are challenging Merauke Regent Decree No. 100.3.3.2/1105 of 2025, which granted environmental feasibility approval for the construction of a 135-kilometre access road in Ilwayab District as part of the Indonesian Ministry of Defence’s food security programme. The case was registered with the Jayapura Administrative Court under case number 9/G/LH/2026/PTUN Jayapura on 5 March 2026.
The first witness, Daniel Turot, a civil engineer with state-owned construction company PT Hutama Karya, testified that he had worked as a site supervisor since June 2021.
He said he was assigned to the disputed road project under a deployment letter dated 3 October 2025 and was responsible for construction between kilometre 58 and kilometre 86.
According to Turot, no road construction had begun when he first arrived at the site. His responsibilities were limited to technical construction work, while land acquisition and community consultation were handled by other parties.
However, he acknowledged participating in community meetings during the project’s mobilisation phase in Salamepe Village and the surrounding Nakias area.
“Our presence at the time was simply to seek permission for the work to proceed,” Turot told the court.
He said the company met with four Indigenous customary groups in January 2026, resulting in an agreement documented in an official record. The agreement included approval for road construction between kilometre 58 and kilometre 135, the employment of customary landowners in the project, and the payment of customary permission fees to the four Indigenous groups.
Turot also acknowledged that the project had encountered protests and road blockades by local residents.
“The company approached the community, and the work was eventually able to continue,” he said.
He explained that the initial stage of the project focused on clearing the road corridor to prepare for construction. Once the corridor had been opened, Indigenous communities were able to identify the boundaries of their customary land, although the formal demarcation of those boundaries was the responsibility of a government-appointed team rather than the contractor.
The second witness, Hasan, who serves as a public relations officer at PT Pembangunan Perumahan, told the court he had only been in the role for three months and was responsible solely for work on the second section of the road project.
He said his knowledge was limited to the area under his supervision and that he was unfamiliar with conditions along the entire 135-kilometre route before construction began or with work carried out outside his assigned section.
Hasan also said he had never received information about companies that had previously worked on the project and was not informed about earlier contractors or construction progress before he joined.
“At present, the work is proceeding smoothly and safely. Indigenous communities have not raised objections to the road construction, and this project is solely for road development and is unrelated to the rice field programme,” Hasan testified.
Lawyer for the plaintiffs, Emanuel Gobay, argued that the testimony of both witnesses actually strengthened the plaintiffs’ case.
According to Gobay, the witness from PT Hutama Karya acknowledged that the project involved clearing forests on swamp land and in areas traditionally used by Indigenous communities for hunting and gathering.
He also noted that the witness confirmed there had been both support for and opposition to the project within local communities.
“That admission reinforces the plaintiffs’ argument that the construction has affected customary land and the livelihoods of Indigenous communities,” Gobay said.
Gobay added that the witness admitted he did not know whether permits had been obtained for logging or clearing trees within customary forests, despite stating that his contract covered only road construction.
Regarding Hasan’s testimony, Gobay said the witness had worked on the project for only about three months, limiting the scope of his evidence.
Nevertheless, Gobay said two significant points had emerged from the testimony: the presence of many military personnel providing security for the project and the witness’s acknowledgement that construction activities had already been underway before he joined the project.
“That testimony strengthens the allegation that road construction began in 2024, while the environmental permit being challenged in this case was only issued in 2025,” Gobay said.
He argued that this indicated construction had commenced before the environmental approval was granted. Gobay urged the panel of judges to carefully examine documents referred to by the witnesses during the hearing but which had not yet been submitted as documentary evidence.
“We hope the trial proceeds professionally, objectively, and with full consideration of all the facts and evidence presented,” he said.
Meanwhile, Antonius Victor Kaisiepo of the Merauke Regency Secretariat’s Legal Bureau said both witnesses were directly involved in carrying out the physical construction of the 135-kilometre road and had testified based on their own experience in the field.
Responding to questions about an environmental permit covering only a five-kilometre section, counsel for the defendants said the road had always been planned as a single 135-kilometre project.
He said the permit for the initial five kilometres represented the first phase of the overall project and that supporting documents would be submitted to the court as evidence.
“The project forms part of a National Strategic Project involving ministries at the national level,” Victor Kaisiepo said.
He added that the regional government had acted within its legal authority, and that the administrative and licensing process would be demonstrated through official documents to be presented before the court.
At the next hearing, the intervening defendant will call an expert witness and submit additional documents requested by the panel of judges.
“These include the relevant decrees and documents concerning the release of forest areas as part of the evidentiary process,” he said.
The trial is scheduled to resume on 11 August 2026, when both parties will present expert testimony. (*)
Jayapura, Jubi – The United States Embassy and Consulates in Indonesia, working with several agencies including the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA) and the Indonesian military, have carried out a humanitarian mission in Biak Island, Papua Province, to locate and identify US service members who went missing during World War II.
In recognition of its support for the mission, the Indonesian Air Force Regional Command III (Kodau III) received an award from the US Department of Defense’s Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA) for facilitating the search, recovery, and identification of American personnel declared missing during the war in Biak Numfor Regency.
The award was presented to Kodau III Commander Air Vice Marshal Azhar Aditama in Biak on Thursday, 23 July 2026. It was based on an official DPAA letter dated 16 July 2026 and signed by the agency’s director, Kelly McKeague.
According to Portal Komando, cited by Jubi on Tuesday, the award included a commemorative plaque acknowledging Kodau III’s assistance in securing permits, coordinating transportation, and providing security throughout the humanitarian operation.
Kodau III’s support enabled the Joint Forensic Review (JFR) to proceed smoothly before recovered remains and other findings were transferred to DPAA’s forensic laboratory for further identification.
The mission forms part of a long-running effort to provide answers and closure to the families of US service members who have remained missing since World War II.
The recognition also reflects the close cooperation between the Indonesian Air Force and the United States in carrying out humanitarian operations based on shared humanitarian principles.
At the same time, the award highlights Kodau III’s commitment to supporting international cooperation in accordance with applicable laws while respecting Indonesia’s sovereignty.
According to Jubi’s records, US forces landed near Bosnik in Biak Numfor on 27 May 1944. Initial Japanese resistance appeared minimal, leading many American officers to believe that Japanese troops had withdrawn from the island.
In reality, Japanese forces deliberately held their fire, regrouped their positions, and waited for the right moment to launch a counterattack.
“Strategically, Biak had to be captured. The Japanese had built three airfields on the island—Mokmer, Sorido, and Borokoe. Securing these airfields would not only deny their use to the enemy but also enable American bombers to strike the Philippines, just 800 miles away,” historian David Alan Johnson wrote in his article The Battle of Biak: A Terrifying Glimpse into the Soul of Mankind.
However, US military planners underestimated the strength of Japanese forces on the island. They believed only about 4,400 Japanese troops were stationed in Biak, when in fact there were more than 11,400. They also expected the campaign to last only a week, a prediction that proved to be far off the mark.
According to WV History On View, the Battle of Biak took place between 27 May and 17 August 1944 during World War II.
The battle is remembered as the first time Japanese forces allowed US troops to land without resistance, drawing them into a carefully prepared defensive trap in the island’s interior.
The campaign claimed 474 American lives, with another 2,428 troops wounded. Japanese forces fought until the end, suffering approximately 6,100 fatalities.
Japanese troops used Biak’s extensive cave networks as fortified strongholds, stockpiling ammunition, food, and water sufficient to sustain prolonged resistance for months. (*)
