In response to long-standing expectations among farmers, the President has recently directed the relaunch of the public land allotment policy. Some indigenous groups have raised concerns that the policy could affect indigenous land rights. In response, the Council of Indigenous Peoples (CIP) emphasized that the policy’s objectives, eligibility criteria, and designated land types are fundamentally different from those governing indigenous reserved lands and indigenous traditional territories, and that the two frameworks should not be conflated.

Regarding the President’s announcement, the Ministry of the Interior clarified that land eligible for allotment must have been lawfully leased from the government prior to September 24, 1976, and continuously leased to the present in accordance with the Regulations Governing the Allotment of State-owned Farmland and the Enforcement Regulations Governing the Granting of National Marginal Aquaculture Land. By contrast, under the CIP’s ongoing program for the expansion and designation of Indigenous Reserved Lands, indigenous peoples may acquire ownership of publicly owned land free of charge if they have continuously used ancestral land since February 1, 1988, without requiring a formal lease agreement. The eligibility conditions for indigenous reserved land designation are therefore clearly more favorable than those under the public land allotment policy.

The CIP further emphasized that, pursuant to Article 17 of the Regulations Governing the Development and Management of Indigenous Reserved Lands, indigenous peoples who have continuously used land since March 26, 1990, may apply to obtain ownership at no cost. In addition, Article 20 allows indigenous peoples to acquire ownership of indigenous reserved lands through allocation plans without any requirement regarding the year of land use. By comparison, the public land allotment framework requires lawful leasing prior to September 24, 1976, as well as full payment of land prices, demonstrating that legal protections for indigenous land rights are substantially more robust than those under the public land allotment policy.

In addition, the relaunch of the public land allotment policy applies only to two categories of state-owned land—flatland agricultural land and aquaculture land. It does not involve state-owned forest land in indigenous regions. Furthermore, where the use of state-owned forest land involves activities constituting land development as defined under Article 21 of the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act, the legally mandated consultation and consent procedures with indigenous peoples remain fully applicable, contrary to claims that such consent would no longer be required.

The CIP concluded by reaffirming that safeguarding indigenous land rights remains a top government priority. The relaunch of the public land allotment policy and all related measures will be implemented without compromising indigenous land rights. The CIP will continue advancing the restoration of rights to Indigenous Reserved Lands and the formal designation of indigenous traditional territories, thereby ensuring comprehensive protection of indigenous land rights.