Environmental Law in Indonesia 101

An understanding of environmental law in Indonesia should be grounded in international environmental law. Environmental awareness and early movements originated at the international level, notably with the first declaration, the 1972 Stockholm Declaration, and the second, the 1992 Rio Declaration. These two declarations established fundamental principles of environmental law that Indonesia has subsequently adopted into its own national legal framework.

Environmental Law Principles in Indonesia

Environmental protection and management in Indonesia are implemented based on 14 (fourteen) principles stipulated in Article 2 of the Indonesia Environmental Law (Indonesia Environmental Law). Of the 14 (fourteen) principles, we will only discuss the precautionary principle, preservation and sustainability, and the polluter pays principle.

Precautionary Principle

The precautionary principle in environmental law in Indonesia is regulated in Article 2 letter f of the Indonesia Environmental Law and Article 27 and Article 47 of the Supreme Court Regulation on Environmental Cases (Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2023 on Environmental Cases), and has developed in various jurisprudence. The Indonesia Environmental Law explains the purpose of the precautionary principle, namely “…that uncertainty regarding the impact of a business and/or activity due to limited mastery of science and technology is not a reason to delay steps to minimize or avoid threats to environmental pollution and/or damage.”(Elucidation of Article 2 letter f of Indonesia Environmental Law)

The precautionary principle in Article 2 letter f of the Indonesia Environmental Law clearly adopts the precautionary principle stated in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration. Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration states that, “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

The precautionary principle has developed and is applied in the judicial practice of environmental law in Indonesia. The Supreme Court Regulation on Environmental Cases defines this precautionary principle as a principle that “prioritizes preventive measures when faced with uncertainty in proving serious impacts that will occur or that occur as a result of a business and/or activity due to limited mastery of science and technology or differences in expert testimony” (Article 1 number 10 of Supreme Court Regulation on Environmental Cases).

If there is uncertainty in the scientific evidence or proof of causality and impact in an environmental case, the judge examining the environmental case needs to apply the precautionary principle (Article 27 paragraph (1) and Article 47 paragraph (1) of Supreme Court Regulation on Environmental Cases). The application of the precautionary principle must take into account the existence of serious threats that are potentially irreversible, the existence of scientific uncertainty in determining the causal relationship between the activity/business and its impact on the environment, and prioritize efforts to prevent environmental damage (Article 27 paragraph (2) and Article 47 paragraph (2) of Supreme Court Regulation on Environmental Cases).

Principle of Preservation and Sustainability

The principle of preservation and sustainability (kelestarian dan keberlanjutan) is regulated in Article 2 letter b of the Indonesia Environmental Law. What the Indonesia Environmental Law means regarding the principle of preservation and sustainability is “…that every person bears obligations and responsibilities towards future generations [intergenerational] and towards fellow human beings within the same generation [intragenerational] by making efforts to preserve the carrying capacity of the ecosystem and improve the quality of the environment.”(Elucidation of Article 2 letter b of Indonesia Environmental Law)

The definition of the principle of preservation and sustainability is closely related to the universally recognized concepts of intergenerational equity and intragenerational equity. The Stockholm Declaration states that protecting and improving the environment for current and future generations has become an “imperative goal for mankind” (Point 6 of the proclamation section of Stockholm Declaration).

Principle 1 and Principle 2 of the Stockholm Declaration further regulate this concept, namely that the environment that allows for a life of dignity and well-being, as well as natural resources (including air, water, land, flora, and fauna) must be maintained for the benefit of current and future generations (Principle 1 and Principle 2 of Stockholm Declaration). The Rio Declaration defines sustainable development as meeting the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.(Edith Brown Weiss, Intergenerational Equity, accessed on 16 July 2026)

One can find how the principle of preservation and sustainability is practically applied in Indonesian courts in the Supreme Court Regulation on Environmental Cases. First of all, the first point of consideration for the issuance of the Supreme Court Regulation on Environmental Cases is that “The Supreme Court and the judicial bodies underneath have the authority to adjudicate environmental cases by producing decisions that can realize sustainable development, … and guarantee the realization of environmental justice and climate justice for the current and future generations of the Indonesian nation.”

Furthermore, in the regulation application of the precautionary principle, serious threats to the environment and health that must be considered by the judge are those to the current and future generations.(Article 27 and Article 47 of Supreme Court Regulation on Environmental Cases)

Regarding environmental preservation, the Supreme Court Regulation on Environmental Cases specifically regulates it in the context of lawsuits by environmental organizations and in the context of environmental mediation. In the context of lawsuits by environmental organizations, the Supreme Court Regulation on Environmental Cases stipulates that such lawsuits may be filed in the interests of preserving environmental functions (Article 1 number 7 of Supreme Court Regulation on Environmental Cases) and by environmental organizations that affirm the objective of preserving environmental functions in their articles of association (Article 9 letter b and Article 34 letter b of Supreme Court Regulation on Environmental Cases).

In the context of environmental mediation, the mediator and the examining judge are required to ensure that the settlement agreement also formulates the interests of protecting and preserving environmental functions (Article 41 paragraph (1) and (2) of Supreme Court Regulation on Environmental Cases). If the settlement agreement is detrimental to the interests of protecting and preserving the environment, the examining judge is required to refuse to ratify the settlement agreement. (Article 41 paragraph (3) of Supreme Court Regulation on Environmental Cases)

Polluters Pay Principle

Principle 22 of the Stockholm Declaration first stated that all countries work together to develop international law governing liability and compensation for victims of pollution (Principle 22 of Stockholm Declaration). Furthermore, Principle 13 of the Rio Declaration mandated all countries to develop national laws regarding liability and compensation for victims of pollution and other environmental damage (Principle 13 of Rio Declaration). In Indonesia, this mandate is realized through the regulation of the polluter pays principle.

The polluter pays principle in Indonesia is regulated in Article 2 letter j of the Indonesia Environmental Law. The polluter pays principle is “…that every person responsible whose business and/or activity causes environmental pollution and/or damage is obliged to bear the costs of environmental restoration” (Elucidation of Article 2 letter j of Indonesia Environmental Law).

As a realization of this principle, Article 87 of the Indonesia Environmental Law further stipulates that, “Every person responsible for a business and/or activity who commits an unlawful act [perbuatan melanggar hukum – PMH] in the form of environmental pollution and/or damage that causes harm to other people or the environment is obliged to pay compensation and/or take certain actions.”(Article 87 of Indonesia Environmental Law and its Elucidation)

The Supreme Court Regulation on Environmental Cases also regulates environmental pollution and/or damage in the context of the resulting losses. This has been discussed in detail in the article “Polluter Pays: Understanding Critical Environmental Compensation Cost and Regulatory Compliance” by Irwansyah D. Mahendra.

Common but Differentiated Responsibilities

In addition to the three principles mentioned above, there is another principle that makes environmental law in Indonesia, and in other nations, unique: the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.” Simply put, this principle distinguishes between the contributions of developing and developed nations regarding the environment.

Developing nations are considered to still need to prioritize meeting their development needs; consequently, they cannot yet be expected to prioritize the environment to the same extent as developed nations, which possess greater capacity to do so (Point 4 of proclamation section of Stockholm Declaration). This principle has been recognized in the Stockholm Declaration, the Rio Declaration, the Paris Agreement, and other international environmental legal instruments.

Under the Paris Agreement, participating nations, including Indonesia, have committed to keeping the rise in global average temperature well below 2°C and pursuing efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°C (Article 2 paragraph (1) letter a of Paris Agreement). While this is a shared global goal, each country’s contribution varies based on its specific circumstances (i.e., whether it is a developing or developed nation).

Consequently, every country is required to submit a “Nationally Determined Contribution” (NDC) every 5 (five) years (Article 4 paragraph (2) and (9) of Paris Agreement). Each submitted NDC must be pursued by the submitting country, and subsequent submissions must demonstrate progression beyond previous ones. NDCs must reflect the highest possible level of ambition for a country, taking into account its respective national circumstances. (Article 4 paragraph (3) of Paris Agreement)

As a party to the Paris Agreement, Indonesia has submitted its NDC, taking into account its status as a developing country. Indonesia submitted its First NDC in 2016 (which has undergone several subsequent revisions, most recently the Enhanced NDC or ENDC) and its Second NDC in 2025. Indonesia has set an unconditional emission reduction target of 31.89% (thirty-one point eight nine percent) and a conditional target of 43.20% (forty-three point two zero percent) relative to the Business as Usual for 2030.

Furthermore, the Indonesian government has developed a National Registry System (SRN) to manage data and information regarding climate change adaptation and mitigation actions and resources in Indonesia; this system can be accessed via this link. (See the Summary section of Second Nationally Determined Contribution Republic of Indonesia 2025)

Indonesia’s Second NDC is guided by the Asta Cita (Eight Missions) outlined in the National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN) and aligns with the National Long-Term Development Plan (RPJPN). The Second NDC also addresses environmental policies and legal frameworks designed to support the fulfilment of Indonesia’s commitments. The following section will discuss key environmental regulations in Indonesia.

Environment Legal Framework

The legislation currently governing the environment is Law Number 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management, as amended by Law Number 6 of 2023 concerning the Enactment of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2022 concerning Job Creation into Law (the Indonesia Environmental Law). The Indonesia Environmental Law replaces Law 23/1997, which in turn had replaced Law 4/1982 as Indonesia’s first environmental law.

One of the government regulations implementing the Indonesia Environmental Law cited in the Second NDC is GR 26/2025, which governs environmental protection and management planning. The Second NDC also mentions other regulations, namely:

• GR 33/2023 regarding energy conservation;
• GR 32/2019 regarding marine spatial planning;
• PR 110/2025 regarding carbon economic value and greenhouse gas emission control;
• PR 112/2022 regarding renewable energy development for electricity supply; and
• Decree of the MoEF 842/2024 regarding Indonesia’s zero-waste, zero-emission operational plan.

In addition to the regulations mentioned above, other relevant regulations for understanding environmental law in Indonesia include the GR on Environmental Implementation, the GR on Business Licensing, the Supreme Court Regulation on Environmental Cases, the MoEF Regulation 6/2021 regarding Hazardous and Toxic Waste (B3), and the MoEF Regulation 19/2021 regarding non-B3 waste. The content of these regulations will be discussed under their respective specific topics in this article.

The Role of Government on Environmental Protection and Management

The Indonesia Environmental Law grants the Minister broad authority to exercise all governmental powers regarding environmental protection and management, as well as to coordinate with other agencies. The Indonesia Environmental Law also grants extensive authority to local governments regarding environmental protection and management within their respective regions (Point 9 of General Elucidation of Indonesia Environmental Law).

Responsibilities across eleven environmental sub-sectors are distributed among the central government, provincial governments, and regency/city governments. These eleven sub-sectors include environmental planning, strategic environmental assessment, control of environmental pollution and/or degradation, biodiversity, hazardous and toxic substances (B3) and their waste, customary law communities, environmental awards for the public, environmental complaints, and waste management. (Law Number 23 of 2014 concerning Regional Government)

The ministry in Indonesia responsible for duties and functions related to the environment is the Ministry of Environment/Environmental Management Agency (Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup/Badan Pengendalian Lingkungan Hidup – “KLH“). The duties and functions of the KLH include formulating and establishing technical environmental policies, implementing such policies, coordinating and synchronizing policies, drafting norms, standards, procedures, and criteria, providing technical guidance and supervision, enforcing environmental laws, managing assets and organizational support, and carrying out other assigned tasks (Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup/Badan Pengendalian Lingkungan Hidup, Tugas dan Fungsi, accessed on 28 July 2026).

Prior to 2024, the ministry also handled forestry-related duties and functions under the name Ministry of Environment and Forestry (Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan – KLHK). However, as of 2024, the KLHK was split into the KLH and the Ministry of Forestry. (See the Presidential Regulation Number 182 of 2024 concerning the Ministry of Environment and Presidential Regulation Number 175 of 2024 concerning the Ministry of Forestry.)

Another ministry relevant to the environmental matter is the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan), which is tasked with functions related to marine spatial planning, marine management, marine environmental protection, capture fisheries management, aquaculture management, strengthening the competitiveness of marine and fishery products, and supervising the management of marine and fishery resources (Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan Republik Indonesia, Tugas dan Fungsi, accessed on 28 July 2026). Additionally, there is the Ministry of Investment (Kementerian Investasi dan Hilirisasi/BKPM), which handles business licensing. Environment-related licensing will be discussed separately in this article.

Environmental Permit

Permit constitutes a preventive measure aimed at controlling the environmental impacts of activities (Point 5 of the General Elucidation of the Indonesia Environmental Law). The Indonesia Environmental Law also expressly provides for several instruments for preventing environmental pollution and/or degradation, including environmental quality standards and permits. (Article 14 of Indonesia Environmental Law)

Environmental Approval

Environmental Approval is one of the main instruments in Indonesia’s business licensing system. Environmental Approval serves as a precondition for the issuance of a business license or government approval (Article 3 paragraph (3) of GR on Environmental Implementation). Environmental Approval is an environmental feasibility decision or a statement of commitment to environmental management that has been approved by the Central Government or Regional Government.

Environmental Approval is mandatory for business actors and/or activities that have either significant or insignificant impacts on the environment (Article 3(1) of GR on Environmental Implementation and Article 78(1) of the GR on Business Licensing). Environmental approval is granted based on the fulfillment of documentation requirements in the form of:

• Environmental Impact Analysis (“Amdal”);
• Environmental Management Efforts and Environmental Monitoring Efforts (“UKL-UPL”);
• Environmental Management Statement (“SPPL”).

Environmental Approval is granted in the form of:

• Environmental Feasibility Decision Letter for businesses and/or activities that have a significant impact on the environment and fall under the criteria required for an Amdal;
• A Statement of Commitment to Environmental Management for businesses and/or activities that do not have a significant impact on the environment and fall under the criteria requiring an UKL-UPL; or
• SPPL for businesses and/or activities that do not have a significant impact on the environment and do not fall under the criteria requiring an Amdal or an UKL-UPL.

Environmental Impact Analysis (Amdal)

Amdal is a study of the significant environmental impacts of a planned business and/or activity, to be used as a precondition for decision-making regarding the implementation of the business and/or activity. Every planned business and/or activity that has a significant impact on the environment is required to have an Amdal. The significance of the impact is determined based on the following criteria:

1. the number of people who will be affected by the planned business and/or activity;
2. the geographical extent of the impact;
3. the intensity and duration of the impact;
4. the number of other environmental components that will be affected;
5. the cumulative nature of the impact;
6. whether the impact is reversible or irreversible; and/or
7. other criteria in accordance with developments in science and technology.

The criteria for businesses and/or activities that have a significant impact on the environment and are required to have an Amdal consist of:

1. changes in landform and landscape;
2. exploitation of natural resources, both renewable and non-renewable;
3. processes and activities that have the potential to cause environmental pollution and/or environmental damage, as well as the wasteful use and degradation of natural resources;
4. processes and activities whose outcomes may affect the natural environment, the human-made environment, and the social and cultural environment;
5. processes and activities whose results will affect the preservation of natural resource conservation area and/or the protection of cultural heritage sites;
6. the introduction of plant, animal, and microorganism species;
7. the production and use of biological and non-biological materials;
8. activities that pose a high risk and/or affect national defense; and/or
9. the application of technology that is expected to have significant potential to affect the environment.

The types of planned business and/or activities that are required to have an Amdal include:

1. types of planned business and/or activities for which the size and/or scale requires an Amdal; and/or
2. types of planned business and/or activities whose business and/or activity location is situated within and/or directly adjacent to a protected area.

The Amdal document shall be prepared by the person responsible for the business and/or activity independently, or the person responsible for the business and/or activity may appoint another party, namely an Amdal preparation institution or a consultant holding a competency certificate for Amdal preparation.

The obligation to obtain an Amdal is exempted for planned business and/or activities that:

1. are located in a regency/city that has a detailed spatial plan accompanied by a strategic environmental assessment that has been prepared and implemented comprehensively and in detail in accordance with the provisions of the applicable laws and regulations;
2. are located within a forest area that has a forest management plan accompanied by a strategic environmental assessment that has been prepared and implemented comprehensively and in detail in accordance with the provisions of the applicable laws and regulations;
3. Government and/or local government programs that already have policies, plans, and/or programs in the form of master plans accompanied by strategic environmental assessments that have been prepared and implemented comprehensively and in detail in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations;
4. business plans and/or activities carried out within and/or directly adjacent to exempted protected areas (kawasan  lindung yang dikecualikan);
5. activities of the central government and/or local governments conducted for research purposes and not for commercial purposes;
6. business plans and/or activities located within areas that have been issued an Area Environmental Impact Assessment (Amdal) and an Area Environmental Approval;
7. business plans and/or activities located within an area where, pursuant to laws and regulations, businesses and/or activities within that area are required to prepare a detailed RKL-RPL that has been supplemented with an area-level Amdal and an area-level Environmental Approval;
8. carried out under disaster emergency conditions;
9. in connection with environmental restoration efforts carried out by the Government and/or local governments in areas not subject to business licensing requirements; and/or

Business plans and/or activities that directly border or are located within a protected area, for which an exemption from the mandatory Amdal has been granted by the competent authority responsible for the management of the protected area.

Environmental Management Efforts and Environmental Monitoring Efforts (UKL-UPL)

UKL-UPL is a series of environmental management and monitoring processes set forth in the form of standards to be used as preconditions for decision-making and included in business licenses or approvals issued by the central government or local governments.

Every business and/or activity that does not have a significant impact on the environment is required to comply with the UKL-UPL standards. Planned business and/or activities that are required to have a UKL-UPL include:

1. types of planned business and/or activities that do not have significant impacts;
2. types of planned business and/or activities whose business and/or activity locations are situated outside and/or are not directly adjacent to protected areas (kawasan lindung); and
3. types of planned business and/or activities that are exempted from the obligation to obtain an Amdal.

The UKL-UPL form shall be completed by the person responsible for the business and/or activity during the planning stage of the business and/or activity.

Environmental Management Statement (SPPL)

The Indonesia Environmental Law requires every business and/or activity that is not required to prepare a UKL-UPL to submit a statement of commitment to environmental management and monitoring, which is integrated into the Business Identification Number (NIB). This statement of commitment is referred to as the SPPL.

The SPPL is mandatory for business and/or activities that do not have significant impacts on the environment and do not fall within the criteria requiring a UKL-UPL. Planned business and/or activities that are required to have an SPPL include:

1. types of planned business and/or activities that do not have significant impacts and are not required to have a UKL-UPL;
2. micro and small business and/or activities that do not have significant impacts on the environment; and/or
3. types of planned business and/or activities that are exempted from the obligation to have a UKL-UPL.

The list of business and/or activities required to obtain an Amdal, UKL-UPL, or SPPL is set out in Appendix I and II of MoEF Regulation No. 4/2021. Nevertheless, these appendices to MoEF Regulation No. 4/2021 still refer to the 2020 Indonesian Standard Industrial Classification (Klasifikasi Baku Lapangan Usaha Indonesia or KBLI).

Following the issuance of the GR on Business Licensing in 2025, there have been several changes to the KBLI classification, including the consolidation and subdivision of several KBLI codes. To date, there is no regulation that expressly updates the list of business and/or activities required to obtain an Amdal, UKL-UPL, or SPPL based on the 2025 KBLI.

Procedures and Required Documentation for an Environmental Approval Application

Environmental Approval constitutes a basic requirement that must be fulfilled by business actors at the stage of commencing a business. An application for Environmental Approval shall be submitted by the Business Actor through the Electronic Integrated Business Licensing System (Online Single Submission) (“OSS System”).

In general, the Environmental Approval process is carried out through the following stages:

1. screening of the type of environmental document and screening of technical approval by the Business Actor;
2. application for technical approval by the Business Actor;
3. application for Environmental Approval or amendment to the Environmental Approval by the Business Actor;
4. assessment or examination of the environmental document;
5. determination of environmental feasibility; and
6. issuance of the Environmental Approval.

We will briefly explain the procedures for applying for Environmental Approval based on an Amdal, UKL-UPL, or SPPL, along with the required supporting documents that must be fulfilled.

Environmental Approval Based on an Amdal Document

Amdal consists of:

1. Terms of Reference Form (Formulir Kerangka Acuan);
2. Environmental Impact Analysis (Andal); and
3. Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (RKL-RPL).

An application for Environmental Approval based on an Amdal must be accompanied by technical approvals as an administrative requirement. Technical approvals consist of:

1. compliance with wastewater quality standards;
2. compliance with emission quality standards;
3. management of hazardous and toxic waste; and/or
4. traffic impact analysis.

If the application for Environmental Approval is declared complete through the OSS System, the Minister/Head of the agency responsible for government affairs in the field of environmental protection and management and government affairs in the field of environmental control, the governor, or the Regent/Mayor, as applicable within their respective authority, through the Environmental Feasibility Assessment Team, shall assess the application for Environmental Approval based on the Amdal document. The assessments that shall be conducted are administrative assessment and substantive assessment.

• Amdal Administrative Assessment

The administrative assessment is conducted to assess the accuracy of the documents, which include:

1. conformity of the location of the planned business and/or activity with the Spatial Plan (RTR);
2. preliminary approval relating to the planned business and/or activity;
3. technical approval, where required in accordance with the provisions of the laws and regulations on environmental protection and management and/or traffic;
4. validity of the proof of registration of the Amdal preparation service provider institution, where the Andal document and RKL-RPL document are prepared by an Amdal preparation service provider institution;
5. validity of the proof of certification of the competency of the Amdal preparer; and
6. conformity of the structure of the Andal document and RKL-RPL document with the guidelines for the preparation of the Andal document and RKL-RPL document.

If, based on the results of the document assessment, the documents are determined to be correct, the application for Environmental Approval shall proceed to substantive assessment. However, if the documents are determined to be incorrect based on the results of the document assessment, the OSS System shall return the documents to the Business Actor, accompanied by notes on the required revisions, and the Business Actor shall submit the revised documents no later than 3 (three) days from the date on which the documents are returned as incorrect. The assessment of the correctness of the revised documents shall be conducted no later than 1 (one) day after the revised documents are received. The application for Environmental Approval may be rejected, with the reasons for rejection provided through the OSS System, if:

1. the Business Actor fails to submit the revisions within 3 (three) days from the date on which the documents are returned as incorrect; or
2. based on the results of the document assessment, the documents are determined to be incorrect.

• Amdal Substantive Assessment

The substantive assessment is conducted to comprehensively and holistically assess the aspects of consistency, necessity, relevance, and depth of the substance, including:

1. project stage assessment; and
2. assessment of the quality of the analysis contained in the Andal document and RKL-RPL document.

Based on the results of the feasibility assessment, the environmental feasibility assessment team shall submit a recommendation on environmental feasibility or environmental infeasibility to the Minister/Head of the agency responsible for government affairs in the field of environmental protection and management and government affairs in the field of environmental control, the Governor, or the Regent/Mayor, as applicable within their respective authority.

The recommendation resulting from the feasibility assessment shall serve as a consideration for the Minister/Head of the agency responsible for government affairs in the field of environmental protection and management and government affairs in the field of environmental control, the Governor, or the Regent/Mayor, as applicable within their respective authority, in determining:

1. an Environmental Feasibility Decision, if the planned business and/or activity is determined to be environmentally feasible; or
2. an Environmental Infeasibility Decision, if the planned business and/or activity is determined to be environmentally infeasible.

The Environmental Feasibility Decision or Environmental Infeasibility Decision shall be issued no later than 10 (ten) days from the date the recommendation resulting from the feasibility assessment is received.

Environmental Approval based on UKL-UPL

An application for Environmental Approval on a UKL-UPL form shall be submitted by the Business Actor together with the relevant technical approval, where required under the applicable laws and regulations concerning environmental protection and management and/or traffic, except where, based on the technical approval screening, the business and/or activity conducted by the Business Actor has no impact on water, soil, air, and/or traffic generation and attraction. In such case, the Business Actor is not required to obtain technical approval.

The UKL-UPL form consists of:

1. a specific standard UKL-UPL form provided in the environmental information system; or
2. a standard UKL-UPL form prepared by the Business Actor with reference to the format prescribed under the applicable laws and regulations concerning environmental protection and management.

Similar to the Environmental Approval process based on an Amdal, the assessment consists of an administrative assessment and a substantive assessment.

• UKL-UPL Administrative Assessment

The administrative assessment is conducted to verify the accuracy of the documents, which includes:

1. conformity of the location of the planned business and/or activity with the Spatial Plan (RTR);
2. preliminary approval relating to the planned business and/or activity;
3. technical approval, where required in accordance with the provisions of the laws and regulations concerning environmental protection and management and/or traffic; and
4. conformity of the contents of the specific standard UKL-UPL form or standard UKL-UPL form with the applicable completion guidelines.

• UKL-UPL Substantive Assessment

The substantive assessment of the specific standard UKL-UPL form or standard UKL-UPL form shall be conducted by the Minister/Head of the agency responsible for government affairs in the field of environmental protection and management and government affairs in the field of environmental control, the Governor, or the Regent/Mayor, as applicable within their respective authority.

The approval or rejection of the statement of commitment to environmental management shall be issued through the OSS System. If the results of the substantive assessment indicate that no revisions are required, the Minister/Head of the agency responsible for government affairs in the field of environmental protection and management and government affairs in the field of environmental control, the Governor, or the Regent/Mayor, as applicable within their respective authority, shall, through the OSS System, issue an approval or rejection of the statement of commitment to environmental management no later than 2 (two) days from the date the substantive assessment is determined to be correct.

Environmental Approval Based on an SPPL Form

An application for Environmental Approval based on an SPPL Form shall be submitted by the Business Actor to the Minister/Head of the agency responsible for government affairs in the field of environmental protection and management and government affairs in the field of environmental control, the Governor, or the Regent/Mayor, as applicable within their respective authority, through the OSS System. The SPPL Form shall contain:

1. the commitment of the person responsible for the Business and/or Activity to comply with the laws and regulations on Environmental Protection and Management;
2. the planned Business and/or Activity location has a confirmation of spatial utilization conformity or a recommendation for spatial utilization conformity, in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations; and
3. basic obligations for Environmental Management.

The Environmental Approval based on an SPPL Form shall be issued through a self-declaration by the Business Actor via the OSS System and shall be automatically issued concurrently with the Business Identification Number (NIB).

Hazardous and Toxic Waste

Every business and/or activity conducted by a company has the potential to generate waste, including hazardous and toxic waste (“B3 Waste”). Every person that generates B3 Waste is required to manage such B3 Waste. The management of B3 Waste must obtain a business license or government approval from the central or regional government.

The management of B3 Waste includes, among others:

1. reduction of B3 Waste;
2. storage of B3 Waste;
3. collection of B3 Waste;
4. transportation of B3 Waste;
5. utilization of B3 Waste;
6. treatment of B3 Waste;
7. hoarding of B3 Waste; and
8. dumping (disposal) of B3 Waste.

In this section, we will discuss the management of B3 Waste, focusing on the business licensing aspects, specifically on storage, transportation, treatment, and dumping of B3 Waste.

Storage of B3 Waste

B3 Waste Storage is an activity of storing B3 Waste carried out by a B3 Waste generator for the purpose of temporarily storing the B3 Waste it generates. Every person that generates B3 Waste is required to store the B3 Waste and is prohibited from mixing the B3 Waste being stored.

To store B3 Waste, every person that generates B3 Waste is required to comply with the following requirements:

1. the B3 Waste Storage standards integrated into the NIB, for B3 Waste generators from businesses and/or activities subject to an SPPL, as further regulated under Article 52 of MoEF Regulation No. 6 of 2021; and/or
2. the technical details of B3 Waste Storage set out in the Environmental Approval, for B3 Waste generators from businesses and/or activities subject to an Amdal or UKL-UPL, and for Government Agencies that generate B3 Waste, as further regulated under Article 53 of MoEF Regulation No. 6 of 2021.

Every person that generates B3 Waste and carries out B3 Waste storage activities shall store B3 Waste for a maximum period of:

1. 90 (ninety) days from the date the B3 Waste is generated, for B3 Waste generated in quantities of 50 kg (fifty kilograms) or more per day;
2. 180 (one hundred eighty) days from the date the B3 Waste is generated, for B3 Waste Category 1 generated in quantities of less than 50 kg (fifty kilograms) per day;
3. 365 (three hundred sixty-five) days from the date the B3 Waste is generated, for Category 2 B3 Waste generated in quantities of less than 50 kg (fifty kilograms) per day from non-specific sources and general specific sources; or
4. 365 (three hundred sixty-five) days from the date the B3 Waste is generated, for Category 2 B3 Waste from specific special sources.

If the storage of B3 Waste exceeds the aforementioned period, every person that generates B3 Waste may transfer the B3 Waste to another party, namely a B3 Waste collector, B3 Waste utilizer, B3 Waste processor, and/or B3 Waste disposer.

Transportation of B3 Waste

The transportation of B3 Waste must be carried out by a B3 Waste transporter that holds a business license for the transportation of B3 Waste.

B3 Waste transporters are required to obtain:

1. a recommendation for the transportation of B3 Waste; and
2. a business license for the transportation of B3 Waste.

The recommendation for the transportation of B3 Waste serves as the basis for the issuance of a business license for the transportation of B3 Waste. An application for a recommendation for the transportation of B3 Waste shall be submitted by the B3 Waste transporter to the Minister in writing and shall be accompanied by:

• General requirements, consisting of:

1. the applicant’s identity;
2. the deed of establishment of the business entity;
3. Business Identification Number (NIB);
4. proof of ownership of an environmental restoration guarantee in the form of a bank guarantee and/or insurance policy with coverage of at least IDR 5,000,000,000 (five billion rupiah);
5. proof of ownership of the means of transportation;
6. B3 Waste transportation documents; and
7. a cooperation agreement between the B3 Waste Generator and a B3 Waste Collector, B3 Waste Utilizer, B3 Waste Processor, and/or B3 Waste Disposer that holds the required license.

• Specific requirements, including:

1. a competency certificate for drivers transporting B3 Waste;
2. a certificate evidencing the roadworthiness of the means of transportation;
3. a deed of establishment of the business entity that includes B3 Waste management activities within the scope of the business entity’s activities;
4. B3 Waste transportation documents containing, at a minimum:

• the type and number of means of transportation;
• the source, name, and characteristics of the B3 Waste being transported;
• procedures for handling B3 Waste in emergency situations;
• equipment for handling B3 Waste;
• procedures for loading and unloading B3 Waste;
• documentation of the B3 Waste transportation vehicle affixed with B3 Waste symbols in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations; and
• proof of connection to Silacak, for the transportation of B3 Waste using road transportation.

The transportation of B3 Waste must be accompanied by an Electronic Manifest (Festronik), which is an electronic document containing a statement of handover and information on the B3 Waste. Festronik shall be used by B3 Waste transporters and B3 Waste generators, B3 Waste Collectors, B3 Waste Utilizers, B3 Waste Processors, and/or B3 Waste Disposers.

Treatment of B3 Waste

B3 Waste treatment is a process to reduce and/or eliminate the hazardous and/or toxic characteristics. If any person who generates B3 waste is unable to process the B3 waste they generate on their own, the processing of the B3 waste must be entrusted to a B3 waste processor, or they may export the B3 waste they generate.

Any Person who generates B3 Waste and intends to carry out B3 Waste treatment activities must obtain:

1. an Environmental Approval; and
2. Business License for B3 Waste treatment activities.

In order to obtain an Environmental Permit, a B3 Treatment Operator must hold a Technical Permit for B3 Management for its B3 Treatment activities. The Technical Approval shall be submitted to the Minister and shall include, among others, the following requirements:

1. the name, source, characteristics, and quantity of the B3 Waste to be managed;
2. the location and coordinates of the B3 Waste Management activities;
3. a development plan for the B3 Waste Management facility, for B3 Waste Management activities that require a B3 Waste Management facility;
4. documentation on the B3 Waste Storage facility;
5. documentation on the packaging of B3 Waste;
6. evidence of ownership of financial assurance funds for the restoration of Environmental Functions; and
7. cost calculations and an economic feasibility model.

Based on the Appendix of the GR on Business Licensing in the environmental sector, the requirements applicable to B3 Waste Management activities include:

1. an Operational Feasibility Certificate (SLO);
2. evidence of ownership of funds for the Mitigation of Environmental Pollution and/or Environmental Damage or financial assurance funds for the Restoration of Environmental Functions; and
3. a Technical Approval issued by the Director General of Waste, Hazardous and Toxic Waste (B3), and Capacity Improvement (PSB3).

The SLO for B3 Waste Management activities serves as the basis for commencing the operational activities of B3 Waste Management and for supervising the compliance of the person responsible for the Business and/or Activity with the applicable Business Licensing requirements.

Dumping (Disposal) of B3 Waste

Every person is prohibited from carrying out the Dumping (Disposal) of B3 Waste into Environmental Media without the Approval of the Central Government. Such Approval shall be in the form of a Technical Approval for Dumping (Disposal) activities and shall serve as the basis for the issuance of an Environmental Approval. The Technical Approval shall be granted for the Dumping (Disposal) of B3 Waste into the following Environmental Media:

1. land; and
2. the sea.

To obtain a Technical Approval for Dumping (Disposal) activities into the sea, any Person generating B3 Waste must submit a written application to the Minister.

The application must be accompanied by requirements that include, among others:

1. the applicant’s identity;
2. a technical assessment document for the Dumping (Disposal) of B3 Waste;
3. the location where the Dumping (Disposal) of B3 Waste will be carried out, accompanied by a map of the B3 Waste Dumping (Disposal) location;
4. a flowchart of the Waste treatment process to be carried out prior to the Dumping (Disposal) of B3 Waste;
5. baseline conditions of the sea, marine biota, and sediment;
6. a modeling study for the B3 Waste to be subject to Dumping (Disposal);
7. test results from an accredited laboratory;
8. the chemical composition of drilling mud;
9. a bathymetric map, sensitive areas, shipping lanes, and restricted or prohibited areas; and
10. an Emergency Response System in the form of a B3 Waste Management emergency response program document.

Upon receiving the application, the Minister shall provide a written statement regarding the administrative completeness of the application no later than 2 (two) business days from the date the application is received. Once the application has been declared complete, the Minister shall conduct a verification within no later than 7 (seven) business days. If the verification results indicate that the application meets the applicable requirements, the Minister shall issue a Technical Approval for the Dumping (Disposal) of B3 Waste no later than 7 (seven) business days from the date on which the verification results are determined.

Sanctions for Violations of Business Licensing Provisions

Ministers, governors, or regents/mayors are required to impose administrative sanctions on the party responsible for a business and/or activity if, during supervision, violations are found regarding the provisions of business licensing or government approval, specifically concerning Environmental Approval and laws and regulations related to Environmental Protection and Management.

The imposition of administrative sanctions is carried out in accordance with the norms, standards, procedures, and criteria established by the Minister. Further details regarding the environmental responsibilities of business actors are provided in the section on liability and disputes below.

Liability and Dispute

Indonesia’s environmental laws hold polluters strictly liable for damages, meaning no fault needs to be proven. The laws cover compensation, restoration, and penalties for environmental harm. Administrative sanctions include fines and license revocation, while criminal penalties include imprisonment and fines. Disputes can be settled in or out of court, with environmental organizations allowed to sue for preservation.

Civil Environmental Liability: Strict Liability

Strict liability has been regulated under Indonesian environmental law since 1982. The Law 4/1982 regulates that polluter is responsible to compensate persons who suffer losses as a result of violations of their right to a proper and healthy environment. On an activity involving a certain resource, that responsibility is strict, and it is selectively imposed according to the laws and regulations. This Law 4/1982 is then repealed by the Law 23/1997 which specifically governs the strict liability provision.

The Law 23/1997 regulates that the party responsible to a business and/or activity which its business and activity causes huge and important impact to the environment, by using the hazardous and toxic materials, and/or producing hazardous and toxic waste, is strictly responsible to the losses caused, with an obligation to compensate over the losses directly and immediately when the pollution and/or damage of environment occurs. The elucidation of the law explains that the strict liability means no obligation to prove a fault element by the claimant. This strict liability is excluded when the alleged party can prove that the pollution and/or damage occurs due to:

1. Natural disaster or war;
2. Force majeure; or
3. Third party action.

Indonesia Environmental Law stipulates a similar provision to the previous law, namely, “Every person whose action, business, and/or activity uses B3, producing and/or managing B3 waste, and/or causing serious threat to the environment is strictly responsible to the losses occurred out of its business and/or activity.” Its elucidation explains the same meaning of ‘strict liability’ as under the Law 23/1997, namely, no obligation to prove the ‘fault’ element. There is the same exception as per the 1997 but regulated through its implementing GR on Environmental Implementation.

On a strict liability claim, the judge is authorized to implement the strict liability to the defendant if the claimant can prove:

1. Business or activity of defendant is a business or activity using and managing the B3 materials, producing or managing the B3 waste, and/or causing serious threat to the environment;
2. There exists a loss of environment, property, and health because of an active or passive action by the defendant; and
3. There exists a causality showing that such suffered losses are due to the dangerous business or activity of the defendant.

In assessing action, business or activity causing a ‘serious threat,’ the judge considers whether such activity or business, licensed or not:

1. Has caused impact or has potential impact for contamination or damage to the environment and wide natural resources;
2. Has caused impact or has potential impact that is hard to be restored;
3. Has caused impact or has potential impact that is hard to be prevented;
4. Has caused impact or has potential or the impact is highly endangering the safety and health of the people so that its handling cannot be delayed; and/or
5. Does not have any conformity between the nature of the activity and environment or the place of such activity is conducted.

The law regulates that a party that transfers, changes the nature and form of business, and/or activity of a business entity that has violated the law, will not be released from its legal responsibility and its liability. This means, despite transfer, mergers, or acquisitions of a company having the business or activity, or the asset that was used for business or activity, the party violating the law, in this regard the environmental law, will still bear its liability to compensate and to do certain action.

Environmental Administrative Sanction

The Indonesia Environmental Law and GR on Environmental Implementation regulate the imposition of administrative sanction by the central or regional government for violation of environmental legal norms which the GR on Environmental Implementation regulates it in more detail.

The administrative sanctions include:

1. Written reprimand;
2. Government’s coercion;
3. Administrative penalty;
4. Freezing of business license;
5. Revocation of business license.

The administrative sanction is determined based on the supervision minutes and report of supervision.

The written reprimand is implemented when the responsible party of business and/or activity violates the provisions under the business license, government’s approval or regional government’s approval related to the environmental approval and laws and regulations on the environment.

The government’s coercion is implemented when the responsible party of business and/or activity does not implement the instruction in the written reprimand within the determined period. This coercion may be immediately implemented when there exists:

1. A very serious threat to human and environment;
2. Greater and wider impact if the contamination or damage is not stopped immediately; and/or
3. Greater damage to the environment if the contamination or damage is not stopped immediately.

This government’s coercion may be in the form of:

1. Temporary stoppage of production;
2. Relocation of production facility;
3. Closure of channel of wastewater dumping or emission;
4. Demolition;
5. Seizure of goods or equipment that is potentially causing violation;
6. Temporary partial or wholly stoppage of business or activity;
7. Obligation to draft an evaluation document of environment or management document of environment;
8. Other actions intended to stop violation and to recover the environment function.

The central government is authorized to appoint third party to do the recovery of the environment function caused by the contamination or damage of the environment by the costs of the responsible party.

When this government’s coercion is not implemented, the next sanction will be on the administrative penalty which will be calculated based on the percentage of violation multiplied by the largest penalty value. Further, the administrative penalty may be imposed when the responsible party:

1. Does not have an environmental approval but already had a business license;
2. Does not have an environmental approval and business license;
3. Do actions exceeding the wastewater quality standard or emission quality standard, as per the business license;
4. Does not do obligation under the business license related to the environmental approval;
5. Preparing environmental analysis impact report without competence certification of its drafter;
6. Due to its negligence, doing an action causing excess of air ambient quality standard, water quality standard, seawater quality standard, disturbance quality standard (including noise, smell, and vibration), and/or environmental damage quality standard, which is not in compliance with its business license related to the environmental approval; and/or
7. Due to its negligence, do actions causing the environmental contamination or damage and not causing human health danger, injury, serious injury, and death of a human.

The administrative penalty will be determined based on the occurrence of each violation that may be calculated from 2.5% to 10% multiplied by investment value of business with the maximum value of IDR 3 billion, calculated cumulatively.

The freezing of business license is implemented when the responsible party of business or activity:

1. Does not comply with the government’s coercion;
2. Does not pay the administrative penalty; and/or
3. Does not pay the late penalty of the government’s coercion.

The revocation of business license is implemented when the responsible party of business or activity:

1. Does not implement its obligation under the government’s coercion;
2. Does not pay the administrative penalty;
3. Does not pay the late penalty of the government’s coercion;
4. Does not implement its obligation in the freezing of business license or government’s approval; and/or
5. Do contamination or damage of environment that cannot be recovered.

Criminal Environmental Liability

The criminal provision under the Indonesia Environmental Law is considered as a felony. The criminal provisions are regulated from Article 98 to 115 of Indonesia Environmental Law. They cover several subjects namely the criminal offense by the responsible party of business or activity, any person (individual or business entity), and officer. They cover several offenses, namely:

1. Action exceeding the various quality standards whether due to its intention or negligence;
2. Actions releasing or distributing artificial genetics product to the environment instrument violating the laws and regulations;
3. Non-management of B3 waste;
4. Waste dumping or material to the environment instrument without permission;
5. Importing waste to the country;
6. Importing B3 waste to the country;
7. Importing prohibited B3 waste to the country;
8. Land burning;
9. Doing business or activity without license causing victims or damage to health, safety, or environment;
10. Officer issuing the environmental approval without environmental impact analysis or environmental management or supervision effort;
11. Officer intentionally not doing the supervision of business or activity of the responsible party which causes the contamination or damage of environment as well as the loss of human lives;
12. False or misleading information required for the supervision and law enforcement of environment;
13. Not doing the government’s coercion;
14. Intentionally hindering, disturbing, or failing the investigator or authorized officer of environment.

Except for one criminal offense, namely on the offense by an officer intentionally not doing the supervision of business or activity of the responsible party which causes the contamination or damage of environment as well as the loss of human lives, the rest of the offenses are imposed with imprisonment and penalty.

When the criminal offense is conducted by, for, or on behalf of a business entity, that criminal offense and penalty is imposed to the business entity and/or the person giving the order of such offense or their leader. When the offense is conducted by a person based on the employment relationship or other relationship within the business entity working framework, the criminal sanction is imposed to the person giving the order or their leader without considering whether such offense is individually or jointly conducted.

In addition to the imprisonment and penalty, a business entity can be imposed with additional criminal penalty or disciplinary actions in the form of:

1. Confiscation of profit obtained from the criminal offense;
2. Closure of all or part of business or activity location;
3. Repair due to the offense;
4. Obligation to do what has been neglected; and/or
5. Placement of the company under receivership for not more than 3 years.

The evidentiary instrument for the criminal prosecution of the environment consists of:

1. Witness statement;
2. Expert statement;
3. Letter;
4. Reference;
5. Defendant’s testimony;
6. Other evidence, including, among others, electronic information, magnetic, optic, or its similarity.

Environmental Resolution Dispute

Environmental resolution dispute can be settled within the court or out of court, which will be voluntary decided by the parties. The Indonesia Environmental Law specifically stipulates that the claim through a court may only be lodged after the out of court settlement has been implemented and was declared as unsuccessful by any party or the parties.

The out of court settlement, which may also involve mediator’s or arbitrator’s service, is conducted to reach resolution on the following:

1. The form and amount of compensation;
2. The recovery action caused by the contamination or damage;
3. A certain action to secure non-recurrence of the contamination or damage; and/or
4. An action to prevent a negative impact over the environment.

The people may establish an institution dealing with the environmental resolution dispute which is neutral and impartial. This provision has been regulated under the GR on Institution of Resolution Dispute Services.

As the polluter pays principle, every responsible party of business or activity violating the law causing contamination or damage of environment, that causes losses to other people or environment, is obligated to compensate such losses and/or to do certain action. These certain actions may include:

1. To install or repair a waste management unit so that the waste complies with the quality standard;
2. To recover environmental function; and/or
3. To remove or to destroy the cause factor causing the contamination or damage of environment.

A court may determine the forced money for every day the action is not conducted.

The statute of limitation to claim is generally 30 years as it follows the provisions of Indonesian Civil Code but calculated from when the contamination or damage was known. This statute of limitation is not applicable when the contamination or damage was caused by business or activity using or managing the B3 or producing and/or managing the B3 waste.

When there is similarity of fact or event, legal basis, or nature of demand between the members of group, the people may lodge a class action claim for its own interest or for the interest of the people if they suffer losses caused by the contamination or damage of environment. This claim covers the state administrative claim or civil claim.

The central government and regional government responsible to the environment sector are authorized to lodge a claim for compensation and certain action (which may include preventive action, restoration, contamination or damage control) against a business or activity that causes contamination or damage of environment causing losses.

Moreover, the environmental organization responsible for the protection and management of environment is authorized to lodge a claim for the preservation of environmental function. This claim right by the environmental organization is reserved only for the organization that:

1. In the form of legal entity;
2. Having confirmation under its articles of association that it is established for the preservation of environmental function; and
3. Has conducted actual activities according to its articles of association for not less than 2 years.

This environmental organization claim is limited to demand a certain action without any demand for compensation, except for the actual costs or expenditures.

Environmental Law Cases in Indonesia

Case concerning Strict Liability

One of the cases concerning strict liability is a lawsuit filed by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, as plaintiff, against PT Waringin Agro Jaya, as defendant, alleging that the defendant committed a fire. The evidence is based on the principle of strict liability, as a result of a fire in the Defendant’s oil palm plantation. The lawsuit was granted at first instance, then upheld on appeal and cassation. In Decision No. 456/Pdt.G-LH/2016/PN Jkt. Sel, Judex Facti considered,

“That based on the description of the article regarding strict liability, it is no longer necessary to dispute whether the Defendant committed any fault or not in the land fires on land under its management for cultivating oil palm plantations.”

Judex Facti also considered,

“That by granting the Defendant the right to conduct business activities on the land, the Defendant is responsible for any incidents or events occurring on the land under its management that lead to a serious threat to the environment.”

Further, Judex Juris in Decision No. 1561 K/Pdt/2018 considered,

“That the Defendant’s land had experienced repeated fires due to human actions, not natural causes. Therefore, the Defendant, as the landowner, must be held responsible for the environmental damage caused by these fires.”

Administrative Environmental Case

One of administrative environmental cases in Indonesia is the Semen Gresik case. The parties are Joko Prianto, et al. (as the Plaintiffs) against Governor of Central Java (as the Defendant) and PT. Semen Indonesia (Persero), Tbk (formerly PT. Semen Gresik Indonesia (Persero), Tbk – as the Defendant II Intervention). The object of dispute is Governor of Central Java Decree No. 660.1/17 of 2012, dated June 7, 2012 on Environmental Permit (Izin Lingkungan) for Mining Activities by PT. Semen Gresik Indonesia (Persero), Tbk, Rembang Regency, Central Java Province.

The Plaintiffs initially filed an administrative lawsuit through the Administrative Court, primarily claiming losses caused by the issuance of the Object of Dispute. The Environmental Permit granted Defendant II Intervention to authorize limestone clay and mining, and some factory and road constructions. The area for which the permit was issued, is part of the Watuputih Groundwater Basin, a crucial water source for the local population.

The Plaintiffs further argued that if mining activities were to continue, the basin would lose its water absorption function. Before filing the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs had already taken prior administrative measures by submitting an objection letter regarding the Object of Dispute.

However, no cancellation of the Object of Dispute was issued, nor was there any clear or definitive response from the Defendants. It was later discovered that the conclusion given in the Environmental Impact Assessment (Analisis Dampak Lingkungan Hidup – “ANDAL”), which served as the basis for the issuance of the Environmental Feasibility Decree and subsequently the Environmental Permit, contained inaccurate information.

The conclusion of the ANDAL documents incorrectly stated that the karst conservation area was located outside the planned mining blocks. Whereas the ANDAL documents explicitly mentioned that the mining area was part of a karst region with several natural springs, categorizing it as a conservation area and requiring further classification to determine permissible mining zones.

At the first level of court proceedings, the Defendants’ objections (eksepsi) were admitted, preventing any legal consideration of the merit of the case. The Plaintiffs’ appeal was also rejected. Although the lawsuit was dismissed at the first level and in the High State Administrative Court due to the acceptance of the Defendants’ objections, the Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Judicial Review (Peninjauan Kembali) through the Supreme Court.

One of the primary issues raised in the Judicial Review was the time limit for filing the lawsuit, which had previously been a basis for dismissal in both lower courts. However, at the Supreme Court level, the Panel of Judges reconsidered the case and ruled that the lawsuit shall not be deemed premature.

Based on the Overlay Map of the Watuputih Groundwater Basin, it was proven that Defendant II’s mining area was also included in the area of the Watuputih Groundwater Basin. Even though it was stipulated under various existing laws and regulations that mining in a designated conservation zone should not be permitted in the same way as the other area.

Despite the fact that Defendant II’s ANDAL and public consultations regarding the project were essentially valid, however, considering the evidence including a petition signed by 2.501 residents opposing the construction of PT Semen Indonesia’s cement plant in Rembang Regency (dated 10 December 2014), demonstrated significant public resistance to the project.

The Panel of Judges further emphasized that public consultations should not be limited to procedural formalities but must also ensure effective communication and meaningful public participation. Subsequently, the public consultations conducted were deemed inadequate, as the key messages did not reach all affected communities.

Furthermore, regarding the area of the mining, while mining in the groundwater basin area is generally prohibited, the Panel of Judges stated that an exception may be granted for activities in the national interest. However, even in such cases, strict limitations and specific methods must be implemented to prevent disruption of the aquifer system.

Although in the Defendant II’s ANDAL had included an assessment of the area’s environmental conditions, it failed to specify strict limitations or proper mining procedures for operations within the groundwater basin. As a result, despite the existence of the ANDAL, it was deemed ineffective, as it could not guarantee the sustainability of the aquifer system within the conservation area.

The Panel of Judges also found that certain sections of the ANDAL did not provide concrete solutions to address key issues, such as water shortages for local communities and agricultural needs. The Panel of Judges further argued that the preparation of the ANDAL should have adhered to General Principles of Good Governance (Asas-Asas Umum Pemerintahan yang Baik/AUPB), applicable regulations, the principles of environmental sustainability, precautionary principles, and accuracy, particularly to prevent environmental degradation in the Watuputih Groundwater Basin.

The Panel of Judges then ruled that the preparation of the ANDAL was procedurally flawed. Consequently, since the Object of Dispute was issued based on a defective ANDAL, it should be declared as legally defective (cacat yuridis) and therefore should be annulled. Through the Judicial Review decision, the Supreme Court declared that the Object of Dispute is null and void and ordered Defendant to revoke the Object of Dispute.

Civil Environmental Case

An interesting case to discuss on civil environmental-related issue is Palangkaraya citizen lawsuit on forest fire and haze. The parties are Arie Rompas, et al. (as the Plaintiffs) against the President, Minister of Environment and Forestry of Republic of Indonesia, Minister of Agriculture of Republic Indonesia, Minister of Agrarian and Spatial Planning/Head of the National Land Agency of the Republic of Indonesia, Minister of Health of The Republic of Indonesia, Governor of Central Kalimantan, and Regional House of Representatives of the Central Kalimantan Province (as the Defendants).

Some massive forest and land fires, along with haze, have occurred in Central Kalimantan Province since 1997, with the most recent (as per the submitted lawsuit) incident taking place in 2015. These fires caused various material and immaterial losses, including air pollution, Acute Respiratory Infection (Infeksi Saluran Pernapasan Akut/ISPA), and diarrhea, even led to life threatening conditions.

The supplies of medicine and other evacuation necessities provided by the Defendants to provide the mitigation to the victims were insufficient. Through the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs essentially argued that they had neglected their authority and committed an Unlawful Act (Perbuatan Melawan Hukum), as stipulated in the Article 1365 of the Indonesia Civil Code (ICC).

The Plaintiffs further argued that the Defendants, as the authorities and rulers of the country, have an obligation to take legal action to protect and ensure the fulfilment of the community’s right to a clean and healthy environment, as required by law. The Defendants’ lack of response in handling the situation allowed the fire to spread widely and persist for an extended period.

Furthermore, the Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants had been negligent in preventing forest and land fires. Through a Citizen Lawsuit, the Plaintiffs requested the court to order the Defendants to take further action to prevent future forest and land fires.

In accordance with the evidence presented in the court, it is proven that:

1. the Defendants were slow and ineffective in responding to the haze caused by forest and land fires;
2. there were overlapping authorities in minimizing its impact and restoring the right to health of people exposed to haze;
3. the forest and land fires, along with the resulting haze, have caused significant harm to the affected communities; and
4. these failures resulted from weak planning, including inadequate identification of the number of people potentially affected by the haze and those who had been exposed for years.

The obligations of Defendant I, as argued by the Plaintiffs, were also delegated to the other Defendants (II–V). The Panel of Judges acknowledged that while the Defendants had taken some preventive measures, their response was slow and insufficient in preventing the widespread fires.

This negligence allowed the haze to spread massively, even reaching Singapore and Malaysia, leading to numerous deaths, illnesses, and severe disruptions to public activities, including aviation. The Panel of Judges ruled that Defendant I–V should be held jointly and severally liable for their failure to fulfil their legal obligations in handling the haze crisis, in which constituted an Unlawful Act.

Furthermore, Defendant VI, as a Governor of the Central Kalimantan, as mandated by the law, had the obligation to manage forest and land fire within his territory of authority. However, it was found that during all phases, which in before, during, and after the haze crisis, Defendant VI failed to exercise his authority effectively, leading to significant losses. This negligence was deemed as an Unlawful Act.

Additionally, the Panel of Judges also ruled that Defendant VII, in his capacity, failed to prevent forest and land fires by neglecting to take proactive measures to strictly regulate land burning, despite the fact that such fires had become an annual occurrence. Whereas this action was also deemed as an Unlawful Act.

The Panel of Judges, in its decision, declared that the Defendants had indeed committed an Unlawful Act and ordered them to take further action in managing the haze crisis and preventing future forest and land fires. The Defendants subsequently filed an appeal and cassation and both effort were rejected.

However, in 2022, the petition for Judicial Review was accepted, where in its consideration, the Panel of Judges in its essence stated that one of the factors causing the fire was a natural cause and that the Defendants were not proven to have been negligent and/or not conducting its obligations by the law.

Criminal Environmental Case

In the case of Republic Indonesia v. PT Kalista Alam on land and forest fire, PT Kalista Alam was charged on committing environmental crimes on a continuous basis under the Article 69 paragraph (1) letter h, Article 116 paragraph (1) letter a, Article 118, Article 119 of Indonesia Environmental Law jo. Article 64 paragraph (1) of the Indonesian Criminal Code.

The Defendant is a Limited Liability Company under Indonesian Law, engaged in the plantation and oil palm sector, operates in Suak Bahung and Kulo Pruet, Kecamatan Darul Makmur, Kabupaten Nagan Raya, Aceh. The Defendant intended to expand its oil palm plantation by clearing several acres of land.

The plantation area in question is part of a development zone within the Leuser Ecosystem and the National Strategic Area, as designated under Government Regulation No. 26 of 2008 on the National Spatial Plan. It was discovered that a fire had occurred on land owned by the Defendant. Although oil palm had not yet been planted, the land had already been stacked and prepared with planting holes.

It was also found that the Defendant does not have a proper system for handling and/or preventing fires. Expert testimony presented in court provided evidence that fires had previously occurred on the Defendant’s land. Furthermore, expert’s findings from the testimony by the court concluded that in the areas affected by the fires on PT Kalista Alam’s plantation expansion site (on 5 May 2012, and 15 June 2012), there were indications that land clearing had been deliberately carried out using fire. The burning of peatland for oil palm plantation development resulted in an environmental damage.

Based on the evidence presented in court, the fire occurred on land owned by the Defendant due to a lack of adequate supervision in the plantation area. While it was proven that the Defendant and a witness (who was involved in the land clearing) did not deliberately use burning as a method for land clearing, the fire still occurred. The fire took place on two occasions: 23 March 2012, and June 2012.

The Panel of Judges argued that, although there was no clear evidence of the Defendant’s intent to start the fire, under the principle of criminal law, the concept comprehends the intentionality, is through a legal theory known as “apa boleh buat”, “in kauf nehmen theorie,” or “op de koop toe nemen theorie.” This principle recognizes intent in situations where:

1. The perpetrator does not desire the consequence and may even fear or dislike the possibility of its occurrence;
2. However, despite not wanting the consequence, if it does occur, the perpetrator must accept the risk.

Furthermore, under Article 2 of Indonesia Environmental Law, the precautionary principle shall apply. Since the Defendant failed to implement this principle and did not take necessary actions to extinguish the fire, the Defendant is deemed to have conducted land clearing through burning. Additional considerations supporting the finding that the Defendant “intentionally” engaged in burning include:

1. Allowing felled logs left on the land to catch fire;
2. The lack of sufficient fire prevention and control facilities; and
3. The absence of a fire watchtower.

Both the appeal and cassation by the Defendants were rejected.

One of the arguments presented by the Defendant at the cassation level was that the indictment shall be declared as ne bis in idem, as the company’s director that represent the Defendant in this case, was also undergoing a criminal proceeding in a separate case. However, in this matter, it shall be understood that the principle of ne bis in idem does not apply.

This is because a criminal liability must be assigned individually to each perpetrator. Consequently, if the company is deemed liable, it must bear responsibility for its action, and if the company’s organ (including the director) is also found liable, they must also be held accountable for its action.

The Supreme Court further argued that individual liability and corporate liability are distinct legal matter, even when the criminal act in question may be a result from the same conduct and appear interconnected. Since the Defendant, as a corporation, failed to control and prevent the fire (which an act categorized as intentional) the corporation itself must bear responsibility.

Environmental Alternative Dispute Resolution

One of the cases in environmental alternative dispute resolution is a mediation involving PT Palur Raya and Consortium of Waste Victims, consists of Ngringo Community and NGO Workers. PT Palur Raya is a monosodium glutamate (MSG) manufacturing factory that began its operations in 1987 and is located adjacent to the village of Ngringo. By 1992, residents began reporting the severe environmental and health impacts caused by pollution.

Following the escalating dispute, the National Environment Minister issued an administrative directive to the Environmental Impact Agency of Central Java, instructing them to facilitate a resolution through mediation. The mediation involved government agencies, community representatives, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO), parliamentary representatives and the industry itself.

The mediation resulted in resolutions where PT Palur Raya acknowledged that pollution and environmental damage affecting water, soil, and air had occurred in the vicinity of the factory. This damage, which was intolerable, resulted from the waste produced, stored, or discharged into the environment by PT Palur Raya. The resolutions also, which was to be facilitated by an Independent Team of experts, includes:

1. agreement for PT Palur Raya to cease pollution of air and water (whilst complying with stipulated waste parameters);
2. environmental rehabilitation; and
3. pay compensation.

The mediation in this case initially appeared successful, resulting in a detailed agreement covering matters such as environmental management and community development. However, implementation of this agreement faced many challenges as PT Palur Raya rejected the findings and refused to implement the recommended measures by the independent team.

Even though mediation may indeed offer an alternative to administrative and judicial enforcement of environmental law, its effectiveness depends on the presence of prospective administrative or judicial sanctions, which provide a pressure for polluters to comply with the terms of mediated agreements.

Specific Issues

Waste

Indonesia continues to face serious challenges regarding national waste generation and management. The World Bank notes that Indonesia is one of the world’s largest waste-generating countries.  The volume of waste in Indonesia is projected to reach 24.8 million metric tons per year by 2025.

Waste Management Law mandates that the central government and local governments ensure the implementation of sound and environmentally sound waste management to improve public health and environmental quality. Waste management is carried out based on the principles of responsibility, sustainability, benefit, justice, awareness, solidarity, safety, security, and economic value.

The Waste Management Law defines waste as solid residues resulting from human daily activities and/or natural processes. Waste is then classified into three categories, namely:

1. household waste, which is waste generated by daily household activities.
2. waste similar to household waste, which is waste generated in commercial areas, industrial areas, special zones, public facilities, and other facilities; and
3. specific types of waste, including waste containing hazardous and toxic substances (B3), waste containing B3 waste, waste generated by disasters, construction debris, waste that cannot yet be processed using current technology, and waste generated on an irregular basis.

The objectives of waste management are not only to maintain environmental cleanliness but also to improve public health, enhance environmental quality, and transform waste into a resource. To achieve these objectives, the Waste Management Law stipulates that waste management is carried out through two main activities: waste reduction and waste treatment.

Based on the Waste Management Law and GR 81/2012, waste reduction is achieved through limiting waste generation, recycling waste, and reusing waste. These three approaches are known as the 3R principles (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle), which form the basis of modern waste management. Meanwhile, waste management involves the sorting, collection, transportation, treatment, and final disposal of waste.

Corporate Responsibility on Waste Management

Article 15 of the Waste Management Law mandates that one of the responsibilities of corporations is to require every producer to manage the packaging and/or goods they produce that cannot be or are difficult to decompose through natural processes. This provision extends the producer’s responsibility to the post-consumer stage. Thus, a producer’s responsibility does not end when the product is placed on the market, but also includes the management of waste or packaging generated from the use of that product.

MoEF Reg. on Waste Reduction requires producers to develop a roadmap for reducing waste The reduction of waste is carried out through limiting waste generation, recycling, and reusing waste derived from products, product packaging, and/or containers produced by manufacturers.

In addition, producers are also required to submit periodic reports on the implementation of their waste reduction roadmaps to the Minister of Environment, governors, and regents/mayors. This reporting requirement is one of the mechanisms the government uses to monitor producers’ compliance with their waste reduction obligations and to evaluate progress toward the targets set out in each producer’s roadmap.

In addition to the obligation to reduce waste from the products they produce, every business operator is also required to manage the waste generated by its operations. GR 81/2012 stipulates that managers of commercial areas, industrial areas, special zones, public facilities, and other facilities are required to provide waste sorting facilities and conduct separate collection, as well as to ensure that waste is handed over to the appropriate authorities for transport and processing in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

This obligation is intended to promote waste management from its source so that the volume of waste ending up at final disposal sites can be minimized. In relation to the producers’ responsibility, there is an interesting case to know, which is the Cikijing River case which will be discussed below.

Cikijing River Case

In the case between Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (“Walhi”) and Paguyuban Warga Peduli Lingkungan (“Pawapeling”) as plaintiffs against the Regent of Sumedang, PT Kahatex, PT Five Star Textile Indonesia, and PT Insansandang Internusa as defendants, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the issuance of wastewater discharge permits into the Cikijing River granted to the three companies.

In their lawsuit, Walhi and Pawapeling stated that the three permits were issued without meeting the requirements set forth in Article 41 of Government Regulation No. 82 of 2001 on Water Quality Management and Water Pollution Control. That provision requires that the granting of a wastewater discharge permit be based on the results of an evaluation of the wastewater discharge impact study prepared by the permit applicant.

However, during the process of issuing these three permits, the companies did not submit an environmental impact assessment regarding wastewater discharge; consequently, the Regent of Sumedang did not evaluate the assessment, which should have served as the basis for granting the permits.

In its consideration, the Panel of Judges argued that before issuing a wastewater discharge permit, the local government should first determine the pollution load capacity of the Cikijing River to assess the river’s ability to accommodate additional pollution loads without causing a decline in water quality.

According to the Panel of Judges, although the quality of the wastewater produced by the company remains below the established quality standards, this does not automatically prove that the Cikijing river still has the capacity to accommodate additional wastewater without becoming polluted.

Therefore, the issuance of a permit without being based on the determination of pollution load capacity and without a study of the impact of wastewater discharge is deemed to be contrary to the precautionary principle as stipulated in Article 2 letter f of the Indonesia Environmental Law.

Based on these considerations, the court ruled that the three decisions by the Regent of Sumedang regarding permits for wastewater discharge into the Cikijing River were contrary to the provisions of applicable laws and regulations and were therefore null and void.

The court also ordered the Regent of Sumedang to revoke all permits that were the subject of the dispute. The ruling was subsequently upheld through the Review stage, meaning that the three wastewater discharge permits were declared to have no binding legal force.

Pollution

Environmental pollution and/or damage caused by a party essentially constitutes a violation of every Indonesian citizen’s right to a good and healthy environment, as guaranteed in Article 28H paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. To guarantee the protection of this right, the Indonesia Environmental Law regulates a mechanism for environmental compensation.

Article 87 paragraph (1) of the Indonesia Environmental Law stipulates that any person responsible for a business and/or activity that commits an unlawful act in the form of environmental pollution and/or destruction, thereby causing harm to others or the environment, is obligated to pay damages and/or take specific actions.

Furthermore, the elucidation of Article 87 paragraph (1) of the Indonesia Environmental Law affirms that this provision constitutes the implementation of polluter pays principle as discussed previously in the section of environmental principles above.

Environmental Insurance and/or Pollution Liability Insurance

The Indonesia Environmental Law and GR 46/2017 define environmental insurance as insurance that provides coverage in the event of environmental pollution and/or damage.

Article 45 of GR 46/2017 stipulates that the development of environmental insurance is intended to protect anyone who may face potential environmental impacts and risks. This development is carried out through the application of calculation criteria that, at a minimum, cover the level of environmental risk and estimates of the costs associated with environmental emergencies.

Although it has been recognized in GR 46/2017, the implementation of environmental insurance in Indonesia remains voluntary and has not yet become a general requirement for all businesses.

Jakarta Citizen Lawsuit on Air Pollution

In the Jakarta Citizen Lawsuit concerning air pollution in Jakarta, 32 citizens, represented by the Tim Advokasi Gerakan Ibukota (Clean Air Initiative Coalition), filed a lawsuit against the President of the Republic of Indonesia, the Minister of Environment and Forestry, the Minister of Home Affairs, the Minister of Health, and the Governor of Jakarta (the defendants), with the Governors of Banten and West Java as co-defendants.

The plaintiffs argued that the defendants had failed to fulfill their legal obligations to guarantee the public’s right to a good and healthy environment. This failure was evidenced by Jakarta’s air quality consistently exceeding the applicable air quality standards, inadequate measures to control air pollution, inaccurate air quality information, and national ambient air quality standards that did not comply with the standards established by the World Health Organization.

In its consideration, the Panel of Judges held that the plaintiffs had successfully established a violation of the public’s right to a good and healthy environment. The court found that the government had been aware of Jakarta’s air pollution for years but had failed to take adequate measures to prevent and control it, conduct effective monitoring, enforce the applicable laws, or provide accurate and accessible information to the public. The Panel of Judges further held that each defendant had failed to discharge its respective statutory obligations under the applicable laws and regulations governing environmental protection and public health.

In its judgment, the Panel of Judges issued the following orders:

1. Declared that the President of the Republic of Indonesia, the Minister of Environment and Forestry, the Minister of Home Affairs, the Minister of Health, and the Governor of DKI Jakarta had committed an unlawful act;
2. Ordered the President of the Republic of Indonesia to tighten the National Ambient Air Quality Standards to a level sufficient to protect human health, the environment, and ecosystems, including the health of sensitive populations, based on developments in science and technology;
3. Ordered the Minister of Environment and Forestry to supervise the Governors of DKI Jakarta, Banten, and West Java in conducting an inventory of transboundary emissions across the provinces of DKI Jakarta, Banten, and West Java;
4. Ordered the Minister of Home Affairs to conduct supervision and provide guidance regarding the performance of the Governor of DKI Jakarta in controlling air pollution;
5. Ordered the Minister of Health to calculate the reduction in health impacts resulting from air pollution in DKI Jakarta Province, which shall serve as a basis for the Governor of DKI Jakarta in formulating the Air Pollution Control Strategy and Action Plan;
6. Ordered the Governor of DKI Jakarta to:

• Supervise compliance by all persons with the provisions of laws and regulations concerning air pollution control and/or the requirements of environmental documents, including:

1. Conduct periodic emissions testing of older vehicle types;
2. Report the evaluation of compliance with exhaust emission threshold limits for older motor vehicles;
3. Prepare a recapitulation of stationary sources of pollution (STB) whose “business activities emit emissions” and which hold environmental permits and emission discharge permits issued by the Governor of DKI Jakarta;
4. Supervise compliance with the prescribed fuel standards and/or specifications;
5. Supervise compliance with the prohibition on open burning of waste that causes air pollution;

• Impose sanctions on any person who violates the provisions of laws and regulations concerning air pollution control and/or the requirements of environmental documents, including:

1. Motor vehicle drivers who fail to comply with the emission standards for older mobile sources; and
2. Businesses and/or activities that fail to comply with the emission standards for stationary sources applicable to their respective businesses and/or activities;

• Disseminate information to the public regarding supervision and the imposition of sanctions relating to air pollution control;
• Tighten the Regional Ambient Air Quality Standards applicable to DKI Jakarta Province to a level sufficient to protect human health, the environment, and ecosystems, including the health of sensitive populations, based on developments in science and technology.

The judgment was subsequently upheld on appeal and in cassation, thereby becoming final and binding. The case affirms that the State has a legal obligation to protect the public’s right to a good and healthy environment by establishing adequate air quality standards, enforcing environmental laws, and implementing effective air pollution control measures.

Deforestation in Indonesia

According to the Elucidation of Article 50 paragraph (1) of Forestry Law, forest damage is defined as:

“… the occurrence of changes to the forest’s physical condition, physical characteristics, or biological attributes that cause the forest to be disturbed or unable to perform its functions in accordance with its designated purpose.”

Whereas, forest destruction is defined under Article 1 number 3 of Forest Destruction Law as the process, manner, or act of damaging forests through illegal logging, the use of forest areas without authorization, or the use of permits in a manner inconsistent with the purposes and objectives for which such permits were granted, within forest areas that have been designated, appointed, or are in the process of designation by the government.

In December 2025, the Minister of Forestry announced that deforestation in Indonesia had reached 166,450 hectares during the period from January to September 2025, representing an increase of approximately 28% compared to 2020. Consistent with this finding, the Forest Declaration Assessment 2025, published in October 2025, also identified an upward trend in deforestation across Indonesia.

However, unlike in previous periods, the report emphasized that the recent increase in deforestation occurred predominantly within legally designated forest areas and licensed concessions, namely on land for which the relevant operators had obtained official permits to conduct their business activities.

This is illustrated by the discovery of logs washed away by flooding in Sumatra, which were allegedly sourced from legally operated forest concessions. Notwithstanding the existence of such permits, Article 50 paragraph (1) of the Forestry Law expressly prohibits any holder of a business permit in a forest area from carrying out activities that cause forest damage.

For reference, liability for forest degradation, the doctrine of market share liability, and the role of this doctrine in environmental cases have been discussed in greater detail in an article titled “Market Share Liability as a Framework for Determining Liability for Forest Degradation and Flooding in Sumatra,” written by Miskah Banafsaj.

Polemics Over Palm Oil Plantation in Indonesia

The expansion of oil palm plantations in Indonesia has long been regarded as one of the principal drivers of deforestation. According to Forest Digest, deforestation attributable to oil palm expansion had been declining since 2012. However, this positive trend came to an end in 2023, when deforestation associated with oil palm plantations increased once again.

Based on observations by TreeMap, oil palm plantation expansion increased by 36% in 2023 compared with 2022. Oil palm plantations were the largest contributor to deforestation in Indonesia in both 2021 and 2022. Although numerous international regulations prohibit the production of palm oil linked to deforestation, violations continue to occur in tropical countries.

Under the provisions of the GR on Forestry Implementation, companies intending to establish palm oil plantations by clearing forests must first apply for the release of forest areas. The GR on Forestry Implementation regulates that such applications must meet administrative and technical requirements and take into account environmental carrying and absorption capacities, supported by a strategic environmental assessment. Following an evaluation of the requirements and recommendations, the Minister of Forestry issues either a decree approving the release of the forest area or a letter of rejection.

Upon closer look, it is fundamentally the Indonesian government that holds the reins and makes the final decisions allowing forests to be converted into plantations. It is truly ironic to observe the extent of deforestation caused by palm oil plantations that are, in fact, legal or hold government permits. The government has also increasingly drawn public attention due to the occurrence of various natural disasters and a statement asserting that the palm oil is, after all, a tree.

Environmental Human Rights Defender

Article 28H paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia mandates that every citizen has the right to a good and healthy environment. This is embodied in Article 65 paragraph (1) Indonesia Environmental Law, which stipulates that a good and healthy environment is a part of the human rights of every citizen.

Furthermore, the Indonesia Environmental Law also specifies the rights of every citizen in the context of the environment, including:

1. the right to environmental education, access to information, access to participation, and access to justice in fulfilling the right to a good and healthy environment;
2. the right to propose and/or object to business plans and/or activities that are expected to have an impact on the environment;
3. the right to participate in the protection and management of the environment in accordance with laws and regulations; and
4. the right to file complaints regarding alleged environmental pollution and/or damage.

Basically, the Indonesia Environmental Law grants every citizen the right to participate in environmental protection. An individual who promotes and protects human rights related to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is recognized by the United Nations (UN) as an environmental human rights defender (“EHRD“).  In other words, an EHRD is anyone, either individually or in groups, who engages in efforts to protect and realize the right to a good and healthy environment through peaceful means.

The existence of EHRD in Indonesia is legitimized under Article 66 of Indonesia Environmental Law which stipulates, anyone who advocates for the right to a good and healthy environment cannot be criminally prosecuted or civilly sued. This article provides a legal basis for the protection of EHRDs as they engage in activism or advocate for environmental rights.

Nevertheless, in the course of their environmental activism, EHRDs are still exposed to threats due to their environmental activism work. The threats experienced by EHRDs mainly involve legal instruments, such as civil and criminal prosecution, as well as threats in the form of intimidation and arbitrary arrest. Such threats to EHRD through civil and/or criminal prosecution are known as Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (“SLAPP“).

SLAPP is a form of strategic effort with the hidden purpose of eliminating public participation. Thus, SLAPP do not aim to prove the truth in a lawsuit, but rather a protracted process that drains energy and diverts public attention. SLAPPs in Indonesia are very diverse as they can be in both civil and criminal domains, some of which are identified as lawsuits that use the grounds of defamation, assault, incitement, unlawful act, and others.

Anti-SLAPP Regulation in Indonesia

Fifteen (15) years after the enactment of the Indonesia Environmental Law, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry issued the MoEF Regulation 10/2024 as an implementation regulation of Article 66 of the Indonesia Environmental Law. The said regulation addresses various aspects related to the legal protection of EHRD in Indonesia, ranging from the scope of legal protection against EHRD, retaliation that EHRDs may face, and types of legal protection and mechanisms to obtain it.

The existence of EHRD in MoEF Regulation 10/2024 is referred to as “People who Fight for the Environment”, which consists of individuals, groups of people, environmental organizations, academics or experts, customary communities, and business entities. Article 3 of the MoEF Regulation 10/2024 elaborates the activities carried out by EHRDs in the context of environmental advocacy, including:

1. taking an active role in the implementation of the development and protection of the environment;
2. developing and preserving local culture and wisdom concerning environmental protection;
3. seeking, obtaining, and providing information on the alleged occurrence of environmental pollution and/or destruction;
4. filing complaints about alleged environmental pollution and/or destruction;
5. submitting written proposals, opinions, and/or objections to the government regarding business plans and/or activities that may result in pollution and/or destruction of the environment;
6. expressing opinions in public opposing the existence of business plans and/or activities, opposing business plans and/or activities already in operation that are suspected of causing or have caused environmental pollution and/or destruction;
7. defending the community against allegations of environmental pollution and/or destruction caused by a business and/or activity; and/or
8. carrying out other activities aimed at implementing the right to a good and healthy environment following the provisions of laws and regulations.

In carrying out its activities, EHRD may be confronted with various retaliatory actions, namely a series of actions carried out by parties suspected or potentially committing environmental pollution and/or damage to EHRD. Article 5 of MoEF Regulation 10/2024 explains that retaliatory actions might be in the form of weakening advocacy and public participation, subpoenas, criminal proceedings, and/or civil lawsuits. The form of suppression of advocacy and public participation can be written or verbal threats, criminalization, and/or acts of physical or psychological violence that can harm EHRDs’ mental and physical, assets, and/or their families.

Article 6 of MoEF Regulation 10/2024 stipulates that the legal protection of EHRDs consists of the prevention of retaliation and case handling. In general, the prevention of retaliation is carried out by strengthening the competence of law enforcement officials regarding SLAPPs and establishing complaint channels and communication networks among law enforcement officials, local governments, and related agencies to maximize the prevention efforts expected by MoEF Regulation 10/2024.

In addition, the case-handling mechanism that can be exercised is to declare a case as a SLAPP that requires the provision of legal aid. Therefore, to apply for the handling mechanism, EHRD can submit a written request for legal protection to the Minister of Environment and Forestry (Minister), which can be submitted independently or represented by a proxy. This request must be accompanied by the following documents:

1. copy of identity card and/or family registration card, for applications submitted by individuals;
2. deed of establishment, for applications submitted by an environmental organization or business entity;
3. documents related to the application for legal protection, which must contain: (i) a chronology of the incident, including any efforts that have been made by the EHRD and retaliation received; and (ii) other supporting documents that contain the incident, such as letters, voice recordings, pictures, summons from law enforcement agencies, reports, court decisions, and others.

Upon receipt of the application, the application is evaluated by an ad hoc assessment team formed by the Minister. The application will be assessed based on administrative aspects related to the completion of the application and substantive aspects that assess the legal position of EHRD (as the applicant), the efforts made by EHRD concerning environmental advocacy, types of retaliation experienced or potentially experienced, and violations of the right to experience a good and healthy environment.

The results of the assessment will form the basis for the Minister’s approval or rejection of the application. If approved, the Minister will issue a ministerial decree on the legal protection of the applicant (EHRD), which will be submitted to the applicant and relevant law enforcement agencies.

In addition, judges and prosecutors in Indonesia also have regulations and guidelines for handling environmental cases, which include provisions for handling SLAPP cases. These regulations are Supreme Court Regulation on Environmental Cases and Prosecutor’s Guideline 8/2022. Supreme Court Regulation 1/2023 provides guidelines for judges in handling SLAPP cases as set forth in its Articles 48 – 51 and Articles 76 – 78, while Prosecutor’s Guideline 8/2022 provides the relevant guidelines in its Chapter VI on Legal Protection of Individuals Fighting for the Right to the Environment (Anti-SLAPP).

SLAPP Cases in Indonesia

Since the enactment of the Indonesia Environmental Law, there has been an anti-SLAPP regulation for EHRD, but there are still several SLAPP cases where EHRD does not receive protection as stipulated in the aforementioned regulations, including:

Decision No. 397/Pid.Sus/2018/PN.Idm

It started when Sawin, Sukma, and Nanto, who were part of the community that rejected the construction of the PLTU in the Patrol sub-district area, Indramayu, raised the red and white flag in celebration of the case-winning against the Indramayu 2 Coal Power Plant at the Bandung State Administrative Court. The next day, the position of the flag was reversed, which was unintended. The party that felt disturbed by this discovery reported it to the Indramayu Police Office.

In its decision, the district court did not consider the anti-SLAPP defense raised by the defendants (EHRDs) and found the defendants guilty, stating in its consideration that “the defendants’ activities are not related to the defense of the right to a good environment, as reflected in the banners that were displayed, and instead the defendants displayed an upside down red and white flag, which is not consistent with the defense of a good and healthy environment, that the spirit of the anti-SLAPP is certainly not to undermine the honor of the national flag”.

The judge sentenced Sawin, Sukma, and Nanto to six (6) months imprisonment for committing acts with the intent to undermine the honor of the national flag.

Decision No. 802/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Byw

The case commenced when Ahmad Busiin, Sugiyanto, and Abdullah blocked PT.  Rolas Nusantara Tambang’s trucks to protect the environment and their homes due to the negative impact of the quarry. Further, PT. Rolas Nusantara Tambang reported Ahmad Busiin, Sugiyanto, and Abdullah for obstructing or interfering with mining operations (Article 162 of Mining Law). The District Court found the defendants guilty and did not consider the Anti-SLAPP defense raised by the defendants,  stating in its consideration that the panel of judges disagreed and therefore dismissed the entire plea.

Nevertheless, there are also precedents where judges have enforced the anti-SLAPP mechanism on EHRDs, including:

Daeng Kadir and Abdul Samad v. PT. Bumi Konawe Abadi

This case was ruled under Decision No. 16/Pdt.G/2013/PN.Unh jo. Decision No. 104/PDT/2014/PT.KDI jo. Decision No.  1934K/Pdt/2015. Daeng Kadir and Abdul Azis conducted a demonstration that had permission from the local police, due to residents’ disappointment with PT Bumi Konawe Abadi’s mining activities that did not pay attention to environmental safety and community interests because they polluted residents’ ponds.

This demonstration resulted in the blockage of PT Bumi Konawe Abadi’s truck road. Furthermore, PT Bumi Konawe Abadi felt aggrieved by the obstruction of the road and sued Daeng Kadir and Abdul Samad using Article 1365 of the Civil Code (unlawful act).

The High Court overturned the District Court’s decision granting the plaintiff’s claim, considering that the defendant’s actions were a means of expressing opinions in public and were not contrary to the law. Subsequently, the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff’s cassation request with the consideration that the defendant’s actions were protected under Article 66 of the Environment Law.

Although the defendant did not raise an anti-SLAPP defense under Article 66 of the Indonesia Environmental Law, the panel of judges at the appeal level actively explored that this case did not involve legal actions and was a form of public participation.

Then, the cassation judges upheld the appeal court decision by stating that the authorities had authorized the demonstrations carried out by Daeng Kadir and Abdul Aziz and that the demonstrations were a form of advocacy for the environmental damage caused by the plaintiffs’ nickel mining activities. Thus, the actions of Daeng Kadir and Abdul Aziz were protected by Article 66 of the Indonesia Environmental Law.

Case of Daniel Tangkilisan

This case were ruled under Decision No. 14/Pid.Sus/2024/PN.Jpa jo. Decision No. 374/Pid.Sus/2024/PT. SMG jo. Decision No.  Decision No. 6459 K/Pid.Sus/2024. Daniel is an EHRD who opposes the shrimp farming industry in which waste destroys mangroves, seaweed cultivation, and local tourism in Karimunjawa National Park. Daniel was prosecuted under Article 28(2) of the IT Law for writing a comment on his Facebook account using the phrase “shrimp brain community”, which caused hatred among some community groups in Kemujan Village and Karimunjawa Village.

District Court judges found that it was legally and convincingly proven that Daniel Tangkilisan committed the crime of “without the right to disseminate information aimed at creating hatred against certain groups of people based on ethnicity, religion, race and intergroup”.

High Court decision acquitted Daniel Tangkilisan. The appellate judges found Daniel guilty of hate speech, but Daniel was also proven to be an EHRD, so the judge took into account Article 66 of the Indonesia Environmental Law and Article 77 of the Supreme Court Regulation 1/2023, which states that if, after examining the subject matter of the case the judge concludes that the act charged by the prosecutor is proven, but the defendant is also proven to be an EHRD under Article 66 of the Indonesia Environmental Law, the judge shall acquit the defendant of all charges.

At the cassation level, the judge upheld the High Court’s decision in Decision No. 6459 K/Pid.Sus/2024 ruling that Daniel was acquitted, and hence, Daniel’s case became final and binding.

Environmental Future Measures

Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)

Environmental, Social and Governance (“ESG”) was first introduced and popularized through the report document titled “Who Cares Wins”, published under the United Nations (UN) Global Compact at the initiative from the UN Secretary General in 2004. This report was intended as a guideline and recommendation for integrating environmental, social, and governance aspects into investment decisions.

Over time, stakeholders, including investors, have increasingly recognized the significance of sustainability factors as a key factor in assessing the risks and prospects of a company. This shift has encouraged companies to demonstrate their commitment to sustainable risk management by adopting ESG principles through ESG reporting.

ESG reporting is conducted through an ESG report, which provides various information regarding a company’s operations and their impact, assessed based on ESG criteria. This report is then evaluated by ESG Rating Agencies, which generate an ESG Rating. The results of this assessment will subsequently serve as a key parameter in investment decision making.

The implementation of ESG presents significant opportunities for companies. In addition to increasing investor appeal, incorporating sustainability principles into ESG also strengthens corporate reputation. This is why more countries are increasingly encouraging the implementation of ESG among their corporation.

ESG Regulations in Indonesia

ESG regulations in Indonesia are still dispersed across various regulations, so the application of ESG principles is tailored to the substance of each specific regulation or piece of legislation. Concrete examples of ESG implementation can be found in OJK Regulation No. 51/POJK.03/2017 on the Application of Sustainable Finance for Financial Services Institutions, Issuers, and Public Companies, which mandates that financial services institutions, public companies, and issuers prepare a sustainability report and disclose it to the public, covering economic, financial, social, environmental, and governance performance.

On the other hand, there are several regulations that implicitly accommodate ESG values, including:

• Environmental aspects are addressed in the Indonesia Environmental Law. Article 68 of the Indonesia Environmental Law imposes an obligation on business entities to:

1. provide information related to environmental protection and management in a truthful, accurate, transparent, and timely manner;
2. maintain the sustainability of environmental functions; and
3. comply with provisions regarding environmental quality standards and/or criteria for environmental damage.

• Social aspects are addressed in Law No. 13 of 2003 on Labor, as last amended by Law No. 6 of 2023, which governs the obligations of employers and the rights of workers. In addition, there is Presidential Regulation No. 60 of 2023 on the National Strategy for Business and Human Rights, which serves as a guideline for business actors to participate in upholding human rights in the business sector.
• Governance aspects are set forth in Article 4 of Law No. 40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Companies, as last amended by Law No. 6 of 2023, as the principle of good corporate governance in the company’s operations. Furthermore, Article 74 of the aforementioned Law also stipulates that a company has an obligation to fulfill its social and environmental responsibilities, and that sanctions apply if a company fails to fulfill these obligations. Meanwhile, the governance of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) is specifically regulated in Minister of SOEs Regulation No. 2 of 2023 concerning Guidelines on Governance and Significant Corporate Activities of SOEs. Regulations governing Regional-Owned Enterprises (BUMD) are set forth in Government Regulation No. 54 of 2017 on BUMD.

Benefits and Challenges of ESG Implementation

ESG implementation can provide a variety of strategic benefits for both companies and investors. From a business perspective, ESG implementation helps enhance a company’s reputation and build trust among various stakeholders, including consumers, business partners, regulators, and the public. Companies that adopt responsible business practices tend to be viewed as more credible and well-governed.

In addition, the implementation of ESG can also expand access to funding sources. Currently, investors and financial institutions are increasingly considering ESG performance as one of the indicators in their investment decision-making.

From a legal compliance perspective, ESG helps companies identify and manage risks related to environmental, social, and governance aspects. Consistent application of ESG principles can minimize the risk of violations of laws and regulations, reduce the potential for administrative sanctions and legal disputes, and protect the company’s reputation.

Despite its many benefits, the implementation of ESG in Indonesia still faces a number of challenges. One of the main challenges is the limited understanding of ESG concepts and implementation among business actors. Many companies still view ESG as a compliance burden rather than a strategy for risk management and business sustainability. The lack of education and training on ESG is another factor hindering its implementation.

The next challenge relates to limited resources and infrastructure. Implementing ESG often requires investment in the form of developing governance systems, supporting technologies, human resource capacity building, and reporting and monitoring mechanisms. For small and medium-sized enterprises, these investment needs can pose a barrier to the optimal adoption of ESG practices.

From a regulatory perspective, although various regulations related to the environment, social responsibility, corporate governance, and sustainable finance are in place, Indonesia currently lacks a comprehensive ESG regulatory framework that applies universally across all business sectors. This situation results in varying ESG implementation and reporting standards, posing a challenge for companies in consistently measuring their ESG performance.

Carbon Trading

In October 2025, the Indonesian government issued PR 110/2025 concerning carbon economic value and greenhouse gas emission control, thereby revoking PR 98/2021. PR 110/2025 regulates carbon economic value (Nilai Ekonomi Karbon – NEK) instruments, which are implemented to support the achievement of NDC targets, wherein every greenhouse gas (GHG) emission offset contributes to meeting said targets. These NEK instruments comprise carbon trading, performance-based payments, carbon levies, and/or other instruments.

Carbon trading may be conducted through carbon exchange and/or direct trading. It can be carried out using multi-sector and cross-sector approaches. Carbon trading is also categorized into domestic and/or international carbon trading.

Domestic carbon trading comprises GHG emissions trading and GHG emissions offset. Regarding GHG emissions trading, the Indonesian government designates and establishes Regulated Installations, GHG emissions caps, GHG emissions quotas, the portion of GHG emissions that may be offset using GHG emissions offset, and the trading of GHG emissions quotas.

GHG emissions resulting from the business and/or activities of a Regulated Installations must not exceed the GHG emissions cap within a given period. If the GHG emissions cap is exceeded, the party responsible for the Regulated Installations is required to pay a carbon tax. To avoid exceeding the GHG emissions cap, the party responsible for the Regulated Installations may undertake climate change mitigation actions, purchase GHG emissions quotas from other Regulated Installations, and/or purchase GHG emissions offset.

As of the writing of this article, the government has not yet officially issued regulations specifically defining the business and/or activities classified as Regulated Installations or those required to participate in GHG emissions trading. There is an indication that, in the initial phase, four sub-sectors will be subject to this requirement: cement, fertilizer, steel, and paper. Subsequently, in 2027, five additional sub-sectors are planned to be required to participate in the GHG emissions trading scheme, which are: textiles, ceramics and glass, food and beverages, transportation equipment, and chemicals.

Business entities and/or activities that do not fall under the category of Regulated Installations may still engage in carbon trading through GHG emission offset. Carbon trading via GHG emission offset may use either GHG Emission Reduction Certificates (Sertifikat Pengurangan Emisi Gas Rumah Kaca – “SPE GRK”) or non-SPE GRK, where both must undergo specific procedures stipulated in PR 110/2025 before they can be traded.

Article 1 point 37 of PR 110/2025 defines the GHG Emission Reduction Certificate (SPE GRK) as proof of emission reductions achieved by a business and/or activity that has undergone MRV (measurement, reporting, and verification) and is recorded in the carbon unit registry system in the form of a registry number and/or code.

To obtain an SPE GRK, the party responsible for the business and/or activity must first submit a climate change mitigation action design document and a project planning document to the Minister of Environment. Once these documents are recorded and validated by an independent validation body, the proposed mitigation action must be implemented.

The implementation of the mitigation action is subsequently verified by an independent verification body, which issues a report on the verified achievements. This report serves as the basis for the recommendation to issue the SPE GRK, which is then issued by the Minister of Environment.

Non-SPE GRK carbon units are issued with international standards following the completion of similar stages (document submission, document verification, implementation, and verification of achievements) and the receipt of approval from the relevant Minister. These non-SPE GRK emission offset units may be traded with the responsible party of Regulated Installations, business entities voluntarily offsetting GHG emissions, or the general public.

Overseas carbon trading encompasses transactions that require authorization and corresponding adjustments, as well as those that do not. In principle, authorization and corresponding adjustments are required when GHG emission offset trading is used to meet NDC and/or other international obligations. Authorization is granted by the Minister of Environment, based on the recommendation of the relevant minister. Domestic carbon trading may be linked to international carbon markets.

Closing

The above provides only a glimpse into the broad and continuously evolving landscape of environmental law in Indonesia. From environmental legal principles to future measures, the framework involves multiple layers of regulation and a wide range of stakeholders.

Understanding this framework is therefore essential not only for businesses seeking to comply with environmental requirements, but also for anyone seeking to understand how decisions related to the environment are made and developed in Indonesia. Ultimately, the effectiveness of environmental law will depend not only on the completeness of its rules, but also on how those rules are implemented, enforced, and interpreted in practice.

---

Author

---

---

---

---

---

Editor

---

---

Reference:

International Instruments

• Stockholm Declaration 1972.
• Rio Declaration 1992.
• Paris Agreement 2015.

Laws and Regulations

• Law No. 18 of 2008 on Waste Management.
• Law No. 41 of 1999 on Forestry, as amended by Law No. 6 of 2023 on the Enactment of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation into Law.
• Law Number 18 of 2013 on the Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction, as amended by Law Number 6 of 2023 on the Enactment of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2023 on Job Creation into Law.
• Law Number 23 of 1997 concerning Environmental Management.
• Law Number 23 of 2014 concerning Regional Government, as lastly amended by Law Number 6 of 2023 concerning the Enactment of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2022 concerning Job Creation into Law.
• Law Number 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management, as amended by Law Number 6 of 2023 on the Enactment of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2022 on Job Creation into Law.
• Law Number 4 of 1982 concerning Basic Provisions for the Management of the Environment.
• Government Regulation No. 46 of 2017 on Environmental Economic Instruments.
• Government Regulation No. 81 of 2012 on the Management of Household Waste and Waste Similar to Household Waste.
• Government Regulation Number 22 of 2021 concerning the Implementation of Environmental Protection and Management.
• Government Regulation Number 23 of 2021 concerning Forestry Implementation, as amended by Government Regulation Number 8 of 2026.
• Government Regulation Number 26 of 2025 concerning Environmental Protection and Management Planning.
• Government Regulation Number 28 of 2025 concerning the Implementation of Risk-Based Business Licensing.
• Government Regulation Number 32 of 2019 concerning the Marine Spatial Plan.
• Government Regulation Number 33 of 2023 concerning Energy Conservation.
• Presidential Regulation Number 110 of 2025 concerning the Implementation of Carbon Economic Value Instruments and National Greenhouse Gas Emission Control.
• Presidential Regulation Number 112 of 2022 concerning the Acceleration of Renewable Energy Development for Electricity Supply.
• Presidential Regulation Number 175 of 2024 concerning the Ministry of Forestry.
• Presidential Regulation Number 182 of 2024 concerning the Ministry of Environment.
• Presidential Regulation Number 98 of 2021 concerning the Implementation of Carbon Economic Value for the Achievement of Nationally Determined Contribution Targets and Greenhouse Gas Emission Control in National Development.
• Minister of Environment and Forestry Regulation No. 4 of 2021 on the List of Businesses and/or Activities Required to Have an Environmental Impact Analysis, Environmental Management Efforts and Environmental Monitoring Efforts or Environmental Management Statement.
• Minister of Environment and Forestry Regulation No. P.75/MENLHK/SETJEN/KUM.1/10/2019 on the Roadmap for Waste Reduction by Producers.
• Minister of Environment and Forestry Regulation Number 10 of 2024 on the Legal Protection of Persons Fighting for the Right to a Good and Healthy Environment.
• Minister of Environment and Forestry Regulation Number 19 of 2021 concerning Procedures and Requirements for the Management of Non-Hazardous and Toxic Waste.
• Minister of Environment and Forestry Regulation Number 6 of 2021 concerning Procedures and Requirements for Hazardous and Toxic Waste Management.
• Decree of the Minister of Environment and Forestry Number 842 of 2024 concerning the Operational Plan for Indonesia’s Zero Waste Zero Emission agenda in Handling Climate Change.
• Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2023 on Guidelines for Adjudicating Environmental Cases.
• Guideline of the Attorney General Number 8 of 2022 on the Handling of Criminal Cases in the Field of Environmental Protection and Management.

Court Decisions

• Decision No.  1934K/Pdt/2015.
• Decision No. 064/G/2014/PTUN.Smg.
• Decision No. 104/PDT/2014/PT.KDI.
• Decision No. 118/Pdt.G/LH/2016/PN.Plk.
• Decision No. 131/Pid.B/2013/PN.Mbo.
• Decision No. 135/B/2015/PT.TUN.Sby.
• Decision No. 14/Pid.Sus/2024/PN.Jpa.
• Decision No. 1554 K/Pid.Sus/2015.
• Decision No. 16/Pdt.G/2013/PN.Unh.
• Decision No. 178/G/2015/PTUN Bdg.
• Decision No. 2 PK/TUN/LH/2018.
• Decision No. 2560 K/Pdt/2023.
• Decision No. 3555 K/Pdt/2018.
• Decision No. 374/Pdt.G/LH/2019/PN.Jkt.Pst.
• Decision No. 374/Pid.Sus/2024/PT. SMG.
• Decision No. 397/Pid.Sus/2018/PN.Idm.
• Decision No. 6459 K/Pid.Sus/2024.
• Decision No. 802/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Byw.
• Decision No. 980 PK/Pdt/2022.
• Decision No. 99 PK/TUN/2016.

Others

• BBC News Indonesia. Pemerintah larang kegiatan delapan korporasi yang turut memicu banjir di Sumatera Utara, https://www.bbc.com/indonesia/articles/cze8wl9959no, accessed on 11 August 2026.
• BBC News Indonesia. Pidato Prabowo soal ‘tak perlu takut deforestasi’ demi tambah lahan sawit tuai kritik – ‘Hutan akan terancam’ dan ‘ruang hidup masyarakat menyempit’, https://www.bbc.com/indonesia/articles/c878ng8gdgpo, accessed on 10 August 2026.
• Belantara Foundation. HPSN 2026: Kolaborasi dan Inovasi Kunci Pengelolaan Sampah Berkelanjutan di Indonesia, https://www.belantara.or.id/berita-terkait/belantara-foundation/620/hpsn-2026-kolaborasi-dan-inovasi-kunci-pengelolaan-sampah-berkelanjutan-di-indonesia, accessed on 28 July 2026.
• Forest Digest. Palm Oil-Driven Deforestation Rises Again, https://www.forestdigest.com/detail/2519/deforestasi-perkebunan-sawit, accessed on 3 August 2026.
• GoodStats, Sampah Indonesia Didominasi Sisa Makanan pada 2025, https://goodstats.id/article/sampah-indonesia-didominasi-sisa-makanan-pada-2025-Yttj3, accessed on 27 July 2026.
• Handayani, M. M., Achmadi, J. C., & Apsari, P. K. “Berbagai Wajah Fenomena SLAPP di Indonesia”. Jurnal Hukum Lingkungan Indonesia. 8(1). 2021.
• Indonesia Environment & Energi Center. “Penerapan ESG di Indonesia: Tantangan dan Harapan”. https://environment-indonesia.com/penerapan-esg-di-indonesia-tantangan-dan-harapan-2024/, accessed on July 2026.
• Indonesian Center for Environmental Law. “Panduan Bagi Pengacara Publik dalam Menghadapi Kasus SLAPP”. Indonesian Center for Environmental Law. 2021.
• Jejakin, Kemenperin Atur Perdagangan Karbon Industri, https://www.jejakin.com/id/blog/ministry-of-industry-regulates-carbon-trading-for-industries, accessed on 12 August 2026.
• Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan Republik Indonesia, Tugas dan Fungsi, https://kkp.go.id/tentang-kkp/tugas-dan-fungsi/kkp.html, accessed on 28 July 2026.
• Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup/Badan Pengendalian Lingkungan Hidup, Tugas dan Fungsi, https://kemenlh.go.id/contents/6/Tugas-dan-Fungsi, accessed on 28 July 2026.
• Lembaga Sertifikasi Profesi Pasar Modal, “Manfaat & Tantangan dalam Mengadopsi ESG”. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/manfaat-tantangan-dalam-mengadopsi-esg-lsppm-xlp5c/, accessed on July 2026.
• Lidya Nelisa. ”Urgensi Penguatan Ketentuan Prosedural Anti-SLAPP di Indonesia untuk Melindungi Pembela HAM Lingkungan dari Serangan Litigasi”. Jurnal Hukum Lingkungan Indonesia. 8(1). 2022.
• Martiar, Norbertus Arya Dwiangga. Kasus Bencana Sumatera, Satgas PKH Masih Lengkapi Bukti Dugaan Pelanggaran 12 Perusahaan, https://www.kompas.id/artikel/kasus-bencana-sumatera-satgas-pkh-masih-lengkapi-bukti-dugaan-pelanggaran-12-perusahaan, accessed on 11 August 2026.
• Matson, Erin D., et al., Forest Declaration Assessment 2025, https://forestdeclaration.org/resources/forest-declaration-assessment-2025/, accessed on 11 August 2026.
• Ministry of Forestry. Perkuat Tata Kelola Kawasan Hutan, Kemenhut Dorong Pembentukan Puskowilhut, https://www.kehutanan.go.id/pers/perkuat-tata-kelola-kawasan-hutan-kemenhut-dorong-pembentukan-puskowilhut, accessed on 11 August 2026.
• Miskah Banafsaj. “Navigating ESG in Indonesia: The Absence of a Regulatory Framework”. https://blog.lekslawyer.com/navigating-esg-in-indonesia-the-absence-of-a-regulatory-framework/, accessed on July 2026.
• Nicholson, David. ‘Environmental Dispute Resolution in Indonesia’ (Dphil thesis, University of Leiden 2005).
• PASPI-Monitor. Asal Usul Lahan Perkebunan Sawit Indonesia dan Polemik Deforestasi, Palm’s Journal, Analisis Isu Strategis Sawit, Vol. II, No. 34/09/2021, p 491 https://palmoilina.asia/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2.34.-ASAL-USUL-LAHAN-PERKEBUNAN-SAWIT-INDONESIA-DAN-POLEMIK-DEFORESTASI.pdf, accessed on 31 July 2026.
• Second Nationally Determined Contribution Republic of Indonesia 2025.
• United Nations Global Compact. Who Cares Wins: Connecting Financial Markets to a Changing World. 2004. New York: United Nations.
• Weiss, Edith Brown. Intergenerational Equity, https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1421?d=%2F10.1093%2Flaw%3Aepil%2F9780199231690%2Flaw-9780199231690-e1421&p=emailAO4bZ7zkNzytk, accessed on 16 July 2026.