[Jakarta, 15 July 2025] The initial discussions on amendments to the Forestry Law were far too brief and superficial to allow for a thorough examination of the complex forestry issues that overlap with multiple competing interests. In the upcoming deliberations, civil society hopes to be given more space to present broader and more technical explanations of on-the-ground realities, including forest ecosystem protection and the recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ fundamental rights.
“However, we were rushed. Each organization was given only seven minutes. This is far too short to provide meaningful input on the complex forestry situation and the many interests involved. The responses from members of the House of Representatives were also minimal. There was little effort to delve into why civil society is demanding a total overhaul,” said Anggi Putra Prayoga, spokesperson for Forest Watch Indonesia, after a Public Hearing (RDPU) with several civil society organizations during discussions on the fourth revision of Forestry Law No. 41/1999 at the DPR RI building in Jakarta on 15 July 2025.
According to him, civil society is calling for a comprehensive transformation of the Forestry Law, not a piecemeal patchwork revision, given that the law has already undergone seven amendments through Government Regulations in Lieu of Law (Perpu), Constitutional Court rulings, and laws that revoked parts of its articles.
“We want the Forestry Law to go beyond revision, because revisions cannot address the full scope of challenges related to forest protection and Indigenous Peoples’ rights. It was also discussed that the fate of Indonesia’s forests is now under global scrutiny, making reform of the law as the parent regulation fundamentally necessary,” he said.
Those present included spokespersons from WWF, Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI), Auriga, the Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN), Working Group ICCAs Indonesia, HuMa Association, Greenpeace Indonesia, Forest Watch Indonesia, and the Indonesian Conservation Dialogue Forum.
The RDPU lasted approximately three hours—starting one hour later than its scheduled 10:00 a.m. time—and was opened by Ahmad Yohan. The National Mandate Party (PAN) politician from East Nusa Tenggara stated that with rising deforestation rates and deteriorating forestry governance, “the aging Forestry Law requires revision to adapt to current dynamics in the forestry sector.”
Following Yohan, the meeting chair was taken over by Darori Wonodipuro, a Gerindra Party cadre who previously worked at the Ministry of Forestry. Darori acknowledged that the Forestry Law is outdated and that many of its provisions were repealed through the Omnibus Law on Job Creation. He also noted that Forestry Law No. 41/1999 has not adequately accommodated Indigenous Peoples’ interests, which are currently only recognized at the regional regulation level. The status of customary forests has also not been optimized and remains limited to private forests and community forests.
However, continued the former Director General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (PHKA), because of the Job Creation Law, the Forestry Law must be adjusted accordingly—such as the removal of the minimum 30% forest area requirement. He acknowledged that this has generated controversy, but argued that it must be done.
According to Darori, it is not possible to replace all articles with ideal ones. To amend a law, at least half of its articles must be revised; even more than 70% is possible, as long as the government agrees. He urged civil society organizations to submit as many inputs as possible, specifying which articles should be revised, as long as the proposals are logical and do not demand a total overhaul. For example, he argued that a nationwide forest logging moratorium “would be impossible.”
Forestry Law No. 41/1999 Must Be Completely Overhauled
According to the Coalition, it is time for Indonesia to stop treating forests as state assets freely open to exploitation. Over the past 26 years, there has been persistent neglect of Indigenous Peoples and forest-dependent communities; unresolved tenure conflicts; impunity for forest-destroying corporations; and the expansion of forest territorialization through energy and food transition policies.
Forests, however, are holistic ecosystems that include people—Indigenous Peoples and local communities—natural resources and biodiversity, as well as social and economic activities connected to forests. These elements cannot be separated.
Philosophically, the Coalition views Law No. 41/1999 as having misinterpreted the state’s right of control and failed to fulfill the constitutional mandate of achieving “the greatest possible prosperity of the people.” Sociologically, the law defines forests through a technocratic lens and disregards socio-cultural understandings of forests. Juridically, the law has been repeatedly dismantled and reassembled—having undergone seven amendments through Perpu, Constitutional Court rulings, and laws that revoked its articles. “For these reasons, the Coalition believes that Forestry Law No. 41/1999 is no longer fit to be maintained,” said Uli Arta Siagian of WALHI National.
According to Uli Arta Siagian, National Manager of Forest and Plantation Campaigns at WALHI, the state’s approach to forest governance has consistently prioritized economic interests benefiting only a small elite. Meanwhile, community access through customary forests and social forestry schemes remains minimal. From a GEDSI (Gender Equality, Disability, and Social Inclusion) perspective, the Forestry Law fails to address gender inequality and social exclusion resulting from forest degradation. “Based on WALHI’s experience assisting communities managing 1.5 million hectares of overlapping forest areas, only 16% have received recognition over the past ten years,” said Uli.
Refki Saputra, Forest Campaigner at Greenpeace Indonesia, stated that the government must halt the destruction of natural forests—both legal and illegal. Forestry concession permits under the current law treat forests merely as sources of state revenue, rather than as life-support systems. For example, forest area enforcement aimed at boosting state revenue only shifts deforestation actors, instead of addressing fundamental governance failures. He added that at least 42.6 million hectares of natural forest across three production forest categories—limited production forest, permanent production forest, and convertible production forest—remain at risk of future deforestation. Even the presidential-level moratorium on forest and peatland permits is insufficiently robust.
Moreover, Refki noted that deforestation and fires continue to occur within moratorium areas. Latest data show the loss of 39,000 hectares of natural forest in moratorium zones throughout 2024.
“It is time for a new Forestry Law to end the practice of ‘forest monetization’ and to save the remaining 90.7 million hectares of natural forest, while siding with Indigenous Peoples, biodiversity protection, and climate goals,” Refki said.
Erwin Dwi Kristianto from HuMa proposed three essential components for a new Forestry Law: a transition from a forest administration regime to a forest management regime; ensuring that the designation of customary forests becomes part of the formal forest gazettement process; and forest land restoration.
“The state should manage forests, not control land. What is happening now is that the state manages forest areas without managing the forests themselves. Deforested areas with no trees are still classified as forest zones,” he said.
Muhammad Arman from the Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN) emphasized the importance of a total overhaul of the Forestry Law from an Indigenous Peoples’ perspective. The law has long ignored Indigenous and local knowledge in natural resource management and has neglected the human dimension. Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ (IPLCs) perspectives and knowledge must be incorporated into the revised law.
Expanding on the importance of IPLC participation, Muhammad Ihsan Maulana from WGII explained that Indigenous Peoples and local communities play a critical role in forest protection because they use ICCAs (Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ Conserved Areas) as living spaces and have protected these essential territories for generations.
“When the state designates production forests within Indigenous territories, it creates friction—communities recognize these forests as protected and sacred spaces, while the state classifies them as production areas. As a result, the Forestry Law fails to reflect social realities,” Ihsan said.
Mohamad Burhanudin from the Indonesian Conservation Dialogue Forum (FDKI) proposed classifying forests into two categories: permanent forests and non-convertible reserve forests. He emphasized the need to strengthen the function of non-convertible forests. He also stressed that forest inventories must be conducted inclusively and participatorily, and that such inventories should serve as the foundation for forestry governance—which has thus far prioritized corporate and economic interests. “Like it or not, a new law is necessary. If members of Parliament (Commission IV) say drafting a new law is difficult, it would be far more difficult if we fail to produce a good regulation,” he asserted.
Therefore, the coalition calls for a total overhaul of the Forestry Law. Such a comprehensive reform must address existing forest degradation and prioritize the rights and interests of communities—particularly through inclusive recognition of Indigenous Peoples, local forest-dependent communities, and forest farmers.
Contact:
Alvin, Forest Watch Indonesia
Phone: +62 857-2034-6154
