- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Indonesia
- /
- Ministry of Environment and Forestry v. PT Bumi Mekar Hijau
Ministry of Environment and Forestry v. PT Bumi Mekar Hijau
About this case
Filing year
2015
Status
Decided
Geography
Court/admin entity
Indonesia → Palembang Court of Appeal
Case category
Suits against corporations, individuals (Global) → Corporations (Global) → Climate damage (Global)
Principal law
Indonesia → Law 32/2009 Environmental Protection and Management
At issue
Restoration for climate damage caused by palm plantation land clearing.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
Search results
02/12/2016
The Palembang court of appeal overruled the district court decision and held the defendant liable.
Decision
–
02/03/2015
The district court ruled in favor of the defendant and rejected all the plaintiff’s claim.
Decision
–
Summary
On February 3, 2015, the Indonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry (the MoEF) filed a tort-based lawsuit against PT Bumi Mekar Hijau for intentionally causing fires to the peatlands. The MoEF argued that the defendant had intentionally burn the peatlands area to clear the land for timber planting purposes. Thus, the MoEF requested the court to declare that defendant liable for damages amounting to IDR 5.299 trillion and restoration costs for IDR 2.687 trillion. With damages and restoration cost amounting almost to IDR 8 trillion, this lawsuit is ranked among the highest damages in Indonesian forest fires litigation. In relation to climate damages, the MoEF argued that fires on the peatlands had caused in the release of 135,000 tC and 5,670 tCO2. The MoEF set the price for reduction and restoration of carbon on IDR 90,000. Hence, the total of restoration costs for the release of Carbon and Carbon Dioxide, respectively, were IDR 12.2 billion and IDR 4.3 billion.
On December 30, 2015, District Court of Palembang ruled in favor of the defendant and rejected all the plaintiff’s claim. Despite accepting the fact that the fires had occurred, the judges did not consider it as damages and believed the land were still able to be planted. On May 3, 2016, the Court of Appeal overruled the district court decision on the grounds that the damages had occurred in the form of air pollution and damages on the peatlands. The court of appeal also awarded the plaintiff the restoration costs for climate damages in the full amount as requested.
Topics mentioned most in this case Beta
See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more
Group
Topics
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Just transition
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance