- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Indonesia
- /
- Ministry of Environment and Forestry v. PT Merbau Pelelawan Lestari
Ministry of Environment and Forestry v. PT Merbau Pelelawan Lestari
About this case
Filing year
2013
Status
Decided
Geography
Court/admin entity
Indonesia → Pekanbaru District Court
Case category
Suits against corporations, individuals (Global) → Corporations (Global) → Climate damage (Global) → Environmental assessment and permitting (Global)
Principal law
Indonesia → Law 32/2009 Environmental Protection and Management
At issue
Cost recovery for illegal logging.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
12/17/2019
The Supreme Court upheld the cassation’s decision (in Indonesian).
Decision
11/28/2016
The Supreme Court overturned the lower Courts’ decision and ordered the defendant to pay compensation (in Indonesian).
Decision
11/28/2014
The Court of Appeal upheld the District Court's decision (in Indonesian).
Decision
03/03/2014
The district court ruled in favor of the defendant because the court deemed that the plaintiff was unable to prove its claim (in Indonesian).
Decision
Summary
In September 2013, the Indonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) filed a tort-based lawsuit against a corporation, PT Merbau Pelelawan Lestari, for the release of GHGs emissions. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant's illegal logging had impaired the forest’s carbon sink capacity. The plaintiff sought compensation for the cost of restoring the damaged forest, specifically its carbon sequestration function. The damage amounted to IDR 240 billion (approximately US$17.2 million) for the total affected area of 7,463 hectares. The defendant argued that it had not carried out any illegal logging and stated that the plaintiff should have given the company administrative sanctions for illegal logging prior to initiating the lawsuit.
On March 3, 2014, the district court of Pekanbaru ruled in favor of the defendant on the ground that the defendant was not proven to have logged forest outside the permit area. Furthermore, the court is of the opinion that the defendant's activities are in accordance with the Environmental Impact Analysis and there is no environmental damage happened in the area. On November 28, 2014, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision.
On August 18, 2016, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision. The supreme court believed that the area managed by the defendant overextended the permit's area. The Supreme Court referred to expert testimony stating that illegal logging happened in the extended area, one of which is in protected areas. The Supreme Court then awarded the plaintiff the restoration costs for climate damage in the full amount requested by the plaintiff.
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
Renewable energy
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance