Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

Ministry of Environment and Forestry v. PT Palmina Utama

Geography
Year
2016
Document Type
Litigation

About this case

Filing year
2016
Status
Decided
Court/admin entity
IndonesiaBanjarmasin District Court
Case category
Suits against corporations, individuals (Global)Corporations (Global)Climate damage (Global)
Principal law
IndonesiaLaw 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
02/21/2018
Banjarmasin Court of Appeal overruled the district court decision.
Decision
12/14/2016
The district court of Banjarmasin ruled in favor of the defendant and reject all the plaintiff petition.
Decision

Summary

On December 14, 2016, the Indonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry (the MoEF) sued a palm oil plantation for fires occurring inside the PT Palmina Utama controlled area. The MoEF claimed that the defendant intentionally set up fires to clear it for the purpose of making it as the new crop field. The MoEF argued that the defendants also infringed on the obligation to control the fires inside its controlled area. Due to the unlawful conduct, the MoEF sought compensation for the damages and cost for restoration. The MoEF asked the court that the defendant liable to compensate for IDR 206.955.000 for the released of 2299,5 tC and IDR 188.689.500 for the losses of carbon sinks. On February 21, 2018, the district court of Banjarmasin ruled in favor of the defendant and reject all the plaintiff petition. The judges argued that the MoEF had failed to show type of soils affected by wildfires. Failure to determine the type of soil would lead to different calculation of damages, said by the Judges. Accordingly, the judges decided that the lawsuit should be denied. On August 15, 2018, the Banjarmasin Court of Appeal overruled the district court decision and argued that, despite the fact there was indeterminacy on the type of soils, the district court should have ruled that the defendant had negligently controlled the fires within its concessions.

 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