Sulawesi Tengah

Papua Barat Daya

Kalimantan Timur

Aceh

Sumatera Utara

Papua Pengunungan

Kepulauan Riau

Bali

Yogyakarta

Papua

Kalimantan Selatan

Kepulauan Bangka Belitung

Papua Selatan

Kalimantan Tengah

Bengkulu

Papua Tengah

Kalimantan Utara

Banten

Riau

Lampung

Gorontalo

Sulawesi Utara

Maluku

Jambi

Sumatera Barat

Jawa Barat

Sulawesi Tenggara

Maluku Utara

Jawa Timur

Sulawesi

Nusa Tenggara Barat

Jakarta Raya

Sumatera

Nusa Tenggara Timur

Jawa Tengah

Sulawesi Selatan

Nusa Tenggara

Jawa

Sulawesi Barat

Kalimantan

Sumatera Selatan

Papua Barat

Kalimantan Barat

Indonesia

4-wheel BEV: 750,000; 2-wheel BEV: 2,450,000 units by 2030

By 2025, 23% new renewable energy in national energy mix

Reduce emissions by 26% by 2020 compared to BAU (unconditionally), or by 41% (conditionally)

Reduce GHG Emissions by 29% up to 41% by 2030 compared to the BAU scenario in the amount of 2,869 million tonnes of CO2GHG Emissions Reduction by 29% is GHG Emissions reduction target unconditionally in the amount of 834 million tonnes of CO2e.GHG Emissions Reduction by 41% is GHG Emissions reduction target up to 1,185 million tonnes of CO2e, subject to the availability of international cooperation.


26% cut in GHG emissions, 41% cut in GHG emissions with international assistance by 2020

26% cut in GHG emissions by 2019 compared with a 2015 baseline

Primary energy mix consists of greater than 5% biofuel, greater than 5% geothermal, and greater than 5% other new and renewable energies by 2025

463.2 SBM per billion Rupiah by 2019 compared with a 2019 scenario

10-16% renewable energy  by 2019 compared with a 2019 scenario

On July 14, 2022, 14 applicants filed a complaint against the Indonesian government to the Indonesian National Human Rights Commission. The complainants are youth and affected groups from various generations and regions in Indonesia who are affected by climate change. The complainants claimed that climate change has caused the complainants to face life-threatening hazards, reduced physical and mental well-being, increased health risks, food and water insecurity, along with disruption to their education and livelihoods. The complainants stated that they had experienced various impacts caused by climate change including 1) heat waves that caused death and heat-related illness and decreased productivity of outdoor works; 2) sea level rise which causes coral reef bleaching and declining fish stocks, causing food and job insecurity in tourism and fisheries; 3) an increase in extreme heat and rainfall brings disease, water and food insecurity; 4) the occurrence of tidal flooding, high waves, and strong winds due to sea level rise endangering lives and causing loss of shelter and vulnerability to food and water; and 5) complainants' aggravated mental health.

The complainants claim that the Indonesian government has violated their human rights guaranteed by the Indonesian constitution, by not taking the necessary mitigation and adaptation measures to prevent temperature rises above 1.5 degrees. The claim came from the fact that: 1) Indonesia is still heavily dependent on deforestation and fossil fuels, especially coal for economic growth; 2) Indonesia has inadequate emission reduction targets; 3) Indonesia still allocates significant available resources to support carbon-intensive industries; 4) Indonesia does not integrate adaptation planning into domestic policies and budgeting 5) Indonesia fails to ensure that social protection mechanisms work to reduce vulnerability to disasters and climate-related stresses; and 6) Indonesia does not prioritize nature-based adaptation. The complaint alleges that Indonesia government’s insufficient action on climate change has violated the following rights under Indonesia constitution: 1) the right to life and the right to a good and healthy environment, 2) the right to develop oneself through the fulfillment of basic needs, 3) the right to food and water, 4) the right to education, 5) the right to work and earn a decent living, and 6) children's rights.

On September 9, 2019, the Indonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry (the MoEF) filed a tort-based lawsuit against a corporation PT Asia Palem Lestari had intentionally set fires to clear the peatland for palm oil plantation. Furthermore, the MoEF also argued that defendant’s fires preventive facilities did not meet the requirements as regulated in Articles 12, 13, and 14 Indonesian Governmental Regulation No. 4 of 2021. The MoEF argued that fires inside the peatlands led to ecological and economic damages amounting to IDR 173.721 billion. In relation to climate change, the MoEF claimed that the fires had contributed to the release of 2700 tC and a loss of function of carbon sinks which equal to 945 tC. Since the cost of released carbon is IDR 90.000 (equals to US$ 10), the MoEF requested the court costs of the released carbon and restoration amounting to IDR 328.050.000. 

The MoEF filed this lawsuit under strict liability rule of Articles 88 Environmental Protection and Management Act (the 2009 EPMA). 

On January 5, 2021, the District Court of North Jakarta ruled that the lawsuit should be dismissed due to a lack of parties (plurium litis consortium). The judges found that the area in which the MoEF referred in its lawsuit were also owned by other people. Hence, the plaintiff should have included these people—who were also the owner of the burned land—in the lawsuit. 


On August 1, 2019, the Indonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry (the MoEF) filed a tort-based lawsuit against a corporation PT Rambang Agro Jaya for damages caused by fires in the peatlands. The MoEF argued that PT Rambang Agro Jaya drained the peatlands for the purpose of palm plantation which resulted in fires inside the defendant’s concession area. Furthermore, the MoEF also argued that the defendants had failed to fulfill its obligation to prevent any fires inside its concessions. The MoEF added that these unlawful acts caused damages on ecosystem and the peatlands. Hence, the MoEF sought compensation for all the damages and restoration costs amounting to IDR 199 billion. For the climate damages, the MoEF argued that the fires had contributed to the release of 2,250 tC and a loss of function of carbon sinks which equal to 787.5 tC. Since the cost of each released carbon is IDR 90.000 (equals to US$ 10), the MoEF requested the court costs of the released carbon and restoration amounting to IDR 273.375.000. 

The MoEF filed this lawsuit under strict liability rule of Articles 88 Environmental Protection and Management Act (the 2009 EPMA). 

On January 11, 2021, the District Court of Central Jakarta ruled in favor of the plaintiff and decided that the defendant was strictly liable. However, the judges did not grant the damages with the same amount as the plaintiff requested. The District Court of Central Jakarta decided to grant the damages and restoration costs as high as IDR 137 billion. 


On December 31, 2018, the Indonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry (the MoEF) filed a tort-based lawsuit against a palm oil plantation company, PT Arjuna Utama Sawit. The plaintiff argued that fires occurred inside the defendant’s concessions area and caused damages to peatlands and ecosystem within. The MoEF claimed that the defendant had deliberately burned the peatlands with the intention of using it for plantation purposes. Moreover, neither the fire early warning system nor the detection system in the defendant’s concessions area met the requirements, a fact which the plaintiff used as proof of omissions. The MoEF mentioned that fires inside the defendant’s concessions had caused ecological and economic damages. For these damages, the MoEF requested compensation as high as IDR 243,291.006,270 for the damages and restoration costs. For climate-related damages, the MoEF claimed that the fires had contributed to the release of 4366.98 tC and a loss of function of carbon sinks which equal to 1528 tC. Since cost of released carbon is IDR 90.000 (equals to US$ 10), the MoEF ask for compensation of the released carbon and restoration amounting to IDR 530,588,070. 

On October 21, 2019, the District Court of Palangkaraya ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and held that the defendant was liable on damages caused by wildfires inside its concessions. On January 22, 2020, the Palangkaraya Court of Appeal upheld the district court decision and requested the defendant the same amount of cost for damages and restoration. On December 10, 2020, the Supreme Court of Indonesia also upheld the district court decision. 


Geography

Indonesia

Recent cases