Climate change related litigation in Indonesia

The study investigates the presence and characteristics of “incidental” climate change-related litigation in Indonesia during 2010–2020—cases in which climate change is referenced but is not the primary legal cause of action. It aims to: (1) detect criminal and civil climate change-related cases filed in Indonesian courts; (2) examine representative case studies; and (3) identify trends, driving factors, and impacts of such litigation. The context includes Indonesia’s vulnerability to climate impacts, contributions to GHG emissions, and absence of a dedicated climate law, leading litigants to rely on environmental and sectoral statutes. The study is significant because global databases adopting narrow definitions undercount Indonesian cases; by focusing on incidental references, the research demonstrates broader engagement with climate issues in Indonesian courts and explores how these cases can influence regulation, enforcement, and public discourse.

The paper situates its analysis within debates on defining climate change litigation. Hilson proposes a broad lens in which most litigation could be climate-related given climate change’s pervasive causes. Peel and Osofsky conceptualize climate litigation as concentric circles from core mitigation/adaptation cases to peripheral instances. Bouwer argues smaller, lower-profile cases are vital and collectively shape climate responses. Global inventories (e.g., Sabin Center’s Climate Case Chart; UNEP’s Global Climate Litigation Report) adopt narrower definitions that underrepresent Indonesia’s activity (15 cases listed by the Case Chart and 12 by UNEP through 2022). Conversely, prior Indonesian scholarship documents typologies and challenges across criminal, civil, administrative, and judicial review cases that include climate references. This study builds on that literature by systematically identifying incidental references across criminal and civil matters and assessing their roles in legal and public spheres.

Design: A case law review focusing on criminal and civil cases referencing climate change in Indonesian courts (district, appellate, and Supreme Court) filed between 2010 and 2020. Data sources: Indonesian Supreme Court Directory of Verdicts (putusan3.mahkamahagung.go.id) and, where needed, district and high court online directories. Data current to August 1, 2023. Supplementary dataset deposited on Mendeley (doi:10.17632/8djzxvdf3h.1). Search and identification: The research team searched the Supreme Court directory using targeted phrases (entered one at a time): “climate change,” “global warming,” “greenhouse gases (GHG) reduction,” “microclimate,” “macro climate,” “mitigation,” and “adaptation.” Each case was counted once even if multiple terms appeared. Translation from Bahasa Indonesia to English was performed by the author for case summaries. The search yielded 112 cases related to climate change. Data extraction and coding: Cases were coded in a spreadsheet for case type (criminal, civil, administrative, judicial review), parties, subject matter, court level, where climate references appeared (e.g., indictment/claim, evidence, expert testimony, judicial considerations), outcomes, and status. This article elaborates only criminal and civil cases. Analytic approach: Case law review assessed facts, arguments, legal principles, and outcomes to identify trends, drivers, and impacts. Criminal cases were categorized by defendant identity, verdict, primary issue (e.g., forestry/forest fires), and location of climate references in the proceedings. Civil cases were categorized by verdict type, plaintiff standing (citizen lawsuit, class action, NGO claim, state claim, regular claim), court level, and how climate change was raised (claim/reply/appeal/expert testimony/evidence). The method is justified for mapping jurisprudential developments, identifying patterns, informing strategies, and highlighting gaps in climate-related adjudication.

• Scope: 112 climate change-related cases (2010–2020) identified across Indonesian courts, with the paper elaborating on 80 criminal and 14 civil cases; remaining cases included administrative and judicial review matters.
• Criminal cases (80; ~71% of total):
  • Issues: Forestry and forest fires (42; 52%), farming (14; 17%), environment-related (12; 15%), criminal code (4; 5%), natural resources (4; 5%), mineral/energy/coal (2; 3%), corruption (2; 3%).
  • Verdicts: 79 guilty (99%), 1 not guilty (1%).
  • Court levels: District courts 60 (75%), appeal courts 5 (6%), Supreme Court (cassation) 12 (15%), judicial review 3 (4%).
  • Where climate arguments appeared: expert testimony 33 (41%), judge considerations 27 (34%), indictments 15 (19%), others (lab reports, policy assessments, witness testimony) 5 (6%).
  • Nature of arguments: Climate change typically framed as a consequence of primary offenses (e.g., illegal logging/forest fires leading to microclimate disruption and GHG emissions). Judicial and prosecutorial understanding often superficial, listing climate outcomes alongside floods, droughts, landslides without detailed causal analysis.
  • Human rights linkages: Cases invoked impacts on clean air, water, and quality of life; e.g., land burning causing excessive smoke and GHG emissions; dam embezzlement impeding climate adaptation for water resources.
• Civil cases (14):
  • Court levels: District 3 (22%), appeal 2 (14%), Supreme Court (cassation) 3 (21%), judicial review 6 (43%).
  • Verdicts: Inadmissible 2 (18%), accepted 6 (55%), rejected 3 (27%). Many first-instance resolutions; some dismissals due to procedural/standing issues (error in persona, lack of standing, plurium litis consortium, obscuur libel).
  • Plaintiff types: state claims vs corporations 7 (50%), citizen lawsuits 2 (14%), class actions 2 (14%), organisation claim 1 (7%), regular claims 2 (15%). MoEF appeared in all civil cases (as plaintiff or defendant).
  • Where climate arguments appeared: judge deliberations 3 (22%), plaintiff arguments 2 (14%), defendant arguments 3 (22%), expert/witness/opinion 3 (21%), evidence 3 (21%).
  • Substantive use: Deeper climate reasoning than in criminal cases, including scientific evidence and demands for regulatory action on mitigation/adaptation (e.g., Ari Rompas et al. v Government of Indonesia; initial wins later annulled on case review in 2022).
• Trends and drivers: Upward trend in criminal climate-related cases (Fig. 1) and a discernible civil trend (Fig. 2). Key drivers include availability of climate science and expert attribution, human rights-climate nexus, environmental judge certification (though only ~10% of judges certified), increased transparency (online court documents, e-Court), public pressure from NGOs, and mixed government support and resistance.
• Impacts: Incidental climate references normalized climate discourse in courts, attracted media attention, increased accountability, and in some instances prompted regulatory reconsideration or enforcement emphasis (e.g., forest fire abatement priorities; government involvement through MoEF).

The findings confirm that Indonesian courts increasingly encounter and incorporate climate considerations, even when not the core legal basis. In criminal matters, climate change serves primarily as a recognized harm or risk amplifying the severity of environmental offenses, aiding prosecutions especially in forestry/forest-fire contexts where scientific links to GHG emissions are salient. However, the reasoning remains surface-level, signaling a need for deeper judicial engagement with climate causation and impacts. Civil cases, though fewer, show more substantive climate argumentation—leveraging science, human rights linkages, and administrative law to compel regulatory action on mitigation and adaptation. The involvement of MoEF across civil cases underscores the state’s central role, though conflicting priorities (economic development vs. low-carbon policy) produce mixed litigation stances (supporting enforcement while appealing adverse rulings). The observed drivers—scientific expertise, human rights frameworks, judicial training, transparency, and NGO activism—have collectively enabled climate references to influence judgments and public debate. These dynamics address the research aims by evidencing the breadth of incidental climate litigation, illustrating how such cases shape legal practice, and demonstrating their broader societal and policy impacts.

Indonesia’s climate change-related litigation from 2010–2020 is substantial when incidental references are counted: 112 cases, predominantly criminal (80) with 14 civil elaborated in detail. While not “core” climate suits, these cases collectively advance climate mitigation, adaptation, and loss-and-damage considerations—through convictions and sanctions in criminal cases and through civil demands for improved policies and regulatory action. Beyond outcomes, the cases have normalized climate discourse in courts, elevated public and media attention, and increased pressure on institutions, thus laying groundwork for more mature climate jurisprudence. Future research should expand to administrative and judicial review cases, deepen analysis of human rights linkages, evaluate the effectiveness of judicial training on climate reasoning, and assess long-term policy impacts of litigation-induced regulatory changes.

• Scope: The analysis elaborates only criminal and civil cases due to the complexity of administrative and judicial review matters.
• Identification bias: Case selection relied on specific keywords (e.g., “climate change,” “global warming,” “GHG reduction,” “micro/macro climate,” “mitigation,” “adaptation”), potentially missing relevant cases lacking those terms.
• Data completeness: Dependence on the Supreme Court Directory and court uploads may omit cases not posted or with incomplete documentation (noted risk of missed uploads for 2010–2020).
• Translation: Summaries derived from Bahasa Indonesia sources were translated by the author; translation nuances may affect interpretation.
• Judicial reasoning depth: Many criminal judgments displayed superficial climate understanding, limiting causal precision.
• Legal standing and procedure: Civil outcomes were sometimes driven by procedural and standing barriers rather than climate substance, affecting generalizability of substantive climate arguments.