When citizens demand accountability for forest fires

A civil society coalition in West Kalimantan is taking its demands for protection from forest and land fires to court. Its class action against central and provincial authorities faces its first hearing at the Pontianak District Court on Oct. 7.

Among the plaintiffs' core demands are a national disaster declaration and a more comprehensive state response. While the allegations remain to be tested, the lawsuit raises a fundamental question that extends well beyond the province: How can citizens enforce the state’s legal duty to protect them from environmental harm?

Indonesia must make greater use of collective environmental litigation when governance failures expose communities to foreseeable, preventable harm. Realizing this potential requires affordable access to justice, well-substantiated legal claims and enforceable court orders that yield measurable remedies for affected populations and ecosystems alike.

The landmark Jakarta air pollution case provides an instructive precedent. In September 2021, the Central Jakarta District Court ruled that the President, three cabinet ministers and the Jakarta governor had committed unlawful acts by failing to control air pollution. The court issued orders addressing statutory duties, air quality standards, environmental monitoring and emissions management.

That victory survived appeal in 2022 and in November 2023, the Supreme Court rejected the state’s cassation petitions, leaving the judgment intact. Citizens demonstrated that systemic failures in environmental governance could withstand judicial scrutiny, even when the defendants occupied the highest offices in the country.

A procedural distinction matters here. Jakarta’s lawsuit was a citizen lawsuit (actio popularis), whereas the West Kalimantan action is a class action. Class actions permit representatives to pursue claims on behalf of a defined group sharing common grievances, while citizen lawsuits seek to compel the enforcement of public duties in the broader public interest. Indonesia’s environmental legal framework, specifically Articles 65 and 91 of Environment Law No. 32/2009, recognizes both avenues, each subject to distinct procedural thresholds.

Following the 2021 Jakarta ruling, observers noted that the precedent would catalyze further environmental claims. Amid a global rise in climate litigation, the West Kalimantan lawsuit tests that trajectory. Collective proceedings allow communities to pool resources and challenge institutional failures that individual claimants could rarely confront alone.

Accountability, however, requires precision. An outbreak of fire does not automatically establish state liability. Claimants must identify specific statutory duties and demonstrate how unlawful acts or omissions directly caused or compounded the harm. Meteorological conditions, corporate conduct and institutional mandates all demand rigorous, science-based evidentiary scrutiny.

At the same time, dismissing fires as merely seasonal cannot resolve the question of liability. Where environmental hazards are recurrent and foreseeable, legal scrutiny must extend to prevention, spatial planning oversight, regulatory enforcement and disaster preparedness. Corporate culpability and state responsibility are not mutually exclusive; pursuing the former does not absolve the latter.

Nor should the debate in West Kalimantan hinge solely on securing a national disaster designation. While central to the plaintiffs' demands, the National Disaster Management Authority (BNPB) maintains that central intervention depends on whether regional authorities have exercised their statutory powers effectively to protect vulnerable populations.

Recent state measures must also be factored in. On Sept. 18, the West Kalimantan governor announced Rp 60 billion (US$3.37 million) in combined provincial and central funding for fire response efforts. Yet public spending announcements require independent scrutiny of execution: whether resources arrive promptly, reach the most exposed communities and mitigate actual harm. Allocating budgets and delivering effective protection are distinct benchmarks of accountability.

Jakarta also illustrates the challenges that follow a courtroom victory. The IBUKOTA coalition reported that the 2021 judgment has yet to be fully enforced. This highlights a persistent vulnerability in public-interest litigation: communities may secure formal recognition of state failure while continuing to suffer the conditions that compelled them to sue.

Future litigation must therefore focus as sharply on remedies as on liability. Within the court's jurisdiction, claimants should seek specific, measurable obligations. Naming responsible implementing agencies, imposing strict compliance schedules and mandating transparent progress reports would prevent broad judicial declarations from dissipating into bureaucratic correspondence.

Equal priority must be given to evidentiary access. Communities require sustained legal aid and reliable public data on air quality, fire hotspots, epidemiological impacts and institutional spending. Academic institutions, civil society organizations and independent scientific experts play a vital role in building robust evidentiary records, ensuring that access to environmental justice does not depend on a community's ability to finance protracted litigation.

Courts cannot manage every ecological crisis. Their function is to assess legal liability, weigh evidence and grant appropriate relief when claims are established. The ongoing duty to prevent disasters and execute judicial mandates remains with elected officials and administrative agencies.

As the proceedings in Pontianak commence, their implications reach across Indonesia. The plaintiffs are testing whether environmental safety is an enforceable public right. Their case warrants close attention not only from regions confronting the same transboundary hazards, but also from the legal, scientific and civic communities tasked with ensuring that judicial victories translate into actual protection on the ground. We will see.

Bio:

• Ahmad Novindri Aji Sukma is a PhD researcher at the University of Cambridge, specializing in Green Criminology.

• Laode M Syarif, a former Corruption Eradication Commission deputy chief, is an International Environmental Law lecturer at Hasanuddin University.

This article was published in thejakartapost.com with the title "When citizens demand accountability for forest fires".