The inability of the state to balance economic, social, and environmental interests in governing natural resources is often the root of various conflicts (
Cases of violence in natural resource conflicts 2023–2024. Source:
In many cases, conflicts over natural resource governance make indigenous peoples particularly vulnerable (
In Indonesia, the vulnerability of indigenous peoples begins with the status of land ownership (
Recapitulation of indigenous territory status. Source:
The absence of a dedicated Law on Indigenous Peoples in Indonesia has resulted in the recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights being fragmented and handled according to various sectoral laws and regulations. This piecemeal approach has created inconsistencies in how indigenous peoples are treated across different regions and sectors, leading to gaps in their protection and recognition. This fragmentation reflects the weakness of Indonesia’s governance law architecture, where overlapping institutional mandates lead to inconsistent application of rights. Each sector, whether it be land, environment, or culture, tends to address indigenous issues from its own perspective, without a coordinated effort to ensure that these communities are comprehensively recognized and supported across all areas of their rights. One of the key consequences of this absence is the lack of a national institution specifically tasked with overseeing and advocating for indigenous peoples’ rights. Without a centralized body, there is no clear point of responsibility for ensuring the enforcement of indigenous peoples’ rights and addressing violations when they occur. Furthermore, the lack of such institutions means there are no coordinated national programs that can promote the well-being of indigenous peoples, safeguard their land, culture, and livelihoods, or address their ongoing struggles with land conflicts and marginalization. Indigenous communities are often left to navigate this complex legal landscape without adequate support or representation.
From a governance-law standpoint, such fragmentation violates the principle of legal certainty (
The fragmentation of the legal framework also means that indigenous peoples are often subject to policies that do not fully reflect their needs and perspectives. Sectoral laws can fail to account for the interconnectedness of indigenous peoples’ rights, particularly when it comes to land tenure, natural resource use, and cultural practices. For instance, land rights and resource management might be governed by different laws, leading to conflicts and uncertainty regarding indigenous land claims. In the absence of a unified law that acknowledges and integrates all of these issues, indigenous peoples find themselves caught in a legal limbo, unable to fully exercise or protect their rights. This situation calls for the urgent need for a comprehensive Law on Indigenous Peoples that can provide a clear and cohesive framework for the protection and recognition of their rights. Such a law would not only ensure that indigenous communities are legally recognized across all sectors, but also establish a national institution that can advocate for their rights, oversee implementation, and ensure that programs addressing indigenous issues are effectively coordinated. With a dedicated law, the government would be better equipped to create policies that take into account the holistic needs of indigenous peoples, addressing their social, cultural, environmental, and economic rights in an integrated manner. Ultimately, the absence of a Law on Indigenous Peoples creates a fragmented and ineffective approach to their protection and recognition. A comprehensive legal framework, supported by a dedicated institution and coordinated national programs, is necessary to ensure that indigenous peoples in Indonesia are not only recognized but also protected and empowered to thrive in a rapidly changing world.
The vulnerability of indigenous peoples comes from various policies that do not favor the needs of indigenous peoples (
Recapitulation of legal products for the recognition of indigenous peoples. Source:
In some areas, such as West Java and Southeast Sulawesi, the recognition of indigenous peoples relies exclusively on district or city regulations, while other regions lack any legal instruments at all. This uneven landscape of legal recognition demonstrates how decentralization, when not guided by a coherent national legal framework, produces structural inequality between regions. From the perspective of governance law, this pattern reflects weak vertical coordination between central and local authorities and a lack of legal certainty (rechtzekerheid). Although local governments have made attempts to protect indigenous rights through regional regulations, the absence of a strong and binding national legal umbrella results in inconsistent implementation, fragmented authority, and limited enforcement capacity. Under the logic of legal pluralism, such inconsistencies leave indigenous communities navigating a complex web of overlapping jurisdictions—acknowledged in some areas yet invisible in others—thus perpetuating legal inequality and governance failure.
The reliance on local regulations demonstrates that the recognition of indigenous peoples and their rights in Indonesia is largely determined by the initiative and political will of local governments. This decentralized dependency creates structural inequality in the fulfillment of recognition across regions, leading to unequal protection and discrimination among indigenous groups. From the standpoint of governance law, this pattern indicates weak vertical coordination and the absence of binding national standards that ensure consistency in rights enforcement. The fragmented national framework for community protection perpetuates policy incoherence, while the lack of a strong legal umbrella reveals limited state commitment to safeguarding indigenous living spaces. This situation also suggests that indigenous interests are often subordinated to economic and political priorities, particularly within national strategic projects that prioritize investment and infrastructure expansion. Juridically, the diversity of legal products across regions reflects an
Constitutionally, recognition of indigenous peoples in Indonesia can be found in Article 18B paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Article 18B paragraph (2) affirms the state’s commitment to recognize and respect the unity of customary law communities along with their traditional rights as long as they are still alive and following the development of society and the principles of the unitary state of the Republic of Indonesia as regulated by Law (
Although the 1945 Constitution, particularly Article 18B (2) and Article 28I (3), recognizes and respects the existence of indigenous communities and their rights, the legal reality in Indonesia reveals a significant gap between this constitutional recognition and its implementation in sectoral regulations. A striking example is the 1960 Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA), which only acknowledges individual land ownership and does not provide a strong legal foundation for recognizing communal land rights of indigenous peoples. In this context, Article 2 of the UUPA still upholds the principle that the state has full control over all land unless proven otherwise through individual ownership rights, as regulated under eigendomrecht in Article 570 of the Indonesian Civil Code. Consequently, customary land that lacks individual ownership certificates is often classified as state land, which can then be transferred to investors through the eminent domain mechanism, as outlined in Articles 720 and 721 of the Civil Code. Such a system perpetuates inequality under the guise of legality. In practice, it allows corporations to obtain exploitation permits without free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) from affected communities—contradicting international norms on indigenous rights. This condition illustrates the tension inherent in Indonesia’s legal pluralism, where customary law is formally recognized but substantively subordinated to state and corporate interests.
This legal framework has triggered recurring land disputes, particularly in the extractive sectors such as mining, oil and gas, and large-scale plantations. Numerous cases illustrate how indigenous communities have lost their ancestral lands as the state grants exploitation permits to corporations without consulting or obtaining the consent of indigenous peoples. These recurring disputes underline that indigenous vulnerability is not merely the result of weak enforcement but a manifestation of governance failure embedded in the very structure of Indonesia’s legal system. Addressing this requires comprehensive legal reform that aligns sectoral regulations with constitutional recognition and international principles of justice, participation, and sustainability.
The increasingly vulnerable existence of indigenous peoples during massive natural resource governance projects underscores the urgent need for the ratification of the Draft Law on the Protection of Indigenous Peoples as a national framework. In fact, since 2014, a draft law on indigenous peoples has been proposed. However, until 2024, it has not yet been passed by the government to become a law (
The findings in this study align with and expand on existing literature regarding indigenous rights and natural resource governance in Indonesia. Previous research by
From the perspective of governance law, the prolonged delay in ratifying the Indigenous Peoples Bill reveals a deeper institutional weakness: the state’s inability to translate constitutional recognition into operational governance mechanisms. The absence of a national legal framework leaves indigenous protection dependent on fragmented regional initiatives, producing systemic inequality across jurisdictions. In legal pluralism terms, this demonstrates how customary law continues to occupy a subordinate position within Indonesia’s hierarchical legal order, recognized symbolically but marginalized in enforcement.
Comprehensive legal reform through the Indigenous Peoples Law would thus function not merely as legislative codification but as a structural correction to Indonesia’s governance model. It would realign the principles of good governance—transparency, participation, accountability, and legal certainty—with the practical realities of indigenous land governance. By embedding indigenous rights into the formal legal hierarchy, the law would institutionalize participatory decision-making, harmonize state and customary systems, and strengthen the legitimacy of Indonesia’s governance law in the eyes of both domestic and international observers. Ultimately, the enactment of this law represents a critical test of Indonesia’s commitment to justice, sustainability, and pluralistic democracy in natural resource governance.
In examining the governance of natural resources and its impact on indigenous communities, it is crucial to place Indonesia’s situation within a global context. Many countries face similar challenges in balancing economic development, environmental sustainability, and indigenous rights. By drawing comparisons with other nations like Brazil, Canada, and Australia, we can better understand the broader dynamics at play and identify potential pathways for improving Indonesia’s legal and governance frameworks. This section presents a comparative analysis of these countries, highlighting both the commonalities and differences in their approaches to indigenous resource governance. Brazil, like Indonesia, is home to vast natural resources and a significant indigenous population, particularly in the Amazon rainforest (
In contrast, Canada has made significant progress in recognizing and safeguarding the rights of its indigenous populations through treaties and legal frameworks, such as comprehensive land claims agreements (
Indonesia’s legal framework for indigenous land rights diverges significantly from international best practices, particularly when compared to legal systems in Canada, Australia, and Brazil. These countries have established clearer mechanisms for recognizing and protecting indigenous land tenure, whereas Indonesia continues to struggle with inconsistent implementation, weak enforcement, and a lack of binding legal pathways for indigenous communities to secure their land rights. Canada has developed a robust system for indigenous land governance through constitutional protections and legal precedents that affirm indigenous sovereignty over traditional territories (
Australia’s approach to indigenous land rights was transformed by the Mabo v. Queensland (1992) ruling, which overturned the colonial-era doctrine of terra nullius and affirmed that indigenous communities have inherent land rights based on their traditional occupancy (
These global comparisons are particularly relevant when considering the looming threat of climate change, which disproportionately affects indigenous communities worldwide. In Canada and Brazil, indigenous communities are recognized as key stakeholders in the fight against climate change, with their traditional knowledge contributing to conservation efforts. Indonesia, home to some of the world’s most biodiverse forests, has an opportunity to integrate indigenous knowledge into its national climate change strategies. By protecting indigenous land rights and promoting sustainable governance practices, Indonesia could strengthen both its environmental conservation efforts and its resilience to climate change impacts. This would not only address issues of social justice but also enhance the country’s ability to meet global climate commitments. Furthermore, the comparative analysis reveals that the governance of natural resources is intrinsically linked to broader global movements for indigenous rights and environmental justice. International frameworks such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the Paris Agreement underscore the need for inclusive governance models that ensure the participation of indigenous peoples in resource management. Both Brazil and Canada have taken steps to align their national policies with these international standards, albeit with varying degrees of success. Indonesia’s participation in these global frameworks presents an opportunity for the country to enhance its legal protections for indigenous communities and promote more sustainable natural resource management practices.
While countries such as Canada and Brazil have ratified international instruments such as ILO Convention 169 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) to strengthen the protection of indigenous land rights, Indonesia has yet to take similar steps. As such, comparative approaches with countries that have adopted these instruments may be less relevant. Instead, a more suitable approach would be to examine the protection of indigenous land rights through other international legal frameworks that Indonesia has ratified, such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (
The governance of indigenous land rights in Indonesia remains one of the most complex and contentious legal issues in the country. Despite constitutional provisions recognizing indigenous communities and their customary rights, legal protections remain weak, fragmented, and inconsistently enforced. The absence of a comprehensive and coherent indigenous land rights framework has resulted in protracted land disputes, legal uncertainty, and widespread dispossession of indigenous territories. This situation is exacerbated by Indonesia’s economic reliance on extractive industries, which has placed indigenous lands at the center of conflicts between state policies, corporate interests, and traditional land tenure systems. Addressing these governance failures requires a structured roadmap for legal reform that strengthens indigenous land tenure, establishes institutional safeguards, and aligns Indonesia’s legal framework with international best practices.
One of the most critical legal gaps in Indonesia is the absence of a binding law specifically dedicated to indigenous land rights. While Article 18B(2) of the 1945 Constitution acknowledges indigenous communities, its vague wording allows for broad discretionary interpretation by the state. As a result, recognition of customary land tenure remains contingent upon local government approval, which has often been denied due to political and economic considerations. The long-delayed Indigenous Peoples Bill (RUU Masyarakat Adat) has the potential to provide a stronger legal foundation for indigenous land rights, but its legislative process has been slow, hindered by conflicting interests between indigenous advocacy groups, corporate stakeholders, and government agencies. If enacted, this bill should establish automatic recognition of indigenous land tenure without requiring communities to undergo burdensome bureaucratic procedures. In many cases, indigenous communities have occupied and managed their lands for generations, yet they continue to face legal challenges due to the lack of formal documentation. A legal reform that guarantees land recognition based on historical and customary occupation would eliminate many of the existing barriers that prevent indigenous communities from securing tenure rights.
Beyond legal recognition, effective enforcement mechanisms are essential to ensuring that indigenous land rights are not merely symbolic but also practically upheld. Indonesia currently lacks a dedicated legal institution to handle indigenous land disputes, which has led to prolonged legal battles and inconsistent rulings. The establishment of a specialized Indigenous Land Tribunal, modeled after Australia’s Native Title Tribunal, would provide a clear and structured process for resolving disputes. This tribunal should have the authority to adjudicate land claims independently from political influence, ensuring that indigenous communities receive fair treatment in legal proceedings. In addition to resolving disputes, the tribunal should oversee the implementation of land demarcation efforts, which remain a critical issue in Indonesia. Many indigenous communities continue to face encroachment by plantations, mining companies, and infrastructure projects due to the lack of legally recognized territorial boundaries. A tribunal with the power to enforce land demarcation would play a crucial role in preventing land conflicts and ensuring that customary lands are protected from external claims.
The issue of enforcement is further complicated by the dominance of corporate interests in land governance. In many instances, large-scale land acquisitions have proceeded without proper consultation with indigenous communities, despite international legal standards emphasizing the importance of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). The FPIC principle, recognized under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and ILO Convention No. 169, requires states to engage in meaningful consultations with indigenous groups before approving projects that affect their lands and resources. However, Indonesia has yet to institutionalize FPIC into its legal framework, leaving indigenous communities vulnerable to forced land acquisitions. To address this, FPIC must be legally mandated in all resource extraction and development projects. Its implementation should go beyond symbolic consultation processes and ensure that indigenous communities have genuine decision-making power in determining whether projects proceed on their lands. This would require the creation of an independent oversight body tasked with monitoring compliance with FPIC requirements, as well as imposing penalties on corporations and state agencies that fail to adhere to the principle.
Another key aspect of governance law reform is the alignment of Indonesia’s legal framework with international norms on indigenous rights. While Indonesia has ratified several international human rights treaties, it has not ratified ILO Convention No. 169, one of the most comprehensive international instruments protecting indigenous land tenure. Ratification of this convention would demonstrate Indonesia’s commitment to upholding indigenous rights and provide a stronger legal foundation for domestic reforms. Furthermore, Indonesia should integrate key provisions of UNDRIP into its national governance law, particularly those relating to land tenure security, self-governance, and access to justice. In countries such as Canada and Brazil, constitutional provisions explicitly recognize indigenous land rights as fundamental legal principles, providing indigenous communities with stronger protections against land dispossession. Indonesia must move towards a similar approach, ensuring that indigenous land tenure is embedded within the country’s core legal framework rather than treated as an issue subject to political discretion.
The roadmap for policy reform must also include practical steps for strengthening institutional capacity. One of the main challenges in enforcing indigenous land rights in Indonesia is the lack of coordination among government agencies. The Ministry of Environment and Forestry, the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs, and local governments often have overlapping jurisdictions, leading to conflicting policies and regulatory uncertainty. The creation of a centralized Indigenous Land Authority could help streamline land governance, ensuring that indigenous land claims are processed efficiently and in accordance with established legal protections. This authority should be tasked with overseeing land registration, monitoring compliance with legal protections, and providing technical and legal assistance to indigenous communities seeking to formalize their land tenure. In addition to institutional reforms, accountability mechanisms must be strengthened to prevent abuses of power and ensure that indigenous land rights are effectively upheld. One of the main reasons why land dispossession continues to occur is the lack of legal consequences for state actors and corporate entities that violate indigenous land tenure. Strengthening accountability mechanisms would require the introduction of stricter penalties for illegal land seizures, including corporate liability for companies that fail to respect indigenous rights. Independent monitoring bodies should be established to track violations and provide indigenous communities with accessible legal avenues to challenge unlawful land acquisitions. These mechanisms should include not only judicial remedies but also administrative and financial sanctions to deter future violations.
The roadmap for legal and policy reform must be structured into clear phases to ensure effective implementation. In the short term, Indonesia must prioritize the passage of the Indigenous Peoples Bill and initiate land demarcation efforts to provide immediate legal recognition for indigenous territories. This should be accompanied by the development of legal frameworks institutionalizing FPIC and strengthening indigenous participation in governance processes. In the medium term, the establishment of an Indigenous Land Tribunal and an independent oversight body would provide structural mechanisms for dispute resolution and enforcement. This period should also focus on strengthening institutional coordination and aligning national laws with international standards. In the long term, broader constitutional reforms may be necessary to fully integrate indigenous land rights into Indonesia’s governance system, ensuring that legal protections remain robust and resistant to political fluctuations. Ultimately, the protection of indigenous land rights in Indonesia is not only a matter of legal reform but also a fundamental issue of justice, sustainability, and human rights. Indigenous communities have long been stewards of their territories, maintaining ecological balance and contributing to environmental conservation. The failure to protect their land rights not only exacerbates social and economic inequalities but also undermines Indonesia’s broader commitments to sustainable development and climate resilience. Legal reforms must therefore be approached with a long-term perspective, recognizing that securing indigenous land tenure is not just about legal recognition but also about ensuring that indigenous communities have the resources, institutional support, and political agency necessary to defend their rights. Strengthening governance law through a structured roadmap would provide a critical foundation for a more inclusive, equitable, and sustainable land governance system in Indonesia.