By KUSNANDAR & CO., Attorneys at Law – Jakarta, INDONESIA
President Prabowo
Subianto’s address at the 80th United Nations General Assembly delivered a bold
message: Indonesia is ready to take real steps—beyond slogans—in confronting
climate change. Highlighting the country’s status as the world’s largest
archipelagic nation, he pointed to the annual five-centimeter rise in sea
levels along Jakarta’s northern coast as a tangible threat, justifying the
construction of a massive 480-kilometer sea wall projected to take 20 years to
complete.
Prabowo’s speech
outlined a broad vision: accelerating the transition to renewable energy,
committing to the Paris Agreement, reaching net-zero emissions by 2060 (or
sooner), reforesting over 12 million hectares of degraded land, and empowering
local communities with green jobs. He stated that starting next year, most of
Indonesia’s new power generation capacity will come from renewable sources. Moreover,
he promised that Indonesia would become a global solution hub for food, energy,
and water security.
These are
compelling goals and they place Indonesia in a forward-looking position within
international climate diplomacy. However, as with any grand vision presented on
the global stage, the true measure lies in how those commitments are
implemented at home. In this respect, a growing gap between ambition and
execution threatens to undermine the credibility of Indonesia’s pledges.
Indonesia’s legal and
policy frameworks on climate and energy have yet to demonstrate the level of
integration and urgency required. While regulatory instruments such as
Presidential Regulation No. 112/2022 on renewable energy provide direction,
implementation has been plagued by institutional fragmentation, slow permitting
processes, and a lack of clear incentives for investors. The dominance of the
state-owned utility PLN and the absence of market-based pricing models for
renewable energy continue to be significant deterrents to private investment.
Forest governance
faces similar challenges. Past reforestation and peatland restoration
initiatives have suffered from overlapping land claims, weak law enforcement,
and limited accountability mechanisms. Prabowo’s pledge to reforest 12 million
hectares is a positive step, but without structural reforms in land use policy,
agrarian conflict resolution, and monitoring systems, it risks being another
target that looks good on paper but lacks impact in the field.
Moreover, while
Prabowo frames climate action as a route to poverty reduction and national
resilience, his administration inherits unresolved weaknesses in Indonesia’s
food system. Agricultural productivity remains stagnant, and reliance on food
imports continues despite repeated rhetoric of food sovereignty. Large-scale
land conversion for infrastructure and industry further reduces the
availability of arable land. In this context, food security cannot be decoupled
from climate and energy policy. A coherent, cross-sectoral strategy is urgently
needed.
From a legal
standpoint, Indonesia also lacks a centralized climate institution with real
enforcement authority. Climate-related policies remain scattered across
ministries, often resulting in contradictory or redundant initiatives. A new
institutional model—such as a presidentially mandated climate council with
legal authority and oversight capacity—may be necessary to streamline
implementation, monitor progress, and ensure transparency. Legal instruments
must also be strengthened to improve data disclosure, guarantee community
participation, and enhance compliance.
Execution also
demands political will, bureaucratic coordination, and fiscal prioritization.
Many of the goals Prabowo laid out are multi-decade projects that require long-term
planning across successive administrations. This raises questions about
governance continuity, especially in a system where program fragmentation and
political cycles often disrupt momentum. It is essential that Indonesia’s
climate strategy is institutionalized through robust laws and not left to the
discretion of changing leadership.
The international
community may welcome Indonesia’s renewed commitment, but the domestic
audience—especially those in vulnerable sectors—remains more concerned with delivery
than diplomacy. Real progress will be judged not by applause at the UN, but by
tangible improvements in environmental quality, economic opportunity, and
institutional performance.
President Prabowo’s
speech was rhetorically effective and globally attuned. But if Indonesia is to
fulfill its promise of becoming a hub for food, energy, and water security, it
must quickly move from vision to execution. The challenges are legal,
structural, and political. Bridging the gap between what is said and what is
done will define the legacy of this administration, not only in climate
diplomacy, but in the real lives of its citizens.
K&Co - September 23, 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment