Note: This article reflects the personal opinion of the writer and\ndoes not represent the views of the CNBCIndonesia.com editorial\nteam.<\/p>\n
Forest and land fires (karhutla) are once again burning across\nIndonesia. As of 7 September 2026, the National Disaster Management\nAgency (BNPB) recorded that 72,008 hectares of peatland across six\nprovinces have burned. Of these, 71,274.29 hectares have been\nextinguished, but 734.81 hectares remain alight and are still being\nhandled.<\/p>\n
The police have received 200 reports related to the fires and named\n138 suspects, whilst eight corporations remain under investigation.\nThese figures show that forest and land fires are no longer merely a\nmatter of flames to be doused, but of ecological damage that continues\nto demand accountability.<\/p>\n
The problem is not confined to this year alone. Research published in\nPLOS One recorded that 5.62 million hectares of Indonesian forest area\nburned between 2019 and 2024, of which 122,164 hectares were primary wet\nforest. The researchers also found that the fires were concentrated in\ncertain regions, particularly Kalimantan, Nusa Tenggara and Sumatra, and\nwere linked to climate anomalies such as the Oceanic Ni\u00f1o Index (ONI)\nand the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD).<\/p>\n
At the same time, deforestation, land clearing and the draining of\npeat have made ecosystems that were once more fire-resistant\nincreasingly vulnerable. These data show that environmental damage does\nnot occur in isolation; human activity and spatial management policies\nalso determine how much nature loses its resilience.<\/p>\n
Amid the blanket of smoke, nature has shown another face not born of\nhuman wrongdoing. In early September 2026, Mount Anak Krakatau erupted\nonce more. Volcanic ash spread across parts of Java and Sumatra, even\nreaching an altitude of around 50,000 feet and disrupting flights.<\/p>\n
The government maintained Anak Krakatau\u2019s status at Level III, or\nAlert, and continues to monitor its activity. The fires and the eruption\nnaturally have different causes. Yet both reveal the same reality:\nhumans live within nature\u2019s system, not outside it.<\/p>\n
When the law views nature only as an object to be managed, exploited\nor protected for the sake of human interests, an important element\nescapes attention. It is at this point that the idea of placing nature\nas a legal subject deserves serious consideration.<\/p>\n
Who is a legal subject?<\/p>\n
In law, a legal subject is the holder of rights and obligations.\nHuman beings are legal subjects by nature, whilst legal entities acquire\nthat standing through legal recognition. Companies, foundations and\nassociations can own assets, enter into agreements, and sue and be sued\nthrough their organs or representatives. This means a legal subject need\nnot be capable of acting physically on its own.<\/p>\n
Unsurprisingly, the idea of the rights of nature stems from the\nthinking of Christopher D. Stone in Should Trees Have Standing? Stone\nproposed granting nature legal standing so that its interests can be\nchampioned in court.<\/p>\n
Nature need not speak for itself; its interests can be represented,\njust as a legal entity acts through human beings. Various countries have\nsince begun to recognise legal rights for rivers, forests and specific\necosystems.<\/p>\n
Indonesia already recognises environmental protection through Law\nNo.\u00a032\/2009, including the right to a good and healthy environment.\nHowever, its construction still rests upon human interests.<\/p>\n
Nature is protected because damage to it affects humans. Placing\nnature as a legal subject would broaden that foundation: forests,\nrivers, seas and ecosystems could be regarded as having legal interests\nworthy of being upheld, not merely protected because they are useful to\nhumans.<\/p>\n
Nature in the courtroom<\/p>\n
Recognising nature as a legal subject does not stop at a change of\nconcept. The consequence touches upon how the law operates when\necological damage occurs. If forests, rivers or ecosystems have legal\ninterests, those interests must be capable of representation in legal\nproceedings.<\/p>\n
The courts would then assess not only how many residents fell ill or\nhow great the economic losses were, but also the damage to the existence\nand ecological functions of nature itself.<\/p>\n
This idea matters greatly for the environment. As long as human\nlosses remain the primary measure, damage to nature is easily considered\nresolved once victims receive compensation.<\/p>\n
Yet money cannot automatically restore a burned forest, damaged\npeatland, or an ecosystem that has lost its carrying capacity.\nEcological restoration must be accorded a place as a distinct legal\ninterest. The state and corporations should not merely be asked to halt\nthe damage, but must also restore nature optimally.<\/p>\n
The karhutla provide a clear illustration. When millions of hectares\nof forest burn repeatedly, the problem is not only residents inhaling\nsmoke or economic disruption. Ecosystems also lose their ecological\nfunctions.<\/p>\n
Here, recognising nature as a legal subject can give new direction to\nenvironmental law in Indonesia. Lawsuits would no longer speak solely of\nhuman losses, but also of the rights of forests, peatlands, rivers and\necosystems to remain alive, to function, and to be restored when\ndamaged.<\/p>\n
Protecting nature, transforming the law<\/p>\n
Placing nature as a legal subject requires a change of perspective as\nwell as legal courage. The state must also begin to see forests,\npeatlands, rivers, seas and ecosystems not merely as resources to be\nmanaged, but as entities whose interests deserve respect.<\/p>\n
Development policies, the granting of permits and environmental law\nenforcement ought to take into account the continuity of ecosystems as\ngenuine legal interests.<\/p>\n
The endlessly recurring fires show that the law is not yet strong\nenough to prevent ecological damage. Enforcement against perpetrators\nremains important, but the law must also act before the flames grow\nlarge.<\/p>\n
Permit oversight, peatland protection, spatial planning, early\nwarning systems and ecosystem restoration must operate as one whole. The\nstate cannot merely show up once the damage has become news and the\ncasualties have mounted.<\/p>\n
Nature has no voice to appear on its own in a courtroom. It is the\nlaw that can give it space, whilst human beings act as guardians of its\ninterests.<\/p>\n
If this idea finds a place in Indonesian law, environmental\nprotection will no longer depend solely on how greatly humans have\nsuffered losses. Burned forests, polluted rivers and damaged ecosystems\nwould have their own legal grounds for restoration.<\/p>\n
There, the law can move beyond merely regulating the relationship\nbetween humans and nature towards a law that respects nature as part of\nthe subjects it protects. A healthy nature sustains human life, whilst\nits damage brings widespread consequences for society. Protecting nature\nis, in essence, not merely an ecological matter, but part of the public\ninterest that the state must safeguard. Salus populi suprema lex!<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/weighing-nature-as-a-legal-subject-1788850262", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }