Carbon, National Security, and Indonesia's Preparedness

Amid global criticism of ‘carbon colonialism’, Indonesia is attempting to build a more sovereign and equitable carbon market model. Carbon trading is now positioned as one of the main solutions to address the global climate crisis. This mechanism allows countries or companies to offset their emissions by purchasing carbon credits from others who have successfully reduced emissions. However, behind the market logic and commodification of carbon, academic criticisms continue to grow. A study titled Indigenous Contestations of Carbon Markets, Carbon Colonialism, and Power Dynamics in International Climate Negotiations (Durmaz and Schroeder, 2025) shows that global carbon trading mechanisms have the potential to create new inequalities. Developed countries can continue to produce high emissions, while developing countries become ‘burden absorbers’ through their forests and natural resources. This phenomenon is even referred to as carbon colonialism. That is, a new form of colonialism that is no longer territory-based, but carbon-based. In global forums such as COP25 and COP26, this inequality is clearly evident. Actors from developed countries and corporations have significant influence in determining policy directions, while indigenous communities often merely serve as narrative supplements. Indonesia’s Response: Not Just Following the Market In the midst of these criticisms, Indonesia is not merely following the global carbon market flow. The government is instead building a regulatory framework that attempts to balance economic efficiency and social justice. Through the Ministry of Forestry Regulation No. 6 of 2026, Indonesia stipulates that carbon trading in the forestry sector must be carried out with principles of social protection, environmental safeguards, and transparent governance. One key element is the implementation of the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (Padiatapa) concept, which ensures that communities are involved consciously and without coercion in every carbon project. This is important to address global criticisms that local communities are often merely objects in carbon schemes. On the technical side, this regulation also strengthens system integrity through independent validation and verification, a national carbon registry system, and mechanisms to prevent double counting. These steps demonstrate that Indonesia is not only ready in terms of policy but also understands the technical complexities that have long been a subject of global debate. From Object to Subject: The Role of Indigenous Communities What makes Indonesia’s approach stand out is the effort to position communities as main actors, not just beneficiaries. At the LCIPP COP30 forum, Indonesia announced a commitment to recognise 1.4 million hectares of indigenous forests in the coming years. This is not merely an administrative target, but part of a strategy to strengthen the role of indigenous communities in climate action. As noted by Durmaz and Schroeder (2025), indigenous communities manage around 20–25% of the world’s land, encompassing up to 80% of biodiversity, while also playing a crucial role in maintaining global carbon stocks. Therefore, the commitment to recognise 1.4 million hectares of indigenous forests in Indonesia is not just about justice, but can also be seen as climate policy effectiveness. At the national level, this indigenous forest commitment becomes an integral part of strengthening social forestry that has reached millions of hectares through efforts to distribute access, strengthen local institutions, and involve communities in the green economy. Maintaining Sovereignty Amid pressures for the liberalisation of the global carbon market, Indonesia is taking a different stance by keeping the state as the main controller, especially in cross-border carbon trading. In the Ministry of Forestry Regulation No. 6 of 2026, every cross-border carbon trade must go through an authorisation mechanism and consider national target achievement interests (NDC). This means that carbon is not fully released to global market mechanisms. The state still holds control to ensure that national interests are not sacrificed. This approach is important in the context of carbon colonialism criticisms. If the carbon market is left uncontrolled, developing countries risk becoming mere providers of ‘environmental services’ for developed countries. Indonesia is trying to avoid that position by strengthening domestic regulations. Carbon trading is often seen as an environmental and economic issue. However, in the Indonesian context, this issue is also closely related to national security. First, fair and inclusive forest management can reduce the potential for social conflicts. Many conflicts in Indonesia stem from inequalities in access to natural resources. By directly involving communities, such risks can be mitigated. Second, carbon is now part of global geopolitics. Countries that can effectively manage carbon resources will have stronger bargaining positions in the international green economy. Third, carbon sovereignty becomes part of national sovereignty. When carbon units are traded across borders without strong regulation, there is a risk of losing control over the country’s strategic assets. Thus, carbon policy is not just about the environment, but also about stability, sovereignty, and national competitiveness. Challenges: From Regulation to Reality Although Indonesia’s policy framework appears progressive, implementation challenges remain significant. As often happens in public policy, the main issue is frequently not in the design, but in the execution. In the field, referring to Adi Renaldi’s writing in ‘Stories from Bujang Raba: Ecological Disasters, Village Forests, and the Carbon Market’, it is evident that carbon market implementation is inseparable from various complexities and local dynamics. In a broader context, various risks can also emerge, ranging from potential tenure conflicts, inequalities in access to information, dominance by large actors, to weak oversight. In addition, differences in approaches