Papua in the Spotlight : Illuminating the Unheeded Case
As we know oil palm can only thrive in tropical areas along the equator that have abundant rainfall and certain other agro-climatic conditions. Around the earth is filled by 78.7% of water and 21.3% is on land. That means not much land on earth can be planted with oil palm.
Geographically, only four continents are crossed by the equator, to be specific Africa, Asia, Oceania and South America. Of the four continents, not all countries can plant oil palm. Only Indonesia, Malaysia as our next-door neighbor, and a small part of Africa and a small part of Central and Latin America.
Excerpted from United States Department of Agriculture, Indonesia is the world’s biggest producer of palm oil, with a total of 59% of Global Production which is identical to 47 Million Metric Tons by 2023/2024. Indonesia is also a first-rate exporter of commodities such as coal, rubber and tin.
As of right now, Papua is the subject of an environmental lawsuit in Indonesia. The reason is that PT IAL plans to use the 36 thousand hectares of the Awyu Indigenous Forest in southern Papua, which is a source of life, as oil palm plantation land. As a result, the indigenous people of Papua are actively fighting for their rights to indigenous forests.
Previously, this lawsuit had run aground in the first trial and the second trial. Representatives of the Awyu and Moi communities held prayers and dances in front of the Supreme Court building as the Supreme Court reviewed an appeal in connection with their efforts to revoke the permits of four palm oil companies whose plantation plans threaten their customary forests.
Then the attorney from the Papua Forest Saving Advocacy Team presented 102 proof of letters, 6 fact witnesses, and 3 expert witnesses. The evidence and witnesses from the Awyu tribe clearly show irregularities in the issuance of PT IAL permits. However, the judge’s decision stated that it could not consider the procedure for issuing AMDAL (analysis of environmental impacts) whose contents are the appendix and basis for publishing disputed objects. The judge refused because the AMDAL was not part of the object of the dispute in this case.
However, the theory obtained is not always in accordance with practice in the field. In fact, the judge must adhere to the principle of ‘in dubio pro natura’ which means if the judge experiences doubts about the evidence, then the judge prioritizes environmental protection in his decision.
Anyone without a professor’s title must know the impact of 36 thousand hectares of forest that has been deforested. Instead of thinking about ways to reduce carbon emissions, the archipelago is even made to cry. Not only that, the indigenous Papuan forest has become the source of life of the indigenous Papuan people, while if the forest is deforested it can cause potential carbon emissions.
Writer: Eugenia (Research and Development Department)
