Understanding Forestry Law Regulations in Indonesia and Their Relation to the Oil Palm Industry

The discourse on forestry and oil palm in Indonesia often cannot be separated from the issues of land governance and the legal framework underpinning it. In an interview with SawitIDN, Petrus Gunarso, a forestry and environmental expert, revealed that the root of various forestry and plantation issues—including oil palm—originates from the design of forestry regulations in Indonesia, which from the outset left a dualism in land management.

Initially, forestry regulations in Indonesia were known as the Basic Forestry Law. This law directly confronted the Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA). Both are considered "basic" laws, but they were born in different political regime contexts. The UUPA was drafted during the Old Order with the spirit of agrarian reform and unified land control, while the Basic Forestry Law emerged during the New Order era, when the development approach was more oriented towards state control over natural resources and investment.

This difference in the context of their inception subsequently triggered fragmentation in the land control and management system in Indonesia. Since the enactment of the Forestry Law and reinforced by the Investment Law, the land management regime has de facto split into two. First, the forestry regime covering forest areas. Second, the regime outside forest areas known as APL (Other Use Areas).

This separation creates a dualism in land regulation that remains a source of legal confusion to this day. In principle, agrarian matters should be viewed as a unified system, not two separate regimes. However, in practice, forest areas are placed under forestry authority, while APL is managed through agrarian and spatial planning mechanisms. As a result, a single plot of land can be perceived differently depending on the legal regime applied.

In the context of the oil palm industry, this condition has very significant implications. Most land conflicts, overlapping permits, and accusations of forestry violations against oil palm plantations stem from the unclear status of areas. Many oil palm areas are administratively located within forest areas, even though they have long been managed, inhabited, or utilized for productive activities.

Petrus Gunarso emphasized that this confusion arises because the function of forestry has shifted. Ideally, forestry should focus on managing forests as an ecosystem—including protecting ecological functions, biodiversity, and environmental services. However, in regulatory practice, forestry has become an instrument of land control, not merely ecosystem management.

This approach then impacts the oil palm industry, which is often positioned as being "in opposition" to forestry. In fact, the main issue is not merely about the oil palm commodity, but about the design of land governance that was not integrated from the start. When forest areas are designated administratively without considering social and historical realities on the ground, conflicts become difficult to avoid.

Going forward, improving the relationship between the Forestry Law and the oil palm sector requires a more holistic approach. Harmonizing agrarian and forestry regulations, affirming the function of forest areas based on ecosystems, and resolving land status fairly and transparently are key. Without this, the oil palm industry will continue to be caught in a vortex of legal uncertainty, despite its important role in the national economy.

Understanding the historical and structural roots of the Forestry Law is not only important for policymakers but also for the public so that the discourse on oil palm and forestry does not remain trapped in a black-and-white narrative.