Legal and Political Policies Related to Customary Forests in Indonesia: From Normative Recognition to Implementation Contestation

Abstract

Forest management by indigenous peoples has been globally recognized as a method to reduce deforestation and slow the climate crisis. Deforestation rates in indigenous-managed forests are 20–50% lower than in other forests. In Indonesia, despite constitutional recognition (Article 18B, Paragraph (2), of the 1945 Constitution) of the rights of indigenous peoples, the reality is highly variable, and legal protection is undermined by an extractive forestry system that administers approximately 63% of the total land area as forest. This research employs a qualitative approach with an instrumental policy case study. There are three objectives: First, to document the historical political development of customary forest recognition in Indonesia from the colonial era to the post-Constitutional Court Decision 35/2012; Second, to address significant political and economic-bureaucratic obstacles; and Third, to examine the adaptive strategies of key actors in policy realization. This research relies on the systematic implementation of the PRISMA 2020 methodology and the analysis of 122 publications (1990–2026). The implementation arena is where policy is put into practice. The analysis results indicate that within the implementation arena, policy politics, local bureaucracy, and political economy collectively form systemic barriers. Recognition of customary forests is limited to administrative recognition because overlapping sectoral permits, including cultivation rights (HGU), mining permits (IUP), and industrial plantation forest permits (HTI), are not automatically revoked. This study concludes that land justice is only possible with a transformation of the development paradigm and a redistribution of political power, combined with institutional transformation, particularly the mandatory revocation of overlapping permits.

Keywords: agrarian conflict, customary forest, indigenous law communities, land tenure, legal politics