15 Peatland Protection in Indonesia: Toward the Right Direction?
325
are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not
be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental
degradation.” (For general discussion on the implementation of the precautionary
principle in Indonesia, see: Wibisana 2011, pp. 169–202).
Assuming that differences in expert opinions on water-table level constitute scientific uncertainty, one could argue that the required water-table level of 0.4 m is a “safe
level” of the water-table level, necessary to prevent serious irreversible threats to the
environment, either in the form of peatland drainage and subsistence or peatland
fires. The case of such a safe-level is even stronger given the fact that peatland fires
take place almost annually.
One might, however, accuse the water-table level requirement violates sustainable development by sacrificing economic interests for the sake of environmental
protection. This opinion could be misleading. Following Voigt, it could be argued
that sustainable development requires both fairness to the current generation, and
also to the future generations. However, so Voigt further argues, within the framework of sustainable development, the balance of justice could only be carried out
through protection of the integrity of the Earth’s ecosystem. As a result, development
must be the development that also protects the life-supporting system, especially if
the system is under threats (Voigt 2009, p. 51). In this sense, the concept of justice
within the framework of sustainable development does not only focus on the issue
of fair allocation of rights and obligations but also recognizes that the unity and
integrity of the environment are an integral part of the concept of justice (Ibid. p. 52).
From Voigt’s view, one could see that if environmental conditions are already in a
critical stage, then the decisions taken can no longer be neutral. In this situation, the
40 cm requirement could be seen as a pro-environment decision intended to recover
the damage in Indonesia’s peatlands and to prevent further damage of them.
Conclusion
Peatland degradation and peatland fires in Indonesia have triggered various responses
from the Indonesian government in the last five years. During these years, the government has enacted various regulations related to peatland protection, ratified the Paris
Agreement, formed an institution specifically aimed at accelerating peatland restoration in seven provinces seriously affected by fires called Peat Restoration Agency,
and launched severe law enforcement against companies contributing to forest fires
since 2013. However, there are two critiques related to the response on the peatland
protection, namely the use of strict liability for plantation along with the “abnormally
dangerous activities” criteria and the requirement of water-table level of a minimum
of 0.4 m from the surface which constitutes a scientific uncertainty. Apart from
those critiques, this chapter shows at least two arguments supporting the government
responses. First, the polluter pays principle justifies the implementation of strict
liability for peatland draining activities in fire litigation since the draining activities
325
are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not
be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental
degradation.” (For general discussion on the implementation of the precautionary
principle in Indonesia, see: Wibisana 2011, pp. 169–202).
Assuming that differences in expert opinions on water-table level constitute scientific uncertainty, one could argue that the required water-table level of 0.4 m is a “safe
level” of the water-table level, necessary to prevent serious irreversible threats to the
environment, either in the form of peatland drainage and subsistence or peatland
fires. The case of such a safe-level is even stronger given the fact that peatland fires
take place almost annually.
One might, however, accuse the water-table level requirement violates sustainable development by sacrificing economic interests for the sake of environmental
protection. This opinion could be misleading. Following Voigt, it could be argued
that sustainable development requires both fairness to the current generation, and
also to the future generations. However, so Voigt further argues, within the framework of sustainable development, the balance of justice could only be carried out
through protection of the integrity of the Earth’s ecosystem. As a result, development
must be the development that also protects the life-supporting system, especially if
the system is under threats (Voigt 2009, p. 51). In this sense, the concept of justice
within the framework of sustainable development does not only focus on the issue
of fair allocation of rights and obligations but also recognizes that the unity and
integrity of the environment are an integral part of the concept of justice (Ibid. p. 52).
From Voigt’s view, one could see that if environmental conditions are already in a
critical stage, then the decisions taken can no longer be neutral. In this situation, the
40 cm requirement could be seen as a pro-environment decision intended to recover
the damage in Indonesia’s peatlands and to prevent further damage of them.
Conclusion
Peatland degradation and peatland fires in Indonesia have triggered various responses
from the Indonesian government in the last five years. During these years, the government has enacted various regulations related to peatland protection, ratified the Paris
Agreement, formed an institution specifically aimed at accelerating peatland restoration in seven provinces seriously affected by fires called Peat Restoration Agency,
and launched severe law enforcement against companies contributing to forest fires
since 2013. However, there are two critiques related to the response on the peatland
protection, namely the use of strict liability for plantation along with the “abnormally
dangerous activities” criteria and the requirement of water-table level of a minimum
of 0.4 m from the surface which constitutes a scientific uncertainty. Apart from
those critiques, this chapter shows at least two arguments supporting the government
responses. First, the polluter pays principle justifies the implementation of strict
liability for peatland draining activities in fire litigation since the draining activities