Indigenous Groups Challenge Indonesia’s Conservation Law Over Land Rights and FPIC

Indonesia’s Coalition for Equitable Conservation filed a substantive constitutional challenge on July 8, 2026 against provisions of the 2024 conservation law. A hearing set for August 6 was adjourned to August 24 because the government and parliament were not ready to present their positions. The case remains a petition; the court has not ruled on the merits.

The coalition includes the Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance of the Archipelago, civil-society organisations and representatives of Indigenous and local communities. Petitioners come from customary territories, coastal areas, small islands and communities around conservation zones. An earlier procedural challenge was rejected in July 2025, with two dissenting justices.

The petitioners argue that the law’s preservation-area mechanism could cover customary territories without free, prior and informed consent, restricting land, fishing and existing conservation practices. The central question is how state conservation authority should coexist with constitutional protections, customary governance and community livelihoods.

The petition asks the Constitutional Court to conduct a substantive review of the disputed provisions. The government and parliament must present their positions, while the coalition must support its claims with the statutory text and evidence about customary territories and practical effects. Each procedural step, filing and ruling still requires confirmation.

Traceable sources include AMAN’s filing notice, the Constitutional Court’s rejection of the earlier case, the court record postponing the August 6 hearing, and Mongabay reporting republished by Eco-Business. Claims about land rights, inadequate consent and livelihood effects are the petitioners’ allegations, not judicial findings.

The legitimacy of conservation governance depends on rights recognition, participation, benefit sharing and remedy, not protected-area coverage alone. Companies and projects where protected areas overlap customary territories may face intertwined tenure, social-licence and consent risks.

SNN editorial analysis: A complete evidence chain should connect the statutory version, customary-territory maps, community identity, consent records, court filings and decisions, administrative implementation and grievances. Conservation designation alone is not evidence of lawful community consent.

Next checks include the August 24 hearing, government and parliamentary submissions, the court’s handling and eventual decision, implementing rules, Indigenous land recognition and effects on specific projects.