Qualitative analysis reveals Law No. 39/2014's implications for indigenous peoples and environmental sustainability.
This research aims to analyze the political configuration underlying Law No. 39/2014 on Plantations and its implications for indigenous peoples, smallholders, and the environment. This law was passed as part of the government's strategy to regulate the plantation sector to support national economic growth, particularly through increased investment and exports of leading commodities such as palm oil, rubber and coffee. However, analysis shows that a number of articles in this law are considered contrary to the principles of social justice, community welfare, and environmental sustainability as mandated by the 1945 Constitution. These articles tend to benefit large corporations and the economic elite, while the rights of indigenous peoples and the protection of smallholders and the environment are neglected. This research uses a qualitative approach with a normative research method through a statute approach to identify actors, interests, and legal political dynamics that influence the formation and implementation of this law. The results show that the political configuration in Law No. 39/2014 has an authoritarian character, as seen from the dominance of economic and political elites in controlling plantation resources. The implication is an increase in agrarian conflicts, marginalization of indigenous peoples and smallholders, and environmental damage due to uncontrolled plantation expansion.These findings confirm the importance of revising regulations to create more inclusive, equitable and sustainable policies. The revision must involve the active participation of indigenous peoples, smallholders, and environmental organizations, as well as strengthen supervision mechanisms for plantation business actors. Thus, the regulation of the plantation sector can be more in line with the national ideals as mandated by the 1945 Constitution, namely social justice, people's welfare, and environmental preservation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Deswita et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: