by Subhan Yusuf, M.A., observer on geopolitics and public policy

The recent challenge to the 2024 Conservation Law before the Constitutional Court has once again revived an outdated narrative that pits the state against local communities. In the public sphere, every spatial-planning and landscape-protection policy initiated by the government is seemingly treated with suspicion as "commercialization" of territory or as a red carpet for foreign investors. Ecological issues and traditional rights are often used as a shield to diminish, and even delegitimize, otherwise constructive government policies.

Claims to ownership of living spaces based solely on inherited traditionality often overlook an important principle: indigenous communities are also an integral part of the citizenry as a whole. The state possesses both the inherent right and the obligation to manage its sovereign territory in pursuit of the national interest.

To move beyond this counterproductive "state versus society" dichotomy, we need to recalibrate our understanding of conservation governance through several fundamental principles:

• Constitutional Supremacy and the State's Right of Control: Article 33(3) of the 1945 Constitution mandates that the earth, water, and natural resources be controlled by the state for the greatest prosperity of the people. Meanwhile, the recognition of customary law communities under Article 18B is conditional upon their compatibility with the principles of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia. This means that communal rights cannot be used to override national spatial-planning policies.
• Macro-Level Intervention in Response to Global Threats: The narrative that "indigenous communities are the best guardians of nature" represents a form of romanticism that overlooks the scale of modern crises. Climate change and biodiversity loss require a centralized, scientifically standardized conservation roadmap applicable from Sabang to Merauke, rather than relying solely on local wisdom that is inherently micro-level and fragmented.
• State Projects as Strategies for National Survival: The assumption that state projects such as geothermal development or blue-carbon initiatives constitute forms of commodification is misleading. These are survival strategies for the nation to transition away from fossil-fuel dependence and meet global climate targets, ultimately protecting the entire archipelago from the consequences of ecological disasters. As some would put it, these measures serve the greater good and the broader public interest.
• Preventing Covert Privatization at the Grassroots Level: The designation of preservation areas by the state can actually provide permanent legal certainty. Without state intervention, many customary territories on the ground remain vulnerable to being sold by local elites, privately certified, or illegally converted to other uses.
• FPIC as Dialogue, Not an Absolute Veto: The concept of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) should be understood as a mechanism for participation and dialogue, rather than as an absolute veto right. If every community were granted an unconditional veto over its territory, the development of green infrastructure deemed to be of national urgency could become completely paralyzed.

A modern state requires a balance between rights and obligations. Recognizing the rights of local communities to manage their land must be accompanied by legally binding obligations that subject them to the state's ecological standards.

State sovereignty over territorial management does not necessarily mean marginalizing local communities. On the contrary, the state's legal framework ensures that no group, whether an environmentally destructive corporation or an exclusive unilateral claimant, can monopolize natural resources. We need to view the government's vision of conservation not as a threat, but as a rational effort to reconcile national interests and national security with considerations that extend far beyond narrow sectoral boundaries.