There are several aspects I would like to highlight in this study. First, the process of preparing this study was neither a short nor easy one. I had the idea to start excavating 2010-2020 climate related cases in late 2019, when (at that time) the Indonesian Supreme Court rejuvenated their online database for all cases in Indonesia. Collecting a decade worth of climate cases out of the thousand cases available in the database was not easy. The methodology needed to be precise so no climate cases would be left behind; as such, it took me 4 years to make sure all the data was collected and triangulated. Furthermore, we needed to make sure that all of the selected cases were robust until the research cut off date (August 2023).  Several cases had gone from cassation case to review cases (in the Supreme Court), or from high court cases to cassation cases, etc. On top of that, I was working with one student research assistant at each period— if that student graduated, I needed to update the new student research assistant to maintain the method and make sure that the research was making steady progress.

The researcher in her office at Asia-Pacific Centre for Environmental Law, National University of Singapore (source: private collection, 2024)

The second factor involved the intricacies of this study. The methodology depended greatly on the definition I used for this study. I wanted this study to show that in Indonesia there are incidental climate change cases, and in these cases the issue of climate change was mentioned either in an indictment, a party’s argument, part of submitted evidence, part of an expert witnesses’ argument, judges’ considerations, or in the judgments. Therefore, I needed to add length to the ‘accepted’ climate change litigation definitions to one that also covers incidental climate change cases. Right after, I started to collect data based on my methodology. During this period, I had to move (bringing my family with me) to Singapore from Indonesia—at that time (February 2020), I thought that I would still be able to travel back and forth to collect data, meet with my research assistant, etc. But then, Covid hit, and all travel was halted. Since that time, we had to switch to online means to slowly continue the research.

Judges in Rengat District Court, Riau Province, Indonesia (source: https://senarai.or.id/karhutla/eksepsi-dakwaan-harus-batal/)

The findings: a dawn of new beginning for climate change litigation? After years of hard work, this research shows that 112 climate change-related cases have been brought before the Indonesian courts, most of which were criminal cases concerning forestry or forest fires. In addition, there were several civil court cases. The cases use phrases concerning climate change in their main claim, argument, evidence, expert witness arguments, and judgments.  Link for the research : https://rdcu.be/dUr44. This study reveals four key findings for climate related criminal cases.

First, in the analyzed cases, climate change was presented as an impact rather than a primary argument. For example, in forestry cases, plaintiffs argued that deforestation could disrupt the microclimate and worsen global climate change. Second, court documents show a superficial understanding of climate change, treating it similar to floods or droughts, without fully grasping how these actions of forest and/or environmental degradation worsen climate change. Third, judges in these cases likely understood the environmental impacts especially from forest fires. Lastly, the cases often invoked human rights arguments, such as the loss of clean air and water for local communities.This study's findings on climate-related civil cases reveal several key points. First, the number of civil cases related to climate change is much smaller than in criminal law, but the arguments in civil cases are deeper and more meaningful, often involving scientific evidence or demands for regulatory action. Second, 80% of these cases were resolved at the first instance courts, suggesting most plaintiffs were satisfied with the rulings. Third, rigid legal standing rules have been problematic. Fourth, scientific evidence of climate impacts is frequently used to support claims, which sometimes tied to human rights violations. Notable cases include citizen lawsuits like Komari v. Mayor of Samarinda and Ari Rompas v. Government of Indonesia, as well as cases involving organizations and government entities, such as WALHI v. Government of Indonesia and Ministry of Environment and Forestry v. PT. Palmina Utama.The study examines climate change-related litigation in Indonesian courts from 2010 to 2020, focusing on the role and development of these cases. It identifies several key factors driving such litigation, including advancements in climate science, which have provided plaintiffs with stronger arguments, and expert witness testimonies linking environmental damage to climate change. The cases, although not "core" climate change litigation, often address climate issues incidentally, particularly in forestry, natural resource management, and illegal logging cases.

The study highlights the growing use of scientific evidence and human rights arguments, such as the right to clean water and air, in climate-related civil and criminal cases. While civil cases often push for regulatory improvements, criminal cases largely involve mitigation efforts for forest-related damages. The number of civil cases remains small compared to criminal ones, but they tend to delve deeper into climate change arguments.The study also points to the role of judicial training, increased transparency, and public pressure in advancing climate litigation in Indonesia. Public access to court documents, media attention, and the involvement of environmental NGOs have increased accountability and visibility, encouraging more cases to be filed.

Although government involvement is complex and sometimes contradictory, the study notes that Indonesia’s national development plans increasingly prioritize climate resilience. These incidental cases have sparked broader discussions about climate change in the judiciary, media, and public, contributing to social and political change. The study concludes that these cases serve as a foundation for the future development of more focused climate change litigation in Indonesia.