JurnalPost.com -- Forest and land fires remain a recurring environmental issue in Indonesia. Almost every year, the public witnesses the same scene: forests engulfed in flames, firefighters struggling to extinguish them, and local residents facing the threat of toxic haze.
Once the fires are extinguished, public attention slowly fades. Media coverage diminishes, discussions subside, and the issue seems resolved. However, when the dry season returns, the threat of fire emerges once again.
This situation raises a question that should never stop being asked: Why do forest fires continue to occur despite various preventive policies? Does current management truly address the root of the problem, or does it merely focus on suppression after the fire has already spread?
Furthermore, when forests burn and the public must bear the consequences, who is actually responsible?
According to data from the Ministry of Forestry's Forest and Land Fire Monitoring System (SiPongi), the total area affected by fires in Indonesia from January to July 2026 reached 202,004.30 hectares. This figure represents an increase of approximately 69 percent compared to the same period the previous year.
This increase cannot be used as an immediate basis to blame any single party. Forest fires are influenced by weather conditions, land characteristics, and human activity. However, the scale of the burned area serves as a reminder that prevention and oversight efforts must be seriously evaluated.
So far, attention toward forest fires has tended to focus on the number of hotspots, the size of the burned area, and the number of personnel deployed to extinguish the flames. Yet, an equally important issue is how fire risk is managed before a disaster occurs.
The Government Must Be Present Before the Fire Starts
The government holds a major responsibility in controlling forest and land fires. The authority to draft policies, grant permits, conduct oversight, and enforce the law rests with the government, according to the division of duties among its respective agencies.
Therefore, the government's success should not be measured solely by how quickly fires are extinguished. A more important measure of success is seen when fires are prevented from the start.
Various steps have actually been taken, ranging from satellite-based hotspot monitoring and patrols in fire-prone areas to the coordination of firefighting personnel on the ground. However, these systems must be followed by concrete actions and continuous evaluation.
On September 29, 2026, the Ministry of Forestry recorded 893 high-confidence hotspots, an increase from 365 the previous day. This data illustrates how quickly fire risk conditions can change.
It must be understood that hotspots detected by satellite do not always mean a verified fire has occurred. Nevertheless, this information is a vital instrument for identifying areas that require further attention and inspection.
The problem is, to what extent is this information truly utilized to prevent the spread of fires?
Areas with a history of recurring fires should receive stricter oversight. The government also needs to ensure that every early warning is followed up with field inspections and measurable preventive steps.
The public has the right to know how oversight is carried out, what the evaluation results are, and what actions are taken to prevent similar incidents.
Without such transparency, forest fire management risks remaining trapped in the same pattern: acting intensively only when fires have grown large, while paying insufficient attention to long-term prevention.
Corporations Must Not Ignore Environmental Responsibility
In addition to the government, companies that hold permits to manage forest areas have an obligation to maintain and protect their work areas.
A business permit is not merely a right to derive economic profit from natural resources. It carries the responsibility to prevent environmental damage, including the threat of fire.
On September 15, 2026, the Ministry of Forestry reported the handling of 31 forest fire cases across 10 provinces, with a total affected area of approximately 3,625 hectares.
Of that number, 22 cases are in the investigation stage, seven are in the prosecution process, and two have been handed over to the public prosecutor.
This data shows that law enforcement regarding forest fire cases is ongoing. However, it is important to distinguish between parties currently under investigation and those proven to have committed violations under the law.
On September 21, 2026, the Ministry of Forestry also announced the revocation of business permits for five companies related to forest fire cases in West Kalimantan, South Kalimantan, and Central Kalimantan.
This step demonstrates that failing to meet obligations in area management can lead to serious administrative sanctions.
However, the revocation of permits should not be the end of the accountability process.
What about the restoration of the damaged environment? Who ensures that the affected areas receive proper treatment? Is oversight of other companies being tightened so that similar incidents do not recur?
These questions are important because the impact of fires does not automatically end once sanctions are imposed.
On the other hand, the presence of a fire within a concession area does not automatically prove that the company intentionally caused it. Determining elements of intent, negligence, or breach of duty must be based on evidence and applicable legal provisions.
However, the principle of caution in law enforcement should not be used as an excuse to weaken oversight of corporate obligations.
Companies must be able to demonstrate that fire prevention systems are truly implemented, ranging from routine patrols and hotspot monitoring to the provision of firefighting equipment and coordination with local communities.
Environmental protection is not enough if it is only listed in company documents. This commitment must be visible through actions that can be audited and held accountable.
The Public Is Often the Most Disadvantaged Party
Amidst discussions regarding government authority and corporate obligations, there is one party that must not be forgotten: the community that must live with the impacts of the fires.
For residents living near affected areas, forest fires are not just numbers in a report or news stories appearing in the media.
Fire smoke can disrupt health, limit daily activities, hinder economic activities, and degrade the quality of the environment where they live.
Children, the elderly, and people with specific health conditions may face greater risks when air quality deteriorates.
Environmental damage also has impacts that are not always immediately visible. Burned ecosystems require time to recover, while the loss of vegetation and the disruption of wildlife habitats can affect the balance of nature in the long term.
Ironically, the public, who have no involvement in the causes of the fires, still bear the consequences.
This is why the issue of forest fires cannot be viewed solely as a matter for the government or corporations. Forest fires are a public issue concerning safety, health, and environmental sustainability.
The public does have an obligation to play a role in fire prevention, including avoiding risky land management practices and reporting signs of fire.
Law Number 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management also regulates the prohibition of land clearing by burning, with provisions regarding respect for local wisdom as stipulated in the law.
However, the public's responsibility should not be used as an excuse to reduce the government's obligation to conduct oversight or the company's responsibility for the areas it manages.
We often hear the statement that protecting the forest is a shared responsibility. This expression is true, but it can lose its meaning if it is not accompanied by a clear division of duties.
The government must carry out its oversight and law enforcement functions. Companies are obligated to implement prevention and area protection according to regulations. Meanwhile, the public needs to receive education, support, and adequate access to reporting mechanisms.
Shared responsibility must not turn into a situation where all parties feel they have responsibility, but no one can truly be held accountable.
Law Enforcement Must Be Followed by Prevention and Restoration
Handling forest fires requires a more comprehensive approach. Fire suppression is an important step when fires occur, but prevention should be the top priority.
The government needs to strengthen oversight of areas with high vulnerability, especially regions with a history of recurring fires.
Information regarding hotspots, weather conditions, and land characteristics must be utilized to determine more precise preventive measures.
Furthermore, information transparency is an essential element in building public trust. The public needs to know the progress of case handling, the implementation of sanctions, and the follow-up on environmental restoration without ignoring ongoing legal processes.
Law enforcement should not only be a focus when a case is first announced. The public also needs to have a picture of the final outcome of the process.
For companies, oversight of environmental obligations must be carried out consistently. A good prevention system is not proven through administrative reports alone, but also through the readiness of facilities, patrol activities, and concrete actions in the field.
On the other hand, the public needs to be actively involved in prevention efforts. Strengthening 'Fire-Aware Community' groups, education on safe land management, and rapid reporting mechanisms can be part of this approach.
Community involvement will be more effective if supported by adequate facilities, information, and guidance.
Equally important is ensuring that every fire incident results in an evaluation that can be used to improve policy.
Evaluations should not stop at recording the area burned or the number of firefighting operations. The causes of the incident, weaknesses in oversight, effectiveness of the response, and follow-up improvements also need to be part of the assessment.
Thus, the experience of dealing with fires will not just be an annual record, but a foundation for strengthening forest protection efforts.
Responsibility Must Be Proven, Not Just Stated
The recurring forest and land fires should be a reason for all parties to evaluate how the environment is managed and protected in Indonesia.
It is time that the success of fire control is not measured only by how much fire is extinguished, but also by how much area is successfully protected before a fire occurs.
The government needs to prove the effectiveness of its oversight. Companies must demonstrate compliance with environmental protection obligations. The public must also be given space and support to participate in prevention.
When fires occur, accountability must be determined based on authority, obligations, actions, and evidence that can be tested.
Because the question of who is responsible does not always stop at who first lit the fire. That question also concerns who should have performed prevention, who was obligated to oversee, and whether those obligations were carried out correctly.
We cannot keep waiting for the forest to turn to ash before we talk again about the importance of protecting the environment.
Ultimately, the responsibility to protect the forest should be proven before the fire starts, not debated only after the fire has occurred.
References
Ministry of Forestry. (2026). SiPongi: Indication of Forest and Land Fire Area, January–July 2026.
Ministry of Forestry. (September 15, 2026). Complete Data on Ministry of Forestry's Handling of Forest Fire Cases, Strict Sanctions Await.
Ministry of Forestry. (September 21, 2026). Forestry Minister Raja Antoni Again Revokes Permits of 5 Companies Related to Forest Fires, Must Be a Deterrent!
Ministry of Forestry. (September 30, 2026). High Confidence Hotspots Increase, Ministry of Forestry Strengthens Field Response and Wildlife Protection.
Republic of Indonesia. (2009). Law Number 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management.
Comments 0
Write a Comment Share your response