Written by: Agetha Lestari

The ecological disaster that hit Sumatra in late November and early December 2025 is a reflection of the state’s failure to maintain people’s living spaces. BNPB data as of December 19, 2025 recorded that 3.2 million people were affected, 1,068 people died, 190 people are still missing, and nearly one million residents were displaced in Aceh, North Sumatra, and West Sumatra. Hundreds of settlements, roads, bridges, schools, and public facilities were severely damaged or lost in flash floods.

Although tropical cyclones trigger high rainfall, experts from Gadjah Mada University emphasize that the root of the problem lies upstream. Forest ecosystems in the watershed have been damaged to the point of losing water capacity. This damage is not just a natural process, but an accumulation of loose policies, systematic neglect, and development choices that put short-term economic interests above public safety. The Job Creation Law (UUCK) passed by the state even repealed article 18 of Law 26/2007 which requires maintaining at least 30 percent of the forest area in each watershed or island. In fact, without the legal protection, forest clearing upstream becomes easier, faster, and spacious, leaving a fragile living space for humans and nature.

Upstream forests are the backbone of life. Research in the tropical forests of Kalimantan and Sumatra shows that tree roots are able to hold up to 35 percent of rainwater.

As a result, as forests shrink past critical limits, slopes lose their grip. Deforested land is unable to withstand rain, and floods turn into huge currents that drag logs, soil, and long traces of exploitation that have been wrapped in the term “development”.

This disaster in Sumatra is not just a heavy rain event, but a warning that our ecological protection system is fragile to the roots. This event also does not come from the sky; it arises from a policy that allows nature to lose its vitality.

Evidence of Deforestation through Logs

The large logs carried by the flood are direct evidence that this disaster cannot be called just a ‘natural phenomenon.’ The current carrying pieces of logs with a large diameter indicates that there is significant logging in the upstream area.

Based on the spatial analysis of Kaoem Telapak with the Nusantara Atlas, in the past year (2024–2025) areas in Aceh, North Sumatra, and West Sumatra lost around 76,306 hectares of forest. Meanwhile, WALHI’s analysis in December 2025 shows that during the period 2016–2025, around 1.4 million hectares of forest were lost in the three provinces. This area is equivalent to almost half of West Java Province or 21 times the area of DKI Jakarta.

This forest loss cannot be separated from the permits issued by the state. Spatial data as of December 2025 processed by Kaoem Telapak shows that there are nearly a thousand concession permits recorded and issued by the state in Aceh, North Sumatra, and West Sumatra, ranging from oil palm plantations, mining, to PBPH.

The thousands of permits pave the way for the expansion of extractive industries into living spaces that should be protected. The permits that should govern are now a path to destruction, accelerating forest loss, disrupting the natural balance, accelerating the flow of surface water, and increasing the risk of flash floods and landslides that are now affecting millions of people, taking their lives and futures.

Logs of wood that are dragged by the current confirm the destruction of the forest as an upstream area, then the loss of tree roots makes the soil fragile and prone to landslides, thus increasing the volume of mud in flash floods when hit by high rainfall. The casualties due to this disaster are victims of weak laws, lax licensing supervision, and the allowing of the expansion of extractive industries to the zones that should be protected.

The impact of deforestation does not stop at lost lives and destroyed ecosystems, but also accumulates as a burden on the country’s economy. The Center of Economic and Law Studies (Celios) estimates that state losses reach Rp 68.67 trillion, ranging from damage to infrastructure, crop failure, to the cessation of people’s economic activities.

This figure debunks the claim that deforestation is driving the region’s economic ‘development’ and growth. In fact, the cost of recovery is proving to be far greater than the gains of the extractive sector enjoyed by only a few, while millions of people bear the risk, loss of their lives and futures.

It is at this point that the stagnation in the ratification of the Indigenous Peoples Bill becomes relevant. This delay is not just a matter of legislation, but a neglect of the constitutional mandate. Article 18B paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution affirms the state’s recognition and respect for customary law communities and their rights.

However, without a specific law, the recognition is partial and easily defeated by the forestry, mining, and plantation licensing regimes. The Constitutional Court has clarified the position of indigenous peoples through Decision No. 35/PUU-X/2012 which affirms that customary forests are not part of state forests. However, without the Indigenous Peoples Bill, the implementation of this ruling has been stalled and inconsistent. Indigenous territories remain vulnerable to being released into concessions, despite being proven to have lower rates of deforestation and more preserved ecological functions.

In the context of disasters, the absence of recognition of customary territories creates a large gap in risk mitigation. Law Number 24 of 2007 places risk prevention and reduction as the foundation of disaster management. The management of upstream rivers and landslide-prone areas is key. In many regions, it is indigenous peoples who have been carrying out these functions through customary rules and local knowledge.

The Indigenous Peoples Bill should be understood as a law-based disaster mitigation instrument. With the recognition of customary territories, the state has partners to maintain protected areas and reduce disaster risks downstream. Without this legal umbrella, disaster policies tend to be reactive and expensive, waiting for damage to occur and then disbursing the recovery budget.

The 2025 Sumatra disaster shows that legal ambiguity over customary territories has a direct impact on public safety. When upstream is damaged, the resulting social, ecological, and economic costs far exceed the investment benefits enjoyed by a few. In this context, the Indigenous Peoples Bill is not an identity agenda, but part of the national legal architecture to protect life.

Without the ratification of the Indigenous Peoples Bill, the country continues to lose the opportunity to build a fair and sustainable ecological protection system.

Recurring disasters are no longer a matter of unforeseen nature, but a reflection of the laws that are left to be cut off upstream.

Author Profile:

Agetha Lestari is the Kaoem Telapak Campaigner and Campaign Staff of the Coalition to Guard the Indigenous Peoples Bill, which focuses on strengthening collective action with Indigenous Youth and Women and local communities through facilitating discussions and training on the issue of indigenous land protection, forest and plantation monitoring, and strengthening the role of young people in facing socio-ecological challenges.

Disclaimer: This article was written in Indonesia and has been translated by Google Translate. In case of dispute or discrepancy, the original language of the article should prevail.