An officer from Indonesia's National Narcotics Board stands guard during a drug raid by the agency in a forest in Aceh in 2020. Indonesian police have now signed an MOU with the Forestry Ministry for cooperation (Chaideer Mahyuddin/AFP via Getty Images)

From park rangers to armed guards: Indonesia takes a risky approach to forest protection

A militarised approach to conservation risks creating a climate of fear rather than fostering genuine collaboration.

Mohd Yunus

11 April 20254 min read

Indonesia recently decided to involve military forces in forest protection, focusing on Sumatra and Kalimantan, where illegal palm oil plantations and mining activities have caused vast environmental destruction. Like the use of armed rangers using “shoot-to-kill“ policies against suspected poachers in Africa, Indonesia’s actions fuel the growing debate over militarised conservation and its many ethical and legal dilemmas.

The challenge presents around the world. In Brazil’s Amazon region, for example, military forces have been mobilised to crack down on illegal logging and mining, sometimes leading to violent confrontations with local communities. Militarised conservation has led to severe social consequences and human rights abuses, often harming the very communities it aims to protect. Reports have documented extrajudicial killings, violent evictions, and wrongful arrests of indigenous peoples and local populations who depend on forests for their livelihoods.

Government officials in Indonesia justify this policy as a necessary step to bolster forest protection, citing widespread illegal logging, land encroachment, and illicit palm oil expansion that continues to devastate Indonesia’s ecosystems. In Tesso Nilo National Park in Sumatra, for example, once a stronghold for critically endangered species like the Sumatran elephants, illegal plantations now cover more than 80 per cent of the park’s land.

Officials argue that military intervention is crucial to safeguarding the nation’s natural heritage. However, critics warn that this approach could backfire, exacerbating social conflict, displacing indigenous communities, and fuelling land grabs under the guise of conservation.

History has shown that militarisation is not the answer.

Environmental activists, indigenous groups, and human rights organisations warn that the new regulation may disproportionately target indigenous peoples and small-scale farmers, who are often accused of encroachment despite having long-standing customary rights to the land. The involvement of the military – an institution historically linked to land conflicts and human rights violations in Indonesia – raises fears that forest conservation could become a pretext for forced evictions and further dispossession of local communities. In many cases, military forces – working in tandem with corporate interests – have facilitated the seizure of land for large-scale agribusiness, mining, and infrastructure projects, displacing local communities in the process.

Dianto Bachriadi, a researcher at the Agrarian Resources Center (ARC), has described police and military officers as key players in Indonesia’s “land mafia”. If militarisation is used to enforce conservation, it risks becoming a tool for marginalising indigenous communities rather than protecting the environment.

An armed officer of Lewa Wildlife Conservancy's anti-poaching unit stands in bushland with a herd of zebra in Meru, Kenya (Tony Karumba/AFP via Getty Images)

The negative consequences seen in Africa and South America – human rights violations, erosion of community trust, a failure to address the root causes of environmental degradation – serve as lessons for Indonesia. The use of the military to enforce conservation has repeatedly backfired, undermining both environmental and social stability. A militarised approach to conservation risks creating a climate of fear rather than fostering genuine collaboration between local communities and conservation authorities, ultimately weakening efforts to protect Indonesia’s forests.

Instead of resorting to militarisation, Indonesia should focus on strengthening community-based conservation initiatives and integrate local knowledge and traditional forest management practices, which have been proven to yield better environmental outcomes. A 2021 study in Nature Sustainability found that across the tropics, deforestation rates on indigenous lands were 20 per cent lower than in non-protected areas. Similarly, a 2016 analysis by the World Resources Institute revealed that in Bolivia, Brazil, and Colombia, deforestation within indigenous-controlled territories was two to three times lower than in surrounding areas. These findings underscore the urgent need to empower local communities as stewards of the environment rather than relying on heavy-handed enforcement.

In Indonesia, indigenous communities have long acted as guardians of the forests, possessing generations of ecological wisdom that can inform sustainable conservation strategies. For example, the Dayak people of Kalimantan have successfully maintained forest ecosystems through customary land management practices, including rotational agriculture and sacred forest zones that promote biodiversity. By building partnerships with local stakeholders, strengthening legal protections for indigenous land rights, and investing in alternative economic opportunities, Indonesia can protect its forests while respecting human rights.

The threats facing Indonesia’s forests are real, and strong enforcement mechanisms are necessary to combat illegal activities. However, history has shown that militarisation is not the answer. If conservation is to be effective and just, it must be rooted in cooperation, not coercion. Indonesia has an opportunity to redefine its conservation strategy – one that prioritises social equity, community engagement, and sustainable development over militarised enforcement. The future of its forests depends on it.

About the author

Mohd Yunus

Mohd Yunus is an independent researcher hailing from Riau Province, Indonesia, and is currently pursuing a master’s degree in biological sciences at Khon Kaen University, Thailand.

Topics

Indonesia Climate & environment