JurnalPost.com - West Kalimantan has set an unwanted record. By mid-2026, the province became the region with the largest area of forest and land fires nationwide, totaling approximately 28,216 hectares, far exceeding Riau, which sits in second place with 15,318 hectares.
The Ministry of Forestry even reported nearly 95,000 hectares of land burned nationwide throughout July 2026 alone.
Every time smoke blankets West Kalimantan, we hear the same phrase: “This is because of the long drought.”
That statement is not entirely wrong. However, it becomes dangerous if left as the sole explanation.
Droughts do not carry matches.
Droughts do not buy jerrycans of fuel.
The peak of the crisis was recorded on August 20, 2026, when the National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB) recorded 560 hotspots in West Kalimantan in a single day. The Meteorology, Climatology, and Geophysics Agency (BMKG) also noted that several regions in Kalimantan had not seen rain for more than 60 consecutive days.
Vegetation dried out. Peatlands lost their moisture. Approximately 20 percent of West Kalimantan is peatland, which, once ignited, is extremely difficult to extinguish.
However, natural conditions only explain why fire spreads easily. They do not always explain how the fire started.
When Intentionality Is No Longer Just a Suspicion
What often escapes public debate is the reality that intentionality at the individual level is no longer just a suspicion.
A total of 72 people have been named suspects. Authorities even found matches and fuel jerrycans at fire sites.
This is not merely an interpretation of hotspot maps, but physical evidence that has become part of the law enforcement process.
In forestry and environmental cases, burning forests and land carries criminal consequences.
Article 78 of the Forestry Law regulates criminal penalties for violations of several prohibitions in Article 50, including actions related to the burning and destruction of forest areas.
The severity of the punishment varies according to the nature of the act. Intentional forest burning can be punished much more severely than fires caused by negligence.
Meanwhile, Article 108 of the Law on Environmental Protection and Management regulates criminal penalties for violating the prohibition on land clearing by burning, as stipulated in Article 69 paragraph (1) letter h.
The penalties include imprisonment for three to 10 years and fines ranging from Rp3 billion to Rp10 billion.
The regulation also recognizes limited exceptions for traditional burning practices carried out with regard to local wisdom, including specific size limits and control measures to prevent the fire from spreading.
Thus, the debate regarding forest and land fires should not stop at the weather. When there is human action that can be proven, the issue enters the realm of legal accountability.
Dozens of Cases and Company Permits Frozen
Law enforcement data further strengthens this picture.
As of September 16, 2026, Minister of Forestry Raja Juli Antoni reported to Commission IV of the House of Representatives that 46 forest and land fire cases were being processed by Forestry Law Enforcement.
Of that number, 15 cases involve corporations and 31 others are individual cases. Two cases have reached the P21 (complete file) stage.
In addition, the business permits of 26 companies have reportedly been frozen.
These figures show that burning and the failure to control fires are not incidents that can be viewed as rare occurrences.
The question then is: why do fires keep appearing?
The answer is actually classic.
Clearing land by burning is far cheaper than using safe land-clearing methods that comply with regulations.
Perpetrators can save on costs, while the actual price is borne by the public.
Children inhale smoke.
Farmers lose their land.
Educational activities are disrupted.
Peat ecosystems that require a very long time to recover are also damaged.
Profits are privatized, while losses are socialized.
Burned Concessions and Corporate Obligations
Problems also arise in company concession areas.
Five companies holding Forest Utilization Business Licenses (PBPH) in Ketapang and Sanggau were again hit with administrative sanctions after six companies previously received sanctions on August 25, 2026.
The total area burned in company concessions in the first wave was reported to reach 1,511.55 hectares. In the subsequent wave, PT Mahkota Rimba Utama was recorded as having approximately 1,275.87 hectares of burned area.
At this point, caution is required.
Administrative sanctions or the presence of hotspots in a concession area do not automatically prove that a company intentionally started a fire.
Hotspots and burned areas are clues that must be investigated, not criminal verdicts.
However, there is another issue that cannot be ignored: permit holders have an obligation to protect the areas they manage.
When concessions burn for days amidst extreme drought conditions, a company's ability to prevent and handle fires deserves serious evaluation.
The risk is even greater when the area is peatland that has lost its moisture due to changes in water management.
Dry peat is essentially fuel waiting for a spark.
A Track Record That Deserves Monitoring
The track record of PT Mayawana Persada Mas, for example, raises other questions regarding the effectiveness of government oversight.
Land clearing is said to still be ongoing even though the Ministry of Environment and Forestry issued a stop-work order in March 2024.
Trend Asia recorded deforestation of approximately 8,297 hectares in the 2024–2025 period.
This cannot be used to conclude that the company was the cause of the fire without a legal proof process.
However, the case reveals a larger problem: how effective are government instruments when a stop-work order does not actually stop activities on the ground?
State orders that can be ignored without significant consequences risk losing their authority.
Enforcement Comes After the Fire Grows
The government is indeed not standing still.
However, for residents still inhaling smoke, the measure of policy success is ultimately quite simple: can the fires be stopped and are the perpetrators deterred?
This is where the biggest homework lies.
As of September 16, 2026, 26 company permits have been frozen and 46 cases are being handled by Forestry Law Enforcement. However, only two cases have been reported to reach the P21 stage, while other cases are still in the investigation process.
At the same time, the area of fires continues to grow.
With dozens of suspects and dozens of permits frozen, the size of the burned area shows that post-incident enforcement alone is not enough.
Enforcement that always comes after a fire is not prevention.
It is merely a reaction after the damage has already occurred.
Peat Restoration Must Not Stop on Paper
There is another issue that is equally important: restoration.
Peat that has been burned is not enough to just be extinguished.
Canal blocking, rewetting, rewetting,vegetation restoration, and groundwater level monitoring are needed so that the area does not become a source of fire again in the next dry season.
Without transparency regarding the progress of restoration, it is difficult for the public to know whether these obligations are truly being carried out.
Restoration must not stop at administrative documents.
If perpetrators or permit holders have an obligation to restore damaged areas, the implementation must be monitorable and the results must be testable.
The cost of environmental damage should not be passed back to the community that has already borne the impact of the smoke.
From Permit Freezing to Court
Therefore, the tiered law enforcement mechanism that has been promised must truly function.
Freezing permits should not be the end of the process if criminal elements are found during the investigation.
Forced restoration should not just be an administrative requirement.
And if the evidence meets criminal elements, the case must move to court.
The public has the right to know how these cases end.
Are there parties who are truly held accountable?
Is the burned area being restored?
Are companies improving their fire prevention systems?
Are individual perpetrators receiving punishment as regulated by law?
These are the questions that will determine whether law enforcement produces a deterrent effect or merely becomes an annual routine every dry season.
Drought Is Not the Perpetrator
Similar patterns in various locations do not automatically prove coordination between perpetrators.
However, the absence of a conspiracy does not mean the absence of perpetrators.
Dozens of suspects and evidence found by authorities already show that in a number of cases, there are humans behind the appearance of fire.
A fire that is initially small, even if it originates from negligence, can grow far beyond expectations when it touches dry vegetation and peat.
Precisely because this risk is widely known, leaving vulnerable land without adequate supervision and control is increasingly difficult to call merely an accident.
There is a dimension of legal and moral responsibility involved.
Droughts may come every year.
However, the smoke disaster is not solely born from drought.
As long as burning land is still considered cheaper than clearing land safely, as long as legal risks are viewed as smaller than economic gains, and as long as prevention is not carried out seriously, fire will always find a way to return.
We need to stop making “long drought” the answer that closes off the entire issue.
The law must move from facts to proof and accountability.
Because the community has paid for these fires with their breath, disrupted activities, damaged land, and children who have to live under smoke-filled skies.
Now, those proven responsible must pay the consequences.
If the state stops at warning letters and administrative sanctions when the evidence actually allows the case to move further, it is not just the fire that is at risk of being extinguished.
Public trust could also disappear.
This article was written by Yoga Ridho Nugroho and Verina Tanmelia, students from the Faculty of Law, University of North Sumatra.
Comments 0
Write a Comment Share your response