By Mahawan Karuniasa Salemba
Indonesia’s development trajectory across successive presidential administrations reveals a recurring pattern: forests and ecosystems are often the first sacrifices made in the name of economic progress. After revisiting the long history of national development, the relationship between the state and conglomerates, strategic projects, social conflicts, and environmental degradation, a fundamental question emerges: when a project is labeled “strategic,” strategic for whom, for what purpose, and at what ecological cost?
This reflection seeks to re-examine the meaning and direction of development itself — whether development truly serves to protect life, uphold justice, and preserve Indonesia’s ecological future for coming generations.
Deforestation Across Presidential Eras
Indonesia’s deforestation history reflects shifting national development priorities under different administrations. During the era of President Soekarno, pressure on forests began to increase alongside state consolidation, agricultural expansion, timber demand, and post-colonial infrastructure development.
Under President Soeharto, deforestation expanded on a massive structural scale as development relied heavily on logging concessions, transmigration programs, plantations, mining, timber industries, and land-based economic expansion. The transition period under President Habibie saw severe forest pressure driven by economic crisis, weak law enforcement, illegal logging, and the restructuring of natural resource assets.
During the Reformasi era, deforestation did not disappear but changed form. Previously concentrated through state-backed large-scale concessions and conglomerates, environmental pressure became more fragmented through regional permits, oil palm expansion, pulp industries, mining, and infrastructure projects.
Under Presidents Abdurrahman Wahid and Megawati, forest governance became increasingly fragmented due to decentralization and regional autonomy. During President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s administration, climate commitments such as REDD+ and forest moratoriums emerged, yet oil palm, pulp, paper, and coal remained major drivers of ecological pressure.
More recently, environmental pressure has evolved beyond logging alone. It now manifests through mineral downstreaming, smelters, industrial estates, food estate programs, bioenergy, dams, and National Strategic Projects (PSN). Although deforestation rates reportedly declined during President Joko Widodo’s administration, ecological pressure shifted toward nickel downstreaming, smelter development, food estates, biodiesel programs, and the construction of Indonesia’s new capital city (IKN).
At the beginning of President Prabowo Subianto’s administration, concerns have emerged regarding large-scale land conversion linked to food and energy self-sufficiency agendas, particularly if development proceeds without strict environmental carrying capacity controls, spatial governance, and protection of Indigenous peoples’ rights.
Development, Conglomerates, and Ecological Power
National development has never been politically or economically neutral. The relationship between development, conglomerates, and environmental degradation has continuously evolved alongside Indonesia’s political economy.
During the Soekarno era, the state dominated development through nationalization and state-owned enterprises. Under Soeharto, conglomerates flourished through close ties with the state in logging, plantations, mining, food production, and extractive industries. Following Reformasi, these conglomerates did not disappear but adapted to democracy, decentralization, and global markets.
Today, the pattern continues in new forms. Development conglomerates are now closely linked to coal, nickel, smelters, biodiesel, industrial zones, and energy-food sovereignty projects. The central question remains unresolved: when the state seeks economic growth and corporations provide capital, who ensures that forests, rivers, Indigenous communities, and future generations are not sacrificed?
Social Conflict and Environmental Destruction
Indonesia’s development conflicts repeatedly demonstrate that large-scale projects often arrive under the banner of progress while local communities bear the ecological and social burdens.
Many conflicts are not merely disputes over compensation; they are struggles over living space and survival.
From the displacement caused by dam construction during the Soekarno era, to mining conflicts, deforestation, industrial pollution, and agrarian disputes under subsequent administrations, the pattern remains consistent. Cases such as Lapindo mudflow, Kendeng, Wadas, Rempang, and the Merauke Food and Energy Estate illustrate how environmental degradation frequently intersects with social injustice.
These conflicts involve not only the loss of forests or land but also the destruction of water sources, agricultural systems, fisheries, Indigenous territories, cultural sites, and entire ecological livelihoods.
Development that displaces people from their living spaces, therefore, cannot simply be called “strategic,” regardless of regulatory support or investment value.
Reconsidering National Strategic Projects (PSN)
In policy language, National Strategic Projects are defined as projects carried out by the government, regional governments, or business entities that are considered strategic for accelerating growth, investment, connectivity, and regional development.
However, from a critical academic perspective, PSN should not merely be understood as large-scale projects receiving regulatory privileges, fiscal incentives, expedited permits, and land acquisition support.
PSN also functions as an instrument of developmental power capable of reshaping ecosystems, social relations, land use patterns, and the distribution of benefits and risks.
Therefore, the definition of “strategic” cannot be measured solely by investment size, export value, infrastructure scale, or economic growth targets. A truly strategic project must also safeguard ecological carrying capacity, protect forests, peatlands, biodiversity, water systems, Indigenous rights, public health, and the interests of future generations.
A project deserves to be called strategic only when it accelerates development while simultaneously ensuring social justice, ecological sustainability, transparent governance, and long-term resilience.
Reorienting the Meaning of Development
What remains missing in many development agendas is genuine submission to ecological limits, environmental harmony, and social justice.
The meaning of “strategic” therefore requires urgent reconsideration. Development can only be called strategic if it protects forests, water systems, biodiversity, local food systems, Indigenous rights, public health, environmental justice, and future generations.
True development should never become a celebration of extraction that sacrifices the Earth and the future. Development must instead become a collective effort to protect life, preserve justice, and safeguard Indonesia’s ecological foundation for both present and future generations. (*)
