An agricultural megaproject in Merauke, Indonesia has sparked wide international protest. Its potential environmental impact and profound implications on Indigenous rights have raised enormous concerns—from the ACLU to Amnesty International. Under one project, the Indonesian government is now in the lead — cultivating rice and sugar cane on more than two million acres. Yet as it pushes ahead, it has pre-emptively cleared more than 11,000 hectares of land, alarming environmentalists and human rights advocates.
The project is attracting national attention—deservedly so—for its bigger, more ambitious goals. This has attracted attention on account of the role of the Indonesian military. The military’s participation, critics say, would inflame ongoing tensions over land rights and resource management in the region. Environmentalists are sounding the alarm over this new plan. Second, they worry that it would set off the world’s largest deforestation project, endangering critical ecosystems—including tropical peatlands and rainforests—and many endangered species.
Government Justifies Agricultural Expansion
The Indonesian government continues to justify the Merauke project as essential to improving food security and realizing energy independence. Officials have claimed that the targeted land is degraded, previously cultivated, or in need of “optimization.” They contend that this kind of agricultural development is essential for the nation’s long-term economic prosperity and security.
Ahmad Rizal Ramdhani, a government spokesperson, stated, “This location used to be like the one on the right here. Non-productive and neglected land.” This claim is used to rationalize the clearing of millions of acres of fertile forests or grasslands to grow agricultural commodities.
Critics wonder whether this fad is here to stay. Critics are concerned that the suitability of the region’s agricultural environment is up in the air. David Gaveau, a prominent environmental scientist, expressed concerns about soil conditions in Merauke, stating, “Soils in Merauke are likely too acidic and the climate too extreme… to grow rice.” This necessitates a critical review of whether the highly expensive project can truly achieve its stated agriculture goals while sparing important and unique land from irreversible damage.
Environmental and Human Rights Implications
From the start of this project environmental advocacy groups, including Mighty Earth and The TreeMap, have been very animatedly opposed to this project. They contend that the loss of natural ecosystems may counteract Indonesia’s gains in climate change mitigation through peatland restoration and rewetting, as well as commitments to biodiversity conservation. Climate change and widespread deforestation through agriculture are perhaps the biggest threats to their local environments. It undermines Jakarta’s own climate commitments, which include reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.
Glenn Hurowitz, an environmental advocate, commented on the broader implications of the project: “Usually, deforestation is a product of government not doing its job.” He asserted that these issues require the adoption of more responsible land management practices that more effectively balance environmental preservation with sustainable economic development.
Indigenous communities in the region are raising concerns about their rights being sidelined during this expansion. Activist Samperante highlighted ongoing human rights violations linked to such projects, stating, “Almost every day a human rights violation occurs.” This highlights the urgent need for more transparent and equitable land use policies that uphold Indigenous rights.
Balancing Development and Conservation
The Merauke project will be a difficult test for Indonesia to ensure that economic development does not come at the expense of environmental destruction. The government argues that increasing the agricultural frontier is the only way to ensure food security. Environmentalists argue that this growth would destroy irreplaceable natural heritage, endangering community lands.
Hurowitz articulates this dilemma succinctly: “It should be done in places that are capable of absorbing it, without destroying Indonesia’s gorgeous, beautiful natural heritage and community lands.” This lens encourages lawmakers to imagine and pursue different paths that don’t involve breaking the earth in the process.
