Yulia Indrawati Sari is a lecturer in international relations at Parahyangan Catholic University, in Bandung, Indonesia, specialising in environmental issues. Frans Siahaan is an independent consultant on environmental governance.
At COP29 in Baku, Indonesia made an ambitious pitch for its carbon market, with newly elected President Prabowo Subianto’s brother, Hashim Djojohadikusumo, leading the charge.
The delegation presented Indonesia as a global carbon trading powerhouse, signalling a dramatic shift from the previous administration’s caution. Prabowo has pledged to raise $65 billion by 2028 through carbon credit sales to fund reforestation and conservation.
With the official launch of international carbon trading in January 2025, Indonesia is positioning itself as a major supplier. But who will benefit from this booming market – and at what risk?
In a study seeking to answer this question, we applied a political economy approach to the forestry and land use sector. Our findings – published here for the first time – draw on interviews with carbon developers, government officials, palm oil representatives and civil society groups, conducted between November 2023 and October 2024, during the Jokowi administration.
Big business takes the lead
Indonesia, home to the world’s third-largest tropical rainforest, has long been a prime candidate for carbon trading. Large corporations, especially those in palm oil and timber, are seizing the opportunity, leveraging their vast land concessions to shift business models from exploitation to conservation.
Based on data from the Indonesian Forest Concession Holders Association (APHI), in November 2023, some of the 600 companies holding Forest Utilization Business Licenses have already started investing in carbon-related services. One industrial timber estate company plans to set aside 60% of its 130,000-hectare concession for carbon trading.
Brazil’s COP30 president: Climate summits must move from words to real action
With strong political and economic connections, these companies are actively acquiring forest concessions, merging firms, and lobbying the government to shape regulations in their favour. Industry associations such as APHI and the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KADIN) have pushed for policies that prioritise corporate interests. Yet their history of environmental destruction and Indigenous rights violations raises concerns about whether this shift is truly about emissions reductions – or just another revenue stream.
As one civil society representative working with Indigenous communities put it: “These companies see carbon trading purely as an economic transaction. Their approach is simple: ‘How much do you have? We’ll buy it.’ There’s no real discussion about emissions, climate justice, or Indigenous rights.”
Regulatory hurdles
Despite the enthusiasm, regulatory challenges remain. Companies are concerned that current policies make international carbon trading less attractive, particularly the emission reduction buffer requirement. Under Ministry Regulation No. 21/2022, companies must set aside 10–20% of their carbon credits as a buffer. Designed to safeguard against emissions loss from risks like fires and natural disasters, the buffer ensures credibility, but is viewed by companies as excessive.
“We already allocate 35% for risk management. With the government’s buffer, we’re left with only 45–55% of our credits to trade. The margin is just too tight,” said a representative from an international green investment firm entering the Indonesian market.
Most cookstove carbon credits ruled out of quality scheme in integrity push
Certification is another concern. Indonesia’s National Registry System for Climate Change Control (SRN PPI) is still underdeveloped and not yet ready to meet widely used global references, making the country’s carbon credits less competitive. The government has also chosen not to make mutual agreements with well-established certification bodies such as Verra or Gold Standard, further complicating credibility issues.
“The carbon trading regulations are still not clear. Although regulations exist, there is still a lack of clarity, especially in the technical processes. Almost all actors who care about the climate – not those in the timber and oil palm industries – are still taking a wait-and-see approach in the carbon market,” one green investor told us.
Risk of greenwashing
Several environmental NGOs have actively prepared to engage in carbon trading, with local organisation WARSI developing best practices for ensuring benefits reach communities. Through the Plan Vivo scheme, WARSI directs carbon revenues into village development and community benefit. The organisation has also created Forest Reference Emission Levels (FREL) to monitor deforestation reductions.
Despite such efforts, scepticism remains. Civil society groups such as the Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN), Greenpeace, the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (WALHI) and Forest Watch Indonesia have warned that carbon trading risks becoming a tool for greenwashing, allowing industries to continue polluting while buying credits to claim climate action on paper.
“The real winners in this market are those who already control concessions – especially in a situation where access to financing is difficult. Companies that hold concessions are ‘not clean companies’, [but] often businesses with close ties to political and military elite,” one environmental activist told us.
Without strict safeguards, critics argue, carbon trading could exacerbate existing inequalities instead of driving real emissions reductions. Ensuring fair benefit-sharing and preventing speculative trading will be crucial to maintaining the market’s integrity.
The road ahead
Indonesia’s carbon market is now a reality, but whether it delivers genuine climate benefits remains to be seen. The Prabowo administration’s push for international trading must be balanced with environmental and social safeguards. Will this be a true climate solution – or just another way for big players to profit?
As carbon trading takes off, all eyes will be on how the government enforces regulations, ensures transparency, and protects vulnerable communities.
For now, the rush is on – and the stakes are high.
Ridwan, Alam Surya Putra, and Margaretha Wahyuningsih also contributed to this study.
The post Will Indonesia’s new carbon market be a climate solution or a game for big players? appeared first on Climate Home News.
Will Indonesia’s new carbon market be a climate solution or a game for big players?
The case shows that climate change is a fundamental human rights violation—and the victory of Bonaire, a Dutch territory, could open the door for similar lawsuits globally.
From our collaborating partner Living on Earth, public radio’s environmental news magazine, an interview by Paloma Beltran with Greenpeace Netherlands campaigner Eefje de Kroon.
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Climate Change
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
SYDNEY, Saturday 28 February 2026 — Greenpeace International and Greenpeace organisations in the US announce they will seek a new trial and, if necessary, appeal the decision with the North Dakota Supreme Court following a North Dakota District Court judgment today awarding Energy Transfer (ET) USD $345 million.
ET’s SLAPP suit remains a blatant attempt to silence free speech, erase Indigenous leadership of the Standing Rock movement, and punish solidarity with peaceful resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace International will also continue to seek damages for ET’s bullying lawsuits under EU anti-SLAPP legislation in the Netherlands.
Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International Executive Director said: “Energy Transfer’s attempts to silence us are failing. Greenpeace International will continue to resist intimidation tactics. We will not be silenced. We will only get louder, joining our voices to those of our allies all around the world against the corporate polluters and billionaire oligarchs who prioritise profits over people and the planet.
“With hard-won freedoms under threat and the climate crisis accelerating, the stakes of this legal fight couldn’t be higher. Through appeals in the US and Greenpeace International’s groundbreaking anti-SLAPP case in the Netherlands, we are exploring every option to hold Energy Transfer accountable for multiple abusive lawsuits and show all power-hungry bullies that their attacks will only result in a stronger people-powered movement.”
The Court’s final judgment today rejects some of the jury verdict delivered in March 2025, but still awards hundreds of millions of dollars to ET without a sound basis in law. The Greenpeace defendants will continue to press their arguments that the US Constitution does not allow liability here, that ET did not present evidence to support its claims, that the Court admitted inflammatory and irrelevant evidence at trial and excluded other evidence supporting the defense, and that the jury pool in Mandan could not be impartial.[1][2]
ET’s back-to-back lawsuits against Greenpeace International and the US organisations Greenpeace USA (Greenpeace Inc.) and Greenpeace Fund are clear-cut examples of SLAPPs — lawsuits attempting to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy and ultimately silence dissent.[3] Greenpeace International, which is based in the Netherlands, is pursuing justice in Europe, with a suit against ET under Dutch law and the European Union’s new anti-SLAPP directive, a landmark test of the new legislation which could help set a powerful precedent against corporate bullying.[4]
Kate Smolski, Program Director at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “This is part of a worrying trend globally: fossil fuel corporations are increasingly using litigation to attack and silence ordinary people and groups using the law to challenge their polluting operations — and we’re not immune to these tactics here in Australia.
“Rulings like this have a chilling effect on democracy and public interest litigation — we must unite against these silencing tactics as bad for Australians and bad for our democracy. Our movement is stronger than any corporate bully, and grows even stronger when under attack.”
Energy Transfer’s SLAPPs are part of a wave of abusive lawsuits filed by Big Oil companies like Shell, Total, and ENI against Greenpeace entities in recent years.[3] A couple of these cases have been successfully stopped in their tracks. This includes Greenpeace France successfully defeating TotalEnergies’ SLAPP on 28 March 2024, and Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International forcing Shell to back down from its SLAPP on 10 December 2024.
-ENDS-
Images available in Greenpeace Media Library
Notes:
[1] The judgment entered by North Dakota District Court Judge Gion follows a jury verdict finding Greenpeace entities liable for more than US$660 million on March 19, 2025. Judge Gion subsequently threw out several items from the jury’s verdict, reducing the total damages to approximately US$345 million.
[2] Public statements from the independent Trial Monitoring Committee
[3] Energy Transfer’s first lawsuit was filed in federal court in 2017 under the RICO Act – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity. The case was dismissed in 2019, with the judge stating the evidence fell “far short” of what was needed to establish a RICO enterprise. The federal court did not decide on Energy Transfer’s claims based on state law, so Energy Transfer promptly filed a new case in a North Dakota state court with these and other state law claims.
[4] Greenpeace International sent a Notice of Liability to Energy Transfer on 23 July 2024, informing the pipeline giant of Greenpeace International’s intention to bring an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against the company in a Dutch Court. After Energy Transfer declined to accept liability on multiple occasions (September 2024, December 2024), Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive on 11 February 2025 by filing a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer. The case was officially registered in the docket of the Court of Amsterdam on 2 July, 2025. Greenpeace International seeks to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of Energy Transfers’s back-to-back, abusive lawsuits demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace organisations in the US. The next hearing in the Court of Amsterdam is scheduled for 16 April, 2026.
Media contact:
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
The Trump administration’s relentless rollback of public health and environmental protections has allowed widespread toxic exposures to flourish, warn experts who helped implement safeguards now under assault.
In a new report that outlines a dozen high-risk pollutants given new life thanks to weakened, delayed or rescinded regulations, the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group of hundreds of former Environmental Protection Agency staff, warns that the EPA under President Donald Trump has abandoned the agency’s core mission of protecting people and the environment from preventable toxic exposures.
Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
Renewable Energy Concepts Can’t Violate the Laws of Physics
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits