T

he government is mulling whether to implement strict liability in its legal action against individuals or companies whose forest concessions are burning, in a bid to provide more of a deterrent effect, though at the same time, aiming to stop prosecution of offenders.

The Environment and Forestry Ministry said that the strict liability concept could be applied in the future, to more easily hold offending individuals or companies responsible.

'€œWe are studying this concept of absolute responsibility at the moment. If a concession is burning, we could implement [this concept] and impose administrative sanctions, but not in front of the courts,'€ the ministry'€™s law enforcement director general Rasio Ridho Sani said.

He was responding to suggestions made by law experts regarding how to stop individuals or companies conducting the slash-and-burn practices that caused annual land and forest fires in Indonesia.

Dewi Pelitawati from Padjadjaran University law community said that Indonesia already recognized the concept in the Law No. 32/2009 on environment.

'€œOur environmental law already contains the strict liability concept. So the tools are there, the regulations are there, we just have to do it,'€ she said on Friday.

Article 88 of the law states that any person whose actions, businesses and/or activities use hazardous or toxic waste (B3), produce and/or manage toxic waste and/or pose a serious threat to the environment is fully responsible for any damage done without their offences having to be proven.

Firyamanzuri, also from Padjadjaran University law community, said that the article could be used to immediately put the responsibility for fires on the shoulders of the culprits, even though there was no proof that the fires on their concessions were caused by themselves or their negligence.

'€œBut from past cases, the justice system here still uses the practice of burden-of-proof, meaning that the victims are the ones forced to prove that the polluters are guilty,'€ he said.

However, Rasio said that the interpretation of Article 88 might prevent the government from implementing the strict liability concept in forest fire cases.

'€œProving a company guilty is not easy. First, we have to go to the location where the concession is burning. If the concession is vast, then it will be difficult to know the exact position of the fire and only the local people know how to get to the location. Second, it is hard to produce evidence, once the incident has passed, with which to prove who did the burning,'€ said Rasio.