On methodology

A rights-based approach is the foundation, and consent is what makes it work in practice.

RFN operates from a core premise: communities living in and around forests are the most effective guardians of those forests, and protecting their rights is both a moral obligation and a conservation strategy. That rights-based approach, covering territorial rights, livelihoods, and the right to determine their own future, serves as the organization's guiding framework across different country contexts. Andhika points to RFN's longstanding work with the Orang Rimba in Jambi as an example of what this looks like on the ground. When the community gave informed consent to access basic health services, responding to serious rates of maternal and infant mortality, that consent-based entry point opened up a longer-term relationship built on the community's own priorities rather than outside assumptions about what they needed.

On the intersection of climate and PIACI rights

Climate and conservation initiatives can support isolated communities, but implementation carries risks.

Andhika sees potential in connecting climate and conservation frameworks to PIACI protection, but is cautious about what happens when those frameworks meet bureaucratic reality. Legal frameworks, he notes, tend to be translated rigidly in implementation, leaving field officers with little discretion to adapt to the complex social realities of isolated communities. “A legal framework that is literally translated into its raw form without a thorough understanding of the diversity of local cultural and legal contexts, and where its implementation and governance is at the discretion of field officers, could be a significant challenge,” he says.

A further concern is that Indigenous Peoples and communities—including those in isolation and initial contact—are not static. Rather, these dynamics need to be understood within their own frameworks and choices. The right to self-determination includes the right to remain in isolation or to selectively interact with outsiders, and these choices rest entirely with the communities themselves. Establishing conservation or climate initiatives that treat communities as static entities risks misunderstanding their realities. At the same time, approaches that assume increased contact will naturally also risk repeating integrationist approaches that have historically had negative impacts. The most important thing is to respect their choices, including the right to determine the limits, manner, and timing of interactions with outsiders.

On barriers

Even well-intentioned interventions can carry unintended consequences, and the risks need to be shared between communities and the organizations working with them.

Basic services like health care and education are often presented as unambiguous goods for isolated communities, but Andhika cautions against this assumption. “In some context, education is seen as a way to escape from one's region, territory, or the prevailing customs of one's community,” he says. These risks are not reasons to withhold support, but they are reasons to approach any intervention with ongoing attention to community consent and awareness, and to ensure that communities themselves understand the potential consequences before agreeing to them.

On consolidating PIACI as a global category

Terminology confusion creates real obstacles, and no agreed solution exists yet.

A persistent challenge Andhika identifies is the gap between international PIACI frameworks and Indonesia's own legal terminology. Unlike countries in South America where PIACI has an established legal definition, Indonesia does not yet have a formal, agreed-upon term for peoples in voluntary isolation or initial contact. Terms used in Indonesian national law, such as "remote Indigenous communities," in some views, are considered to have connotations that are not entirely appropriate by indigenous peoples’ organizations, while the relationship between "customary law communities" and "Indigenous peoples" remains legally and politically contested in the country.

The problem compounds at the sub-national level, where national policy translates inconsistently into local implementation. What is understood in a Jakarta government office could have a different interpretation when it is implemented at the local level, such as Papua or Maluku. Andhika's view is that before advocacy can advance effectively, the field needs to reach shared clarity on terminology within the Indonesian legal and policy framework.