Resource-rich countries often bear the heaviest burden when the extractive industry operates in the shadows. Lack of information transparency is not merely an administrative issue. It creates wide gaps for revenue leakage, weakened accountability, and triggers chronic social conflicts in mining areas. In the global context, low transparency places Indonesia in a weak bargaining position relative to corporations and international markets.
As part of civil society’s efforts to advance transparency in the natural resources sector, I view the strengthening of Indonesia’s Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) as an urgent and strategic need. The situation Indonesia faces today goes beyond technical reporting issues. At stake is the direction of political governance of natural resources and the state’s commitment to maintaining accountability in a sector most prone to conflicts of interest and fiscal leakage.
Fragile Institutional Foundation
For over a decade, EITI has functioned as a unique multi-stakeholder dialogue space. Here, government, companies, and civil society are convened through a formal mechanism to discuss state revenue data, licensing, and regional benefit distribution. Transparency does not emerge from unilateral will but from a mutually verified process supported by a robust institutional framework.
However, the dissolution of the Extractive Industries Transparency Team by Presidential Regulation (Perpres) Number 82 of 2020, on the Committee for Handling Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and National Economic Recovery, altered this foundation. The institutional design previously under direct presidential coordination shifted to sectoral implementation within technical ministries, specifically the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) and the Ministry of Finance. As a result, cross-ministerial coordination mandates weakened. Civil society participation is no longer institutionally guaranteed, whereas business involvement increasingly depends on voluntariness rather than binding obligations.
The revocation of Perpres Number 82 of 2020, through Perpres Number 48 of 2023, on the Termination of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic Handling, should have been a catalyst for recovery. However, a regulatory vacuum resulted from the absence of a new equivalent regulation. The implementation of EITI Indonesia now relies on Ministerial Decrees, which hierarchically lack cross-institutional binding power. Dependence on political goodwill may suffice for administration, but it is inadequate to ensure data quality, forum sustainability, and follow-up on policy reforms.
International Scores and the Irony of Achievements
The International EITI Board’s validation of Indonesia’s EITI implementation in 2024, with a score of 67 out of 100, reflects this condition. This figure serves as an alarm for structural problems, ranging from data consistency to the effectiveness of policy recommendations. Without a strong legal foundation, EITI implementation in Indonesia risks being reduced to routine reports with minimal impact, losing its strategic function as a public accountability instrument.
Ironically, amid this regulatory weakening, Indonesia actually has strong modalities. In the same validation report, the International EITI Board gave a high score (73) on the outcomes and impact component. Indonesia is recognized as a pioneer in data systematization through the Extractive Data Portal, which provides the public with real-time licensing information. Indonesia’s leadership in promoting transparency in critical minerals for the energy transition has also received global recognition. However, these technical achievements are like a grand building on a fragile foundation; without robust legal backing, such data innovations are difficult to translate into binding policies with broad implications for public welfare.
Relevance of EITI for Indonesia
The question is whether EITI remains important and relevant for Indonesia. The extractive sector is always vulnerable in governance. The large economic value and complexity of central-regional relations create real leakage risks. In this context, EITI provides a framework that enables residents in producing regions to examine state revenue flows and revenue-sharing funds (DBH). EITI data becomes a tool for citizens to understand their rights and demand accountability from local governments.
When EITI weakens, what is lost is not only annual reports but also public learning spaces on how natural wealth is managed. The impact is felt directly in areas that have long borne the ecological burden of extractive activities. On the one hand, without high-level legal mandates, this transparency framework will be easily sidelined by short-term sectoral interests.
Calling for Promises to Strengthen Transparency and Accountability in the Extractive Sector
The urgency of strengthening EITI is also relevant to the political vision of Prabowo Subianto and Gibran Rakabuming Raka’s administration. In the “Asta Cita” vision-mission document, strengthening natural resource governance and preventing state leakages become top priorities. The ambition to achieve equitable downstreaming and energy sovereignty is impossible without a transparent oversight system. Strengthening EITI Indonesia through a new Presidential Regulation is a concrete step toward fulfilling campaign promises to strengthen corruption prevention systems and extractive-sector transparency. Without strong legal backing for EITI, political commitments to accountability will remain rhetoric, as they are not supported by independent, participatory data-verification instruments.
International experience shows that countries successfully implementing EITI always place it within a stable legal framework. The Philippines uses a Presidential Executive Order, Nigeria establishes a special law with strict sanctions, and European countries integrate extractive transparency into corporate legal obligations. The lesson is clear: there is no effective EITI without high-level legal legitimacy.
Indonesia actually once followed this path through Perpres Number 26 of 2010. Stepping back from this framework is not aligned with today’s challenges, such as addressing beneficial ownership issues and preventing illicit financial flows, which demand strong cross-sectoral coordination.
Strengthening EITI Indonesia again through a new Perpres does not entail adding bureaucracy but rather simplifying fragmented coordination. The Perpres can establish cross-sectoral mandates, guarantee multi-stakeholder participation, and require the publication of credible data.
Restoring the legal basis of EITI Indonesia is about taking sides. Transparency is not the end goal but a means of ensuring that natural resource management truly favors public interests. Civil society needs space certainty, regional governments need accurate data, and companies need fair process certainty. Restoring EITI’s legal basis is essential to safeguarding the future of Indonesia’s natural resources governance and ensuring its transparency, accountability, and sustainability.
Writer: Ledis Sixti Nauli Simorangkir