Indonesia’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions cannot be separated from the extractive sector, especially coal. On the one hand, coal is still one of the pillars of the national energy system, a source of state revenue, and a strategic export commodity. However, on the other hand, coal is also one of the most problematic sources of emissions, both from its final combustion and from the emissions that arise throughout its production chain. In this context, the most fundamental problem is not only high emissions, but the lack of transparency of emissions data that makes it difficult for the public, policymakers, and even regulatory institutions to objectively assess the extent to which the sector is actually contributing to the climate crisis.
The issue of transparency of GHG emissions in the coal sector in Indonesia actually reflects the broader issue of extractive governance. Emission data is often scattered across various institutions, uses non-uniform methodologies, and is not easily accessible to the public. In many cases, emissions reporting is still highly dependent on corporate self-reporting, while independent verification and public oversight capacity are still limited. This situation creates a large space for underreporting, reporting inconsistencies, or even the blurring of information about the true environmental impact. In fact, in the issue of climate change, the quality of policy is highly determined by the quality of data. Without open, credible, and testable data, climate commitments risk stalling at the level of rhetoric.
The urgency of transparency is getting stronger when viewed from the emission character of the coal sector itself. So far, public discussions have often focused too much on carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from burning coal in power plants. In fact, the coal sector also produces very significant methane (CH₄) emissions, especially from mining activities, mine ventilation, gas leaks, and post-mining processes. Methane has a much stronger warming power compared to CO₂ in the short term, so its existence is very important in the climate mitigation agenda. The International Energy Agency (IEA) points out that coal accounts for a large portion of methane emissions from the global energy sector, and reducing methane emissions is one of the fastest steps to reduce the rate of global warming. This means that if the emission data from the coal sector is not transparent, then Indonesia not only loses the accuracy of carbon inventory, but also loses the opportunity to carry out the most effective mitigation in the near term.
In the context of national policy, this problem has become even more serious because Indonesia has set a commitment to reduce emissions through the Enhanced Nationally Determined Contribution (Enhanced NDC). This commitment requires an increasingly strong reporting, measurement, and verification system. However, it will be difficult to talk about climate accountability if the high-emission sectors are still managed with low openness. In other words, emissions transparency is not just a technical issue of reporting, but the main requirement for the credibility of climate commitment. A country cannot claim credible progress on emissions reductions if its own database is fragile, closed, or publicly verifiable.
This is where it is important to look at emissions transparency as part of extractive governance reform. International standards such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) Standard 2023 have moved further by incorporating the GHG emission dimension into the extractive sector’s transparency agenda. This marks an important shift: transparency no longer stops at issues of state revenue, contracts, or beneficial ownership, but also touches on the climate footprint of extractive industries. For Indonesia, this should be a strategic momentum to expand the meaning of accountability. So far, the discourse on coal governance has been too often narrowed to the issue of permits, royalties, and exports. In fact, in the era of the climate crisis, the equally important question is: how much emissions are produced, who reports them, what are the measurement methods, and to what extent can the public monitor them?
Nevertheless, the path to strong emissions transparency is clearly not easy. The first challenge is institutional fragmentation. Coal sector emissions governance involves many actors: the Ministry of Energy, the Ministry of Environment, local governments, business entities, and verification institutions. Without system integration, data will continue to be scattered and difficult to align. The second challenge is technical capacity. Measurement of emissions, especially methane, requires precise methodologies, updating of emission factors, and the use of adequate monitoring technology. If the technical capacity is still low, then the inventory results will tend to be conservative and do not reflect the actual field conditions. The third challenge is the political-economic resistance of the industry. Transparency is often perceived as a threat because it can magnify regulatory pressures, increase reputational risks, or open up potential environmental responsibility lawsuits. In this context, the issue of transparency is not just a matter of “data availability” but a matter of power relations between the state, industry, and the public.
Therefore, strengthening emission transparency must be carried out through more concrete reforms. First, governments need to establish more detailed, uniform, and open emissions reporting obligations, including clear distinctions between CO₂, CH₄, and other relevant emissions. Second, the measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) mechanism must be strengthened by involving independent verification and accountable audits. Third, emissions data of the coal sector must be available in a format that is easily accessible, publicly readable, and traceable. Transparency will mean nothing if data is only formally available but practically difficult to use by civil society, academia, and the media. Fourth, Indonesia needs to start integrating coal emissions data with a just energy transition agenda, so that decisions on phasing out coal, transition financing, and protection of affected groups are truly based on solid evidence.
In the end, transparency of GHG emissions in the coal sector is not just a matter of environmental administration, but a real test for Indonesia’s seriousness in building modern, democratic, and responsible extractive governance. In an era when the legitimacy of development is increasingly determined by sustainability and accountability, closing or weakening access to emissions data is tantamount to maintaining a development model that is no longer in line with the challenges of the times. If Indonesia really wants to position itself as a country that is serious about the energy transition and global climate commitments, then emissions transparency must be treated as a policy foundation, not an administrative complement. Because without openness, there is no accountability; without accountability, there is no fair transition; And without a just transition, climate commitments will only be repeated promises on paper.
Writer: Roudhoh Hannaaris Sa’id
Reviewer: Mouna Wasef