Civil society organizations in the Working Group on Energy, Natural Resources and Environment, together with PWYP Indonesia and KopeL Indonesia and with support from the European Union and the Open Government Partnership, continued discussions on developing guidelines for public participation in energy transition planning and decision-making. The discussion followed up on a meeting held in April 2026 that mapped the opportunities and challenges of drafting the guidelines. The forum brought civil society together with several ministries and agencies, including the Directorate of Energy, Mineral and Mining Resources (SDEMP) at Bappenas, the Indonesian Environment Fund (BPDLH) under the Ministry of Finance, and the Directorate General of Regional Development (Bina Bangda) at the Ministry of Home Affairs.
To open the discussion, Rinto, representing CSOs, presented the jointly prepared draft guidelines along with several research findings on public participation. He stressed that participation cannot be measured simply by whether a consultation forum exists. Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 serves as a key reference, particularly regarding the three rights within meaningful participation: the right to be heard, the right to be considered, and the right to be explained.
The research findings also showed the consequences of insufficient community involvement in energy projects. One example is the Way Haru solar power plant (PLTS) in Lampung, which, according to PWYP Indonesia's findings, lasted only about a year before it stopped operating. One of the factors identified was the lack of information and knowledge provided to the community from the planning stage through project implementation (PWYP Indonesia, 2026).
The discussion also highlighted the involvement of vulnerable groups. Participation forums are still often dominated by men, while women, persons with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups are not always adequately involved. Gender-responsive planning and budgeting (PPRG/ARG) therefore needs to be integrated into planning so that inclusiveness goes beyond formal representation.
Encouraging Participation from the Outset
Jafar from BPDLH explained that a number of mechanisms already exist in project funding and implementation processes. BPDLH has indicators covering, among others, principles relating to Indigenous peoples, Indigenous peoples' participation, and environmental transparency. During project implementation, the forms of participation, the engagement framework, and monitoring mechanisms also need to be regulated. The challenge, however, lies in implementation. Some parties are still not invited, or only certain groups are involved. In his view, rules alone are therefore not enough unless accompanied by evaluation and oversight. Under the existing mechanism, project implementers are also required to report regularly and meet predetermined indicators.
Fabya from PATTIRO raised the issue from a financing perspective. Indonesia's energy transition financing needs are estimated at around USD 1 trillion. The scale of this need means financing mechanisms must pay attention to who is affected and how they are involved. Based on experience in accessing green energy transition funding, there is still no sufficiently specific mechanism to ensure that local governments involve vulnerable groups in the financing process. Fabya also cautioned that in some situations there is a tendency to take shortcuts, so that engagement with local communities is not carried out optimally. The elderly and children also need attention when discussing the impacts of the energy transition.
Rinto from INFID then explained that the current draft guidelines are still framed as recommendations. They have not been made mandatory because each ministry and agency already has its own duties and authority. Nevertheless, the guidelines are expected to be strengthened in the future through legal instruments such as a ministerial regulation (Permen) or government regulation (PP). He added that an equally important question is how public participation can be built into financing mechanisms: whether participation should be one of the criteria in project proposals, whether there should be a verification process, and whether evidence of community engagement should be required before a project begins.
The discussion also agreed on a pilot location once the guidelines are finalized, with West Nusa Tenggara (NTB) selected as one of the initial regions to test their application. The region was chosen because of previous project and advocacy experience there, including in Mataram and Lombok. Through this pilot, the guidelines are expected to be tested before being applied more widely.
In response, Endah from the OGI National Secretariat asked whether the guidelines would be general in nature or include more specific provisions based on regional or sectoral needs. As NTB has a number of cases that can serve as learning material, it is important to assess how far the pilot results there can be applied to other regions.
The discussion then turned to complaint and tracking mechanisms. Rinto said the guidelines need to provide space for communities to submit grievances while also making it possible to see whether the mechanisms used are actually working. One option discussed was the use of feedback groups. The guidelines are also not intended for a single sector, as public participation problems are considered to follow similar patterns across sectors.
Finding a Workable Form for the Guidelines
Arif from Bangda at the Ministry of Home Affairs added that public participation should not stand apart from regional planning processes. Local governments already have planning mechanisms in place, including five-year plans. Where possible, public participation mechanisms could therefore be incorporated into these processes so that communities are involved from the planning stage, not only once a project is under way. The subsequent discussion raised the question of whether the guidelines should be sectoral or general. A sectoral approach was seen as easier to implement since each sector has different characteristics. However, even if they are sectoral, common basic principles and a single coordination mechanism are still needed so that the guidelines do not operate in isolation.
Jafar from BPDLH further noted that under existing mechanisms, verification can be one way to ensure participation actually takes place. Evidence of public participation can also be checked, including the involvement of persons with disabilities. If requirements have not been met, disbursement of the next tranche of funding can be withheld.
The discussion affirmed that public participation in the energy transition cannot be achieved through consultation forums alone. Communities need to be involved from the planning stage, receive adequate information, have space to express their views, and be able to see how their input is followed up. The draft guidelines will be refined based on input from the FGD before further discussion with the relevant ministries and agencies, including through the pilot in NTB. The guidelines are thus expected to become a more practical reference for strengthening public participation in energy transition planning and financing.