The recent revision of Law Number 3 of 2020 concerning Mineral and Coal Mining (Minerba) has introduced significant implications, particularly in the context of just energy transition (JET) and procedural justice. This revision is crucial as the Minerba Law governs nickel mining—a strategic commodity in Indonesia’s energy transition policy. As a key component in battery production for electric vehicles (EVs) and renewable energy storage, nickel plays a pivotal role in reducing carbon emissions and advancing the nation’s decarbonization agenda. Given the law's pivotal role, ensuring that its implementation aligns with JET principles is essential.

JET aims to ensure that the transformation of the energy system delivers not only economic benefits but also social equity and justice for all community groups. This concept emerged as a safeguard against the exclusion of marginalized groups from decision-making processes in renewable energy development. Thus, integrating JET principles into the governance of nickel is essential to ensure that the benefits of decarbonization are equitably distributed while minimizing negative impacts.

One of central pillars of JET is procedural justice, which emphasizes fair and inclusive decision-making processes in the energy transition. Procudural justice ensures that all stakeholders have a voice in shaping energy transition policies that affect them. Jenkins et al. (2016) define procedural justice through four key elements: meaningful participation, information disclosure, grievance mechanisms, and stakeholder engagement. When assessed against these elements, several aspects of the Minerba Law revision raise concerns regarding its commitment to procedural justice.

The most pressing concern is the rapid ratification process, which was completed in approximately less than two months despite the revision not being included in the national legislation program (Prolegnas). This expedited process raises questions about whether meaningful public participation was adequately ensured, as democratic legislative processes require sufficient time for consultation, debate, and refinement to ensure inclusivity. Given the limited timeframe, conducting comprehensive consultations and hearings with all relevant stakeholders would have been challenging. 

Whereas, the Constitutional Court’s Decree Number 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 defines meaningful participation as encompassing three fundamental rights: the right to be heard, the right for opinions to be considered, and the right to receive explanations regarding final decisions. However, the rushed legislative process casts doubt on whether these rights were fully upheld. A proper consultation mechanism should allow stakeholders to critically assess proposed regulations, provide substantive input, and receive justifications for any decisions that might affect them which these all need adequate time to fulfill meaningful participation criteria. By circumventing these participatory principles, the Revised Minerba Law risks undermining procedural justice within the framework of JET.

Beyond the legislative process, the law itself also lacks procedural justice mechanisms in several critical processes, such as determining Mining Business License Areas (WIUP), the mechanism for granting and processing WIUPs, and the process for expanding mining operations. This issue significantly limits the ability of affected communities to influence key decisions that directly impact their livelihoods and land rights. Without formalized participatory processes, these communities are left with minimal avaenues to assert their concerns, seek clarifications, or propose alternative solutions.

For instance, Article 51 Paragraph 1 of the Minerba Law allows WIUP to be granted through a priority mechanism—without an auction—to various entities. However, the law lacks clarity on the criteria and assessment process used to determine eligible recipients. Without transparency in information disclosure, this provision risks fostering rent-seeking behavior and gratification practices, contradicting the principles of procedural justice.

Additionally, Articles 17 Paragraphs 2 and 4 may restrict grievance mechanisms and further limit meaningful participation. Specifically, Article 17 Paragraph 2 guarantees that there will be no changes to WIUP areas, which may limit opportunities for affected communities to contest existing mining concessions even if environmental or social conditions deteriorate. Meanwhile, Article 17 Paragraph 4 allows for the expansion of WIUP areas to increase the added value of minerals and coal. This provision raises concerns due to the overlapping of WIUP areas with Indigenous territories. Data from the Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN) in North Maluku indicates that 72,775 hectares of nickel mining concessions overlap with customary territories. This overlap potentially leads to discriminatory procedures against Indigenous Peoples, who are particularly vulnerable due to the lack of legal recognition.

Further compounding this issue, data from the Customary Area Registration Agency (BRWA) indicates that more than 25 million hectares of customary land remain unrecognized by the government. This lack of recognition significantly weakens Indigenous communities' bargaining positions, as they lack legal standing to contest WIUP expansions. Consequently, the law further narrows the space for meaningful participation in land-use decisions, effectively marginalizing Indigenous Peoples in favor of corporate and state-driven mining interests. Without robust legal safeguards that recognize Indigenous land tenure and guarantee participatory rights, the continued expansion of WIUPs risks exacerbating land dispossession and social conflict, which runs counter to the principles of a fair and sustainable energy transition.

As a critical component of Indonesia’s national energy transition policy, nickel governance must uphold procedural justice to ensure the industry’s long-term sustainability. If these regulatory gaps remain unaddressed, the energy transition—intended as a pathway for decarbonization and achieving Net Zero Emission 2060—could instead lead to broader social issues, such as the marginalization of Indigenous communities and prolonged land disputes.

To prevent these adverse effects, the government must embed JET principles into all energy-related regulations, including the Minerba Law. A strong commitment to transparency, inclusivity, and fairness in policy-making processes is essential. This means that transparency in mining permit issuance, equal access to participation for affected communities, and an effective grievance mechanism must be established as standards in nickel governance. Without these safeguards, nickel governance risks perpetuating exploitative practices that contradict Indonesia’s broader sustainability commitments. Thus, a procedural justice approach is not only a moral imperative but also a strategic necessity to guarantee a stable and equitable energy transition.

Furthermore, integrating JET principles into regulatory frameworks will enhance the credibility of Indonesia’s energy transition efforts, fostering sustainable development. This will contribute to long-term regulatory stability and build trust among stakeholders, reassuring investors and reducing the perception of high risk in renewable energy projects. According to the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources’ Annual Performance Report 2023, investors currently perceive renewable energy investments as high-risk, leading to underinvestment in the sector. Addressing concerns about procedural justice and ensuring a fair and inclusive energy transition can help mitigate these risks, ultimately unlocking greater financial support for Indonesia’s future renewable energy development.